The more I read about early childhood education, the more I realized that my burnout as a middle-school teacher made complete sense. I was trying help kids to fix learning problems that were already largely burned into their identities by the time I met them. I didn’t have the structures supporting me to be able to consistently deal with those problems effectively. Like most teachers, I gave a shit about doing a good job, and I felt unable to do it. And so I burned out. The graph below, created by Nobel-winner James Heckman, neatly summarizes why intervening during the teenage years is expensive and so often unsuccessful. Although he presents it in economic terms, it also resonates with me on a number of metrics that teachers use every day: resilience, emotional intelligence, reading ability, and attitude towards learning.
So here, in early education, I saw a logical way out. What if the research is right? That if we could figure out ways to ensure that all children had access to excellent learning opportunities for the first five years of their lives, they were significantly more likely to become resilient, socially-adjusted, life-long learners?
Over the past few years, the idea of investing in quality early education has become quite hot. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are talking about it. If you are more liberal, it’s a way to social justice. If you are more conservative, it’s a way to reduce long-term spending on social programs. The question seems to be not whether or not we are going to expand early learning opportunities, but what those programs will look like and how they will be funded.
In early January, I launched myself on a voyage of research and networking in the early learning domain. I reviewed hundreds of websites, reports, and articles on the state of early learning in my area, in Massachusetts, in other states, and at the federal level. I interviewed about 20 different individuals who are stakeholders in the early learning movement. I committed myself to figuring out how I could become a part of the movement to provide quality early learning opportunities to all children in the greater Boston area.
But in early March, I had an experience that would lead me to take yet another step back. (click here to continue)
So here, in early education, I saw a logical way out. What if the research is right? That if we could figure out ways to ensure that all children had access to excellent learning opportunities for the first five years of their lives, they were significantly more likely to become resilient, socially-adjusted, life-long learners?
Over the past few years, the idea of investing in quality early education has become quite hot. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are talking about it. If you are more liberal, it’s a way to social justice. If you are more conservative, it’s a way to reduce long-term spending on social programs. The question seems to be not whether or not we are going to expand early learning opportunities, but what those programs will look like and how they will be funded.
In early January, I launched myself on a voyage of research and networking in the early learning domain. I reviewed hundreds of websites, reports, and articles on the state of early learning in my area, in Massachusetts, in other states, and at the federal level. I interviewed about 20 different individuals who are stakeholders in the early learning movement. I committed myself to figuring out how I could become a part of the movement to provide quality early learning opportunities to all children in the greater Boston area.
But in early March, I had an experience that would lead me to take yet another step back. (click here to continue)