MA 1

Chapter Introduction

What factors have made you who you are today?

Does your answer emphasize genes, or does it

place greater emphasis on experiences in your

family, school, or culture? Did these factors make

you similar or different from others your age? In

this chapter, we discuss how research helps

answer questions like these. After you read this

chapter, you will be able to:

1-1

Describe methods of scientific research in

child development.

1-2

Recognize how genes and the environment

interact to influence development.

1-3

Recognize risk factors and foster protective

factors that influence development.

1-4

Use risk and protective factors to analyze

the effects of preschool.

1-1

The Science of Child Development

An 18-month-old boy is left at preschool. When his mother returns, he runs to

her and wants to be picked up. She picks him up briefly and puts him down. He

cries and clamors to be picked up. She turns from him. He cries strongly. She

intentionally refuses to pick him up because she says she doesn’t want him to

be too dependent on her, “Him being a boy and all.” She doesn’t want him to

get “funny” by having to feel secure. She says she thinks he might “go gay” if

she spoils him.

(Adapted from Smyke, 1997)

You may be amused or outraged by this mother’s view of what

causes overdependence and homosexuality. Do you believe that

feeling secure is bad for toddlers? Can you “spoil” children by

picking them up when they cry? Your belief about how crying

toddlers should be handled is your personal theory. Throughout this

text, you will learn about formal, research-based theories of child

development that will help make your personal theories clearer to

you and challenge the accuracy of some so that you can provide the

best possible classroom for your students.

Theories are developed from careful, systematic study as scientists

seek to discover basic principles of child development. You might

ask, “Are there general principles? Isn’t each child unique?”

Although each child is unique, there are still principles of

development that apply across children. What might these be? The

answer depends on your theory of child development.

1-1a

Child Development Theories: A Brief Overview

A theory of development is simply an organized group of principles

used to explain some aspect of children’s development. Theories

help you interpret what you observe in children, and suggest the

best way to promote their development. In later chapters, you are

introduced to major theories of child development and some of their

most influential proponents. To get started, we present here a brief

overview of these theories.

Views of child development have changed over time. In the early

1900s, for example, many psychologists believed that children are

genetically endowed with abilities that just need to unfold as

children mature (Collins, 2002). Believers in this maturation

perspective thought that how children change across time is

genetically determined for all children, regardless of their different

experiences.

Other psychologists are environmentalists who emphasize the role

of the environment and claim that children’s development is driven

by experience within the family and culture. Early

environmentalists tended to see children as relatively passive

because they receive influence from their environment, like clay

being molded in the hands of an artist. A new view arose that

recognized that children actively contribute to their own

development by the way they think about their experiences. Jean

Piaget, a key figure we discuss in Chapter 3, was a primary

proponent of this view.

Table 1.1 gives a simplified overview of contemporary theories.

These theories differ in their view of what drives children’s

development. Some theories give greater emphasis to maturation

(i.e., nature) as a cause of behavior, and others, to the environment

(i.e., nurture). These theories also differ in what aspect of child

development they seek to explain and whether they describe

children as active or passive contributors to their own development.

Spend a few minutes examining this table to compare the theories,

but do not try to memorize them. We discuss each theory in greater

detail in later chapters. Revisit the table for a review when you

finish the text.

Table 1.1

Overview of Major Theories of Child Development

Theor y and major theori st

Ba sic aim

Emp hasi s: gen eral age tren ds for all chil dren vers us how indi vidu als are diffe rent

Forces that drive developme nt

Emp hasi s: natu re or nurt ure?

Do mai ns of dev elo pm ent the the ory expl ains well

Bioec ologic

To hig hlig ht the mul tipl e lay ers of

Both Heredity and environmen t act together to influence developme nt. Does not specify

Both Any

al Model

Urie Bronfe nbrenn er (Chapt ers 1 & 17)

infl uen ce on the chil d

particular processes.

Etholo gy

Konrad Lorenz and Nikola as

To und erst and the fun ctio ns of beh avi or in diff ere

Focu ses on spec ies- wide age tren ds, but not indiv idual differ

Genetically based processes shaped by evolution drive developme nt. Behavior becomes incorporate d into the biology of a species because it

Natu re

Attach ment Emotio ns Aggres sion Langu age

Tinber gen (Chapt er 4)

nt spe cies

ence s.

promotes breeding success. Compares human and animal behavior. Emphasis is on innate behaviors.

Behavi orism

B. F. Skinne r (Chapt

To exp lain lear ned beh avi or

Focu ses on indiv idual differ ence s, whic h are the resul t of differ ent histo ries of reinf orce

The child is passive; reinforcem ent and punishment drive developme nt. Behaviors that are reinforced are more likely to reoccur. Emphasis is on observable behavior. Concepts of mind, cognition, and inner

Nurt ure

Any learne d behavi or. Does not explain innate behavi ors, like smiling , or why some things are

ers 3, 7 & 11)

ment .

experience s are ignored. Useful for managing children’s behavior problems.

reinfor cing.

Social Cognit ive (or Social Learni ng) Theor y

Albert Bandur a

To exp lain acq uisit ion of beh avi or and cog niti ons suc h as attit

Grea ter emp hasi s on indiv idual differ ence s, espe cially on beha vior and attitu de chan ge, not age

An expansion of behavioris m/learning theory. Children learn from models or others who are reinforced. This requires children to remember and interpret things they have observed— which means cognition is

Nurt ure

Any learne d behavi or

(Chapt er 15)

ude s

tren ds.

involved. The child actively interprets reinforcem ent.

Cognit ive Develo pment al Theor y

Jean Piaget (Chapt ers 3,

To exp lain the dev elo pm ent of logi cal tho ugh t and mor al jud

Age tren ds are stron gly emp hasi zed and age- base d “stag es” of cogn itive deve lopm ent are

Innate cognitive maturation (with some social interaction) drives developme nt. Children actively “construct” their own knowledge through exploration. Abilities are similar, even with different cultural experience. Maturation limits logical reasoning ability, so

Natu re Mat urati on (with som e envir onm ental influ ence s)

Knowl edge

Logical reason ing

7, 11, & 15)

gm ent

outli ned.

children’s cognitive developme nt is stage-like.

Socioc ultural Theor y

Lev Vygots ky (Chapt ers 7 & 11)

To exp lain acq uisit ion of kno wle dge and lan gua ge abili ty

Age tren ds are not emp hasi zed. Indiv idual differ ence s are a resul t of uniq ue soci al expe

Developme nt occurs through interaction with others. Cognitive growth is collaborativ e (not within the child). The child’s thought is the result of internalizin g dialogue with others. Developme nt cannot be separated from social

Nurt ure

Knowl edge Cultura lly valued skills

Langu age

rienc es.

and cultural interaction.

Inform ation Proce ssing

Variou s theorist s (Chapt ers 3, 7, 11 & 15)

Social Inform ation

The ste p-b y-st ep pro ces sin g of info rma tion

Age tren ds are the resul t of faste r and mor e effici ent proc essi ng. Indiv idual differ ence s are the resul t of innat e capa city and

Like a computer, the child receives sensory input, manipulate s information, and then responds with output. This view focuses predomina ntly on what is happening inside the child’s mind, but includes input from the environmen t. What is studied is narrow (i.e., logical flow of

Both Proble m solving Memor y

Decisi on making Attenti on Aggres sion

Proce ssing

Kennet h Dodge (Chapt er 13)

expe rienc e (i.e., prior kno wled ge).

information ). Useful for targeting intervention s for specific processing problems.

Psych odyna mic

Sigmu nd Freud (Chapt er 8)

To exp lain per son ality and neu rosi s

Age tren ds are emp hasi zed with age- base d “stag es” of psyc hose xual deve lopm ent. Indiv idual differ ence s in pers onali ty are the resul t of early pare nt–c hild inter

How parents gratify (vs. frustrate) biologically based drives influences personality. Children can become fixated at a particular stage. A newer version, the neo-psycho analytic view, asserts that the goal of behavior is to regulate and maintain internal and interactiona l harmony with others. Early parent–chil d interaction is internalized and influences later

Both Person ality Attach ment Emotio ns

Moralit y

Humor

actio n.

experience. Emphasize s the unseen workings of the mind.

The uncons cious

Theories are important to teachers because they guide decisions

about classroom practices and because they guide research. Indeed,

all of your behavior as a teacher is based upon your own theory of

instruction. If you believe children learn best by imitating an expert,

your theory is different from that of someone who believes children

learn best by trying things out on their own. In developmental

science, research results are used to test and improve theories. In the

next section, we explain the research methods on which formal

child development theories are based.

1-1b

Research Methods Why does a teacher need to know research methods? Federal

mandates require educators to use “scientifically based research” to

guide decisions about how to teach. To help, the federal Department

of Education maintains a What Works Clearinghouse website.

Imagine that you are a preschool teacher and want to try a new

reading program to help a bilingual student learn to read, or you

might be a high school teacher looking for a curriculum to help

struggling teen readers. Imagine you are on a committee looking for

a bullying prevention program for your school. In any of these roles,

you could search the clearinghouse for a program. It would tell you

if there was research on the program, the caliber of the research, and

the effectiveness of the program. In this section, we introduce you

to the basics of research methods so that you can learn to assess the

quality of research, a professional skill that is now important for

teachers. To begin, let’s look at the three basic research

designs—experimental, nonexperimental, and qualitative designs.

Experimental Designs

Although people commonly use the term

experiment to refer to any kind of research, for

psychologists the term has a very specific

meaning. In a simple experiment, you change

something in the learner’s environment and

measure the results. For example, a teacher could

try a different phonics approach to see if students

learn to read more easily. Such informal

experiments can be useful but cannot pinpoint the

cause of an outcome like improved reading skills.

To determine the cause of outcomes, scientists

use controlled experiments.

In a controlled experiment, learners are placed in

at least two groups: an intervention group or a

control group. The intervention group gets a

special treatment, but the control group does not.

Outcomes for the two groups are compared. For

example, to determine whether a phonics program

results in better reading skills, you could place

half of your 1st-graders in a phonics program and

the other half in a different program. If learners in

the phonics program develop better reading skills

compared to the control group, you have evidence

(not proof) that the phonics program might work.

However, what if the learners in the phonics

program were “smarter” or already had better

skills than the control group? For an experiment

to demonstrate cause and effect—that the

intervention and not something else caused an

outcome like improved reading skills—the

control group should be similar to the

intervention group in all attributes. To increase

the probability that groups are similar, researchers

use random assignment. This means each

learner has an equal chance of being put in the

intervention group or the control group. Even

with random assignment, you might conclude that

a phonics program is more likely to produce

literate children, but not that the phonics program

makes all children literate. Thus, research is

about probability, not certainty.

Nonexperimental Correlational Designs

Experiments cannot always be used because they

may be unethical or impractical. For example, if

you want to understand the effect of prenatal

alcohol exposure on children, it would not be

ethical to randomly assign some pregnant mothers

to drink five beers a day and other mothers to

drink none. In a case like this, nonexperimental

correlational research designs are used in which

researchers measure variables as they naturally

occur, without intervention. (A variable is

anything that varies and is measured, like number

of ounces of alcohol per day or percent correct on

a test.) Researchers might, for example, measure

how much mothers drank during their

pregnancies and compare that to their children’s

reading test scores to determine whether the two

variables are related.

Think about This

In a study of children adopted from Romanian orphanages, the longer the time spent in the orphanage before being adopted, the lower the cognitive ability (O’Connor et al.,

2000). Would this be a positive or negative r? How would you graph this?

A correlation is a measure of the relationship

between two variables. The correlation

coefficient, or r, indicates the statistical strength

of the relationship. A perfect positive correlation,

or , means that a plot of the variables follows a

straight line (see Figure 1.1). That is, if you know

a value for one variable, you can predict with

perfect accuracy the corresponding value for the

other variable. A positive correlation means that

higher values on one variable go with higher

values on the other. For example, higher levels of

fathers’ education predict higher levels of

children’s reading ability. If there is a perfect

negative correlation, then . A negative correlation

means that higher values on one variable go with

lower values on the other. For example, higher

levels of prenatal alcohol exposure predict lower

levels of children’s reading ability. Strong

correlations can be either positive (e.g., +0.60) or

negative (e.g., −0.60). If there is no association

between the variables, then . Correlation

coefficients are not percentages; a correlation of

0.40 does not mean 40% of anything.

Figure 1.1

Correlation Coefficients

If you covered up the “r” statistic, could you guess it

approximately? Explain correlation to a friend, and

then test him or her.

Correlations between any two variables in child

development research are rarely close to 1.00. In

fact, very few are even as large as 0.50, and a

correlation of 0.35 is considered large enough to

draw attention. This is because important child

outcomes are influenced by many variables—not

just the one being measured in a study. For

example, good reading ability is not the result of a

single variable, like intelligence, involved

parents, or effective schools. Rather, each of these

variables (and many others) combines to

influence reading ability.

Qualitative Designs

In experiments and correlational studies,

scientists apply numbers to variables, such as

fathers’ education and children’s reading ability,

and then use statistics to analyze their

relationship. This is a quantitative approach. In

contrast, qualitative research involves

interviews, observations of natural behavior, and

other forms of data that are usually reported in

words rather than numbers. The researcher may

spend anywhere from hours to years observing

and interacting with youth in order to accurately

tell their story. For example, in one study

researchers investigated the emotions that

students felt—especially pride—as they

developed understanding of science concepts

(Bellocchi & Ritchie, 2015). Another study

investigated how kindergarten students thought

that being “smart” meant obeying teachers (Hatt,

2012). Qualitative studies like these can provide

rich insight into learners’ thoughts and behavior

not captured in quantitative designs.

Studies of Change over Time

Imagine you want to know how children’s

aggression changes with age. You could follow

one group of children for 12 years, assessing the

same children at ages 4, 10, and 16. This is a

longitudinal research design. What if you can’t

wait for 12 years? You could assess groups of 4-,

10-, and 16-year-olds at one time, which would

not really study change over time, but would

suggest whether children of different ages differ

in their aggression. This is a cross-sectional

research design. A cross-sectional design gathers

data from different age groups at one point in

time, and a longitudinal design gathers data from

one group over multiple points in time.

Each research design has strengths and

limitations. For example, longitudinal studies

allow you to identify factors that might improve

children’s lives over time. However, they take a

long time before results are available, and it is

difficult to keep children involved over multiple

years. Experiments can establish what causes a

particular outcome; however, sometimes they are

not ethical or practical, so correlational designs

are used instead. Qualitative studies provide rich

descriptions and deep insight into a small group

of young people’s lives, but may not generalize to

most other youth. Because each design has

limitations, a mature field of science uses

multiple designs.

In addition to the design of research, there are

four other key issues to understand when you read

research findings:

(1)

causality,

(2)

measurement,

(3)

generalizability, and

(4)

effect size.

We’ll discuss these next.

Causality

Most studies of child development are

correlational. Therefore, it is important to

understand their critical weakness: they cannot

demonstrate that one variable causes another

variable. If variables A and B are correlated, A

could cause B, or B could cause A, or both could

cause each other, or C could cause both A and B.

For example:

(1)

hostile mothers could cause hostile

children;

(2)

hostile children could cause hostile

mothers;

(3)

the variables could be bidirectional,

meaning that hostile children and hostile

mothers influence each other; or

(4)

a third variable, like hostile fathers or a

genetic predisposition to be hostile, could

cause both children’s and mothers’

hostility.

It is common for people to mistakenly assume

causality from correlational studies. For example,

years ago, research found that while reading, poor

readers make more erratic eye movements than

good readers. Interventions using special

equipment and specially trained teachers

attempted to teach poor readers improved eye

movements (Stanovich, 1992). Later it was found

that erratic eye movements do not cause poor

reading, but rather poor reading causes erratic eye

movements because poor readers have trouble

recognizing words and understanding their

meaning. Millions of dollars were wasted on

special interventions. The critical lesson is that

you cannot assume causation from correlational

studies, although such studies can tell you the size

of the relationship between two variables. As a

teacher, you will probably be asked to help

choose a curriculum or program for your school,

so be prepared to think about what kind of

evidence you would need to justify your

selection. The What Works Clearinghouse is a

federally sponsored website that gives precedence

to controlled experiments over correlational

studies because policy makers are usually

interested in whether programs cause specific

outcomes. When scientists use terms such as

predict, linked, correlated, and associated, they

are usually referring to correlational studies.

Watch for these terms throughout this text.

Measurement

Researchers measure development in many ways:

observations of behavior, ratings by a teacher or

parent, self-report, and physiological markers

such as level of hormones or brain images. Each

form of measurement has weaknesses and

strengths. For example, self-report (when

respondents tell you what they think or fill out a

survey) allows you to get inside the minds of

those who respond, but children and youth can be

biased, have trouble communicating, or

misunderstand questions. Direct observations by

researchers may be more objective, but they are

costly, may not capture rare but important

behaviors such as fights in school, and can

change behavior because of the observer’s

presence. If learners are observed in an artificial,

controlled setting, results may not apply to

real-world settings. Parent or teacher

questionnaires are inexpensive and easy to

administer, but they can be biased and may be

different from youths’ self-reports. Again, a

mature field of science uses multiple methods to

compensate for the weaknesses of any single

method.

Reliability and validity are two ways of

describing how “good” a measure is. Validity

refers to the accuracy of a test or measurement:

does it really measure what it claims to measure?

The validity of a measure depends on the purpose

for which it is used. For example, a proficiency

test might be valid for deciding whether students

are mastering grade-level content, but not for

deciding which students would benefit from

special education.

Reliability refers to the consistency of a test or

measurement. A reliable measure yields nearly

the same results across time, so that you get about

the same results today as next week. A reliable

measure also yields the same results if

administered by two different teachers under the

same conditions. Short tests tend to be less

reliable, so when you design a test, it is better to

use 20 items than 10 items. A test cannot be valid

if it is not reliable.

Validity and reliability are important because

many decisions are made on the basis of

measures. Such decisions include who receives

special education services, who gets into which

colleges, and what instructional strategy you use

with a particular child. You should always ask

whether a test is valid and reliable. For example,

are IQ tests valid for selecting gifted students?

Are readiness tests valid for deciding who is

ready for kindergarten? Are your classroom tests

valid and reliable enough to use for assigning

grades?

Generalizability

It is not possible to include all learners in a study.

Instead, a sample or subgroup is studied with the

intent of generalizing the results to a larger group.

When samples of learners are carefully selected

to represent larger groups, research results should

apply to other learners in the larger group. In the

past, most research focused on White,

middle-class learners. It was not clear if these

results could be generalized to other learners. In

recent decades, researchers have been careful to

sample low-income learners, learners of color,

and learners outside North America so that results

are more generalizable (Hagen, 2007).

One factor that limits generalizability is the

cohort effect. A cohort is a group of children

born about the same time who experience unique

political, economic, and social trends. You are a

member of a cohort. A cohort effect, also called a

generation effect, is an outcome caused by the

particular era in which the cohort grows up. Some

cohorts are labeled, like Baby Boomers and

Millennials. There are cohort effects for

intelligence (Chapter 15), personality (Chapter

16), and aggression (Chapter 17). That is, today’s

children on the average have higher intelligence,

but they are more anxious, neurotic, and

aggressive than past generations. Research

conducted on one cohort might not generalize to a

different cohort.

Effect Size

The concept of effect size has become

increasingly important for teachers because of

recent emphasis on raising test scores and using

evidence-based curricula. Effect size is a measure

of the strength of the relationship between two

variables, or how much more effective one

intervention is than another. The What Works

Clearinghouse website reports the effect size of

interventions to help you make decisions about

your classroom practices. For example, you could

compare the effect size of different curricula

designed to help bilingual students, or struggling

teens, learn to read.

Effect size is reported in decimal numbers. Effect

sizes of 0.10 to 0.20 are commonly considered as

small, 0.25 to 0.40 as medium, 0.50 to 0.80 or

greater as large, and anything over 1.0 as quite

large, but this is only a fuzzy standard. An effect

size of 0.30 means that the 50th-ranked student in

a group of 100 would move to 39th place if only

he or she experienced the intervention (Cooper,

2008). Table 1.2 shows effect sizes of

interventions in different fields.

Table 1.2

Effect Sizes of Interventions in Different Fields

Intervention E f f e c t s i z e

Medical treatments (life-threateni ng illness)

0 . 0 8 – 0 . 4 7

Medical treatments (non-life-threa tening illness)

0 . 2 4 – 0 . 8 0

Counseling interventions (social skills training, drug use

0 . 2 7 –

prevention, career education, in-school prevention programs)

1 . 2 0

Parent involvement in education

0 . 1 4 – 0 . 3 0

Active learning (compared to

0 .

passive lecture)

4 7

Study skills and strategies

0 . 5 9 – 0 . 6 9

Spaced practice rather than massed

0 . 7 1

practice (cramming)

Direct instruction

0 . 5 9

Inquiry-based teaching

0 . 3 1

Cooperative learning

0 . 4 1

Retention (holding students back a grade)

− 0 . 1 6 ( o u t c o m e s a r e w o r s

e )

Source: Adapted from Freeman et al. (2014), Hattie (2009), Jeynes (2012), Kim and Hill (2015), and Lipsey and Wilson (1993).

Whether an effect size is meaningful depends on

the situation. Even a small effect can be important

if the stakes are high. For example, the effect size

of taking aspirin to prevent heart attacks is only

0.07, or a 3% to 4% difference between those

who get heart attacks after using aspirin

compared to those that do not (Lipsey & Wilson,

1993), yet many physicians recommend aspirin

therapy to save lives. Similarly, although maternal

sensitivity has a modest effect on attachment, you

might consider it important if your child’s

emotional well-being is at stake. As a teacher,

you may want to change classroom practices that

have a small effect if the outcomes are important,

the changes are cheap or easy to make, and you

do not have more effective alternatives. Thus,

interpreting the importance of effect sizes

requires judgment.

One major topic of research is the relative

contribution of, or effect size for, genes and the

environment. This is the nature-versus-nurture

question. Nature refers to the influence of a

child’s genes on development. Nurture refers to

the influence of a child’s physical and social

environment on development. It is important that

you understand the influences of nature and

nurture on development, because this

understanding will help you create an optimal

environment for your learners. In the next section,

we take an in-depth look at the nature-and-nurture

balance.

1-2

Nature and Nurture Crystal and Garth are twins in the same kindergarten class. Garth likes to point

out his superiority in sports and school. He says, “I scored two goals in our last

game, and Crystal didn’t score any.” He says, “My teacher always tells me I am

a good reader, but she has to help Crystal all the time.” Garth does not get

praised for doing well in school, but his sister does; in fact, she got a bracelet

for improving her reading. When their mother picks them up from school, she

always asks to see Garth’s schoolwork, but just tells Crystal that she looks cute.

Garth does better in all academic subjects. He can read and write his name.

Crystal does not read, and writes her name poorly. Their puzzled teacher asks

about these differences. Mother explains that Crystal has always liked to dress

up and was never interested in books. She says that Crystal was “just born that

way,” implying the twins’ differences are genetic. She does not seem to notice

that she treats her children differently.

Could Crystal and Garth’s differences be due to genetics (nature) or

to the way their mother treats them (nurture), or both? The

bioecological model (see Box 1.1) helps frame an answer to this

question. In this model, nature refers to the innermost biological

circle of influence, which includes genes. Nurture refers to all

circles beyond the learner, which can include parent–child

relationships, peer interaction, school experiences, and culture. In

this section we will discuss how both genes and culture—the two

extremes in the bioecological model—influence development.

Box 1.1

Theories & Theorists: The Bioecological Model

The bioecological model presented a change in thinking from a “nature vs.

nurture” tug-of-war to a view that they interact over time to influence

children’s development. It was developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner

(1917–2005), a Russian-born psychologist who pointed out that children are

influenced by social, economic, and political forces as well as their family. The

model is portrayed with concentric circles (see Figure 1.2) that represent nested

systems. Each system is an ecological level, with the biological child at the

core, hence the name bioecological. The child is at the core because the effects

of any other factor in the model are modified by the child’s traits

(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The child’s traits can be biological (e.g., low

birth weight) or psychological (e.g., temperament or intelligence).

Figure 1.2

Bioecological Model

According to the bioecological model, the child is embedded within a

series of increasingly distal sets of influences.

Based on Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006).

The next level is the microsystem. This includes the interactions, activities, and

relationships of the child in settings that physically contain the child, such as

the family, school, neighborhood, and peer group. The mesosystem is a system

of two or more microsystems, such as home and school. The exosystem refers

to the linkages between two settings, one of which does not physically contain

the child but influences the child indirectly, such as the parent’s workplace.

The macrosystem refers to culture, which contains specific patterns of micro-,

meso-, and exosystems. Culture determines what is acceptable and possible in

the other levels. Public policy may be thought of as macrosystem. For example,

welfare policy may not affect children directly, but affects them by changing

the childcare environment (Yoshikawa & Hsueh, 2001). The chronosystem

adds the dimension of time. It refers to change and consistency across the life

course of a particular child, as well as cohort effects over historical time.

These ecological levels form a hierarchy of influence on children’s

development from proximal (near) to distal (far) factors. Proximal processes

exist in the immediate environment, such as parent–child interaction; they are

the most powerful processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Rosa & Tudge,

2013). A key proposition of the model is that both the child and the

environment influence these proximal processes.

In later chapters, you will see how each of these levels influences child

outcomes. For the time being, consider the case of drug use. The child:

Children’s traits like decision-making skills and attitude toward drug use are

associated with drug use, as are children’s genetic factors. The microsystem:

Children’s drug use is higher in families where parents use and the family

environment is dysfunctional. Children’s drug use is lower in schools that are

caring and where children feel bonded. The mesosystem: Children are more

vulnerable to attending an uncaring school if they also come from a

dysfunctional family (Ennett et al., 2008). The exosystem: Children’s drug use

is higher in communities that approve of use among adults (Coate &

Grossman, 1985). One implication of this model is that interventions will be

most effective if they target multiple levels of the child’s environment. Thus,

an effective intervention for drug use would alter children’s attitudes about

drugs, change parents’ drug use, create more caring schools, and change

community acceptance of use.

1-2a

Nature: The Role of Genes in Individual Diversity

Behavioral genetics is the study of how genes and the environment

contribute to differences among people. According to behavioral

genetics, differences in any trait are due to three sources (Pike,

2002):

(1)

genes,

(2)

shared environment, and

(3)

nonshared environment.

Genes and Heritability

Heritability is a statistical estimate of the amount

of variation of a trait in a population that is due to

genes. Heritability is commonly misunderstood,

so remember that it is not an estimate of the

percent of genetic influence on the trait. Instead,

it is about amount of variation that is due to

genes. Thus, if intelligence has a heritability of

0.50 among White, middle-class adolescents, then

50% of the variation in intelligence within that

population is due to genes and the remaining

variation is due to shared or nonshared

environment.

How do scientists make such estimates? They

compare children with different genetic

relatedness, such as twin, adopted, and half

siblings. A common approach is to compare

identical twins with fraternal twins. Identical

twins share 100% of their genes, and fraternal

twins share about 50% of their genes, as do

non-twin full siblings (see Photo 1.1). Half

siblings share about 25% of their genes. Adopted

and stepsiblings are genetically unrelated.

Photo 1.1

Heritable traits should be more similar for identical

twins than for non-twin siblings.

© iStock.com/Rosemarie Gearhart

If genes affect variation in a trait, then siblings

who share more genes should be more similar in

that trait. This means that identical (monozygotic)

twins should be more similar than fraternal

(dizygotic) twins, and biological siblings should

be more similar than adopted siblings. This is the

pattern that research consistently finds (see Figure

1.3). A recent study of thousands of traits found

that the average heritability was 49% (Polderman

et al., 2015). Studies of specific traits have found

that shyness is about 40 to 50% heritable,

cognitive abilities are about 47% heritable,

psychiatric conditions are about 46% heritable,

and antisocial behavior is about 40% heritable

(Bouchard, 2004; Polderman et al., 2015). Thus,

estimates of heritability can vary depending on

the trait and the group being studied.

Figure 1.3

Correlations between Identical (MZ) and Fraternal (DZ) Twins

This graph depicts data from 2,748 studies that

investigated correlations between twins for many

different traits. For example, if Twin 1 is high on

activity level, is Twin 2 also high? Identical twins

have more correlations close to 1.0 than do

fraternal twins. On average, are identical or

fraternal twins more similar across various traits?

Source: Adapted from Polderman et al. (2015).

Shared (SE) and Nonshared Environment (NSE)

Environmental influences can be shared or

nonshared among family members. Shared

environment (SE) refers to any factors that make

siblings residing in the same family similar. SE

effects are moderate for mental illness (10–30%)

and personality traits. However, SE effects are

large for delinquency, alcohol use, and college

attendance (Burt, 2009; Pike, 2002).

Nonshared environment (NSE) refers to factors

that make siblings living in the same family

different from each other. A learner’s peers are a

powerful part of NSE. Imagine that Garth, as he

enters high school, has friends who enjoy music

and coax him to join a jazz band. Crystal may

have friends who coax her to join the school

soccer team. These peer influences will lead them

to develop different talents and social networks,

making them even more different. NSE effects

are often larger than SE effects (Burt, 2009; Pike,

2002). Does this seem counterintuitive to you? It

should if you assume that siblings share the same

family environment. But do they?

Is the Family a Shared or Nonshared Environment?

Think about This

Who are more accurate observers, researchers or parents? Keep in mind that observers typically watch children for a limited time in a specific environment. Parents watch children for years across many environments. Does this make them better observers? How might they compare to teachers?

Family is mostly a nonshared environment. There

are at least two reasons for this. First, families do

not influence all children in the same way. For

example, in a family with an alcoholic mother,

children could react differently—one could

become the family caretaker and another could

become a drug user. This would be a nonshared

environment factor, because the outcome is

sibling differences. Notice that NSE is defined by

outcome, not by whether or not you think the

environments are the same.

Second, families change. The firstborn may live

in poverty and go to low-cost childcare as her

parents struggle to get a family business going,

and she may experience her mother’s postpartum

depression when a second child is born. The third

child may be born 10 years later, after the family

business is thriving; the father has completed a

college degree; the mother has become much

warmer in her parenting style; and the family has

moved to a high-income neighborhood with good

schools. If there is a divorce, one child may spend

14 years in a two-parent household, whereas

another may spend only 4 years. These children

are not growing up in identical families, even

though they are siblings.

Problems with Estimating Heritability

There are several problems with estimating

heritability, SE, and NSE effects. One problem is

that they depend on variation of a trait in a

population. If there is no variation in a trait—like

having two eyes—then the heritability estimate

would be zero because identical twins are no

more similar than strangers. Yet this trait is under

strong genetic control (Sternberg, Grigorenko, &

Kidd, 2005). Heritability can only tell you how

much variation of an attribute within a

population is linked to genes—not how much that

trait is actually under genetic control:

“Heritability does not imply genetic determinism”

(Plomin, 2013, p. 110).

Another problem in behavioral genetics is the

assumption that genes and environment affect

children separately. This is false, because genes

and environment are correlated (Price & Jaffee,

2008; Reiss, 2005). For example, intelligent

parents may have intelligent children because

they pass on intelligent genes and because they

provide an intellectually stimulating home.

Further, intelligent children may seek out books

or watch educational TV, which increases their

intelligence. Finally, parents may react to

intelligent children by teaching them advanced

concepts. Thus, there are multiple ways a

gene–environment correlation may evolve.

Because genes and the environment may be

correlated in all these ways, it is difficult to tell

which accounts for differences in final

intelligence—genes or the environment.

At best, heritability, SE, and NSE estimates

should be considered ballpark rather than precise

figures to describe how much genes and

environment contribute to child outcomes. Keep

this in mind as you read about heritability in later

chapters. Let’s turn next to a discussion of how

genes might influence behavior.

How Can Genes Influence Behavior?

Your genotype is the set of genes in every cell

that is directly inherited by you and transmitted to

your descendants. Your phenotype is your

observable characteristics. Is everything in your

genes expressed in who you have become?

Whether a genotype becomes a phenotype

depends on the environment. For example,

individuals who have genes for depression may

only become depressed if they also have rejecting

mothers or major life stress (Haeffel et al., 2008;

Monroe & Reid, 2008). Both genotype and

environment set limits on phenotype. The limits

set by genes are probably very broad. You’ll learn

more about gene–environment interaction in

Chapter 4.

Genes do not determine or cause behavior

(except in the case of rare diseases), but they do

influence probability. For example, genes do not

dictate reading ability in Crystal or Garth.

Instead, genes dictate things like the building of

proteins. A gene is a region of DNA on a

chromosome. The gene is activated when the

environment (at the cellular level) asks for

information. This is typically done by chemicals

(e.g., hormones). Chemical levels, in turn, are

affected by your biological and psychological

environment. No behavior is directly inherited;

what is inherited is the potential structure of

specific proteins that can regulate the nervous

system, hormones, and other body processes. For

example, the DRD4 gene that is linked to

behavior problems might dampen the effect of

chemicals in the brain, which might make

children less responsive to the threat of discipline,

but it does not directly cause misbehavior

(Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn,

Pijlman, Mesman, & Juffer, 2008). A behavioral

tendency may be associated with many different

genes, and individual genes account for only a

small percentage of how people vary in their

behavior (Chabris, Lee, Cesarini, Benjamin, &

Laibson, 2015).

The human genome contains about 20,000

protein-coding genes (Plomin, 2013). You share

all but about 2% of your DNA material with apes

(Johnson, Smith, Pobiner, & Schrein, 2012). The

vast majority of human DNA is shared by

everyone; you share about 99.9% of your genes

with every other human on the planet. That leaves

only 0.1% of genes to create human diversity

(Quartz & Sejnowski, 2002). The genes that are

free to vary are called segregating genes. When

we said full siblings share an average 50% of

their genes, we meant 50% of their segregating

genes; full siblings actually differ only 0.05%

genetically.

What does this mean? There is little room for

genetically based individual differences

(Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000). Natural selection

preserves any successful phenotypes that result

from these genetic differences. Any attribute that

contributes to survival would quickly spread

through the species. Thus, attributes important for

survival have less genetic variation than attributes

that are not important for survival.

With so small a genome, how is it possible that

humans are radically more adaptable and

intelligent than apes and so different from one

another? Part of the answer is that your DNA

dictates the construction of a brain that is

designed to adapt to your environment. Natural

selection favors organisms that can adapt. If

personality, behavior, and language were

minutely prescribed by DNA, you would be less

adaptable and would need substantially more

DNA. Instead, your nervous system adapts and

changes biologically as a result of experience (see

Chapter 6). Gross brain structure is genetically

programmed, but experience can change the fine

structure and chemistry of your brain

permanently. Because humans are designed for

adaptability, you should expect differences

between siblings like Crystal and Garth to result

from NSE or unique environmental experiences

(e.g., illness, quality of parenting, schooling).

This is what behavioral geneticists generally find.

1-2b

Nurture: The Role of Culture in Group Diversity

Think about This

What cultures and subcultures have influenced your own experiences, beliefs, and values? Do your classmates share your culture? Can you identify ways your subcultures are different and the same?

You are a product not only of your genes but also of the culture in

which you live. According to the bioecological model, both genes

and culture work together to create variation among people. Genes

operate at the level of the cell, at the innermost circle of the model.

Culture, on the other hand, operates at the level of large groups, at

the outermost circle of the model.

What Is Culture?

Culture is the pattern of values, beliefs,

institutions, and behaviors shared by a group of

people, a pattern that is different from that of

other groups and is communicated from one

generation to the next (Cohen, 2009). Culture

dictates physical contexts (e.g., types of school

buildings), social contexts (e.g., mixed-gender

classrooms), customs for childrearing (e.g.,

spanking), and beliefs about the nature of children

(e.g., they are inherently naughty or nice). Culture

influences how much time children spend with

their mothers versus fathers versus peers. You

may be surprised to know that whether you

believe that small or large classes are better for

children is largely a matter of your culture. Small

classes are valued in cultures where children are

expected to develop independence, such as the

United States, but large classes are valued in

cultures where children are expected to develop

interdependence and learn to function as part of a

large group, such as Japan.

Culture can refer to large groups such as whole

countries or to smaller subgroups within a

country; within each country there are varied

subcultures based on ethnicity, social class,

region, and religion. Each of us participates in

multiple cultures, and we adopt aspects of new

cultures. For example, Mexican immigrants to the

United States may prefer their heritage language,

food, and music, but they also adopt local

language, food, and music. White European

Americans may participate in multiple cultures

such as Black hip-hop music and Latino foods.

Ethnicity

Ethnic group refers to a group that shares a

cultural heritage and/or a common ancestry. The

United States is comprised of many different

ethnic groups. Collectively, non-White groups are

sometimes referred to as ALANA (African,

Latino, Asian, and Native American). The 2010

U.S. Census estimated ethnic group populations

as follows: 64% White, non-Hispanic; 13%

African American; 16% Latino; 5% Asian; 1%

American Indian, Alaska Native, Native

Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander; and 3% two

or more races. The population of the United

States is expected to go from about 319 million in

2014 to 417 million in 2060. The Census Bureau

projects that by 2060 the nation’s children will be

56% ALANA and 29% Latino (up from 38% and

17%, respectively, in 2014). Each major ethnic

group has distinct subgroups. For example,

among Latinos, there is cultural variation among

Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, and Mexican

Americans. Among Asian Americans, there is

variation among Chinese, Indian, and Filipino.

Among African Americans, there is variation

among those who have been in the United States

for centuries and those who have recently

emigrated from Africa.

Ethnicity is linked to success in school (see

Chapter 15). For example, Figure 1.4 displays

group differences in scores on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

which is often called the Nation’s Report Card.

Hispanic and African American students have

lower average achievement than White and Asian

American students throughout K–12 schooling

(García & Jensen, 2009; Planty et al., 2009). The

difference between White and minority students’

achievement is often referred to as an

achievement gap, which emerges as early as 3

years of age (Burchinal et al., 2011).

Figure 1.4

Average Mathematics Scores by Ethnic Group for 4th and 8th Grades on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress

Graphs depict the achievement gap between White

students and African American and Hispanic

students.

Source: 2015 mathematics assessment, see section on national score gaps, http://www.nationsreportcard.gov.

Why do learners from some ethnic groups have

lower achievement? We discuss two explanations

next: cultural capital and cultural mismatch. In

Chapter 15, we will discuss other explanations.

Cultural Capital

Financial capital refers to possessions like money

and property that can be invested to gain wealth.

Cultural capital refers to knowledge and

relationships that can be “invested” and passed

on to the next generation to gain benefits (Lareau

& Calarco, 2012). In school settings, cultural

capital includes knowledge about how to sign up

for sports and clubs, how to speak and write

formal English, how to study for tests, how to

request special education services, how to find

mentors, how to get into college, and so forth.

Students who have school-relevant knowledge, or

who have parents who do, have cultural capital in

school settings. Fortunately, you can provide

cultural capital for your students whose families

cannot. This is important because students with

cultural capital tend to have higher achievement

than other students (Jaeger, 2011).

Cultural capital also includes relationships. One

classic study found that middle-class parents

tended to know teachers, resource specialists,

principals, counselors, and special educators

because they were friends, relatives, and

neighbors. In contrast, working-class parents

tended to know construction workers,

convenience store cashiers, and factory workers

(Lareau, 1989). Thus, middle-class families had

more school-relevant social connections. Learners

have cultural capital for schooling when they

have relationships with people who help them

access opportunities (like special preschool

programs) or institutions (like elite universities),

advocate for them, serve as models of success,

and give sound advice.

In the United States, cultural capital is linked to

social class. Schools tend to be middle-class

institutions and reward parents and students who

act in middle-class ways. Middle-class parents

tend to be better able than lower income parents

to attend parent–teacher conferences, help with

homework, and volunteer at school. Middle-class

parents try to influence teachers through casual

conversation, notes, and phone calls; many are

assertive and persistent, but cooperative. One

said, “I try not to request very often. Because if

you do that it’s like you get ignored. It’s better to

save your ammunition for ‘when you really need

it’ kind of thing” (Lareau & Calarco, 2012, p. 73).

Working-class and poor parents are less likely to

try to influence teachers.

Cultural Mismatch

Some ethnic groups experience cultural mismatch

at school. Cultural mismatch refers to a pattern

of incompatibilities between home and school.

Cultural mismatch can be subtle, like how close

you stand when talking with other people, or

more obvious, like attention to punctuality. It also

includes language and narrative style.

Language

A learner may speak a different

language than the one used in

school. A learner may also use

language in a different way

from teachers, textbooks, or

tests. An example is African

American English, which

involves different pronunciation

and syntax from the school’s

language. We discuss this

vernacular in Chapter 7.

Narrative Structure

Within U.S. school culture,

stories follow a traditional

format of telling who was

involved, what happened, and

when. Typical stories build a

series of events, in

chronological order, up to a

climax and problem solution.

Think of fairy tales like

Cinderella. However, not all

cultures share this conception

of story. For example, Japanese

children’s stories may resemble

Haiku—a succinct, short, and

restrained form of poetry. They

may combine two or three

similar events into one story

and are taught to value brevity.

African American children’s

stories may weave multiple

events into a long, out-of-order

account in a way that has been

compared to jazz (Bliss &

McCabe, 2008;

Gardner-Neblett, Pungello, &

Iruka, 2012). The alternative

story formats are not wrong

within their cultures but may be

unexpected and considered

wrong by some teachers.

Classroom Implications of Culture

Sonia is a Mexican American. Her mother wants her to do

well in school but does not know how to help. Sonia’s

friends reject academic achievement; they skip classes and

get in trouble together. At school no one ever talks with her

about her future or speaks positively about Mexican culture.

In fact, teachers and non-Mexican peers are negative about

her ethnicity. Not surprisingly, although she had good grades

until 8th grade, her grades in high school are terrible.

(Adapted from Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991)

Sonia is experiencing cultural mismatch; she sees

school as having no connection to her home

world. Cultural mismatch is stressful. It can lead

to poor adjustment to school and placement in

special education. This is partly because teachers

and students from different cultures may

misunderstand each other. As a teacher, you need

to be careful not to hold your own culture as the

“standard” and judge students who diverge as

substandard. When persons assume that their own

group is the best and that groups that are different

are inferior or deficient, this is called deficit

thinking. Learners who lack cultural capital, who

experience cultural mismatch at school, and who

are the targets of deficit thinking may need

support. There are several things you can do to

help:

● Become aware of your students’ cultural

capital and how it affects their

achievement. For example, when given an

assignment to develop a travel brochure for

France in a social studies class, some

students have home access to computers,

high-speed Internet, color printers, and

relatives who traveled to France and speak

French. Their brochures make them look

“smarter” than other students who may be

equally adept at writing, using the library,

and asking questions, but have fewer

resources. A study in Chicago found that

when academic coaches provided cultural

capital by guiding high school students

through the college application process and

reminding them of the tasks they needed to

complete, students were more likely to

actually enroll in college, particularly

disadvantaged students (Stephan &

Rosenbaum, 2013). You will need to

provide ways for students with little

cultural capital or material resources to be

successful in your classroom.

● Be careful as you think about cultural

capital, because it can lead to a deficit view

that highlights what children lack. Think

about the strengths of your students and

their cultural backgrounds. For example,

Latino children may develop a particularly

strong sense of family connection and be

more likely than European American

children to help around the house by

cooking, cleaning, and babysitting (Telzer

& Fuligni, 2009).

● Become knowledgeable about and accept

the language and dialect of your students,

but at the same time teach standard English

so they will experience success in school

and careers. This is discussed in Chapter 7.

When directly asked, “Do you

understand?” students with limited English

want to appear competent, so they may say

yes even when they do not understand.

Some students report that they guess

because they don’t want to ask for help

(Monzó & Rueda, 2009). Thus, you will

need to be perceptive.

● Become aware of your students’ narrative

style. Do not assume that different styles

do not “make sense,” but also teach school

narrative style so that your students will be

successful in school.

● Build bridges between home and school.

For example, in the play section of a

preschool, the kitchen area should include

items familiar in your students’ home

cultures, like tortillas or pita, not just

hamburgers and pancakes. Be able to talk

about current events in immigrants’ home

countries because their relatives will likely

be experiencing the events (elections,

natural disasters, armed conflicts, etc.). See

Photo 1.2.

● Do not try to be colorblind. One principal

told us he will not hire a teacher who

claims to be colorblind. Why? Such a

perspective leaves in place racial structures

that have created inequity without

challenging them, and does not

acknowledge the unique experiences of

children of color (Morris et al., 2015).

Photo 1.2

Learn about your students’ home cultures in order

to build bridges between school and home.

Tony Freeman/PhotoEdit

You may not know the different cultural values

and practices of all your students, but genuinely

trying to understand and value different

perspectives will help you overcome mismatches

in your classroom. While addressing cultural and

ethnic differences is important, you should be

careful not to stereotype your students or lower

your expectations based on the fact that certain

groups have lower average test scores than others.

Learn about your students through your

experiences with each of them, not based on

generalizations about their ethnic group.

1-2c

Reconciling the Role of Genes and Culture

Recall from the bioecological model that multiple levels of

influence, such as genes and culture, act together to predict child

outcomes. “Underlying the bioecological model is a cardinal

theoretical principle … that genetic material does not produce

finished traits, but rather interacts with environmental experience in

determining developmental outcomes” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,

1994, p. 571). Culture (the macrosystem or outer circle) determines

what genes will be manifest by the opportunities that are available

in the culture. For example, heavy alcohol use is partially heritable,

but heritability is lower in religious households and in communities

that spend less money on alcohol (Dick & Rose, 2002). Heritability

of a trait may depend on culture-based opportunities for the trait to

be manifest.

Some environments place children at risk for poor outcomes

regardless of their genotype, whereas others are protective of

children, fostering optimal outcomes. We turn to a discussion of risk

and protective factors next. Two risk factors are used as examples:

socioeconomic status is a part of culture (in the macrosystem) that

affects large groups of children, whereas maternal depression

affects proximal processes (in the microsystem) and fosters

differences among individual children. Other risk and protective

factors are discussed in later chapters.

1-3

Risk and Resilience Kathleen is a lively, smiling toddler with five older siblings who dote on her.

Suddenly, her father leaves the family for a teenage girlfriend. Her mother

begins drinking heavily but denies that she is an alcoholic. Kathleen’s siblings

take care of her, until, one by one, they graduate from high school and leave

home. As a teenager, Kathleen becomes her mother’s caretaker when her mom

is “sick.” One of her brothers returns to live at home when he is not in jail.

Kathleen manages to be tidy, but not stylish, in appearance. She attends a

low-achieving, inner-city high school. She pays attention during class, turns in

homework on time, and earns good grades. Teachers like her. She is a member

of the school choir and her church’s youth group. Kathleen feels depressed and

anxious about her mother and her own future, but she keeps these feelings to

herself. Through hard work, she later receives a scholarship to nursing school.

By her late twenties, Kathleen is married, has two children, and is a practicing

nurse.

Why do some children, like Kathleen, seem to fare well even when

they have adverse lives? This is the question of risk and resilience.

A risk factor is an aspect of the child or environment that increases

the probability of poor outcomes (see Photo 1.3). Risk factors can

be biological, such as low birth weight; cognitive, such as low

intelligence; social or emotional, such as aggression or depression;

part of the family, such as an alcoholic parent; or part of the

community, such as neighborhood violence. In the bioecological

model, risk factors in the microsystem (e.g., parenting quality) have

a stronger impact than risk factors in the macrosystem (e.g.,

neighborhood violence), but risk factors at any level can undermine

children’s development. Common risk factors for children include

the following:

Little positive mother–child interaction Negative parental attitude toward child

Low maternal affection Physical or hostile discipline

Abuse Single parent

Low parental education Change in parent’s marital status

Unstimulating home environment Conflict or separation between parents

Low family income—receive welfare Parent has multiple sexual partners

Unskilled head of household Long hours in childcare

Parental anxiety or depression Overcrowding or large family

Antisocial parent Frequent moves

Low birth weight Foster care or living with another family

Low intelligence Negative, stressful life events

Parental drug use Changing schools

Discrimination Poor relationships with teachers

Mother works long hours Exposure to violence or conflict

Low parental monitoring

Photo 1.3

Poverty is a powerful risk factor.

Rob Crandall/SCPhotos/Alamy Stock photo

You probably know resilient children, like Kathleen, who succeeded

in school in spite of risk factors. Resilience refers to the ability to

adapt and flourish in the face of adversity and includes the ability to

recover from trauma.

1-3a

Protective Factors Resilient children usually have one or more protective factors in

their lives. Protective factors decrease the likelihood of poor

outcomes in children at risk and include the following:

● High-quality parenting—especially a warm, nurturing mother

● High intelligence, reading ability, and achievement

● Special talents and participation in extracurricular activities

● A strong relationship with a father figure or surrogate parent

like a favorite teacher or relative

● Social competence, outgoing personality, and peer acceptance

● Religious involvement

Can educators be protective factors for children? Listen to the story

of Olly Neal, who grew up African American in Arkansas during

the segregated 1950s.

During his senior year in high school, Olly cut class one day and was hanging

around in the library when he noticed a book with a provocative woman on the

cover. He wanted to read the book but was afraid to check it out because his

friends might find out that he was reading. He said he wanted to be known for

fighting and cussing, not reading, so he stole the book. Weeks later when he

returned the book to its place on the shelf, he noticed another book by the same

author. He stole that one too and ended up reading four books by Frank Yerby,

an African American author. Olly Neal became a reader, went to law school,

and became an appellate judge in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He learned a

hidden part of his own story for the first time at his 13th high school reunion.

The librarian had noticed him stealing the first book, realized why he was

stealing, drove to Memphis to buy another Yerby book, and placed the new

book on the shelf where he would find it. She made three trips to Memphis.

Her selfless legacy extended to Judge Neal’s daughter, who earned a PhD in

genetics.

(Adapted from Kristof, 2012; Taing, 2009)

This school librarian served as a protective factor for Judge Neal.

Many teachers serve as similar protective factors when they

promote their students’ success at school.

Even resilient children may experience depression and anxiety or

stress-related health problems. That is, something that protects

children from one negative outcome does not necessarily protect

them from all problems. High-risk children are more likely to be

resilient in academic achievement than in social or emotional

well-being. For example, Kathleen did well in school but still

struggled with depression through adolescence and into adulthood.

Throughout this text, you will learn how specific risk and protective

factors influence children. You may personally know exceptions to

the research. This is because research tells us what probably

happens for most children, not what definitely happens for each

child. For example, children’s risk status when they enter school

predicts school problems with about 75% accuracy (Pianta, Nimetz,

& Bennett, 1997). Although this accuracy is substantial, there is

clearly room for exceptions.

Typically, a single risk factor has only a small effect size because a

particular child’s development is a complex array of risk and

protective factors. The more risk factors a child experiences, the

greater the likelihood that one or more problems will emerge. The

combined number of risk factors better predicts child outcomes than

a single risk factor.

1-3b

Accumulation of Risk Risk factors tend to go together—they are correlated. For example,

in a study of African American 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-graders, several

risk factors—unmarried mother, low maternal education, poverty,

many siblings, maternal depression, many poor classmates—were

highly correlated in the 0.79–0.97 range (Burchinal et al., 2008).

This means that a child who had one of these risk factors was likely

to have some of the other risk factors as well.

When risk factors accumulate, they have a stronger effect. For

example, one study found that each additional risk factor in

kindergarten predicted higher odds in 5th grade of misbehavior,

failing grades, and low academic achievement (Lanza, Rhoades,

Nix, & Greenberg, 2010). Among older youth (ages 11–17), a study

found that the more risk factors, the greater the likelihood of

anxiety, depression, ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder), and substance use (Roberts, Roberts, & Chan, 2009).

Similarly, a study of 95,000 youth found that about 48% had

experienced at least one major trauma (e.g., parental divorce, abuse,

neglect, witness of violence, parent served time in jail), and 22%

had experienced two or more. Youth with two or more traumas were

more than twice as likely as youth with zero traumas to have

chronic health problems and to have repeated a grade (Bethell,

Newacheck, Hawes, & Halfon, 2014). Having only one trauma did

not portend these problems. Other studies have found that numbers

of risk factors predict students’ aggression, school absence,

misbehavior, GPA, and math, reading, and social studies test scores.

See Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5

Relationship between Number of Risk Factors and School Outcomes

Risk factors included low maternal education (high school diploma

or less), maternal depression, unmarried mother, three or more

children in the household, unskilled work, living in high-poverty

neighborhoods, and stressful events like victim of a crime or lost a

job.

Source: Gutman, Sameroff, and Eccles (2002).

Risk factors can reside within a child biologically or within the

social environment. Biological risks include low birth weight,

neurological problems, prenatal drug exposure, and not being

breastfed. Social risks include poor-quality parenting, mother’s

depression, and parental divorce. Some risk factors are more potent

than others. Among typical children, social risk factors are

generally more powerful in predicting outcomes than biological risk

factors (Rouse & Fantuzzo, 2009), though an exception is severe

biological problems that delay development. Children with both

social and biological risk are most likely to develop problem

behavior, like serious aggression (Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg,

& Van IJzendoorn, 2007; Brennan et al., 2003). Although you might

think that it would be ideal to have zero risk factors, there is

evidence that children are less likely to develop resilience if they

don’t have anything to overcome; some adversity, but not too much,

may predict greater well-being in adulthood (Seery, 2011).

There are three key points for teachers:

(1)

when risk accumulates, there is a steep increase in the odds of

poor outcome;

(2)

learners may fare well if only one or two risk factors operate

in their lives; and

(3)

a high-quality social environment can foster protective

factors.

Keep these key points in mind as you read about risk and protective

factors throughout this text.

1-3c

Stability in Development

Does risk or resilience in early childhood have effects into

adulthood? Overall there is stability in development because risk

and protective factors tend to be stable in the environment.

Stability of Risk across Childhood

Children’s risk status is quite stable. However,

despite this general stability of risk factors, some

children’s life circumstances do change. Major

family turning points such as marriage, a new job,

a move to a different community, and religious

conversion change a child’s life course. A child

may be developing poorly but make a dramatic

recovery when circumstances improve

dramatically. Another child may be doing fine but

experience major life traumas, such as the death

of a parent, from which the child may not recover.

More mundane changes can also alter a child’s

risk, such as moving, entry and exit of parents’

partners, parents’ drug use, and decrease in

income (Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2004a).

Intermittent risk, such as moving in and out of

poverty, can be as toxic as stable, persistent risk

(Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2004b).

Canalization protects children from early risk

factors for a short time. Canalization refers to the

tendency of genes to restrict development to a

limited range of outcomes despite quite different

environments. For example, children learn to

walk at about 13 months, whether parents help

their infants practice walking or not. Canalization

often leads children to “self-right” in spite of

early deprivation. We experienced an example

when one of our sons developed a medical

problem at 2 weeks old. His stomach was not

functioning properly, so he began to starve. After

the condition was corrected surgically, he quickly

“self-righted” to a normal weight.

Canalization is stronger for physical development

than for social, emotional, or cognitive

development. For example, after adoption,

severely deprived Romanian orphans were more

likely to catch up in physical growth than in

social behavior, language, or cognitive ability

(see Chapter 5).

The Importance of Early Experience

Early experiences are important because they

influence later opportunities and color

interpretation of later experiences. For example,

imagine that Ahmad bumps 15-year-old Duane in

the hallway. If Duane experienced hostile, angry

parenting as a toddler, he is likely to assume that

Ahmad bumped him on purpose, and he will slug

Ahmad. His aggression will make other youth

avoid him, which will prevent him from

developing better social skills. In contrast, if

Duane experienced soothing, compassionate

parenting as a toddler, he is likely to assume

Ahmad’s bump was an accident, behave kindly

toward Ahmad, and be sought out by other youth,

which will provide him with the opportunity to

develop even better social skills. Duane could

take widely different developmental paths

depending on his early experiences.

In spite of the power of early experience to

influence later experience, children are flexible

and adjust to the quality of their environment at

any age. In some instances, children can remain

scarred from severe early deprivation, but

improvement is always possible, although it may

be small. Thus, at any age both the child’s

historical and current profile of risk and

protective factors are important. We next turn to a

discussion of the effects of two of the most

powerful risk factors—maternal depression and

poverty.

1-3d

Maternal Depression as a Risk Factor

When a mother is clinically depressed, she may experience sadness,

loss of interest in daily activities, fatigue, and inability to think

clearly. This may affect her children. Research shows that maternal

depression is associated with children’s biological and cognitive

problems, such as failure to thrive, behavior problems, poor sleep,

limited play, poor language ability, rapid heart rate, and abnormal

brain functioning. Maternal depression is also associated with

children’s social and emotional problems, such as irritability,

depression, wariness, unresponsiveness to others, slow response to

psychological interventions, ADHD, suicidal thoughts, aggression,

and social withdrawal.

Some negative social and emotional effects appear as early as 2

months of age. They have been found in diverse families, from

children of low-income teenage mothers to middle-class adult

mothers (Dawson et al., 1999). Children’s behavior problems tend

to wax and wane as the mother’s depression waxes and wanes

(Nicholson, Deboeck, Farris, Boker, & Borkowski, 2011). Effects

depend on the severity and longevity of the mother’s depression

(see Photo 1.4). However, early effects can be long lasting. Effects

of maternal depression in the first few years of life are still evident

in adolescence, even if the mother has recovered by then (Karevold,

Rxysamb, Ystrom, & Mathiesen, 2009). Interestingly, some children

with depressed mothers take on the caretaking of their depressed

mothers—as Kathleen did (Champion et al., 2009).

Photo 1.4

Maternal depression can interfere with quality of parenting.

Denise Hager/Catchlight Visual Services/Alamy stock photo

How does maternal depression influence such a wide array of

outcomes? Perhaps through other risk factors such as divorce,

marital conflict, and low education that are linked to maternal

depression. Perhaps children “catch” emotional negativity by

imitating their depressed mothers. Depressed parents model and

reinforce depressed behavior in their children (Webster-Stratton &

Herman, 2008). Perhaps depression compromises the mother–child

relationship. Depressed mothers tend to be more intrusive, more

critical, and less responsive to their children (Dix & Meunier, 2009;

Milan, Snow, & Belay, 2009). These parent–child interactions are

among the most powerful processes discussed in the bioecological

model.

Are there protective factors? Children are less likely to develop

problems despite a depressed mother if they have:

● A positive mother–child relationship where the mother is

warm and sensitive despite her depression (Pargas, Brennan,

Hammen, & Le Brocque, 2010)

● Affluence. Depressed mothers who have comfortable income

are more likely to be sensitive to their children (NICHD

ECCRN, 1999; Petterson & Albers, 2001)

● A mentally healthy, nondepressed father in the home (Field,

Hossain, & Malphurs, 1999; Radke-Yarrow, Cummings,

Kuczynski, & Chapman, 1985)

● A high IQ (Pargas et al., 2010)

● A warm and positive classroom emotional environment (Yan,

Zhou, & Ansari, 2015), which you can help create

Most research on maternal depression is nonexperimental, making it

hard to determine what causes what. Does maternal depression

cause problems in children, or do problems in children cause their

mothers to be depressed? Experimental studies can help answer this

question. It turns out that interventions that help depressed mothers

improve their parenting skills result in better outcomes in their

children. This suggests that maternal depression causes child

problems (Baydar, Reid, & Webster-Stratton, 2003; Field, 1998).

1-3e

Poverty as a Risk Factor

Poverty is another powerful and all-too-common risk factor for

children. Almost one in five children live in poverty, which is twice

the rate of elderly people (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008).

About 37% of children will experience poverty at some time during

their childhood or adolescence (Ratcliffe & McKernan, 2010). In

2015, the federal government defined poverty as an annual income

below $24,250 for a family of two parents and two related children.

The term poverty is often used broadly to refer to very low

socioeconomic status, rather than strictly adhering to the federal

definition. Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to a combination of

parental education, occupation, and income. Families are designated

as low, middle, or high in SES. You may think income is the key

component of SES, but as you will learn in later chapters, parent

education more strongly predicts child outcomes. SES influences

many things that you think and do. When did you start to think

about attending college (and what type of college)? What sports

have you participated in? What kinds of food do you eat? What jobs

have you considered? Low- and high-SES persons may answer each

of those questions differently.

Low SES is a risk factor for many problems. For example, low SES

is linked to health problems like drug exposure, respiratory illness,

cavities, obesity, and complications following injuries or infections.

These health problems continue into adulthood (John-Henderson,

Stellar, Mendoza-Denton, & Francis, 2015). Low SES is also linked

to socioemotional problems like depression, delinquency,

psychiatric problems, low self-control, and especially aggression.

Lower-income individuals are more likely to express anger,

especially if frustrated (Park et al., 2013). Low SES is also linked to

cognitive problems like low verbal ability, low intelligence, poor

memory, and low achievement (see Figure 1.6). Even families who

are working class, but not in poverty, tend to have children with

lower achievement than middle-class families (Roksa & Potter,

2011). Poverty undermines self-regulation, which undermines

children’s achievement (Blair & Raver, 2015). We return to this

topic in later chapters.

Figure 1.6

Kindergarten Readiness by SES

This graph depicts reading and math scores for 6,600 children at

entry to kindergarten for five levels of SES.

Source: Larson, Russ, Nelson, Olson, and Halfon (2015).

The Black–White achievement gap you learned about earlier,

though large, has declined somewhat. In contrast, the rich–poor

achievement gap has increased (see Figure 1.7). Why might this be?

One possibility is that income inequality has risen dramatically,

creating a greater divide between families who have money to spend

on school-relevant activities and those who do not (Reardon, 2013).

The rich–poor gap exists not only for test scores but also for college

attendance and extracurricular activities.

Figure 1.7

Black–White and Rich–Poor Achievement Gap by Year

This graph depicts the size of the achievement gap between Black

and White students and the achievement gap between low-income

and high-income students, for different cohorts. For which cohort

were there steeper changes? How might you explain this?.

Source: Reardon (2013).

Think about This

Stanford University has a “housing project” for graduate students with children. Many children live there for years, with stressed parents and incomes well below the poverty level. How do you predict the children fare? Weigh risk and protective factors.

There is evidence that increasing family income, even if the money

is not earned and comes from tribal casino payments or poverty

assistance programs, improves child outcomes such as higher

academic achievement, fewer behavioral disorders, greater

conscientiousness, and more enjoyable relationships with parents, as

well as reductions in parental drug and alcohol use (Akee,

Simeonova, Costello, & Copeland, 2015; Duncan, Magnuson, &

Votruba-Drzal, 2017).

If you teach in an elite private school, you will see that the top rungs

of the income ladder are not ideal; wealth poses risk for children.

High-SES youth have higher levels of stress, pressure to achieve,

anxiety, depression, and drug use than inner-city youth (Luthar &

Latendresse, 2008). Furthermore, high-SES individuals tend to be

less compassionate, generous, trusting, and helpful—and even

donate a lower proportion of their income to charity—compared to

low-SES (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner,

2012). As one researcher argued, “To be compassionate, you have to

carefully attend to other people—to what they’re thinking, feeling

and saying. The wealthy don’t do that as well as poorer people” (De

Angelis, 2015, p. 65). Children may fare best in middle-income, but

not wealthy, neighborhoods (Caspi, Taylor, Moffitt, & Plomin,

2000). This is right where you are likely to be with a teacher’s

salary!

How Does Poverty Have These Effects?

Two major models have been proposed to explain

the many effects of poverty on children.

Family Investment Model

According to the family

investment model, poverty is

associated with less access to

cultural or financial capital that

the family can “invest” in

children, which leads to poorer

health and a low-quality

learning environment in the

home (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,

2000). Home-learning

environment refers to time

spent reading, preschool

experience, language

stimulation, number of puzzles

and books, outings to museums

or theaters, and family meal

routines. The quality of the

home-learning environment, in

turn, predicts achievement and

behavior problems among

Latino, African American, and

White children (Bradley,

Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo,

& Garcia Coll, 2001; Linver,

Brooks-Gunn, & Kohen, 2002).

Family Stress Model

According to the family stress

model, poverty is associated

with conditions that stress

parents, such as lack of food,

single parenthood, divorce,

frequent moves, and job loss.

This leads to depression,

marital conflict, and other

problems. These, in turn, lead

to diminished quality of

parenting (Bradley & Corwyn,

2002). Home or job stress tends

to result in parents’ emotional

and physical withdrawal from

children (Repetti, Wang, &

Saxbe, 2009). The family stress

model has been supported for

Latino, African American, and

White families (Lugo-Gil &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2008; Raver,

Gershoff, & Aber, 2007; White,

Liu, Nair, & Tein, 2015). Both

of these models may be

true—the family stress model

may explain behavior problems

better, whereas the family

investment model may explain

academic problems better

(Gershoff, Aber, Raver, &

Lennon, 2007).

In addition to the family

investment and stress models,

the effects of poverty could

result from a simple

accumulation of risk factors.

Poor children are exposed to

more risk factors—such as

family violence and instability,

low-quality parenting, heavy

TV watching, pollution, lead,

parental smoking, and a variety

of other risk factors

(Dilworth-Bart & Moore, 2006;

Evans, 2004). Major risk

factors for impoverished

children include having a single

parent, frequently moving, and

stress (Adam, 2004; Blair et al.,

2011). Another risk is

household chaos—noise,

crowding, and few household

routines. In fact, when chaos

levels are statistically

accounted for, the effect of

poverty on children almost

disappears, suggesting that

chaos may be a key path

through which poverty affects

children (Evans, Gonnella,

Marcynyszyn, Gentile, &

Salpekar, 2005).

Ethnicity and Poverty

In most countries, poverty and ethnicity go hand

in hand. In the United States, children of color are

more likely to be poor than White children,

though the majority of poor children are White.

For example, about 77% of African American

children compared to 30% of White children will

experience poverty (Ratcliffe & McKernan,

2010). Families that are persistently poor are

more likely to be headed by an African American

than are families that are able to increase their

income (Wagmiller, 2015).

Classroom Implications of Poverty

Poor children are more likely than wealthier

children to develop problems that undermine their

achievement in school. However, keep in mind

that this is only a probability, not destiny. Many

poor children will do well in school. Let’s listen

to an adult who grew up poor.

Poverty is like a gravity that pulls you down to earth. There’s

no way to jump high enough to overcome gravity by “hard

work.” Effort alone won’t make you fly. I was aware that

people judged my mother negatively because she did not

have a job. I was torn between wanting to side with those

who judged my mother as lazy and irresponsible—and

wanting to protect her from those judgments because I loved

her and saw all the good things she did do and the

intelligence inside her, the beautiful bright interesting person

she is.

(Adapted from Summer, 2003, pp. 3, 33–34)

This was written by a girl who was so poor, she

was homeless in childhood but later attended

Harvard. How did she come to be successful in

school (and write so well)? She may have had

protective factors that offset her poverty.

Family protective factors include a married

mother, a mother with high intelligence,

stimulating care at home, income adequate to

meet basic needs, a family that provides structure,

and social support. Personal protective factors

include optimism, sense of humor, emotional

competence, and intelligence (Bradley &

Corwyn, 2002; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor,

2001). How can you be a protective factor to your

students?

1. Amplify their protective factors and

highlight their strengths. Children like

Kathleen have remarkable skills.

Recognize them. Recognize that many

low-SES children are taking care of parents

or raising younger siblings.

2. Teach an engaging curriculum. Low-SES

children tend to get less exposure to

academic content. This may be partly due

to low-SES students being pulled out of

class for special services.

3. Don’t wait to be asked for help. Low SES

students are less likely to request or

demand teacher help, so you may need to

be observant and offer help instead of

waiting for requests (Calarco, 2011).

Each chapter throughout this text provides you

with additional tools to help you be a protective

factor for your students. High-quality school

experiences can compensate for lower school

readiness among poor children. Indeed, this is the

aim of some preschools.

1-4

Classroom Implications: The Case of School Readiness and Preschool Some preschool programs, like Head Start, are designed to promote

better-than-expected school readiness for children at risk for low

achievement, or in other words, to be a protective factor. Because

risks accumulate, interventions targeting a single factor are not very

successful (Masten & Reed, 2002). Thus, preschools for children at

risk often include services that go beyond traditional preschools,

like parent education and job training. Such preschools typically

target children based on either low income or low birth weight (low

birth weight is discussed in Chapter 2).

It is important to place children on a positive developmental path as

early as possible. It was a common, but mistaken, belief during the

years when Head Start was begun that much of a child’s crucial

brain development was over by age 6, or even age 3. In fact,

intervention can help children throughout the lifespan. However,

change is more rapid in younger children. The use of preschool to

foster school readiness in poor children touches upon each of the

major topics of this chapter—the science of child development, the

nature–nurture balance, and risk and resilience—so we will use it as

a case to illustrate how ways of thinking about children influence

your teaching experience.

1-4a

School Readiness School readiness refers to skills that prepare children for formal

instruction, such as being able to follow directions; having

self-control; and knowing the alphabet, basic numbers, and colors.

Although only 10% of teachers say that children should know their

alphabet and be able to count to 20 to be ready for kindergarten,

60% say children need to have self-control, that is, be able to follow

directions and not be disruptive (Blair, 2002). Interestingly, several

large studies across several countries show that math skills, like

knowing numbers, predict later academic success with an

impressive effect size of 0.34 (Duncan et al., 2007). Early math

scores predicted later pre-reading and math scores with about the

same accuracy, and early math scores predicted later pre-reading

better than early reading scores, which is surprising. This does not

mean that social and emotional skills are not important to how

children get along later in school—indeed, you will learn in

subsequent chapters that these are important skills—but rather that

preschool math knowledge is a particularly important predictor of

later achievement.

Young children vary in school readiness. Some enter kindergarten

reading at a 5th-grade level or counting to 100, but others have no

reading skills and can’t count to 10. Some enter kindergarten with

good self-regulation—the ability to focus and maintain attention,

control their emotions, and maintain positive social interactions

with teachers and peers—but others have poor self-regulation (Blair

& Raver, 2015). Self-regulation is considered a key aspect of school

readiness. It partially explains why some enter kindergarten with

school-appropriate behavior, but others have social and behavior

problems that are linked to low achievement several years later

(Sabol & Pianta, 2012). About 16% have serious problems adjusting

to kindergarten; another 32% have some problems; and the rest do

fine according to kindergarten teachers (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, &

Cox, 2000). Low SES is a risk factor for entering school

unprepared, but low SES children fare well if they have effective

teachers and parents who support their learning (Crosnoe & Cooper,

2010; Crosnoe et al., 2010).

Measuring School Readiness

Some states require tests of kindergarten

readiness. Some readiness tests measure

beginning academic skills, like knowledge of

letters, numbers, or shapes. Many readiness tests

do not meet standards for validity or reliability

yet are still used by schools (La Paro & Pianta,

2000). Some experts object to their use as

gatekeepers to school because children with low

scores have the greatest need to be in school and

because they encourage advantaged parents to

hold back their children so they will be at the top

of their class. This inflates teachers’ concepts of

what a typical kindergartener is capable of, which

pushes excessively academic curricula onto

younger children (Shepard, 1997).

Many districts use age as a gatekeeper to school.

Should parents place their September-birthday

son in kindergarten where he will be the

youngest, or wait until next year when he will be

the oldest? Research shows that “underage”

kindergarteners perform well in high school

(Vecchiotti, 2003). The youngest 1st-graders may

be a little behind the oldest 1st-graders in reading

and math, but this effect washes out by the middle

of elementary school (Morrison, Griffith, &

Alberts, 1997). Furthermore, when children who

are placed in school young are later tested in 1st

grade, they are more advanced than their

same-age peers who are in kindergarten. School

makes kids smarter. Some parents have their

children start kindergarten a year late, assuming

that this will give them an academic advantage;

evidence suggests it does not, and it may even

create disadvantage (Martin, 2009). Thus,

entrance age is not a good predictor of academic

success.

What Should Be Done for Children Who Are Not Ready for School?

The answer to this question depends on your

theory of children’s development. A maturationist

assumes that school readiness depends on abilities

driven by a genetic timetable. Thus, waiting for

the child to mature biologically is the logical

answer. The practice of holding back children in

kindergarten is evidence that this view is common

in schools. In contrast, an environmentalist would

assume that school readiness is driven by having

the right experiences. Thus, providing preschool

experiences would be the logical answer. The

difference in these views is the nature–nurture

contrast.

Think about This

If the quality of the environment affects children’s school readiness, should children who perform poorly on readiness tests be kept out of school? Describe how another year in their home environment might affect the school readiness of children from different backgrounds.

What does the research say about this contrast?

The maturationist view is undermined by two

lines of research. First, kindergarten retention

does not have an academic payoff; children learn

more if they are promoted (Hong & Yu, 2008b).

Second, quality of the home environment affects

school readiness. A major twin study shows that

shared environment makes a substantial

contribution to school readiness—even bigger

than genes or nonshared environment

(Forget-Dubois et al., 2009; Lemelin et al., 2007).

Aspects of the environment that affect school

readiness include mothers’ education, preschool

experience, and books at home. School readiness

can be promoted for children at risk by providing

enriched preschool experiences (Huang &

Invernizzi, 2013).

1-4b

What Does the Research on Preschools for Children at Risk Say?

One approach to helping poor children become ready for formal

schooling is to provide publicly funded preschool, like Head Start

and prekindergarten.

Head Start

The most famous preschool program is Head

Start. Eligibility for Head Start is based on family

income. The largest single federal program

exclusively for poor children, Head Start provides

health, education, and social services. Most

programs are half-day and operate on a

school-year calendar. Most children enrolled in

Head Start are 3 or 4 years old. Roughly one-third

of Head Start children are African American;

another one-third are Latino; another one-third

are White; and a small number are other

ethnicities (Administration for Children &

Families, 2007).

How effective is Head Start? Evidence from the

1990s and before suggests Head Start was

associated with short-term cognitive gains that

diminished over time (Lamb, 1998). Head Start

children also behaved worse in school than

children in no preschool or other preschools, but

the effect was small (Lee, Brooks-Gunn, Schnur,

& Liaw, 1990). Because these effects of Head

Start were modest at best, some programs were

extended up to 3rd grade and down to toddlers,

like Early Head Start, in order to increase impact.

Did these innovations help? Scientists have used

randomized experiments to answer this question.

In a national experiment mandated by Congress,

the researchers concluded:

Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds

in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for

3-year-olds in the social–emotional domain. However, the

benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent

by 1st grade…. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained

benefits, although access to the program may lead to

improved parent–child relationships through 1st grade, a

potentially important finding for children’s longer term

development.

(Puma et al., 2010, p. xxxviii)

This conclusion that Head Start has neutral to

positive effects that improve school readiness and

last for a few years, but generally not more, has

been found repeatedly in previous studies (e.g.,

Goodson, Layzer, St. Pierre, Bernstein, & Lopez,

2000; Love et al., 2005; Puma, Bell, Cook, Heid,

& Lopez, 2005).

Prekindergarten

Elementary schools serving large numbers of

poor children often have compensatory

prekindergarten programs at the school site. Some

are funded by Title I (also called Chapter 1), a

federal program for schools with high rates of

poverty. They tend to have more highly educated

teachers than other preschools, including Head

Start (Lee, Loeb, & Lubeck, 1998). Some pre-K

programs result in better readiness skills at school

entry, but few results last beyond 1st grade (e.g.,

Gormley, Gayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005;

Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013). A review of pre-K

programs found that of 11 outcomes, the only

robust long-term effect was less grade retention

(Gilliam & Zigler, 2000). For example, in

Maryland, 44% of pre-K attenders, but 64% of

nonattenders, had been retained at some point by

10th grade. Yet, some studies find positive

long-term effects on delinquent behavior and

educational achievement. For example, in

Chicago, children in pre-K were more likely to

finish high school (56% versus 47%) and not be

arrested for crimes (13% versus 22%) by age 20

than nonattendees (Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes,

2004). Some programs also find an effect on math

and reading achievement beyond 3rd grade, but

the effect is very small (Gilliam & Zigler, 2000).

There is little effect on behavior problems, parent

involvement, self-esteem, or health. Effects may

depend on the instructional quality of the

preschool. A study of over 2700 preschoolers

found that children who mainly engaged in free

play had smaller learning gains than children who

had more instructional time with teachers (Chien

et al., 2010). Play is important, but so is effective

instruction.

To summarize, the research suggests that Head

Start and pre-K programs have small, short-term

benefits. Once intervention children enter school,

their test scores drop, and often the control group

children’s rise (Barnett, 1995; Magnuson et al.,

2004). Similar effects are found for full- versus

half-day kindergarten; small gains in achievement

for full-day kindergarten wash out by 3rd grade

(Cooper, Allen, Patall, & Dent, 2010).

Intensive, model programs generally have

stronger effects, with effect sizes of 0.15 to 0.43

(Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004;

Reynolds et al., 2004). Model programs also tend

to have more extensive and expensive

components, such as beginning earlier in infancy,

instead of at age 3, and using highly trained staff

at a university childcare facility. Positive effects

of intensive, model programs have been

documented into the middle school and high

school years (Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor,

2009; Vandell et al., 2010). One of the most

successful is the Abecedarian Project, which

provided educational child care of exceptional

quality 8 hours daily for 5 years and home visits

from a resource teacher for the first 3 years of

school. Researchers have followed children in

this project, and a control group, into adulthood.

The project resulted in better cognitive and

academic ability, less depression, increased

college attendance and graduation, more highly

skilled employment, and higher income, but no

difference in illegal drug use (Campbell et al.,

2012; McLaughlin, Campbell, Pungello, &

Skinner, 2007; Pungello et al., 2010). See Figure

1.8. Similar effects were found for a model

program in Chicago (Reynolds, Temple, Ou,

Arteaga, & White, 2011). Children who fare best

over the long run are those who continue to have

enrichment into the elementary years—either by

continuing in an intervention program or by

entering high-quality elementary schools

(Reynolds et al., 2004, 2011).

Figure 1.8

Long-Term Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project

Children were randomly assigned to the

Abecedarian Project or to a control group as

infants. Both groups were followed longitudinally.

Results suggest that the project had a long-term

impact on some outcomes. Which outcomes

differed for the two groups, and which did not?

Which outcomes were high or low for both groups?

Source: Data are from Pungello et al. (2010).

In conclusion, preschool can enhance the

development of high-risk children if it is of high

quality and extensive. Effects may be strongest

for African American and Hispanic children

compared to White children (Bassok, 2010;

Tucker-Drob, 2012). Some programs are more

effective than others, but even among successful

programs, effects on achievement diminish over

time and cannot fully compensate for disparities

between poor and advantaged children. Although

the effects are small, they have important benefits

for individuals and society and, over the long run,

may outweigh costs if they result in less special

education placement, lower crime rates, and

better adult employment. The fact that children’s

outcomes can be modestly improved by preschool

suggests a role for nurture beyond the family

(Rutter, 2000). You can enhance the development

of your high-risk students by providing optimal

education environments.