“What we talk about when we talk about Early Childhood Development
Every editorial and/or blog on early childhood development (ECD) is fundamentally the same. The formula goes roughly like this: science shows us that the years between pre-natal and eight are the most crucial for success in school and life. The benefits of a child receiving adequate services, stimulation, and love during these years cut across health, social, psychological, and cognitive domains. Kigali District Hospital, Kigali, Rwanda
Furthermore, putting resources into early childhood development provides the best return on investment. Therefore, in our efforts to assist vulnerable children, wherever they are in the world, scientific evidence and common sense point to the years of 0-8 as pivotal and life changing.
There is little more that needs to be said. But for more resources and data, read on.
Valuable Resources for the Field
As OVC programs adapt to cope with meeting the needs of young children two online resources stand out for training: the USAID-sponsored Global Health eLearning Center which now has six courses on ECD and Early Childhood Development for Policymakers and Practitioners at the World Bank e-Institute. They are musts for program implementers and policy makers.
Why ECD?
One of my favorite and frequently referenced statements in support of early childhood development programs is the following: Urban planners use third grade reading scores to project the number of prison cells they’re going to need 10 years later. We zealots for ECD are fond of waving this “fact” in the face of policy makers the way a world cup fan might wave a team banner for the television cameras.
It’s chilling, pithy, and . . . not true.
Planning for prison populations is much more nuanced as highlighted by a number of bloggers, reporters, and early learning advocates over the years. See the following examples:
Can’t read? Let’s build you a prison cell. Raising a Reader Blog. Guest post by Gary Romano. May 22, 2012.
An Urban Myth That Should Be True. The Atlantic. John Hudson. July 2, 2012.
Do prisons use third grade reading scores to predict the number of prison beds they’ll need? Reading Partners Blog. Joe Ventura. October 7, 2013.
That has not stopped career politicians from perpetuating it with the media. But for those of us who work with vulnerable children in all contexts, especially young children, we should consider why this is such a persistent and pervasive urban myth.
Like all good lies, it’s wrapped around a kernel of truth. Consider the following (and feel free to quote these copiously in cocktail party conversations, policy discussions, and professional publications):
70 percent of U.S. prisoners test at the two lowest levels of reading proficiency;[1]
30 percent of federal inmates, 40 percent of state prison inmates, and 50 percent of persons on death row are high school dropouts ;[2]
Youth who drop out of secondary school are 63 percent more likely to be incarcerated or institutionalized.[3]
At first glance one might consider incarceration to be a youth problem. While these statistics (albeit U.S. based) highlight the importance of programming, services, and opportunities for youth, those of us in ECD know the roots of these issues go back to earlier years when children are most malleable and vulnerable. Consider a few more research findings (the same invitation to quote these to influential people stands):
ECD investments have been shown to have long-lasting and significant benefits in:
Enhancing school readiness and related educational outcomes;[4]
Improving physical and mental health and reducing reliance on the health care system;
Reducing engagement in dangerous behavior such as smoking, risky sexual behavior, substance use and addiction, and criminal and violent acts.[5]
Is it any wonder that the “Third-grade-reading-scores-as-prison-predictor” persists? As John Hudson points out in The Atlantic, if “Planners are not using third grade reading scores, maybe they should.”
Do I sound like a broken record, yet?
This is the point in this post at which, as an ECD advocate, I am obliged to share another compelling research finding: ECD interventions have a high cost-benefit ratio and, compared with interventions targeted towards older children and adults, they have a higher rate of return for each dollar invested; potentially 7 to 16 percent annually from vulnerable groups.[6] In an industry with limited resources and high expectations regarding stewardship this fact is another favorite of ECD supporters.
Alas, I have to admit some discomfort with this argument, not because it is false. It’s very true.
My discomfort comes from the idea that we should treat children the way we treat stocks in our portfolios—doubling down on one age group at the expense of another. Children represent an important investment, but they are not stocks or bonds. Our monetary return on their development—while an important argument—should not be our primary one. A rights-based approach informs us that children 0-8, primary school-age children, and youth all are equally deserving of services, opportunities, and love. What is unique about the early years of 0-8 is that because of the unique nature of these years as setting the foundation for subsequent stages, investing in children 0-8 ultimately helps the potential primary school child, and the youth-in-waiting in the young child. In this way I would argue that investing in ECD honors the rights of children throughout their lifespans.
So again, I’m basically making the same old arguments for ECD: it has the best long term benefits for individuals and society; it is the best return on investment; and it fulfills the rights not only of young children, but of the potential youth and adults they represent.
It’s an old argument. Instead of closing with my own words, I’ll defer to Frederick Douglass who said in the 19th Century, “It is easier to build strong children, then to repair broken men.”
He had it right then. He’s still right now.
Ted Neill attended Georgetown University where he first started working with vulnerable children at a shelter for children with HIV/AIDS in downtown DC. When he graduated, he moved to Kenya where he volunteered as a pre-school teacher and hospice aid at Nyumbani Children’s Home, an orphanage in Nairobi for HIV positive children. From 2005 until 2011 he worked for CARE USA, building up their Early Childhood Development programs throughout Africa and India. At this time he also attended Emory University where he earned his Master’s in Public Health. In 2011 he enrolled in Georgia State University’s MBA program in hopes to understand better how to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty especially for families with young children. Currently Ted is the Early Childhood Development Specialist at World Vision International where he provides technical leadership to World Vision’s ECD programs globally.
[1] National Adult Literary Survey (2003)
[2] The U.S. Department of Justice 2003 and the U.S. Department of Commerce (2007)
[3] Sum, Andrew et al., (2009)
[4] Grantham-McGregor, Sally et al. Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet , Volume 369 , Issue 9555 , 60 – 70
[5] Nadeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M., and Elder, L. (2011) Investing in Young Children: An ECD Guide for Policy. Dialogue and Project Preparation. World Bank (pages 18 and 19).
[6] Nadeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M., and Elder, L. (2011) Investing in Young Children: An ECD Guide for Policy. Dialogue and Project Preparation. World Bank (page 19).
Funding was provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-11-00015. The contents are the responsibility of the Leadership, Management, and Governance Project and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.”