Print

Print


Thanks for sharing!  The information was very interesting.
Maureen Connolly
Elmhurst College

Norman Stahl wrote:

> Two pieces of commentary that folks may find to be quite interesting.  They
> are of interest given Tom's outstanding work over the years in adult
> literacy and workplace literacy work.
>
> >From: Thomas Sticht <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >Research Note 10/19/99
> >
> >Could An Ounce Of Cure Be Worth A Pound Of Prevention?
> >The "Fade Out" of Literacy in the Perry Preschool Children at Age 19
> >
> >Thomas G. Sticht
> > Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences, Inc.
> >
> >Findings of national adult literacy surveys over the last thirty years
> >have revealed tens of millions of adults whose literacy skills are
> >poorly developed. The minor  approach to remedying this problem at the
> >national level has been to provide a small amount of federal money, less
> >than $400,000,000 in 1999, to "cure" the problem through adult literacy
> >education.
> >
> >But the major strategy has followed the homily that "an ounce of
> >prevention is worth a pound of cure." So we have tried to  "prevent" the
> >problem of poor adult literacy over the long run by improving  the
> >literacy skills of children in the K-12 school system. This has included
> >the present federal spending of some $7,000,000,000 on Title I
> >compensatory education. But because this has proven a costly and not
> >entirely satisfactorily program, it has been argued that Title I is too
> >late, and that we need to improve children's learning before they get to
> >school. So we presently invest  close to $4,000,000,000 in Head Start
> >preschool programs. But since this has been found to not produce the
> >hoped for long term improvements in learning, it has recently been
> >argued that age 3  is too late, we need to start with birth. So now we
> >have committed billions of dollars to Early Head Start for children from
> >birth to age three years.  In short, what we have done is to spend "a
> >pound on prevention and an ounce on cure."
> >
> >But now there is some evidence that our investment strategy  in
> >preschool education may not produce the desired results, that is, adults
> >who are "functionally" literate. New analyses of the results from the
> >only study available that measured the functional literacy skills of
> >preschool children and a control group of children who did not receive
> >preschool when they reached young adulthood (age 19) indicates that the
> >two groups were not significantly different with regard to literacy
> >skills - and both groups were "functionally illiterate" by contemporary
> >standards.
> >
> >The famous High /Scope Perry Preschool study (reported in the Changed
> >Lives book, Berrueta-Clement, et. a., 1984) is frequently cited as
> >having produced young adults who were more literate than the
> >non-preschool control group (Brizius & Foster, 1993, p. 56). However
> >that conclusion is wrong because the functional literacy assessment and
> >the analysis of results was faulty on several counts.
> >
> >(1) A total of eight of the 19 year old young adults refused to take the
> >Adult Performance Level (APL) functional literacy test because "they
> >could not read" (Berrueta-Clement, et. a., 1984, p. 34). Five of these
> >eight were from the preschool group and three from the control group.
> >That is almost nine percent of the preschool group compared to five
> >percent of the control group who said they could not read.
> >
> >(2) The researchers omitted the eight people who said they could not
> >read from the analysis of the literacy skills of preschool and control
> >groups. However, that is an inappropriate procedure. Instead, the eight
> >illiterates should have been given scores of zero and then these scores
> >should have been used to calculate the average scores of the two groups.
> >
> >In the "Changed Lives" report, the mean scores for preschool and control
> >groups on the total test of 40 items were given as 61.5 percent and 54.5
> >percent respectively. However, the new mean scores with the five zero
> >scores added to the preschool group and the three zero scores added to
> >the control group's scores produced scores of 56 percent and 52 percent,
> >respectively, scores that placed  both groups almost a standard
> >deviation (SD) below the norming group, at about the 16th percentile.
> >The norming group of the APL test was made-up of students in adult basic
> >education courses, of whom some 78 percent had no high school diploma.
> >The preschool and control groups scored well below this norming group,
> >which, itself, represents a lower level of skills than expected of a
> >more representative sample of adults in the United States.
> >
> >(3) On page 183 of the "Changed Lives" report, a three-way analysis of
> >covariance that adjusted for differences in preschool and control
> >children's IQ's, their family socioeconomic status, mother's education
> >and mother's employment at study entry is presented. The results
> >indicate no significant difference between preschool and control groups
> >on the APL at age 19, even with the eight illiterates excluded. But in
> >the body of the report the researchers ignored this multivariate
> >analysis and instead relied on simple two-way tests of significance
> >which ignored the fact that 30 percent of control group mothers worked
> >outside the home while only about 9 percent of preschool mothers worked
> >outside the home (Berrueta-Clement, et. al, 1984, p. 8). This  means
> >that there could have been many more oral language and emergent literacy
> >interactions among mothers and their children in the preschool group.
> >
> >(4) An additional problem that renders the use of the APL findings
> >inappropriate, is that, instead of young adults taking the tests
> >unaided, as called for in the administration procedures of the APL, in
> >the Perry Preschool study, "Othe interviewer read each of the items to
> >the respondent and could repeat them upon request" (Berrueta-Clement,
> >et. al, p. 34). The report goes on to state that, "Reading skills were
> >still required, however, to decode and interpret, the supplementary
> >information needed for some of the items." (Berrueta-Clement, et. al,
> >p.34). However, since the APL was not  administered according to the
> >standard conditions under which the test norms were developed, the
> >results cannot meaningfully be interpreted in terms of the norms given
> >for the test.
> >
> >All this raises an important policy question, is it possible that
> >starting early childhood education at birth is too late? Suppose that
> >the real head start starts with the heads of the parents and that over
> >the last three decades if we had invested "pounds" in our "cures" by
> >putting billions of dollars into the compensatory education of
> >adolescents and young adults, we might have prevented many unwanted
> >pregnancies, led many mothers-to-be to find and obtain good prenatal
> >care and have fewer and healthier babies, and made it possible to have
> >to prepare many fewer children for school through institutional
> >interventions.  Possibly, given the many multiplier effects of investing
> >in the education of adults, a few more "ounces of cure" with adults may
> >have been worth many "pounds of prevention" with children.
> >
> >References
> >
> >Berrueta-Clement, et. al (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry
> >Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: The
> >High/Scope Press. (data for the figure comes from pages 32-36)
> >
> >Brizius, J. & Foster, S. (1993). Generation to generation. Realizing the
> >promise of family literacy. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. (p. 56)
>
> Research Note 9/25/99
> >
> > The Myth of the Early Years: All Is Not Lost By Age 3:
> > Adults Can Learn and Their Brains Can Grow
> > Thomas G. Sticht
> > Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, October 13, 1991 The San Diego Union newspaper reprinted an
> > article by Joan Beck, columnist for the Chicago Tribune that argued for
> > early childhood education because, "Half of adult intellectual capacity
> > is already present by age 4 and 80 percent by age 8, the great education
> > researcher Dr. Benjamin Bloom reported in scholarly studies in the 1960s
> > that helped establish the importance of early learning. No matter how
> > good schools are, how capable and caring the teachers, they will not
> > have as much effect on a child's permanent level of intelligence as has
> > the environment in which he has lived before he started to first grade."
> >
> > Behind this widespread belief is another belief based on (faulty)
> > understandings of newurscience that the brain and its  intellectual
> > capacity  is   developed   in   early   childhood and this has important
> > implications for cognitive development over the lifespan. Even the First
> > Lady of the United States has weighed in with the pronouncement  that ,
> > "The first three years of life are crucial in establishing the brain
> > cell connections. ...By the end of three or four years, however, the
> > pace of learning slows... The process continues to slow as we mature,
> > and as we age our brain cells and synapses begin to whither away.
> > ...With proper stimulation, brain synapses will form at a rapid pace,
> > reaching adult levels by the age of two and far surpassing them in the
> > next several years." (Clinton, 1996, pp. 57-58).
> >
> > It has been aruged that if children's early childhood development  is
> > not properly stimulated, then there is likely to be underdevelopment of
> > the brain and that can lead to lower intellectual ability, poor school
> > learning and to a life characterized by  social problems such as
> > unemployment,  criminal activity, teenage pregnancy and welfare. It will
> > be difficult if not impossible to overcome the disadvantages of
> > deficiencies in early childhood stimulation later in adulthood. And so,
> > some might argue,  "Why should we invest in adult literacy education?
> > Letis put our money into early childhood programs. An ounce of
> > prevention is worth a pound of cure!"
> >
> > But now  trends in both brain science and cognitive science have
> > converged to bring about revisions to these ideas from the conventional
> > wisdom. For over a decade, the James S. McDonnell Foundation in St.
> > Louis has supported extensive research in neuroscience. Recently, John
> > Bruer, President of the Foundation has written a new book entitled "The
> > Myth of the First Three Years" (The Free Press, 1999) in which he
> > explains that the findings of neuroscience do not support the claims
> > made above by Mrs. Clinton or Joan Beck or other claims for early
> > stimulation of infants and children under three years of age. He further
> > argues that most neuroscience is  irrelevant for early childhood and
> > in-school education (1997, 1998). Following is a brief summary from
> > earlier articles of what Bruer regards as major misconceptions that
> > educators have of brain science (see my paper Beyond 2000: Future
> > Directions for Adult Education  in the Full Text Documents page at
> > www.nald.ca for references  to articles by Bruer):
> >
> > (1). Claim: Enriched early childhood environments causes synapses to
> > multiply rapidly. Bruer states, "What little direct evidence we have n
> > all based on studies of monkeys  - indicates these claims are
> > inaccurate....The rate of synaptic formation and synaptic density seems
> > to be impervious to quantity of stimulation. ...Early experience does
> > not cause synapses to form rapidly. Early enriched environments will not
> > put our children on synaptic fast tracks"(1998, pp. 13-14).
> > (2). Claim: More synapses mean more brainpower. Bruer states, "The
> > neuroscientific evidence does not support this claim, either.
> > ...Synaptic densities at birth and in early adulthood are approximately
> > the same, yet by any measure adults are more intelligent, have more
> > highly flexible behavior, and learn more rapidly than infants" (1998,
> > pp. 14-15).
> > (3). Claim: The plateau period of high synaptic density and high brain
> > metabolism is the optimal period for learning. Bruer states, "The
> > neuroscientific evidence for this claim is extremely weak. The
> > neuroscientists who count synapses in humans and monkeys merely point
> > out that during the plateau period, monkeys and humans develop a variety
> > of skills and behaviors. ...We do not know what relationship exists
> > between high resting brain metabolism and learning, any more than we
> > know what relation exists between high synaptic numbers and ability to
> > learn."(1998, pp. 15-17.
> >
> > Bruer goes on to say that, "Truly new results in neuroscience, rarely
> > mentioned in the brain and education literature, point to the brainis
> > lifelong capacity to reshape itself in response to experience"(1998, p.
> > 17). In his new book (1999) he references work in adult literacy to make
> > the point that, "Adult literacy programs provide additional evidence
> > that acquiring and improving literacy skills is not time-limited or
> > subject to critical period  limitations." (p. 112).  He says, "The
> > limiting factor in vocabulary growth, and presumably for some of the
> > other things Verbal IQ measures, is exposure to new words, facts, and
> > exxperiences. The brain can benefit from this exposure at almost any
> > time-early childhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and
> > senescence."(p. 177)
> >
> > For adult literacy educators, Bruer makes the important policy argument
> > that with a better understanding of the limitations of present day
> > neuroscience for understanding education, "We might question the
> > prudence of decreasing expenditures for adult education or special
> > education on the grounds that a person's intellectual and emotional
> > course is firmly set during the early years." (p. 26, This is a myth he
> > rejects and it is an important point in light of the current budget
> > activites in Congress which place tens of billions of dollars in early
> > childhood and in-school compensatory programs and less than $400 million
> > in programs for educating adults.
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> *********************************
> Norman A. Stahl, Acting Chair
> Department of Literacy,
> Intercultural and Language Education
> GH 223c
> Northern Illinois University
> DeKalb, IL  60115
>
> Telephone:
> (815) 753-9032 {office}
> (815) 753-8563 (FAX)
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]