A clearinghouse of education evidence

Parents across the nation send their children to public schools with the confidence that principals and teachers are providing an environment where children can learn, grow and thrive.

We hear so much about in the news about ways to improve our education system – especially in this presidential election year, when candidates are offering proposals and counter-proposals to fix our schools.

But is there any evidence as to what really works?  As a parent of young children, our schools are one important place where I want to see evidence-based guidelines put in place.

The best place I’ve found for evidence-based information on education is called the What Works Clearinghouse, an initiative by the U.S. Department of Education that conducts systematic reviews on education research to provide educators with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions.

The project is a true treasure trove of information, with research reviews on a myriad of topics including dropout prevention, school choice, early childhood education and student behavior, to name just a few.

On a recent cruise through the site, several topics piqued my interested including:

I’m certainly going to share this amazing resource with my son’s teachers, and use to gather information about the curriculums he’ll be learning in elementary school.  As a parent, it’s a relief to know there’s a place to look for reliable, evidence-based information on education.

Playground time pays off in the classroom

Sometimes when I drive past our local elementary school playground, I think back fondly to my time spent hanging upside down on the monkey bars and swinging as high as I could muster.

It has long been recognized that children need physical activity to break up the day.  But in recent years, it has become clear that school recess has even broader effects.  A new systematic review published this week in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine shows a positive relationship between physical activity and academic performance – essentially demonstrating that recess helps kids learn.

The authors reviewed 14 studies over the past 20 years that collected data about physical activity or fitness and academic performance or cognition on children ages 6 to 18, and found that children who were more physically active performed better in school.

Researchers believe that exercise increases blood and oxygen flow to the brain. It also leads bodies to produce more of the neurotransmitters responsible for improving mood and boosts growth factors that help create new nerve cells.

But the available evidence has a fault. Of the studies included in the review, only two of them were classified as high-quality, primarily because of the measurements instruments used.

What’s needed, the researchers concluded are more studies that examine the dose-response relationship between physical activity and academic performance – essentially, how much exercise is optimal for helping kids in the classroom.

Moms working outside of the home: Good for kids?

How to balance work and raising children is a critical question that most mothers face today.

Many women (my own mother fell into this category) do not have the option to stay home to raise their children because their families need their incomes to get by. Other women (myself included) get an education, start a career, and then decide to have children – leaving them with some big choices about if and how much they should work outside of the home.

To be sure, the solution to this conundrum is different for every family. Our family has decided its best for me to work part-time from home – a choice that provides us with some extra spending money and me with some time to interact with adults on an intellectual level.

But no matter what our circumstances and choices, all mothers are concerned with one thing: what is best for their children.

There is an interesting column this week in the L.A. Times this week that addresses this very question, and delves into the evidence about working moms.

It turns out – according to a systematic review by researchers at the University of California-Irvine – that children whose mothers who return to work while they are infants and toddlers fare the same in school and behaviorally compared to children whose mothers stay home. The review looked at 69 studies over a period of 50 years that included data about children’s school performance and behavioral problems.

The only children who struggled more were those whose mothers returned to very intensive full-time employment early on – a finding that makes a case for longer maternity leaves, the researchers said.

Several factors help explain why maternal employment does not have adverse effects on child outcomes, says Sharon Sassler, associate professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell.

For starters, the data shows that most women in the United States work, even after having a child (although many work part-time). Also, most children spend considerable amounts of time away from their families in school, Sassler explained, even as young as three and four years old.

But the biggest factor may be a cultural shift in parenting norms, she said.

“Even though more mothers are working, and more married families contain two working parents than in the past, various studies have revealed that children are spending more time with parents – fathers as well as mothers – than they did in the 1960s,” she said.

“The value of spending time with children has clearly increased, even if working mothers – and fathers – must decrease their own personal leisure time, devotion to house cleaning, or sleep to achieve that end.  And one of the more interesting research findings is that fathers – especially men with a college degree – have increased the amount of time spent with children, both when they are married and when they do not live with their children.  Not only does that offset any potential reduction resulting from working mothers time away from home, but it strengthens ties between all family members – husbands and wives or partners, as well as parents and children.”

In fact, Sassler herself is a working mother with a child in elementary school. On a personal note, she’s found that having two working parents has taught her son the value of cooperation. “He realizes that this is a team affair, and that sacrifices are sometimes required of all family members – but that we all benefit as well from the fruits of all of our labor,” she said.

To sum it up, navigating decisions about working outside of the home can certainly be a source of stress. But knowing the evidence shows that children thrive in both cases can help moms to make the decisions that are best for their families.

The evidence on child abuse

No one needs an academic study to understand that child abuse and neglect has horrible effects on children and families.  The toll on young people and their caregivers – emotionally, socially and developmentally – is tremendous. But the problem also takes a broader toll on our health care system and society as a whole.

A new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control quantifies the toll on society in financial terms. The study examined nearly 600,000 confirmed child maltreatment cases over the course of a year. Approximately 1,740 of the cases resulted in the death of a child. It found the financial costs associated with these cases to be $124 billion, which includes the costs of medical care, special education, the criminal justice system and lost productivity.

Researchers totaled the lifetime cost for each victim of child maltreatment who lived at $210,012 – a figure the matches the cost of other health conditions such as stroke, which has lifetime cost per person estimated at $159,846, or type 2 diabetes, which is estimated between $181,000 and $253,000.

Much of the data for the study came from a project at Cornell called the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN), housed in the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research (BCTR). The project makes high-quality datasets available to researchers, including data from individual studies and  annual federal data collection efforts, such as state child abuse and neglect and foster care statistics.

“This study very likely underestimates the actual burden as we learn more about the impact of early childhood adversity on brain development and health and well-being  across the life span,” said John Eckenrode, director of NDACAN, professor of human development and director of the BCTR.

“Fortunately, there are now evidence-based programs that may prevent child maltreatment and the associated costs to society,” he said. Among them is the Nurse Family Partnership, a program founded at the College of Human Ecology that aims to improve the lives of disadvantaged mothers and their children.

The take home message: Child abuse and neglect is a big problem. The better we can understand its intricacies and impacts, the better we’ll be able to prevent it in the future.

Active kids do better in school

There’s good news out this week for youth who play sports.  A new systematic review published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine has shown a positive relationship between physical activity and improved academic performance.

Researchers at the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research in the Netherlands reviewed 14 studies primarily focused on physical education and school sports, but only two met their standards for high-quality scientific research.

The studies, which included children ages 6 to 18, found children who participated in regular physical activity performed better in the classroom. Researchers say that may be because physical activity enhances brain function and thinking skills by increasing blood and oxygen flow to the brain, as well as triggering the release of feel-good hormones like endorphins.

“Besides these suggested physiological effects, regular participation in sports activities may improve children’s behavior in the classroom, increasing the odds of better concentration on the academic content of these lessons,” the review explains.

The paper also notes more evidence is needed to effectively explain the link between physical activity helps kids perform better in school.

In the meantime, the researchers say schools should expand opportunities for kids to be active during and after the school day.

Updated info: Babies and toddlers should skip the screen

New findings about screen-time for babies and kids is something I keep a close eye on.  As parent of an infant and a three-year-old, I want to do what’s best for them. And yet there’s always the temptation to use the television – “just one show” – when I need to get something done.

So I paid careful attention last month when the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the first two years of life remain “as screen-free as possible.”

The full report, published in the journal Pediatrics, cited studies that educational programming for children is only beneficial if the children understand the context – a milestone typically not reached until after age 2. The report found that babies and toddlers learn best through unstructured play and interactions with older children and adults.

The report also found that children under age 2 who engage in heavy media use – more than an hour or two a day – may have delays in speech and language.

What does all of this mean?

Rachel Dunifon, a Human Ecology faculty member and expert in child and family policy, says that while research supports that idea that too much media use is likely not ideal for children, parents should know that the studies showing linkages between media use and child well-being are not causal, and that the specific time limits and age cut-offs are somewhat arbitrary. 

While limiting media use is a great goal for parents, she says it is also important that parents not take these recommendations as another source of stress or guilt in their lives.

At our house, not a lot will change despite the new guidelines.  We’ll continue to let our three-year-old watch up to an hour a day of an educational program – most often while the baby is napping. My husband and I will continue to reserve our own TV-viewing until after the kids go to bed – with some special exceptions like the Superbowl and the Royal wedding. 

And yes, every once in a while, I’ll turn on Sesame Street and plunk both kids down in the living room so that I can get something done.  But we’ll try our best to make that a rare exception.

When should kids start kindergarten?

It’s a question I’m already pondering two full years before I need to make the decision: When will my son be ready for kindergarten?  Aaron turned three last week.  Having a fall birthday means he will always be one of the youngest kids in his class. In two years, he will qualify to start kindergarten as a four-year-old – for a few weeks, at least.  That is, unless I decide to hold him back.

Educational literature and the media are abuzz about this trend of redshirting kindergarteners.  Many parents want to make sure their kids are emotionally ready to start school.  Others don’t want their children to the smallest in the classroom, or the least advanced.

So when I read an opinion article in the New York Times arguing that most kids should start kindergarten on time, even when their birthdays are close to the cut-off dates, I was intrigued.

It turns out the research consistently shows that, on average, children who are held back a year do no better than those who start kindergarten with their designated class.  One study found differences in test scores between younger and older classmates declines over the elementary school years, and that children benefit from having older classmates to learn from. Another longitudinal study found that delaying kindergarten does not result in any long-term advantages, and that younger students may have a small advantage in human capital later in life.

Clearly, each child needs to be evaluated individually to determine when he or she is ready to start school. But the evidence clearly shows that many four-year-olds will do just fine in kindergarten and may end up ahead of their peers in the long run thanks to their early school experiences.

Personally, I will be carefully considering our choices for Aaron over the next several years, with lots of input from his preschool teachers.  In the meantime, it’s nice to know that he can be successful – whatever decision we make.

“You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.’”

Over dozens of years in the classroom, author and veteran kindergarten teacher Vivian Paley noticed a disturbing trend among her students: Each year, some children developed the power to create the games, make the rules, and decide who was allowed to play and who would be left out.

So Paley decided to make a new rule in her classroom: “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.”  Paley documented the children’s reaction to the new rule with audio recordings.  (You can hear some of them in an episode of the NPR show This American Life.)

The following year, Paley’s rule was expanded to her entire school. She’s written a book on the experiment. And, since then, educators across the country have adopted the rule and studied its implications.  My own son’s preschool subscribes to the rule, so I thought I’d do a little digging to find out what the research says about it.

While there is no meta-analysis available to date on “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play,” studies have shown the rule improves social acceptance among kindergarteners.  The non-profit research center Child Trends implemented an intervention program among 144 kindergarteners that involved storytelling and group discussion to help children become more aware the different ways they may exclude their peers and learn ways to act in more accepting ways.  Their study found that children in the program felt more accepted by their peers compared to the control group.

Another study investigated teacher’s perceptions about inclusive play for young children. The found programs to implement the rule must involve training and on-going support to help teachers communicate the rule to students and deal with problems that emerge as students struggle with inclusive play.

On the whole, I’m impressed with the data available on “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.’”  It seems to be a positive way to teach young children about social acceptance and diversity.  This is one area, though, where I’d love to see some more comprehensive research or a literature review to clarify all of the benefits to our children.

New insights into the teenage brain

We have all heard the frightening statistics before.  Teens ages 15 to 19 are age group most likely to die due to injury – about six times more likely than 10- to 14-year-olds. Crime rates are highest among young males. Teens are also more likely to abuse alcohol and engage in risky sexual behavior compared with people of other ages.

Now a new paper published by the National Institute of Mental Health sums up the body of research on the vulnerability of teenagers. Much of the problem, it turns out, has to do with their brain development.

The paper explains that brain scans have revealed that the brain doesn’t resemble that of an adult until most people are in their early 20s. And the parts of the brain responsible for behaviors such as controlling impulses and planning ahead are among the last to mature.

Research also shows that the parts of the brain involved in emotional responses are more active in teenagers compared with adults, which may help explain teenagers tendencies to act impulsively and take on more risks.

So what’s a parent to do?  Cornell Professor Valerie Reyna studies risky behavior among teenagers. (In fact, we’ve written about her research before.)   She’s created a web page of resources on Risky Decision-Making in Adolescence to help teachers and parents guide kids.   She offers a long list of strategies to keep young people safe, such as using positive role models and role playing to simulate risky situations.

If there are teenagers in your life, it’s worth understanding how their brains and developing and what you can do to help them make good decisions.

How to promote creativity among kids

Did you know there’s an evidence-based way to measure creativity? 

In the 1950s, a psychologist named Ellis Paul Torrance developed a series of tasks to measure creativity and gave them to 400 Minneapolis children. 

Scholars have followed the children since then and recorded all of their creative accomplishments – patents, research papers, art exhibits, business innovations, books, musical scores, and so on. Sure enough, the children who scored high on the tests showed the more creativity as adults as well. If fact, the correlation of test scores to lifetime creative accomplishment was more than three times stronger for childhood creativity than childhood IQ.

To date, the Torrance test has been taken by millions of people worldwide in 50 languages.  But recently, one researcher identified a disappointing trend. Kyung Hee Kim, a professor of Educational Psychology at the College of William and Mary, analyzed nearly Torrance scores of nearly 300,000 children and adults.  She found the scores had been steadily rising until 1990. Since then, creativity scores have consistently fallen every year. (Her work was famously documented in an article in Newsweek magazine in 2009.)

When Kim says creativity is declining, she’s not just talking about artistic ability, but a range of skills such as the ability to produce original ideas, see things from a different angle, elaborate upon ideas  and synthesize information.  (She explained all of the measures to Encyclopedia Brittanica.)

What does this mean?  Kim is the first to point out there’s more research needed.  But , based on her body of research on creativity, she does suggest some steps that parents and teachers can take to foster creativity among children.

  • Take the time to try to find the answer children’s questions and teach how to find their own answers.
  • Don’t always emphasize getting the “right” answers, but instead encourage inventiveness.
  • Encourage spontaneous and even silly play.
  • Foster independence.
  • Introduce children to different experiences including different places, cultures, food, languages, and people.

Can a new mom get a little shut eye?

 As anyone with a young baby knows, getting enough sleep is the holy grail for new parents.  When the baby monitor sounds with the cry of our youngest in the middle of the night, I immediately look at the clock to calculate how long I’ve been asleep. Anything longer than four hours is a victory!

Of course, there is advice galore about the best way to get your baby to sleep through the night. Everyone from family members to strangers in the grocery store offer suggestions about getting a restful night.  One older family friend explained to me that she used to tie a teething biscuit onto the crib rails when her children were young, so they would have something to eat when they woke! Dozens of books supply a wide range of theories: let your baby cry it out, feed your baby on a regular schedule, or just put the baby in bed with you. 

While all of this sounds great, I figured my best chance on getting a good night’s sleep was to consult the evidence.  Sure enough, a review of both randomized, controlled studies and observational studies by England’s National Childbirth Trust draws some definite conclusions about the best methods to encourage a newborn to sleep at night.

Among them:

  • Holding,rocking or feeding the babies to sleep leads them to depend on that action to fall asleep.
  • Putting babies in their cribs while awake they’re still awake, establishing a bedtime routine and leaving them with a favorite toy or blanket leads babies to fall asleep on their own sleep for longer stretches at night.
  • There is some evidence that introducing another feeding between 10p.m. and midnight can help the baby sleep for longer stretches at night without waking.

We’ve always put our babies in their cribs while they’re still awake. I have found that doing this teaches them how to sooth themselves, and ultimately fall back asleep on their own when they wake during the night.

So far, it seems to be working for us.  Last night, Hannah went to be at 8:30 p.m. and didn’t wake up until 4 a.m. – a pretty solid stretch for a 10-week-old.  Hopefully that means I’m we’re on the way to being a well-rested family again!

Get outside! The evidence shows it’s good for you

The grass is finally green, leaves are filling the trees, and creatures of all sorts – from garter snakes to mosquitoes – are taking up residence in our yard.  It’s the season that my family relishes spending time outside.  This year, my almost-three-year-old is fascinated with every bug, twig and spider web he encounters.

We’re lucky to live in a beautiful part of the world, and in a community that values nature. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that fewer and fewer families experience the same connection with nature that we do – and this is having a detrimental effect on children.

A growing body of evidence suggests people of all ages, and especially children, have fewer nature experiences and spend less time outside compared with previous generations. The research shows this trend has negative implications for health, especially childhood obesity, as well as development and education.  A term has even been coined for the problem – “nature-deficit disorder.”

In fact, there are dozens of studies that demonstrate the positive effects of children spending time in outside including improved social and personal skills, concentration and cognitive functioning.

Here at the College of Human Ecology, Professor Nancy Wells is working on this issue. She is an environmental psychologist whose work delves into childhood exposure to nature and adult attitudes toward the environment. Her research has demonstrated that having natural areas in communities promotes well-being, encourages physical activity and encourages social connections by bolstering a sense of community.

There’s still more work needed to find the best ways to connect people with nature in our modern world. But already, the take-home message is clear.  People of all ages should make an effort to spend time outside, and governments and communities need to develop natural areas that give their residents access to nature.

Skip to toolbar