Effect of daycare on school performance

Dave!

Just thought some of ye might be interested in this research, outlined in the blog post below. I'm sure ye are all very highly educated, so it probably doesn't affect you very much anyway

http://www.child-psych.org/2010/10/day-care-and-school-readiness-closing-the.html

Monday’s briefs: Quick musing on child related research.

One drawback of our culture of individualism is that it perpetuates the myth that we all have equal opportunities for success and that the only thing that is needed to achieve our goals is personal effort. The research on environmental contributions to academic and professional success strongly argues against this myth. Actually, our privileges and disadvantages start at birth. For example, factors associated with parental socio-economic status during early childhood, such as parental education, has a major impact on children’s academic performance. The critical question is why is this the case and what can we do about it.

One well supported theory purports that that these kids are exposed to limited learning experiences before they start school, which leads to poor school readiness. This means that these kids are already behind their peers when they enter kindergarten and thus have difficulty catching up throughout their education. If this is the case, providing rich learning opportunities to these kids before they start kindergarten, such as those provided at daycare centers, could have a major impact on the kids’ school readiness and academic achievement.

In an article just published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry a team from the University of Montreal studied the daycare experiences and academic performance of 1,863 children born in 1997 and 1998. They were interested in examining whether the expected differences in school readiness and achievement between kids with advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds persisted if the kids attended quality daycare.

The results:

- As expected, kids of parents with limited education scored lower in tests of academic readiness before starting first grade and performed worse in academic achievement tests in 1st grade than kids who’s parents had more education.

- However, attending daycare before kindergarten greatly improved the performance of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. In contrast, for kids whose parents had high levels of education, attending daycare didn’t change their academic performance.

- In addition, attending daycare, whether formal or informal, eliminated the gap between the kids in some key measures. For example:


The lollipop test is a well known measure of academic readiness. As you can see, there was no difference in scores between kids of mothers with high or low levels of education as long as the kids attended daycare. In contrast, not attending daycare had a great negative impact on the academic readiness of the kids whose mothers had low levels of education. These effects were observed after controlling for a long list of possible explanatory variables, such as gender, birth weight, maternal age, income, breastfeeding, etc.

In conclusion, this study suggests that attending daycare has a significant positive impact on academic readiness and achievement for kids of parents with limited education.

Cat Melodeon

There was also a recent BBC documentary called 'Unequal Opportunities' with John Humphrys that suggested the same thing about preschool - that, and the importance of good school leadership and high quality teachers in schools in disadvantaged areas.

John Humphrys examines the reasons behind the stark educational attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils, which has stubbornly refused to narrow, despite the pledge made by successive governments to put education at the top of the political agenda.

This attainment gap is a problem that starts very early on, with experts saying that even before turning two, poor children have already fallen significantly behind in development. And when they reach school age, they are on average a year behind; by 14 two years behind; and by 16 half as likely to get five good GCSEs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00txmtm

It's not surprising really. My parents both left school in their early teens and were firmly lower working class in terms of income but were aspirational enough to start our education themselves when we were very young (there wasn't much available in the line of preschool back then) through lots of reading, trips to the library, educational trips on a Sunday etc. I guess it worked, we've all done well at school and most of us have progressed to postgrad level, if that can be seen as a measure of success.

Not all parents have the means or the knowledge to provide their young children with a 'proper' learning environment - it would make sense for every child to have access to the same resources from the outset. Early years education in Ireland is patchy (in terms of availability rather than quality, which seems to be quite good) and for many people it's simply inaccessible.

How Strange

I don't mean to sound smart but that survey is hardly revolutionary in it's findings or am I missing a hidden point or meaning? I would've thought that was quite obvious.

I live in a disadvantaged area of Dublin and you can see it everyday. Of course if those kids got to go to playschool before then they would be more prepared but playschool costs money which the parents either don't have or don't want to spend on early education as they don't prioritise it. Even with the government supplement there are additional costs which the parents must pay.

We were working class and my parents left school in early teens but school and education was always prioritised in our house. You'd have to be dead in your feet before you'd be allowed miss a day of school. Out of 4 2 of us have postgrad qualifications, 1 is in uni and the other prioritises school and education for her kids.

lynski

This is a fairly well understood and hopefully will become more understood as an almost universal free year is available for children int his country for the first time. As the numbers in schools increase in the coming years, it will be vital for all that the free pre-school year stays in place. However, I take issue with this:

How Strange wrote: »

Even with the government supplement there are additional costs which the parents must pay.

I have to question this everytime I see it said, why? why are there additional costs? The providers are not allowed to charge any extras, unless they are optional and without very specific disclosure of what and why. Do not pay any additional charges unless the following criteria are met and the report them if they attempt to force charges.

Do parents have to pay additional charges to the service for the free Pre-School Year?
No, services in the scheme must provide the pre-school year free to parents. A service may charge parents for additional services as long
as (a) these are provided on an optional basis and (b) appropriate programme based activities are provided to children not participating in an optional activity.
For example, a service can offer an additional activity such as music or dance classes which parents can choose to avail of for a charge. If they
do not wish to avail of this activity, their child must continue to be provided with an appropriate alternative activity. Services can also charge for hours which are additional to the free pre-school provision e.g. if a child is in a full-day service for 10 hours, a parent should expect to pay for the 7 hours, 45 minutes per day which are not free.
An additional 30 minutes per day, which would be charged for, may be offered to a child in a sessional playschool. Outings, birthday parties,
snacks, etc can also be charged for, provided they
are optional for parents

http://www.omc.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/childcare/ECCE_Scheme_Pack/ECCE_Parents_Leaflet_August_2010.pdf

How Strange

I fully expect the preschool scheme will get axed in this budget or the next one. I can't see it surviving the cutbacks. So yet again the disadvantaged and vulnerable will be hit hardest.

metrovelvet

How Strange wrote: »

I fully expect the preschool scheme will get axed in this budget or the next one. I can't see it surviving the cutbacks. So yet again the disadvantaged and vulnerable will be hit hardest.

Do you really think so? because I'm paying this year and he is entitled to the free scheme. Should I take it while its going? I dont have him in five days, though.

Deliverance

Dave! wrote: »

Just thought some of ye might be interested in this research, outlined in the blog post below. I'm sure ye are all very highly educated, so it probably doesn't affect you very much anyway

http://www.child-psych.org/2010/10/day-care-and-school-readiness-closing-the.html

Well personally I started out with the basics. I as an adult due to the current free education system achieved a level of a BA, MA, and all the rest in between.

Both my parents were 'uneducated' in the academic sense. I am in a position now whereby I am possibly taking a job in Research and development in modern technologies. It is an area whereby I will achieve my goals easily and then some. I can do it easily.

The only drawback for me is confidence. A lack of confidence that was instilled / learned via my parents lack of understanding and confidence in me due to 'their life' and expectations. In some way I need them to accept me in an area that is beyond them.

I have to learn that they won't realise this / will never understand it and I have to find my own way in the area that I want to work in. Half the battle is trying to make them proud of me. Personally I don't think that they ever will accept me in this respect.

In some strange way I need their acceptance but the irony is they never will because the tech is beyond them.

I will always live in expectation from them but it will never be achieved because of the generational differences. Sure I spent days in the 80's writing programs on the spectrum 1k. I wrote my own programmes privately for fun in my bedroom.

if the education was there at that time then I'm sure I would be a genius today in the tech sense. At the moment I am playing catch up, but at the same time I have written programs and designed new media in my own right that is 'cutting edge'. Unstoppable I am despite the stepdads obvious hatred of me;)

He doesn't give a ****, the mom always knocks me back, I guess I have to do this alone. That is the way it feels anyway. The lecturers tell me that I am brilliant, my ideas and implementations are second to none etc. But the parents bring me down at every oppurtunity.

Why do I include them in my life at all? I think it is because I need them to accept me as a bit of a genious? Arrogant statement I know, but I know I am brilliant I just wish that they could see that, they won't though for some reason.

Ps a bit of a rant there, forgive me for that;)

Ickle Magoo

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

There was also a recent BBC documentary called 'Unequal Opportunities' with John Humphrys that suggested the same thing about preschool - that, and the importance of good school leadership and high quality teachers in schools in disadvantaged areas.

I saw that, it was a great documentary. :cool:

Good role models in educational terms are hugely important and often really hard to find in particularly deprived areas. Anyone who does do well for themselves gets the hell out of dodge and so some kids are left looking at whatever the least successful stories have resulted in - hardly inspirational. In my experience one of the biggest blocks to learning is how some uneducated parents and peers do the opposite of their educated equivalents and jeer and denigrate anyone wanting to do well and better themselves, usually due to defence mechanisms or some form of inverse snobbery and resentment.

I work in adult literacy and depressingly, we have students from 18 onwards and for some, their lack of education is almost worn as a badge of pride. A lot of the students have kids of their own and I imagine some are passing that attitude on either directly or indirectly by their lack of educational play/interaction. I think that a year in a pre-school surrounded by imaginative play and rewarded learning must be like a glimpse into a different world for some kids, there can be no doubt that parental education, especially attitude to education with regards to their children, can give kids a huge advantage of disadvantage - and often not just in the first year or so as per the study.

Deliverance

Totally agree Ickle. I spent a year coming back home as a 'college boy' with my briefcase and laptop and got called names. 'Gay boy', 'college boy' etc. I suspect the gay thing was latent;) It took the locals awhile to get used to me I think. Now they are intimidated by me by design because they were not able to break me down into their way of life. Sad but true.

As an adult i dealt with it and intimidated them more than they intimidated me by realising that they were lacking in the way that you mentioned above. Sure at the end of the day I don't give a **** about them at this stage sadly.

Whereas previously I would have concern for them and their kids. Now I unfortunately see them as lost causes beyond my scope. Feck them is all I can say, let them beat and knock themselves and their kids back as much as they do.

My main focus is on getting my own child into a better place. Maybe one day she will make life better for their childrens children? at the moment I have neither the time nor wish to give them any of my time due to their nature and attitude towards my good self. Their loss not mine.

I only hope my own child will be in a position to do better than me and my learned prejudices.

metrovelvet

I think in working class neighborhoods the machismo and the tough guy crap can peer pressure boys into failing. The only antidote to preventing this is being a snob and looking down on them as remedial thugs while you are growing up. Sorry but I cant think of any other way beat them at their own game.

Deliverance's post is a good example though,of what an education without parental love and support can do. You can have PHDs coming out of your behind but without the parental love behind you, you could lead a life of under achievment and self sabotage.

There is a very strong education ethic in my family, on both sides. My late maternal grandmother had a masters, very unusual for that generation of women and my paternal grandmother was a teacher. My father knew Latin and was highly literate and my mothers family, most of them have science degrees.

But we also have a lot of abandonment and rejection too. And you can see how that has left its mark on the members of these very educated people.

Cat Melodeon

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I saw that, it was a great documentary. :cool:

Good role models in educational terms are hugely important and often really hard to find in particularly deprived areas. Anyone who does do well for themselves gets the hell out of dodge and so some kids are left looking at whatever the least successful stories have resulted in - hardly inspirational. In my experience one of the biggest blocks to learning is how some uneducated parents and peers do the opposite of their educated equivalents and jeer and denigrate anyone wanting to do well and better themselves, usually due to defence mechanisms or some form of inverse snobbery and resentment.

I work in adult literacy and depressingly, we have students from 18 onwards and for some, their lack of education is almost worn as a badge of pride. A lot of the students have kids of their own and I imagine some are passing that attitude on either directly or indirectly by their lack of educational play/interaction. I think that a year in a pre-school surrounded by imaginative play and rewarded learning must be like a glimpse into a different world for some kids, there can be no doubt that parental education, especially attitude to education with regards to their children, can give kids a huge advantage of disadvantage - and often not just in the first year or so as per the study.

It's a defence mechanism in a way. People don't like to feel that their way of life is seen as inferior by 'normal' society and so certain behaviours are normalised within that section of society, eg rejection of education, rejection of career/lifestyle aspirations, rejection of 'good' role models. Status is attached to identities that are viewed as deviant or undesirable in mainstream society. Many people see no escape, or indeed no need for escape and are satisfied with their lot. Fitting in to the norms of early school leaving etc gives status and those who do progress are seen as traitors or sell-outs, as it shows that for some people, being born into a certain social position doesn't mean being stuck in that position. Studies show that for most people born into deprivation, social mobility is difficult if not impossible without the right kind of support. Parental and peer support is the most important, although as Deliverance's story shows, there are exceptions, usually because of the talent or particular personality of the individual, the influence of a significant individual in that person's life (teacher, successful relative, coach etc), or opportunities that others haven't had or don't know about (eg many don't know about alternative entries to third level education). For most though, they are bound to remain close to the position which their parents inhabit. If the parents recognise the value of education and progression and know how to go about passing this on to their kids, then there is likely to be some degree of social mobility. There are lots of barriers to mobility though, from what's known as the 'hidden curriculum' in schools to the idea of social capital and trust. Levelling out the playing field at an early age with universal child care would go some way to keeping the barriers open at such an important stage of development.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

usually due to defence mechanisms or some form of inverse snobbery and resentment.

Yeah there's definitely a lot of ^^ with the people I work with but there is something else as well, a complete lack of any worthwhile self esteem, social confidence and even general self-worth - despite resisting change and protestations of contentment.

Being able to communicate with the rest of the world; and to a sufficient level that they can contribute to society in a manner they are likely to receive any positive recognition for is so important on so many levels and often completely unattainable for those with serious literacy and numeracy issues. Miss the opportunity of instilling a love of learning and the possibilities that learning offers at a young age and that child could spend their whole life playing catch up and it's not just the bank balance or CV that suffers.

It's really sad that some kids have to succeed despite their family and support networks rather than because of them - but much kudos to those, like Deliverance, who do. :cool:

pickarooney

Is there a page two or where is the education level of the father factored in?

Nevyn

I doubt it, it's assumed that the mother will be the stay at home parent and the parent inloved with teaching the child the basics.

LegacyUser

Interesting study.

My parents are both educated - teacher and engineer - and getting a good education was the number 1 priority in our house.

Yet not one of me or my 3 siblings went to preschool, montessori, daycare...nothing. We started school at 5 years old, and were minded by a neighbour til our mum came home at around 4pm everyday. That was from about 1987 onwards.

We've all grown up to be extremely successful in college (youngest is still there), doing science based degrees and doing them well.

Personally I wouldn't be mad on sending kids to playschool as soon as they can walk. For an only child, okay it's good for socialising, but in general it wouldn't bother me that much. It is, unfortunately (as many things are), down to the attitude of the parents - as many people are pointing out here. Once they get into Junior Infants, they all learn the same stuff though. It's whether or not the parents are behind them, and make sure homework is done and extra reading and stuff, makes the real difference.

And obviously as they get older it becomes completely uncool to be in any way interested in learning, if you're from certain areas. I think in recent years in this country, we very much emphasised that it was okay to leave school, unions created a situation whereby no education was needed to make huge amounts of money. Up to a point, unions absolutely have a role - people should have the right to good working conditions. Unfortunately we passed that point a long time ago in this country, and now we excel at catering to the lowest common denominator...

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I doubt it, it's assumed that the mother will be the stay at home parent and the parent inloved with teaching the child the basics.

You know that is why conservative and orthodox Jews make sure the girls and women get an education. Because they spend more time around the children than anyone else. Could explain why the JEws have done so well as an immigrant group. Always made sense to me.

Deliverance

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know that is why conservative and orthodox Jews make sure the girls and women get an education. Because they spend more time around the children than anyone else. Could explain why the JEws have done so well as an immigrant group. Always made sense to me.

That is interesting. My nieces recently went to Dubai to meet their grandparents. The family was extremely wealthy, their houses were like palaces and the girls / nieces were driven around by chauffeurs.

They were in a way shown a lifestyle that was all about wealth. One of the nieces had a few offers of marriage as well. At first I was concerned for them until I was told that all the women were required to be highly educated to at least the degree level. Intially I was impressed and imagined that they may be a progressive society after all.

After reading the above post I realise that they only educate the women so that they can stay at home and teach the kids rather than going out and making a life for themselves as independant people.

Knit wit

Thanks op for starting this topic. It makes for interesting reading.

I love the argument that people of my generation (I'm 34) and older make about not going to preschool not doing them any harm ... I wonder had we gone to preschool would we have been even better? We want to give our children the very best chance.

IMHO the government will not scrap the free preschool year. They signed up to Barcelona education targets with the eu ... They used to count junior and senior infants as preschool but when the eu disallowed that as a means of achieving the set target they were forced to introduce the free preschool year.

I think it was Mary Robinson who commented that educated women were wasting their education by staying at home. I would agree to a point. Any parent willing to stay at home in the early years of a child's life should be supported in this choice however I believe as children reach school going age we mothers must set a good example by making going to work the norm.

Where I see a real probLem is the breaking the cycle of poverty in disadvantaged areas. IMHO community creches rely too heavily on fas and ce workers to provide a good quality of care and education. As laid out by the research ... Early childhood education has the greatest effect on those from distadvantaged backgrounds but it must be the best that it can be. Why not demand that our preschool leaders are degree qualified ... These children are already playing catch up ...

metrovelvet

It has been great training for me too. I have my son in preschool [not the ecce scheme] a couple of days a week and before this I would have had no idea how to prepare him for school so Im glad I have this bit of rehearsal time. Before this I wouldn't have cared as much as having his shirts and pants ironed, etc and his snacks prepared in such a way that he could pull them out himself, etc etc. It will be a great relief when the first day of school comes that I know he will be able to handle himself.