The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Serving a full course to students
In 2005, Connecticut Commissioner of Education Betty Sternberg wrote to U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, requesting that Connecticut only test students in four grades, to free up millions of dollars for resources she believed would improve education. Those resources included: high-quality preschool; small class sizes; schoolbased health/ family resource centers; support staff such as nurses, social workers, psychologists, reading specialists and guidance counselors; incentives to retain quality teachers; professional development; adequate learning time and space; and adequate supplies and technology.
Commissioner Sternberg stressed that these resources were not a “buffet” but rather a “full-course meal”— schools must have all these resources if we want to see significant improvement. (Spellings rejected the request.)
A new longitudinal study out of Chicago confirms the notion that sustained, comprehensive support, both academic and social, yields significant academic results for disadvantaged children.
The Chicago Longitudinal Study, published in JAMA pediatrics, examined more than 1,500 children who attended Chicago’s Child Parent Centers (CPC) program; following them until age 35. Ninety-three percent of the children were African-American and 7 percent were Latino. All were low-income from high-poverty neighborhoods.
CPCs are located in a school and participation begins in preschool. Hallmarks of the CPC include small class size; developmentally appropriate and balanced curriculum; family support services that include participation in school activities, support groups, workshops and home visits; and comprehensive services such as subsidized meals, health screening and speech therapy. Continuity through third grade provides “a stable and predictable learning environment.”
The study found that these comprehensive interventions had lasting positive effects, particularly for those children most at-risk. For example, children from low-education households who participated in the preschool component had a twofold increase in bachelor’s degree attainment versus the comparison group.
Significantly, the longer children stayed in the program, the better their outcomes were, in terms of high-school graduation and the attainment of postsecondary degrees. The researchers note that since educational attainment is positively associated with healthier and less risky behaviors, an investment in these services yields public health benefits also.
The authors correctly observe that the sizable benefits of this program do not and cannot be expected “to permanently compensate for continuing disadvantage.” They acknowledge that children in this study still had twice the arrest rate as the national average.
The evidence shows that interventions and support must continue beyond third grade through high school if we are to truly enable at-risk children to succeed. For example, chronic absenteeism is a major factor in low achievement and drop-outs.
Studies have shown that many factors contribute to absenteeism — many that are non-academic in nature, such as chronic illness, transportation problems, family crises or even a lack of clothing. Programs that provide support to both students and families have been shown to significantly reduce absenteeism. At-risk students need a personal connection to adults in school, and comprehensive services to deal with myriad learning and life challenges they face, in order to achieve academic success.
Furthermore, the more at-risk a student is, the more intensive the intervention needs to be. For example, providing one-onone tutoring coupled with behavioral therapy has been shown to improve attendance, engagement and academic outcomes for those at highest risk.
More intensive interventions cost more. However, they pay off. In Colorado, increasing the number of guidance counselors in high-poverty high schools yielded a $20 savings per dollar spent as a result of reduced drop-out rates. Numerous national studies demonstrate that increasing school funding consistently improves academic and life outcomes. Conversely, spending cuts worsen outcomes. Over the past decade, however, school spending has declined dramatically. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, most states provided less school funding in 2015 than they did in 2008. Moreover, a report by Rutgers and my office, the Education Law Center, found that most states fall below funding levels that would enable their highestpoverty children to reach even modest achievement levels.
We know at-risk children are exposed to adverse experiences that impede learning. We know that they and their families need academic and non-academic support from caring and skilled professionals to attend, pay attention in, stay in and succeed in school.
We have a choice. We can continue with the failed reforms and disinvestment of the past decade that have stripped communities and schools of the supports children need. Or we can provide students with the “full-course meal” they need to succeed.
If we are invested in significant and sustained success for our neediest children, we must make a significant and sustained investment in our neediest children.