Using Science to Promote Young Children's Learning

Posted: December 21, 2006

The science of early childhood development is an underutilized source of guidance for education reform, according to Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D., recently appointed to a joint professorship at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard School of Public Health. In fact, the most important challenge facing both policymakers and practitioners, he says, is the need to close the gap between what we know and what we do to promote early learning well before the first day of school.

Shonkoff, also the founding director of the new, university-wide Center on the Developing Child, will focus on advances in the integrated science of health, learning, and behavior and will work to bring that science to bear on public decision-making affecting the lives of children and the well-being of society. HGSE spoke to Shonkoff about science and learning and the debate surrounding early childhood education.

How do you define the "science of education?"

I would characterize the underlying science of education as the biology of learning and behavior and the study of causal mechanisms that explain disparities in achievement. This body of knowledge is inherently multidisciplinary and draws on the insights of a wide range of social and biological sciences, including developmental psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, and molecular genetics, among others. Scientists whose research is relevant to education investigate fundamental questions about the development of human competence. Central to this effort is the need to elucidate mediators of healthy development as well as to deepen our understanding of how early adversity associated with poverty, discrimination, abuse, neglect, exposure to violence, or other threats to human well-being gets under the skin and into the brain, and leads to poor outcomes in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health.

What are the challenges facing children today?

There are tremendous inequalities in opportunity that threaten the future prospects of millions of children beginning at birth. Youngsters who grow up in poor neighborhoods don't have access to the same resources as children in more affluent communities. Those who live in poverty are more likely to have academic difficulties, less likely to graduate high school, more likely to have lower incomes as adults, and more likely to end up in jail than children from families who are economically secure. They are also at greater risk of developing heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse later in life, and they are more likely to die at a younger age. The shameful reality of this increased vulnerability is not new news, and its continued documentation is not what we need. The challenge before us is to understand why and how disadvantaged environments lead to impaired learning, poor health, and maladaptive behavior, and to use that knowledge to increase the probability of more positive outcomes for all children.

What role can science play in improving child outcomes?

Beyond its contribution to the design of more effective teaching strategies, science can help policymakers and civic leaders understand how adverse, early childhood experiences disrupt brain architecture, and how effective interventions can shift the odds toward more favorable outcomes. Central to this task is the need to mobilize new champions for children who are knowledgeable about the impact of "toxic stress" on the developing brain.

Simply stated, manageable levels of stress in the context of nurturing adult relationships can be growth promoting, but excessive and prolonged stress in the absence of stable support is literally toxic to the immature brain. When life circumstances are threatening (such as from deep poverty, significant neglect, or repeated exposure to violence) the body's stress response system is activated and heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormone levels go up. When the stressful experience is well managed, these physiological responses return to baseline and no lasting damage is done. However, when the threat is persistent and the stress response system does not return to its resting state, continuous elevations of the stress hormone cortisol actually disrupt the formation of new brain circuits and suppress immune function. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why children, who experience toxic stress early in life, are more likely to have problems in learning, as well as develop stress-related physical and mental health impairments later in life. Policymakers and civic leaders, who understand this science, are more likely to support more informed and earlier investments in the most vulnerable of our youngest children.

How can education help children who experience toxic stress?

Education can make a tremendous difference in two ways. In the earliest years, prior to school entry, we can prevent damage and promote the development of healthy brain architecture by providing rich learning opportunities in the context of stable and supportive relationships. Later in childhood, for children whose brain architecture has been disrupted by previous toxic stress, we can help by diagnosing learning problems as early as possible and providing appropriate special education services as needed.

Brain development occurs in a hierarchical, bottom-up sequence. Basic circuits are wired first and increasingly complex circuits are built later. Simple skills develop initially and increasingly complex skills are built on the foundation that was constructed earlier. The learning process never starts with a fresh brain; it always builds on what has come before so the stronger the foundation, the better the outcome. The weaker the foundation, the harder and more expensive it is to remediate later.

The science of early childhood development tells us that preventive interventions in the earliest years for children experiencing toxic stress will increase the return on our later investments in K-12 education. Conversely, failure to enhance learning opportunities for vulnerable youngsters prior to school entry will lead to a greater need for more costly special education services and less favorable, long-term outcomes.

Why is there so much resistance to publicly-supported, early childhood education in the United States compared to other industrialized countries?

Most of the resistance is deeply embedded in our political culture. From the time of its founding, the United States has celebrated the concepts of rugged individualism and limited government. While other nations think about early childhood education as an important public investment, many Americans view it as an inappropriate substitute for individual responsibility and an intrusive threat to family privacy.

In recent years, however, resistance to early childhood education has been weakening. This shift has been stimulated by a combination of influences, including greater demand by families at all economic levels, increased public understanding of the importance of early learning, greater support for investment in programs for low income children as a matter of equity, and growing concern about the threat of economic globalization and the need to enhance the nation's human capital by building a strong foundation early in life

Is there a paradox about the opposition to mandated early childhood education and the emphasis on closing the achievement gap?

I don't find the concept of "closing the achievement gap" to be useful. The fact is that there will always be a gap between children in affluent communities and youngsters who grow up in poverty, because well-educated parents will always use available knowledge to give their children a competitive advantage. The challenge is not to fully close the achievement gap between rich and poor, which is an exercise in futility, but to recognize the compelling need to close the "opportunity gap" between the haves and the have-nots. Our primary task is to do a better job preparing the kids at the bottom to succeed in school, and close the gap between where poor children are now and where they ought to be. If we don't address the needs of vulnerable, young children in the early childhood years, we will be playing catch-up throughout their lives.

How will your new Center on the Developing make a difference in the world of early childhood education?

The center has a strong commitment to both knowledge generation and translation. Our mission is to advance the science of health and learning, and to approach the transfer of knowledge from the academy to the world of policy and practice as a scholarly pursuit in its own right. Our objective is to change the nature of the public debate from whether we should be investing in early childhood education to howwe can maximize the return on that investment through evidence-based teaching. Finally, we are deeply committed to preparing the next generation of educational leaders, many of whom will have HGSE degrees and all of whom should be knowledgeable about the underlying science of learning, the causal mechanisms of disparities in achievement, and the policy environment in which education priorities are determined.


Events Features & Releases e-Newsletters Ed. Magazine HGSE in the Media Webcasts Harvard Education Publishing Group	News Features & Releases Using Science to Promote Young Children's Learning Posted: December 21, 2006 The science of early childhood development is an underutilized source of guidance for education reform, according to Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D., recently appointed to a joint professorship at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Harvard School of Public Health. In fact, the most important challenge facing both policymakers and practitioners, he says, is the need to close the gap between what we know and what we do to promote early learning well before the first day of school. Shonkoff, also the founding director of the new, university-wide Center on the Developing Child, will focus on advances in the integrated science of health, learning, and behavior and will work to bring that science to bear on public decision-making affecting the lives of children and the well-being of society. HGSE spoke to Shonkoff about science and learning and the debate surrounding early childhood education. How do you define the "science of education?" I would characterize the underlying science of education as the biology of learning and behavior and the study of causal mechanisms that explain disparities in achievement. This body of knowledge is inherently multidisciplinary and draws on the insights of a wide range of social and biological sciences, including developmental psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, and molecular genetics, among others. Scientists whose research is relevant to education investigate fundamental questions about the development of human competence. Central to this effort is the need to elucidate mediators of healthy development as well as to deepen our understanding of how early adversity associated with poverty, discrimination, abuse, neglect, exposure to violence, or other threats to human well-being gets under the skin and into the brain, and leads to poor outcomes in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health. What are the challenges facing children today? There are tremendous inequalities in opportunity that threaten the future prospects of millions of children beginning at birth. Youngsters who grow up in poor neighborhoods don't have access to the same resources as children in more affluent communities. Those who live in poverty are more likely to have academic difficulties, less likely to graduate high school, more likely to have lower incomes as adults, and more likely to end up in jail than children from families who are economically secure. They are also at greater risk of developing heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse later in life, and they are more likely to die at a younger age. The shameful reality of this increased vulnerability is not new news, and its continued documentation is not what we need. The challenge before us is to understand why and how disadvantaged environments lead to impaired learning, poor health, and maladaptive behavior, and to use that knowledge to increase the probability of more positive outcomes for all children. What role can science play in improving child outcomes? Beyond its contribution to the design of more effective teaching strategies, science can help policymakers and civic leaders understand how adverse, early childhood experiences disrupt brain architecture, and how effective interventions can shift the odds toward more favorable outcomes. Central to this task is the need to mobilize new champions for children who are knowledgeable about the impact of "toxic stress" on the developing brain. Simply stated, manageable levels of stress in the context of nurturing adult relationships can be growth promoting, but excessive and prolonged stress in the absence of stable support is literally toxic to the immature brain. When life circumstances are threatening (such as from deep poverty, significant neglect, or repeated exposure to violence) the body's stress response system is activated and heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormone levels go up. When the stressful experience is well managed, these physiological responses return to baseline and no lasting damage is done. However, when the threat is persistent and the stress response system does not return to its resting state, continuous elevations of the stress hormone cortisol actually disrupt the formation of new brain circuits and suppress immune function. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why children, who experience toxic stress early in life, are more likely to have problems in learning, as well as develop stress-related physical and mental health impairments later in life. Policymakers and civic leaders, who understand this science, are more likely to support more informed and earlier investments in the most vulnerable of our youngest children. How can education help children who experience toxic stress? Education can make a tremendous difference in two ways. In the earliest years, prior to school entry, we can prevent damage and promote the development of healthy brain architecture by providing rich learning opportunities in the context of stable and supportive relationships. Later in childhood, for children whose brain architecture has been disrupted by previous toxic stress, we can help by diagnosing learning problems as early as possible and providing appropriate special education services as needed. Brain development occurs in a hierarchical, bottom-up sequence. Basic circuits are wired first and increasingly complex circuits are built later. Simple skills develop initially and increasingly complex skills are built on the foundation that was constructed earlier. The learning process never starts with a fresh brain; it always builds on what has come before so the stronger the foundation, the better the outcome. The weaker the foundation, the harder and more expensive it is to remediate later. The science of early childhood development tells us that preventive interventions in the earliest years for children experiencing toxic stress will increase the return on our later investments in K-12 education. Conversely, failure to enhance learning opportunities for vulnerable youngsters prior to school entry will lead to a greater need for more costly special education services and less favorable, long-term outcomes. Why is there so much resistance to publicly-supported, early childhood education in the United States compared to other industrialized countries? Most of the resistance is deeply embedded in our political culture. From the time of its founding, the United States has celebrated the concepts of rugged individualism and limited government. While other nations think about early childhood education as an important public investment, many Americans view it as an inappropriate substitute for individual responsibility and an intrusive threat to family privacy. In recent years, however, resistance to early childhood education has been weakening. This shift has been stimulated by a combination of influences, including greater demand by families at all economic levels, increased public understanding of the importance of early learning, greater support for investment in programs for low income children as a matter of equity, and growing concern about the threat of economic globalization and the need to enhance the nation's human capital by building a strong foundation early in life Is there a paradox about the opposition to mandated early childhood education and the emphasis on closing the achievement gap? I don't find the concept of "closing the achievement gap" to be useful. The fact is that there will always be a gap between children in affluent communities and youngsters who grow up in poverty, because well-educated parents will always use available knowledge to give their children a competitive advantage. The challenge is not to fully close the achievement gap between rich and poor, which is an exercise in futility, but to recognize the compelling need to close the "opportunity gap" between the haves and the have-nots. Our primary task is to do a better job preparing the kids at the bottom to succeed in school, and close the gap between where poor children are now and where they ought to be. If we don't address the needs of vulnerable, young children in the early childhood years, we will be playing catch-up throughout their lives. How will your new Center on the Developing make a difference in the world of early childhood education? The center has a strong commitment to both knowledge generation and translation. Our mission is to advance the science of health and learning, and to approach the transfer of knowledge from the academy to the world of policy and practice as a scholarly pursuit in its own right. Our objective is to change the nature of the public debate from whether we should be investing in early childhood education to howwe can maximize the return on that investment through evidence-based teaching. Finally, we are deeply committed to preparing the next generation of educational leaders, many of whom will have HGSE degrees and all of whom should be knowledgeable about the underlying science of learning, the causal mechanisms of disparities in achievement, and the policy environment in which education priorities are determined.

News Features & Releases