Summary:Adolescents may especially need social and emotional help. They're learning how to handle new demands in school and social life while dealing with new, intense emotions (both positive and negative), and they're increasingly feeling that they should do so without adult guidance. Social and emotional learning (SEL) programs are one way to help them navigate these difficulties.SEL programs try to help adolescents cope with their difficulties more successfully by improving skills and mindsets, and they try to create respectful school environments that young people want to be a part of by changing the school's climate. In this article, David Yeager defines those terms and explains the changes that adolescents experience with the onset of puberty. Then he reviews a variety of SEL programs to see what works best with this age group.On the positive side, Yeager finds that effective universal SEL can transform adolescents' lives for the better. Less encouragingly, typical SEL programs—which directly teach skills and invite participants to rehearse those skills over the course of many classroom lessons—have a poor track record with middle adolescents (roughly age 14 to 17), even though they work well with children.But some programs stand out for their effectiveness with adolescents. Rather than teaching them skills, Yeager finds, effective programs for adolescents focus on mindsets and climate. Harnessing adolescents' developmental motivations, such programs aim to make them feel respected by adults and peers and offer them the chance to gain status and admiration in the eyes of people whose opinions they value.
{"title":"Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Adolescents","authors":"D. Yeager","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2017.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2017.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Adolescents may especially need social and emotional help. They're learning how to handle new demands in school and social life while dealing with new, intense emotions (both positive and negative), and they're increasingly feeling that they should do so without adult guidance. Social and emotional learning (SEL) programs are one way to help them navigate these difficulties.SEL programs try to help adolescents cope with their difficulties more successfully by improving skills and mindsets, and they try to create respectful school environments that young people want to be a part of by changing the school's climate. In this article, David Yeager defines those terms and explains the changes that adolescents experience with the onset of puberty. Then he reviews a variety of SEL programs to see what works best with this age group.On the positive side, Yeager finds that effective universal SEL can transform adolescents' lives for the better. Less encouragingly, typical SEL programs—which directly teach skills and invite participants to rehearse those skills over the course of many classroom lessons—have a poor track record with middle adolescents (roughly age 14 to 17), even though they work well with children.But some programs stand out for their effectiveness with adolescents. Rather than teaching them skills, Yeager finds, effective programs for adolescents focus on mindsets and climate. Harnessing adolescents' developmental motivations, such programs aim to make them feel respected by adults and peers and offer them the chance to gain status and admiration in the eyes of people whose opinions they value.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"27 1","pages":"73 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2017.0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43476186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:In the push to boost young people's social and emotional learning (SEL), assessment has lagged behind policy and practice. We have few usable, feasible, and scalable tools to assess children's SEL. And without good assessments, teachers, administrators, parents, and policymakers can't get the data they need to make informed decisions about SEL.Some existing SEL assessments, writes Clark McKown, are appropriate for some purposes, such as keeping teachers abreast of their students' progress or evaluating SEL interventions. But too few high-quality SEL assessments are able to serve a growing range of purposes—from formative assessment to accountability, and from prekindergarten through high school.McKown recommends proceeding along two paths. First, he writes, educators should become familiar with existing SEL assessments so that they can learn their appropriate uses and limits in a low-stakes context. At the same, we need to invest money and talent to create assessment systems that can be used to meet important assessment goals at all grade levels.McKown walks us through definitions of SEL, identifying three broad areas of SEL skills—thinking, behavior, and self-control. Each area encompasses skills that are associated with important life and academic outcomes, that are feasible to assess, and that can be influenced by children's experiences. Such meaningful, measurable, and malleable skills, McKown argues, should form the basis of SEL assessments.The next generation of SEL assessments should follow six principles, he concludes. First, assessments should meet the highest ethical and scientific standards. Second, developers should design SEL assessment systems specifically for educational use. Third, assessments should measure dimensions of SEL that span the three categories of thinking, behavioral, and self-control skills. Fourth, assessment methods should be matched to what's being measured. Fifth, assessments should be developmentally appropriate—in other words, children of different ages will need different sorts of assessments. Last, to discourage inappropriate uses, developers should clearly specify the intended purpose of any SEL assessment system, beginning from the design stage.
{"title":"Social-Emotional Assessment, Performance, and Standards","authors":"C. McKown","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2017.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2017.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:In the push to boost young people's social and emotional learning (SEL), assessment has lagged behind policy and practice. We have few usable, feasible, and scalable tools to assess children's SEL. And without good assessments, teachers, administrators, parents, and policymakers can't get the data they need to make informed decisions about SEL.Some existing SEL assessments, writes Clark McKown, are appropriate for some purposes, such as keeping teachers abreast of their students' progress or evaluating SEL interventions. But too few high-quality SEL assessments are able to serve a growing range of purposes—from formative assessment to accountability, and from prekindergarten through high school.McKown recommends proceeding along two paths. First, he writes, educators should become familiar with existing SEL assessments so that they can learn their appropriate uses and limits in a low-stakes context. At the same, we need to invest money and talent to create assessment systems that can be used to meet important assessment goals at all grade levels.McKown walks us through definitions of SEL, identifying three broad areas of SEL skills—thinking, behavior, and self-control. Each area encompasses skills that are associated with important life and academic outcomes, that are feasible to assess, and that can be influenced by children's experiences. Such meaningful, measurable, and malleable skills, McKown argues, should form the basis of SEL assessments.The next generation of SEL assessments should follow six principles, he concludes. First, assessments should meet the highest ethical and scientific standards. Second, developers should design SEL assessment systems specifically for educational use. Third, assessments should measure dimensions of SEL that span the three categories of thinking, behavioral, and self-control skills. Fourth, assessment methods should be matched to what's being measured. Fifth, assessments should be developmentally appropriate—in other words, children of different ages will need different sorts of assessments. Last, to discourage inappropriate uses, developers should clearly specify the intended purpose of any SEL assessment system, beginning from the design stage.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"27 1","pages":"157 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2017.0008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48689834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Greenberg, C. Domitrovich, R. Weissberg, J. Durlak
Summary:Evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs, when implemented effectively, lead to measurable and potentially long-lasting improvements in many areas of children's lives. In the short term, SEL programs can enhance children's confidence in themselves; increase their engagement in school, along with their test scores and grades; and reduce conduct problems while promoting desirable behaviors. In the long term, children with greater social-emotional competence are more likely to be ready for college, succeed in their careers, have positive relationships and better mental health, and become engaged citizens.Those benefits make SEL programs an ideal foundation for a public health approach to education—that is, an approach that seeks to improve the general population's wellbeing. In this article, Mark Greenberg, Celene Domitrovich, Roger Weissberg, and Joseph Durlak argue that SEL can support a public health approach to education for three reasons. First, schools are ideal sites for interventions with children. Second, school-based SEL programs can improve students' competence, enhance their academic achievement, and make them less likely to experience future behavioral and emotional problems. Third, evidence-based SEL interventions in all schools—that is, universal interventions—could substantially affect public health.The authors begin by defining social and emotional learning and summarizing research that shows why SEL is important for positive outcomes, both while students are in school and as they grow into adults. Then they describe what a public health approach to education would involve. In doing so, they present the prevention paradox—"a large number of people exposed to a small risk may generate many more cases [of an undesirable outcome] than a small number exposed to a high risk"—to explain why universal approaches that target an entire population are essential. Finally, they outline an effective, school-based public health approach to SEL that would maximize positive outcomes for our nation's children.
摘要:基于证据的社会和情感学习(SEL)项目如果得到有效实施，可以在儿童生活的许多领域带来可衡量的、潜在的长期改善。从短期来看，SEL项目可以增强孩子们对自己的信心;增加他们在学校的参与度，提高他们的考试成绩和成绩;在促进理想行为的同时减少行为问题。从长远来看，社交情感能力强的孩子更有可能为上大学做好准备，在事业上取得成功，拥有积极的人际关系和更好的心理健康，并成为积极的公民。这些好处使SEL项目成为公共健康教育方法的理想基础，也就是说，一种寻求改善一般人群福祉的方法。在这篇文章中，Mark Greenberg, Celene Domitrovich, Roger Weissberg和Joseph Durlak认为SEL可以支持公共卫生教育方法，原因有三。首先，学校是对儿童进行干预的理想场所。其次，基于学校的SEL项目可以提高学生的能力，提高他们的学业成绩，并使他们更不容易经历未来的行为和情绪问题。第三，在所有学校进行基于证据的SEL干预——即普遍干预——可能对公共卫生产生重大影响。作者首先定义了社交和情感学习，并总结了一些研究，这些研究表明，无论是在学生上学期间，还是在他们长大成人后，SEL对积极的结果都很重要。然后，他们描述了公共卫生教育方法所涉及的内容。在这样做的过程中，他们提出了预防悖论——“大量暴露于小风险的人可能比少数暴露于高风险的人产生更多的[不良后果]病例”——来解释为什么针对整个人群的普遍方法是必不可少的。最后，他们概述了一种有效的、以学校为基础的SEL公共卫生方法，这将最大限度地为我们国家的儿童带来积极的结果。
{"title":"Social and Emotional Learning as a Public Health Approach to Education","authors":"M. Greenberg, C. Domitrovich, R. Weissberg, J. Durlak","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2017.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2017.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs, when implemented effectively, lead to measurable and potentially long-lasting improvements in many areas of children's lives. In the short term, SEL programs can enhance children's confidence in themselves; increase their engagement in school, along with their test scores and grades; and reduce conduct problems while promoting desirable behaviors. In the long term, children with greater social-emotional competence are more likely to be ready for college, succeed in their careers, have positive relationships and better mental health, and become engaged citizens.Those benefits make SEL programs an ideal foundation for a public health approach to education—that is, an approach that seeks to improve the general population's wellbeing. In this article, Mark Greenberg, Celene Domitrovich, Roger Weissberg, and Joseph Durlak argue that SEL can support a public health approach to education for three reasons. First, schools are ideal sites for interventions with children. Second, school-based SEL programs can improve students' competence, enhance their academic achievement, and make them less likely to experience future behavioral and emotional problems. Third, evidence-based SEL interventions in all schools—that is, universal interventions—could substantially affect public health.The authors begin by defining social and emotional learning and summarizing research that shows why SEL is important for positive outcomes, both while students are in school and as they grow into adults. Then they describe what a public health approach to education would involve. In doing so, they present the prevention paradox—\"a large number of people exposed to a small risk may generate many more cases [of an undesirable outcome] than a small number exposed to a high risk\"—to explain why universal approaches that target an entire population are essential. Finally, they outline an effective, school-based public health approach to SEL that would maximize positive outcomes for our nation's children.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"27 1","pages":"13 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2017.0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48627925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Megan M. McClelland, Shauna L. Tominey, S. Schmitt, R. Duncan
Summary:Young children who enter school without sufficient social and emotional learning (SEL) skills may have a hard time learning. Yet early childhood educators say they don't get enough training to effectively help children develop such skills.In this article, Megan McClelland, Shauna Tominey, Sara Schmitt, and Robert Duncan examine the theory and science behind early childhood SEL interventions. Reviewing evaluation results, they find that several interventions are promising, though we need to know more about how and why their results vary for different groups of children.Three strategies appear to make interventions more successful, the authors write. First, many effective SEL interventions include training or professional development for early childhood teachers; some also emphasize building teachers' own SEL skills. Second, effective interventions embed direct instruction and practice of targeted skills into daily activities, giving children repeated opportunities to practice SEL skills in different contexts; it's best if these activities grow more complex over time. Third, effective interventions engage children's families, so that kids have a chance to work on their SEL skills both at school and at home. Family components may include teaching adults how to help children build SEL skills or teaching adults themselves how to practice and model such skills.Are early childhood SEL interventions cost-effective? The short answer is that it's too soon to be sure. We won't know how the costs and benefits stack up without further research that follows participants into later childhood and adulthood. In this context, we particularly need to understand how the long-term benefits of shorter, less intensive, and less costly programs compare to the benefits of more intensive and costlier ones.
{"title":"SEL Interventions in Early Childhood","authors":"Megan M. McClelland, Shauna L. Tominey, S. Schmitt, R. Duncan","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2017.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2017.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Young children who enter school without sufficient social and emotional learning (SEL) skills may have a hard time learning. Yet early childhood educators say they don't get enough training to effectively help children develop such skills.In this article, Megan McClelland, Shauna Tominey, Sara Schmitt, and Robert Duncan examine the theory and science behind early childhood SEL interventions. Reviewing evaluation results, they find that several interventions are promising, though we need to know more about how and why their results vary for different groups of children.Three strategies appear to make interventions more successful, the authors write. First, many effective SEL interventions include training or professional development for early childhood teachers; some also emphasize building teachers' own SEL skills. Second, effective interventions embed direct instruction and practice of targeted skills into daily activities, giving children repeated opportunities to practice SEL skills in different contexts; it's best if these activities grow more complex over time. Third, effective interventions engage children's families, so that kids have a chance to work on their SEL skills both at school and at home. Family components may include teaching adults how to help children build SEL skills or teaching adults themselves how to practice and model such skills.Are early childhood SEL interventions cost-effective? The short answer is that it's too soon to be sure. We won't know how the costs and benefits stack up without further research that follows participants into later childhood and adulthood. In this context, we particularly need to understand how the long-term benefits of shorter, less intensive, and less costly programs compare to the benefits of more intensive and costlier ones.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"27 1","pages":"33 - 47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2017.0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43170328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:What do we know about young children with delays and disabilities, and how can we help them succeed in prekindergarten through third grade?To begin with, Kathleen Hebbeler and Donna Spiker write, identifying children with delays and disabilities to receive specialized services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act poses several challenges. First, even though eligibility is based on 14 disability categories listed in the law, each state determines its own criteria for those conditions. Second, young children—especially those with disabilities—are hard to assess. Third, deciding where to draw the line for eligibility along a continuum of functioning is a matter of policy rather than science. In recent decades, the authors note, the concept of disability has been moving away from a medical model that sees disability as an impairment that resides in the child and toward a framework that emphasizes children’s functioning and interaction with their environments.The authors review effective ways to support development and learning among young children with disabilities, including language and social skills interventions, preschool curricula, instructional and other practices, and multi-tiered systems of support. Then they examine a critical policy issue: the inclusion of young children with disabilities in regular education classrooms. One critical finding is that high-quality instruction in general education classrooms is a major factor in good educational outcomes for children with disabilities, and for their successful inclusion from preschool to third grade. Moreover, improving the quality of general education benefits all children, not just those with disabilities.Hebbeler and Spiker also examine what we know about the transitions young children with disabilities make from one setting to another—for example, from prekindergarten to kindergarten. Here they conclude that we need far more research if we’re to understand what makes such transitions successful.
{"title":"Supporting Young Children with Disabilities","authors":"Kathleen Hebbeler, D. Spiker","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0018","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:What do we know about young children with delays and disabilities, and how can we help them succeed in prekindergarten through third grade?To begin with, Kathleen Hebbeler and Donna Spiker write, identifying children with delays and disabilities to receive specialized services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act poses several challenges. First, even though eligibility is based on 14 disability categories listed in the law, each state determines its own criteria for those conditions. Second, young children—especially those with disabilities—are hard to assess. Third, deciding where to draw the line for eligibility along a continuum of functioning is a matter of policy rather than science. In recent decades, the authors note, the concept of disability has been moving away from a medical model that sees disability as an impairment that resides in the child and toward a framework that emphasizes children’s functioning and interaction with their environments.The authors review effective ways to support development and learning among young children with disabilities, including language and social skills interventions, preschool curricula, instructional and other practices, and multi-tiered systems of support. Then they examine a critical policy issue: the inclusion of young children with disabilities in regular education classrooms. One critical finding is that high-quality instruction in general education classrooms is a major factor in good educational outcomes for children with disabilities, and for their successful inclusion from preschool to third grade. Moreover, improving the quality of general education benefits all children, not just those with disabilities.Hebbeler and Spiker also examine what we know about the transitions young children with disabilities make from one setting to another—for example, from prekindergarten to kindergarten. Here they conclude that we need far more research if we’re to understand what makes such transitions successful.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"185 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66361273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Do young children naturally develop the foundations of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? And if so, should we build on these foundations by using STEM curricula in preschools? In this article, Douglas Clements and Julie Sarama argue that the answer to both these questions is yes.First, the authors show that young children possess a sophisticated informal knowledge of math, and that they frequently ask scientific questions, such as why questions. Preschoolers’ free play involves substantial amounts of foundational math as they explore patterns, shapes, and spatial relations; compare magnitudes; and count objects.Moreover, preschool and kindergarten children’s knowledge of and interest in math and science predicts later success in STEM. And not only in STEM: the authors show that early math knowledge also predicts later reading achievement—even better than early literacy skills do. Thus mathematical thinking, Clements and Sarama say, may be cognitively foundational. That is, the thinking and reasoning inherent in math may contribute broadly to cognitive development.Is teaching STEM subjects to preschool children effective? The authors review several successful programs. They emphasize that STEM learning for young children must encompass more than facts or simple skills; rather, the classroom should be infused with interesting, appropriate opportunities to engage in math and science. And instruction should follow research-based learning trajectories that include three components: a goal, a developmental progression, and instructional activities.Clements and Sarama also discuss barriers to STEM teaching in preschool, such as the cultural belief in the United States that math achievement largely depends on native aptitude or ability, and inadequate professional development for teachers.
{"title":"Math, Science, and Technology in the Early Grades","authors":"D. Clements, J. Sarama","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0013","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Do young children naturally develop the foundations of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? And if so, should we build on these foundations by using STEM curricula in preschools? In this article, Douglas Clements and Julie Sarama argue that the answer to both these questions is yes.First, the authors show that young children possess a sophisticated informal knowledge of math, and that they frequently ask scientific questions, such as why questions. Preschoolers’ free play involves substantial amounts of foundational math as they explore patterns, shapes, and spatial relations; compare magnitudes; and count objects.Moreover, preschool and kindergarten children’s knowledge of and interest in math and science predicts later success in STEM. And not only in STEM: the authors show that early math knowledge also predicts later reading achievement—even better than early literacy skills do. Thus mathematical thinking, Clements and Sarama say, may be cognitively foundational. That is, the thinking and reasoning inherent in math may contribute broadly to cognitive development.Is teaching STEM subjects to preschool children effective? The authors review several successful programs. They emphasize that STEM learning for young children must encompass more than facts or simple skills; rather, the classroom should be infused with interesting, appropriate opportunities to engage in math and science. And instruction should follow research-based learning trajectories that include three components: a goal, a developmental progression, and instructional activities.Clements and Sarama also discuss barriers to STEM teaching in preschool, such as the cultural belief in the United States that math achievement largely depends on native aptitude or ability, and inadequate professional development for teachers.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"75 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66361116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Simply put, children with poor English skills are less likely to succeed in school and beyond. What’s the best way to teach English to young children who aren’t native English speakers? In this article, Lisa Barrow and Lisa Markman-Pithers examine the state of English learner education in the United States and review the evidence behind different teaching methods.Models for teaching English learner children are often characterized as either English immersion (instruction only in English) or bilingual education (instruction occurs both in English and in the students’ native language), although each type includes several broad categories. Which form of instruction is most effective is a challenging question to answer, even with the most rigorous research strategies. This uncertainty stems in part from the fact that, in a debate with political overtones, researchers and policymakers don’t share a consensus on the ultimate goal of education for English learners. Is it to help English learner students become truly bilingual or to help them become proficient in the English language as quickly as possible?On the whole, Barrow and Markman-Pithers write, it’s still hard to reach firm conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of different forms of instruction for English learners. Although some evidence tilts toward bilingual education, recent experiments suggest that English learners achieve about the same English proficiency whether they’re placed in bilingual or English immersion programs. But beyond learning English, bilingual programs may confer other advantages—for example, students in bilingual classes do better in their native languages. And because low-quality classroom instruction is associated with poorer outcomes no matter which method of instruction is used, the authors say that in many contexts, improving classroom quality may be the best way to help young English learners succeed.
{"title":"Supporting Young English Learners in the United States","authors":"Lisa Barrow, L. Markman-Pithers","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0017","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Simply put, children with poor English skills are less likely to succeed in school and beyond. What’s the best way to teach English to young children who aren’t native English speakers? In this article, Lisa Barrow and Lisa Markman-Pithers examine the state of English learner education in the United States and review the evidence behind different teaching methods.Models for teaching English learner children are often characterized as either English immersion (instruction only in English) or bilingual education (instruction occurs both in English and in the students’ native language), although each type includes several broad categories. Which form of instruction is most effective is a challenging question to answer, even with the most rigorous research strategies. This uncertainty stems in part from the fact that, in a debate with political overtones, researchers and policymakers don’t share a consensus on the ultimate goal of education for English learners. Is it to help English learner students become truly bilingual or to help them become proficient in the English language as quickly as possible?On the whole, Barrow and Markman-Pithers write, it’s still hard to reach firm conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of different forms of instruction for English learners. Although some evidence tilts toward bilingual education, recent experiments suggest that English learners achieve about the same English proficiency whether they’re placed in bilingual or English immersion programs. But beyond learning English, bilingual programs may confer other advantages—for example, students in bilingual classes do better in their native languages. And because low-quality classroom instruction is associated with poorer outcomes no matter which method of instruction is used, the authors say that in many contexts, improving classroom quality may be the best way to help young English learners succeed.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"159 1","pages":"159 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66361262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Starting Early: Introducing the Issue Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (bio), Lisa Markman-Pithers (bio), and Cecilia Elena Rouse (bio) Across the nation, more and more people want to see children receive quality education before kindergarten. Public opinion polls suggest that 70 percent of adults favor such programs, partly because of the irresistible idea that “starting early,” and ensuring that children arrive in school ready to learn, is the best way to generate happy, healthy, and productive adults.1 The notion of starting early resonates. Head Start, the federally funded prekindergarten program for children from low-income homes, was a cornerstone of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Even then it was believed that students can’t fully benefit from an elementary education if they don’t arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. Presidents with views as disparate as those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have called for strengthening early childhood education in their budgets and State of the Union addresses. One reason for the strong support of early childhood education is the seemingly compelling evidence that exposing children to educational experiences when they’re young can have profound effects on later educational, social, and adult outcomes. In fact, as Lynn Karoly points out in this issue, estimates based on some older pre-K programs suggest that every dollar invested in prekindergarten pays off $3 to $17 in terms of benefits, both to the adult individual and to society. That suggests prekindergarten is one of the most effective investments that we can make in children. Indeed, James Heckman of the University of Chicago, a Nobel laureate in economics, has argued that investments made in early childhood are more beneficial and also more cost-effective than those made in later childhood and adolescence.2 The idea that prekindergarten can enhance later learning and adult success is based on the premise that if pre-K programs provide enriching activities more intensively and more intentionally than parents can, then those programs have the potential to boost children’s learning and skill acquisition. In brief, quality pre-K experiences can teach [End Page 3] children the skills that make it easier for them to learn new skills in early elementary school: that is, skills beget skills. Differences in literacy and cognitive skills between children in low-income families and their better-off counterparts are already apparent by age three, or perhaps even earlier.3 The pre-K education programs initiated in the 1960s and 1970s were designed to reduce those gaps by providing quality pre-K education to disadvantaged children, who were less likely to be ready for school. Few pre-K programs existed in the low-income neighborhoods where most disadvantaged children lived, and parents with little income and education were therefore less likely to send their children to prekindergarten than were
为了代替摘要，这里有一个简短的内容摘录:尽早开始:介绍问题Jeanne Brooks-Gunn(传记)，Lisa Markman-Pithers(传记)和Cecilia Elena Rouse(传记)在全国范围内，越来越多的人希望看到孩子在幼儿园之前接受优质教育。民意调查显示，70%的成年人赞成这样的项目，部分原因是不可抗拒的想法，“早开始”，并确保孩子们到达学校准备学习，是培养快乐，健康和有生产力的成年人的最好方法尽早开始的想法引起了共鸣。由联邦政府资助的针对低收入家庭儿童的学前教育项目“先发计划”(Head Start)是林登·约翰逊(Lyndon Johnson)总统向贫困宣战的基石。即使在那时，人们也认为，如果学生在幼儿园时没有做好学习的准备，他们就不能从基础教育中充分受益。乔治·w·布什(George W. Bush)和巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)等观点迥异的总统，都在各自的预算和国情咨文演讲中呼吁加强幼儿教育。早期儿童教育得到大力支持的一个原因是，似乎有令人信服的证据表明，让孩子在年轻时接受教育经历，对他们以后的教育、社会和成年后的成就有深远的影响。事实上，正如Lynn Karoly在本期杂志中指出的那样，基于一些较早的学前教育项目的估计表明，投资于学前教育的每一美元，对成人个人和社会都能带来3到17美元的收益。这表明学前教育是我们可以对孩子进行的最有效的投资之一。事实上，诺贝尔经济学奖得主、芝加哥大学的詹姆斯·赫克曼(James Heckman)认为，在儿童早期进行的投资比在儿童后期和青少年时期进行的投资更有益，也更划算学前教育可以提高孩子以后的学习和成人的成功，这种观点是基于这样一个前提:如果学前教育项目提供比父母更密集、更有意的丰富活动，那么这些项目就有可能促进孩子的学习和技能习得。简而言之，高质量的学前教育经验可以教给孩子们一些技能，使他们更容易在小学早期学习新技能:也就是说，技能催生技能。低收入家庭的孩子和富裕家庭的孩子在读写能力和认知能力上的差异在三岁甚至更早的时候就已经很明显了20世纪60年代和70年代开始的学前教育项目旨在通过向不太可能为上学做好准备的弱势儿童提供高质量的学前教育来缩小这些差距。在大多数弱势儿童居住的低收入社区，几乎没有学前教育项目，因此，收入和受教育程度都较低的父母比拥有更多资源的父母更不可能将孩子送到幼儿园。而当贫困的父母能够找到一个学前教育项目时，它的质量可能相对较低基于这些观察，我们预计来自弱势环境的儿童将从学前教育中获益最多;高质量的项目将带来最大的好处;接受这种教育的孩子会比那些留在家里，由父母、家人和朋友照顾的孩子受益更多。另一方面，不同的学前教育项目之间的比较不应该显示出如此鲜明的对比。这些假设意味着，在经验评估中，并非所有项目都能显示出同等的效益。学者们称之为结果的异质性。解读这项研究需要注意许多因素——家庭背景、对照组组成、节目质量和强度。学者们广泛研究了学前教育项目的效果，尤其是那些面向四岁儿童的项目。在100多个学前教育项目的评估中，绝大多数是随机分配孩子接受或不接受学前教育这些实验项目大多是为来自资源匮乏家庭的孩子服务的，前提是这些孩子不太可能具备幼儿园所需的技能，因此最有可能受益。因此，我们最了解学前教育如何影响来自弱势背景的儿童。因为其中很多……
{"title":"Starting Early: Introducing the Issue","authors":"J. Brooks-Gunn, L. Markman-Pithers, C. Rouse","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0009","url":null,"abstract":"In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Starting Early: Introducing the Issue Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (bio), Lisa Markman-Pithers (bio), and Cecilia Elena Rouse (bio) Across the nation, more and more people want to see children receive quality education before kindergarten. Public opinion polls suggest that 70 percent of adults favor such programs, partly because of the irresistible idea that “starting early,” and ensuring that children arrive in school ready to learn, is the best way to generate happy, healthy, and productive adults.1 The notion of starting early resonates. Head Start, the federally funded prekindergarten program for children from low-income homes, was a cornerstone of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Even then it was believed that students can’t fully benefit from an elementary education if they don’t arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. Presidents with views as disparate as those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have called for strengthening early childhood education in their budgets and State of the Union addresses. One reason for the strong support of early childhood education is the seemingly compelling evidence that exposing children to educational experiences when they’re young can have profound effects on later educational, social, and adult outcomes. In fact, as Lynn Karoly points out in this issue, estimates based on some older pre-K programs suggest that every dollar invested in prekindergarten pays off $3 to $17 in terms of benefits, both to the adult individual and to society. That suggests prekindergarten is one of the most effective investments that we can make in children. Indeed, James Heckman of the University of Chicago, a Nobel laureate in economics, has argued that investments made in early childhood are more beneficial and also more cost-effective than those made in later childhood and adolescence.2 The idea that prekindergarten can enhance later learning and adult success is based on the premise that if pre-K programs provide enriching activities more intensively and more intentionally than parents can, then those programs have the potential to boost children’s learning and skill acquisition. In brief, quality pre-K experiences can teach [End Page 3] children the skills that make it easier for them to learn new skills in early elementary school: that is, skills beget skills. Differences in literacy and cognitive skills between children in low-income families and their better-off counterparts are already apparent by age three, or perhaps even earlier.3 The pre-K education programs initiated in the 1960s and 1970s were designed to reduce those gaps by providing quality pre-K education to disadvantaged children, who were less likely to be ready for school. Few pre-K programs existed in the low-income neighborhoods where most disadvantaged children lived, and parents with little income and education were therefore less likely to send their children to prekindergarten than were ","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"19 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Since 1950, marriage behavior in the United States has changed dramatically. Though most men and women still marry at some point in their lives, they now do so later and are more likely to divorce. Cohabitation has become commonplace as either a precursor or an alternative to marriage, and a growing fraction of births take place outside marriage.We’ve seen a retreat from marriage within all racial and ethnic groups and across the socioeconomic spectrum. But the decoupling of marriage and parenthood has been much less prevalent among college graduates. Why are college graduates such a prominent exception?Some scholars argue that marriage has declined furthest in low-income communities because men with less education have seen their economic prospects steadily diminish, and because welfare and other social programs have let women rear children on their own. Others contend that poor women have adopted middle-class aspirations for marriage, leading them to establish unrealistic economic prerequisites. The problem with these explanations, write Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak, is that they focus on barriers to marriage only in very poor communities. Yet we’ve seen a retreat from marriage among a much broader swath of the population.Lundberg and Pollak argue that the sources of gains from marriage have changed in such a way that families with high incomes and high levels of education have the greatest incentives to maintain long-term relationships. As women’s educational attainment has overtaken that of men, and as the ratio of men’s to women’s wages has fallen, they write, traditional patterns of gender specialization in household and market work have weakened. The primary source of gains from marriage has shifted from production of household services to investment in children. For couples whose resources allow them to invest intensively in their children, marriage provides a commitment mechanism that supports such investment. For couples who lack the resources to invest intensively in their children, on the other hand, marriage may not be worth the cost of limited independence and potential mismatch.
{"title":"The Evolving Role of Marriage: 1950–2010","authors":"S. Lundberg, R. Pollak","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0011","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Since 1950, marriage behavior in the United States has changed dramatically. Though most men and women still marry at some point in their lives, they now do so later and are more likely to divorce. Cohabitation has become commonplace as either a precursor or an alternative to marriage, and a growing fraction of births take place outside marriage.We’ve seen a retreat from marriage within all racial and ethnic groups and across the socioeconomic spectrum. But the decoupling of marriage and parenthood has been much less prevalent among college graduates. Why are college graduates such a prominent exception?Some scholars argue that marriage has declined furthest in low-income communities because men with less education have seen their economic prospects steadily diminish, and because welfare and other social programs have let women rear children on their own. Others contend that poor women have adopted middle-class aspirations for marriage, leading them to establish unrealistic economic prerequisites. The problem with these explanations, write Shelly Lundberg and Robert Pollak, is that they focus on barriers to marriage only in very poor communities. Yet we’ve seen a retreat from marriage among a much broader swath of the population.Lundberg and Pollak argue that the sources of gains from marriage have changed in such a way that families with high incomes and high levels of education have the greatest incentives to maintain long-term relationships. As women’s educational attainment has overtaken that of men, and as the ratio of men’s to women’s wages has fallen, they write, traditional patterns of gender specialization in household and market work have weakened. The primary source of gains from marriage has shifted from production of household services to investment in children. For couples whose resources allow them to invest intensively in their children, marriage provides a commitment mechanism that supports such investment. For couples who lack the resources to invest intensively in their children, on the other hand, marriage may not be worth the cost of limited independence and potential mismatch.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"29 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:In the contemporary United States, marriage is closely related to money. Men and (perhaps to a lesser extent) women with more education, higher incomes, larger stocks of wealth, and more stable employment are more likely to marry than are people in more precarious economic positions. But is this relationship truly causal? That is, does economic insufficiency cause people to marry later and less often?Daniel Schneider reviews evidence from social experiments in areas such as early childhood education, human capital development, workforce training, and income support to assess whether programs that successfully increased the economic wellbeing of disadvantaged men and women also increased the likelihood that they would marry. These programs were not designed to affect marriage. But to the extent that they increased participants’ economic resources, they could have had such an effect.Examining these programs offers three key benefits. First, their experimental designs provide important insight into the causal role of economic resources for marriage. Second, they give us within-group comparisons of disadvantaged men and women, some of whom received economic “treatments” and some who did not. Third, they by and large assess interventions that are feasible and realistic within the constraints of U.S. policy making.Schneider describes each intervention in detail, discussing its target population, experimental treatment, evaluation design, economic effects, and, finally, any effects on marriage or cohabitation. Overall, he finds little evidence that manipulating men’s economic resources increased the likelihood that they would marry, though there are exceptions. For women, on the other hand, there is more evidence of positive effects.
{"title":"Lessons Learned from Non-Marriage Experiments","authors":"Daniel Schneider","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0017","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:In the contemporary United States, marriage is closely related to money. Men and (perhaps to a lesser extent) women with more education, higher incomes, larger stocks of wealth, and more stable employment are more likely to marry than are people in more precarious economic positions. But is this relationship truly causal? That is, does economic insufficiency cause people to marry later and less often?Daniel Schneider reviews evidence from social experiments in areas such as early childhood education, human capital development, workforce training, and income support to assess whether programs that successfully increased the economic wellbeing of disadvantaged men and women also increased the likelihood that they would marry. These programs were not designed to affect marriage. But to the extent that they increased participants’ economic resources, they could have had such an effect.Examining these programs offers three key benefits. First, their experimental designs provide important insight into the causal role of economic resources for marriage. Second, they give us within-group comparisons of disadvantaged men and women, some of whom received economic “treatments” and some who did not. Third, they by and large assess interventions that are feasible and realistic within the constraints of U.S. policy making.Schneider describes each intervention in detail, discussing its target population, experimental treatment, evaluation design, economic effects, and, finally, any effects on marriage or cohabitation. Overall, he finds little evidence that manipulating men’s economic resources increased the likelihood that they would marry, though there are exceptions. For women, on the other hand, there is more evidence of positive effects.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"155 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：