Leadership, Talent & Education
Early years education and future success: how much does it matter?
Sudhir Vadaketh | June 29th 2012 | @EG_LeadershipTE
As countries make the transition towards knowledge-based economies and increasingly compete on the basis of talent and human capital, they need to invest in their people. Yet such investment remains largely targeted at higher levels of education. Should it perhaps be redirected?
A growing body of research suggests that increased government investment in early childhood education, if directed well, can benefit society. These returns accrue in part to the children themselves—largely in the form of increased lifetime earnings—but more significantly to the wider society, in the form of reduced need for later remedial education and spending, as well as lower crime and less welfare reliance in later life, among other things.
“The data are really incontrovertible,” explains Sharon Kagan, a professor of early childhood and family policy at Columbia University in the US. “Three strands of research combine to support the importance of the early years. From neuro-scientific research, we understand the criticality of early brain development; from social science research, we know that high quality programmes improve children’s readiness for school and life; and from econometric research, we know that high quality programs save society significant amounts of money over time. Early childhood contributes to creating the kinds of workforces that are going to be needed in the twenty-first century.”
Against this backdrop, the EIU was commissioned by the Lien Foundation, a Singapore-based philanthropic organisation, to devise an index to rank preschool provision across 45 countries. The Nordic countries top the ranking, with Finland (1st), Sweden (2nd) and Norway (3rd) rated as having the world’s three best preschool environments. In total, 16 of the top 20 countries are European.
However, not all rich countries perform so well. Australia, Canada, Singapore and the US, for example, are all listed in the lower half of the Index. This is not to suggest that quality preschool programmes are lacking in these countries. But such schemes are not available or affordable to all strands of society, and minimum quality standards vary widely.
If these countries want to boost their knowledge economies, is increased preschool investment the answer?
Comments
Late education for future succes?
08:57 July 10th 2012
Finland has the of the hightest scores on interantional test performance, and yet, the children visit school at 7 years old. Accoriding some educational views children need the early years for other development (e.g. wiki/Waldorf_education). While earlier edcuation seems the logical answer, it is moslty only wothwile on the short term and for a specific population. A better investment might be the quality (and status) of the teachers, as Finland is showing us as well...
Undoubtedly, though I am
16:11 July 10th 2012
Undoubtedly, though I am biased as an educator myself. Preschool education is a multi-level indicator of individual success. Increased funding in pre-school has an effect that goes so far as to lower crime rates for individuals in studies (even after controlling for numerous variables), a higher proportion of drop-out students returning to school, a lower proportion of drop-outs generally, greater levels of academic success, the list goes on.
To be fair, this is assuming that the funding is spent correctly, and that the educators that benefit from the funding are hired through a process as strict as those found in the Nordic countries on which this study is based. The question, though, is similar to asking "if we want to build higher skyscrapers, should we invest in better concrete?" While the answer may be an obvious yes, the benefits to investing generally will far outweigh the single application to which they will be put to use. In that sense, investing heavily in pre-school education will not yield results only with respect to knowledge economies, but focused investment in pre-school education will see a corresponding decrease in social costs, and a corresponding benefit as well.
Linked in question
04:13 July 11th 2012
Preschool is too much stress on kids brain. The school should start at the age of 6.
Early years education - beneficial bt not a magic bullet
04:27 July 11th 2012
Boosting early years, including pre-school, education is part of an overall approach, but is not a single solution.
It is of little benefit if the early improvements achieved by investment in preschool is not then developed and consolidated throughout the rest of the educational journey.
Early years education and future success is related to love
13:11 July 11th 2012
Walking through the Harlem Village Academy, the first thing most people notice is the noise. There isn’t any.
Please understand: it’s not quiet like a morgue or a library. There are the sounds of engaged students and of motivated teachers, but there’s no chaos. The chaos we’ve been trained to associate with an inner-city school is totally missing.
If the casual visitor walks away thinking that Dr. Kenny’s secret is that she has figured out how to get eleven-year old kids to become obedient, he will have missed 95% of what makes this school work.
On the first day, she tells the student body, “we are strict because we love you.” And she means it. Most schools are strict because that’s their job, or strict because it makes their lives easier. The revolutionary element of HVA isn’t the strictness. It’s the love.
Beginning with the foundation of a respectful (and respected) student body, Deborah Kenny has added something exciting: she lets the teachers teach.
This isn’t a factory designed to churn out education at the highest speed for the lowest cost. No, this is handmade education. Teachers don’t teach to the test. Teachers don’t even teach to the pre-approved standardized curriculum. At HVA, teachers who care teach students who care.
Simple.
Is it any surprise that this is revolutionary?
Parent involvement is the answer.
15:47 July 11th 2012
Parent involvement is the answer. Kids who learn to read before they start school do better in kindergarten and the subsequent grades. For some reason, people equate that with preschool, which gives some preparation for the structure of school.
People can't always afford preschool, but who can't afford to notice and develop natural abilities in her child? A child that wants to hear the same bedtime story every night is ready to read. It's a big sign that many parents miss.
Home is the first school, and parents are the first teachers. They have more influence than they think prior to the preschool age, and it doesn't change after that. Parents either want to believe or have been socialized to believe that only teachers can teach. The bad habits that children learn from other children in school should be proof enough that it's untrue.
The difference between parenting and teaching is that the student is one's own offspring. Everything parents do to raise the child is a form of education. It includes being responsible enough to monitor teachers, weigh the results of schooling, and make changes or adjustments as appropriate. Conclusively, accountability for a child's education doesn't end when he or she starts school of any kind.
The mind is at its most
23:20 July 16th 2012
The mind is at its most dynamic during childhood years. Stimuation at an earlier age should generally be a recipe for positive cognitive benefits in the future. If early environmental factors play such a huge role in a person's future why not the quality of one's preschool education?
Add new comment