Hello, , from NHERI and Dr. Ray.
Roughly 30 years ago, I was looking for any
research related to parent-led education. Very little, back then, had directly addressed what we now call homeschooling. But one research project leapt off the pages at me, and I have referenced it many times since.
Studies by Barbara Tizard and her colleagues[ii] are some of the first research I ever
included in my reviews of research on home-centered learning, or home-based education, or homeschooling.[iii] Many people think that children, especially those of the “lower class,” will only be improved or “brought up” if specialized, professional, university-taught, state-certified, or state-licensed experts teach these children. This thinking, whether implied or
explicit, is rampant in the United States and elsewhere. Tizard and her colleagues found, however, in their study entitled “Language and social class: Is verbal deprivation a myth?,” the following:
Despite the widespread belief, enshrined in the Bullock Report, that working class children benefit from nursery school attendance because of the teacher's `measured
attention to the child's language needs', the evidence suggests that they are much more likely to receive this from their mothers. (pp. 540-541)
Startlingly to many, Tizard and Hughes further reported that working-class (i.e., lower-class) girls were more disadvantaged by being in preschool then were middle-class girls.[iv]
That is, the working-class children were benefited more by being with their mums (mothers) than in schools run by professionals. Much research on modern-day homeschooling seems to be echoing what Tizard and her colleagues were finding over three decades ago, and contradicts the ad nauseum thinking of Head
Start and preschool promoters.
Constant Drumbeat for Preschool by Professionals
What made me think of the research by Tizard and her colleagues? First, there seems to be a constant drumbeat in the United States that continues pushing for more and more preschool for
more and more children. Some want universal preschool. Many want all of it to be paid for by the taxpayer (i.e., the forced re-distribution of wealth). Second, regardless of the means by which preschool might be funded, does research actually convincingly show that preschool will benefit the child and society?
Researcher David Armor recently published a review of “… the major evaluations of
preschool programs, including both traditional programs such as Head Start and those designated as “high quality” (p. 1).[v] Many educators, the U.S. president, and many in the U.S. congress and senate continually promote more tax dollars spent on more preschool. Armor decided that any “… program that could cost state and federal taxpayers $50 billion per year warrants a
closer look at the evidence on its effectiveness” (p. 1). I agree.
Upon a detailed, methodologically sound, and fair review of the research, Armor concluded the following: Second, although preschool programs evaluated by the most rigorous research designs show modest but
statistically significant improvements during the preschool years, these gains fade as children move into the kindergarten and first grades. The fadeout might be more accurately described as “catch up,” because the cognitive growth that occurs for all children in the early elementary grades is far greater than the gains during the preschool years, so it may be that children who did not have preschool simply caught up with those who did. (p. 12)
Consistent with what researcher Armor found, I wrote the following in 2013: The author [Ray] has been distressed to see that although there is no clear evidence that the myriad ECE [early childhood education] programs, younger compulsory school attendance ages, and older compulsory school ages help children in general
in any appreciable and consistent long-lasting way into their youth or adulthood, many uninformed politicians and policymakers, and educators and other businesses with vested interests in ECE programs and expanded compulsory school attendance ages, continue to promote the state expanding compulsory ages and funding ECE programs. (p. 3)[vi]
Another Flashback
Both Armor and I might have saved some time had we simply told others what Tizard and her colleagues discovered just over 30 years ago. Armor, the many professional educators, policymakers, and lawmakers who continue to
promote young children spending more time with professional educators would also have learned some important things if they had paid attention to researcher Edward Zigler and his work almost 30 years ago.[vii]
Zigler examined the then-recent … movement toward enrolling 4-yr-olds in academic programs. The research base and political forces that guided the direction of the movement are considered: remedial intervention programs for economically disadvantaged children, the need for change in decaying school programs, and the urgent need for increased day-care services. It is determined that the research base does not demonstrate that early
schooling will be beneficial to middle-class children who constitute the majority of 4-yr-olds. It is suggested that early schooling may be an inappropriate solution to the current crisis in child care for working parents and that children's development may suffer if limited educational funds are expended on nonfunctional programs.
That is, even though educators and policymakers were pushing – 30
years ago – for more preschool with professionals for children, research did not support this.
What to Do
If educators and congressmen want to enhance children’s academic, social, and physical-health lives beyond the third grade and save taxpayers billions of dollars, then they need to do all they can, scripturally and constitutionally, to
strengthen the biblical and natural family. This includes mothers and fathers spending plenty of time with their tykes. During this time, parents would read aloud many good books to their children, children and parents would have many conversations, they would play together, and they would pray together.
--Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. National Home Education Research Institute
P.S. Your financial help is very important. Remember, $200 helps us put out one of these messages. Your donation – whether $10, $20, or $100, is very important
to NHERI doing its work. Thank you.
Two ways to help: 1. Send a check to: NHERI, PO Box 13939, Salem OR 97309 (using a check puts the largest percent of your gift to work at NHERI)
NHERI, PO Box 13939, Salem OR 97309, USA
Endnotes:
[i] Every person, whether a researcher, journalist, academic, policymaker, judge, carpenter, or nurse, has a worldview or weltanschauung. Examples of worldviews are atheism, Buddhism, Christianity/scripturalism, communitarianism, critical theory, Islam, metaphysical
naturalism, Mormonism, queer theory, Roman Catholicism, scientism, socialism, and statism. [ii] Tizard, Barbara, Hughes, M., Carmichael, H., & Pinkerton, G. (1983). Language and social class: Is verbal deprivation a myth?
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(4), 533-542. [iii] Ray, Brian D. (1986). A comparison of home schooling and conventional schooling: With a focus on learner outcomes. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,
Science, Math, and Computer Science Education Department. (In partial fulfillment of exams for a doctoral degree; not Ray’s doctoral dissertation.) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 489). See also: Home centered learning annotated bibliography, online www.nheri.org, store, bibliography. [iv] Tizard, Barbara, & Hughes, Martin. (1984). Young children learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; see p. 257. [v] Armor, David J. (2014, October 15). The evidence on universal preschool: Are benefits worth the cost? Policy Analysis, no. 760. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. [vi] Ray, Brian D. (2013, March 13). Is there any solid evidence for expanding compulsory school age? Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute. [vii] Zigler, Edward F.
(1987, March). Formal schooling for four-year-olds? No. American Psychologist, 42(3), 254-260.
|
|
