James Heckman, Nobel Laureate in Economics

James Heckman’s opinion piece on the President’s early childhood plan appeared in the New York Times Room for Debate, and deserves hearty endorsement. Specifically:

1. “The economic strength of any nation depends on the skills of its people.”
   
2. “[E]very dollar invested in quality early childhood development for disadvantaged children produces a 7 percent to 10 percent return, per child, per year.”
3. “The plan starts from birth, expands home visitation and Early Head Start, improves access and quality in child care and provides greater access to higher-quality preschool.”

However, there is “room for debate.” What Heckman does not specify in this short piece (presumably for the sake of brevity) is that #1 is not quite accurate. It should read:

“The economic strength of any nation depends on the character of its people.”

Heckman’s own research has shown that character (which he sometimes calls non-cognitive skills, or soft skills) matters more than intelligence for education, health and social contribution. Moreover, character is more malleable than intelligence. That is where our time, energy, passion, and (yes) money need to be directed. Indeed, it is a measure of our character whether we care for disadvantaged children by nurturing character in them.

How do you see young children’s character affect their learning, and their communities?

A friend recently asked me what I thought of this talk called Changing Education Paradigms by Ken Robinson:

httpv://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U

What do I think? I think that Robinson does an excellent job of diagnosis. Specifically:

1. The educational system alienates many kids.
2. A degree is not a guarantee of future employment.
3. The educational system was designed in and for a different age: the industrial age.
4. The educational system asumes an enlightenment view of human persons and learning.
5. The factory model of education diminishes (and often harms) individuals.
6. Sadly, children often lose the capacity for creativity as they continue in school.
7. Great learning happens in groups.
8. The habits of institutions shape children.

Here are some questions the talk leaves unanswered:

1. What are some positive visions of alternatives to the current model?
   (Robinson is notably silent on homeschooling, which can answer many of his critiques well.)
2. What role does discipline play in enduring things that aren’t immediately exciting to us in forming character?
3. Is the answer to over-stimulation neither anesthetization nor further stimulation, but the practice of solitude?

What other questions do you have? What possible answers do you see that Robinson overlooks?

In October of 2012, the Economist published my letter to the editor on Parenting, Preschool and Poverty. When they reviewed Paul Tough’s excellent book, How Children Succeed, I thought they missed the mark and sent another letter to the editor. They didn’t publish it (or at least haven’t yet), so I publish it here for those who are interested.

Sir,
    I was delighted to see you review How Children Succeed (“Stay Focused,” January 19). However, I was appalled at your distorted conclusion that “at a time when ever more American children are living in poverty, better schools remain the most powerful anti-poverty tool available.” This is complete misreading of Paul Tough’s remarkable book.

According to Tough’s research on parent-child attachment, the most profound and durable interventions happen long before children enter school. He found that if a mother was emotionally responsive to her child in the first year of life, “the effect of all those environmental stressors, from overcrowding to poverty to family turmoil, was almost entirely eliminated” (p32).

Another study he cites found that secure attachment at age one better predicted high school graduation than IQ or achievement test scores (p36). Furthermore, he documents the growing evidence that specific parental behaviors in early childhood have predictable, observable, long-lasting effects on DNA expression. Tough’s key finding is the success of child-parent attachment therapy in troubled families. Among a group of 137 families with a history of maltreatment – of which only one infant demonstrated secure attachment at baseline – after one year 61% of the treatment group had formed secure attachment, compared with only 2% of those receiving standard community services (p39). That is news worthy of publication, review, and public action.

The “decades of failed attempts to improve the lives of poor students” you cite is the fruit of the faulty assumption that “better schools remain the most powerful anti-poverty tool available.” If that was Tough’s thesis (and it is not) it would not be worthy of review. Paul’s shift of focus from school to early family life, and from test skills to character is worthy of review, and indeed is worthy of a leader article in your newspaper.