ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

I was taken aback by this posting. While I agree that we should not be thinking about "wiring" babies for success with gimmicky products, the framing presented by this author was concerning to me.

Particularly this statement:

"Even if neuroscience evidence did show unequivocally that the years from zero to three are the most important for children's development — and it does not — that wouldn't tell us how, or even if, governments can intervene effectively during that time to improve child development or life outcomes.."

There is ample data, not just from neuroscience (though the body of research is quite robust), but also from attachment related research, from sociology of education studies, from the infant mental health studies, and from studies on trauma, that absolutely, the early years are indeed critically important.

We also do have excellent policy recommendations resulting from what we know about these sensitive years, and many initiatives have already been implemented (such as the CLASS assessment, now used by Head Start).

I think I understand the interpretive problem however. Some would say, children don't need all that much during their early years to thrive - not Baby Einstein products, nor academically rigorous early education programs that gear children for "success". Children from stable home environments with loving parents/caregivers will likely do fine.

Here's what this equation leaves out: children from high-risk backgrounds DO need quality early environments with skilled teachers who establish caring, trusting relationships with children and foster what Koplow and others have called a "healting" environment. Studies have shown that quality programs do effect their trajectories positively.

Further, if a child from what we consider to be a stable, or low-risk household finds themselves in a poor quality program, harm can be done. And quite a few of our children today are in care.

So, the point is, children in early education and care programs, need those programs to be of high quality.

There is more than enough data to make that case.

Zero to three programs may not be as important as some may have thought ,but pre -k programs may provide an important social emotional experience. They also offer an opportunity for children to have exposure to multiple play scenarios where free choice and problem solving are key elements .The unfortunate reality of Kindergarten programs these days is that the focus is on Academic milestones, and little if any time for play and the multitude of developmental stages supported through play.

One of the best things parents can do for their infant is breastfeed their baby until the child weans himself off. And other than that, allow the child to explore & discover, supporting the child's efforts. Follow the lead of the child, and then scaffold their learning verbally and physically, but allow them to do as much as possible. All early childhood educators, parents & families included, should view all of Magda Gerber's videos. That would make a great parent meeting activity, with a discussion afterwards.

We have sufficient evidence that the first three years are important.