The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Investing in early childhood > Comments

Investing in early childhood : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 27/2/2006

Bright children can't buy good parents.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I have been spruiking the work of Heckman and related US research in Queensland for several years to little effect, and will do so again shortly in a publication in which I use education as an example of the merits of holistic policy. I argue that "A persistent failing in Queensland policy development is that policies in different areas tend to be developed in isolation from, and ignorance of, related or opposed policies in other areas. There is no unifying principle, no comprehensive strategic oversight of how policies interact." Education is a case in point, where for example the school-leaving age was raised as a knee-jerk policy based on simplistic analysis which failed to consider the broader educational, economic and social issues and evidence. Conversely, the extensive US evidence on successful early-intervention programs is ignored.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 27 February 2006 10:16:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Early intervention and changing methods of educating the young seem to pay dividends as you indicate. The findings are similar to those reported by the child trauma academy, www.ChildTrauma.org and noted in several published papers including those of Bruce D Perry at this site.
The real interest is in the way the brain functions and how plastic it is, more so in the young. Nature and nurture.
Ways of thinking and behaviour can be altered, as any Government knows, thus propaganda.
Fear, trauma and rejection can be powerful drivers of outlook again as Governments know, viz terrorists in Australia, or people of differing colour and beliefs.
Early child hood trauma can alter the way the neural connections continue in the brain, for those that are retained, most being rendered inoperative, are those most frequently used.
Similar effects operate in the older brain though here the mechanism is not as clear and the effects moderated by past experience.
Why won’t a trial be organised? Shouts of social engineering, left wing rubbish are the common rebuttals of any proposal. Similar to the response to a trial trying toassess ways of looking at drug addiction. Though religious indoctrination and that of Australian ways is seen as democratic and useful for stability of society, no social engineering here.

Mind you not too much for Australia needs the less adjusted for the hewers and drawers of water for the elite, (adjusted?). Needs those whom trauma have made more amenable to authority and the belief that economics encompasses life, well for the lower classes any way. Besides which how can those who make war and lie expect to be able to do so if there is a thinking electorate wanting to be accurately informed? How can anyone be superior and righteous if there are few who contravene its mores?
Or is it just the common bind, the catch twenty two that those who currently rule have themselves been programmed to certain behaviour?
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 27 February 2006 10:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino,
So you feel that a holistic yank approach is required in Queensland, an interesting concept. Would we go on to be a republic, and elect a President, who like George.Dubbya, is a testimony to the yank education system. All of these questions, and more when our good ol' yank mate Faustino returns.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 27 February 2006 1:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga, lots of policies interact with each other, in Queensland I've seen many which pull in opposite directions, and many which won't achieve their stated aims because they are framed in ignorance of, or in contradiction to, relevant evidence. To be effective, policies must be based on sound principles, good theory and empirical evidence, and connected with other relevant fields. For example, extending the compulsory school leaving age to boost productivity and economic growth without understanding the economics of this, and whether it wil actually achieve its aims, is bad policy. Will Queensland be a more attractive place for business investment if kids who want to leave school early are forced to stay on? I don't think so. An extreme case was when Qld DPI put two submissions to State Cabinet on the same day, one saying that the Government-owned Cannon Hill abbatoir should be closed immediately because of excess capacity in the industry (the beef industry facing reality), the other saying that it must be expanded to boost exports of pork which we couldn't sell here because of Danish competition (the pork industry denying reality). So arguing for holistic policy is common sense, nothing to do with the US.

But as regards early childhood intervention in dysfunctional/disadvantaged families, there is a vast amount of research done in the US, it shows what works, what doesn't, what gives the best results. In this country, The Smith Family (whose strategic policy head is American) is promoting ECI as the best way to deal with poverty. Whether one is pro- or anti-US or neutral, the fact is that a vast amount of good research is done there, and is publicly available; we should draw on it.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 27 February 2006 3:51:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for a well reasoned piece, Andrew, which supports a section in my recent book - What Was It All For? The Reshaping of Australia. You might have titled it 'good parents produce bright children', for the causal arrows go both ways.

And as for policies pulling in opposite directions, we once had the situation where the Commonwealth was paying dairy farmers to leave their blocks while Victoria was paying them to start. Whole-of-government policies are actually very hard to achieve, because outcomes are always seen in terms of the silo from which people come.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 27 February 2006 4:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that much needs to be done and despair that we as a nation are so apathetic. Though the report from the USA sounds solid and feasible, as do trials in other western countries, the USA is remiss in instituting these programmes. Parents in the USA can barely afford medical attention for their children on their minimal wages, see that no matter how hard they work, there is little light shining up the road to 'happiness'. Working 12 hour days and often 2 jobs, many parents do not have the energy to look for answers. Survival takes much from all. When one lives day to day, looking 15 years ahead is like looking into the night sky and wondering at the meaning of life, its all a question with few answers to satisfy, where only the educated may consider the philosophy.

Instead of looking toward a culture that produces wonderful reports then does little to act upon it, is pointless.

We have the skills, we have the abilities, and many people willing to devote much time to this. Public servants should be kept to a minimum as they put so much red tape and rubbish in place, that it is night impossible to institute many hands on programmes. I would hope that this terrible problem stays at the forefront of the media and that there may be good strong results. Hope is a cruel word
Posted by tinkerbell1952, Monday, 27 February 2006 9:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tinkerbell 1952,
Yes it is one thing to put out a reprt, however how much faith can be had in a report, when the yanks don't even institute their own report? The yanks are the most dysfunctional socieity on Earth, in the western world.

How can you make ANY report work in a State based enviroment, without Federal funding for any progress, let alone a positive change.

One need only to look at Federal Education budget breakdowns, to see what proirity Johhny "Bonsai" Howard gives the the majority of school students. Pulic Education continues to be grossly underfunded, with the obvious outcomes, despite the Federal Government having a forecast budget surplus of $17 billion. This government seems to be able to disregard the nation's Health and Education and have the apathy work for them, in as much as the lunatics still vote for them.

Bonsai is a little Bush.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 3:20:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Leigh chants the mantra of every trendy lefty. All social problems can be solved if the Australian taxpayer just keeps funding ever more social workers. But "Buggins Law" of social work states that "Social problems increase in direct proportion to those social workers hired to solve them." Perhaps Andrew is touting for business for his friends?

Here is a couple of solutions Andrew, which won't cost the Aussie taxpayer a penny.

With 50% of inmates in French jails Muslims, and with certain notorious ethnic groups in this country very much over represented in Australia's jails and dole queues, considerable outlay on future social catastrophes can be avoided by simply instigating a more discriminating immigration program.

Second. Tightening up our censorship laws to stop entertainment industry moguls from targetting our most vulnerable children for programs which they, like the tobacco companies before them, know are dangerous to them. We can no longer allow these filthy rich corporations to use sophisticated marketting techniques to by pass parental controls and target children for shows which endorse violence, drug abuse, criminality and anti social behaviour.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 4:25:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck I endorse your second comment entirely. The deliberate and subversive advertising is just sickening. It's worse than the worst Cold War propaganda machine (on either side) that anyone can think of.

However, your opening comment belies an ignorance of the siphoning of funding away from social programs, including education. It's not that "more money" or "more social workers" are needed - it's that we need to return the funding to the levels at which we once had them!! I keep thinking of Jonathan Kozol's comment from his wealthy Republican friend - "Do you really think we can help these people just by throwing money at them?"
Posted by petal, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 8:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA, You don't have to go to the feds to start to fix the Qld education system.
My kids have been trying to get an education through this joke for 18 years.
About 15% of the teachers not competent in the subjects they teach, in country senior high schools.
Maths C teachers who have no Calculas, Physics teachers, with such poor english, the kids have trouble getting the words, let alone the concepts. Then there are the foreign qualified ones, with no clue at all. We don't just hire dud doctors from offshore.
2 of my kids have had coaching from a good teacher who quit, when he was ordered to teach Senior maths. He said, "how can I teach it, when I can't do it"?
Sort out the sheltered work shop that the Queensland Education Dept. has become, [sound familiar] before you start wasting even more funds.
Hasbee
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:20:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent piece!

Intervention is one thing, but the situation has much wider ramifications than the disadvantaged. Let's look at all children.

Any school teacher can tell you that parents in droves are outsourcing their parental responsibilities onto schools. More and more, teachers are having to try to take up basic child rearing deficiencies, on top of their teaching roles. And its not just reading to them. It is developing values, exerting discipline, coping with aggression, unhealthy eating habits... the list is very long. This, in turn, is debilitating the ability of schools to undertake their core functions of classical education - another critical issue of these times.

The problem for teachers is that they can compensate, in part, for poor parenting, but at the end of the day the child is principally a product of family.

Why is this trend growing so alarmingly? And why is it invading all social strata?

I am no expert, but it must partly come down to the lives we lead in this increasingly competitive economy. Two-income families find they have inadequate quality time with their kids. (Kids can't thrive on love alone.) Simultaneosuly, our latchkey kids are more and more exposed to powerful consumer messages. Instant gratification, instant food, instant everything.

Should we blame parents for this? Well, yes and no. Parents themselves do need basic education on effective child rearing. But in the main, economic pressures and government policy is forcing well-intentioned parents away from effective child rearing.

It may be socially much more desirable, for instance, for single mothers to devote their energy into their children, rather than for be shoehorned into the workforce.
Posted by gecko, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is anyone out there going to argue that stability in familes - a secure bread-winner job, marital fidelity, family support - is the only real answer? Yeh, but such a propsition relies on people acting selflessly & in co-operation for a common goal!

When society sees strong families as a policy option based on the myriad personal choice lifestyles rather than an integral element for a succesful society to pursue with matters economic and societal falling into place etc.

This 'patriachal' paradigm is based on modern society's inability to judge certain options as 'illegitimate.' This judgmental approach has its downsides, but, if everything is relatively "ok" then where does the line get drawn?
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 4:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy