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.