No parent left behind

Because it is college graduation season, it is easy to forget that much of the success youth will experience in the future is not directly linked to their higher education. Americans should take pride in the fact that they have nurtured a university system unparalleled in the number of opportunities offered to its students. But more than focusing on “the end,” they should also take time to reflect on where the educational journey begins. For better or worse, the foundations of success—or failure—are laid early in life, well before college enters into the equation. Those foundations are becoming less adequate each year.

America is an increasingly polar society. Its universities are churning out more degree-holders than ever before, yet its high schools are losing more students than ever before. This widening educational divide has dense implications for American society as a whole. There are two major economic implications to this growing polarity—the productivity gains and losses from disparities in educational attainment and the development of a distinct “underclass” of people unequipped to flourish in a service-oriented economy. Both outcomes are worrisome. And they feed a multitude of other policy concerns ranging from public health to future income levels and GDP. Socioeconomic inequality is at the heart of most of these problems.

That inequality is often mirrored in educational attainment. Ability gaps open early and are hard to close. Students who do well in preschool tend to do well in high school and their underperforming peers continue to underachieve. Achievement gaps at the age of 18 are the same as they were at age five, suggesting that poor public schooling may have a less significant effect than popularly believed. On the surface this may seem surprising, but biology has a convincing explanation. The critical and sensitive periods for human development come early in life. As toddlers our minds act like sponges, seeping up whatever stimuli our environments provide us with.

Better environments early in life mean better outcomes later. Investments—in schooling, travel or good nutrition—made in children before their school years are the ones with the most impact on their later development. Investments, however, vary between families. The most at-risk children are the ones least likely to receive the necessary investments. They are “doomed” to remain in the lower classes as their wealthier peers graduate from high school, go on to college and eventually land high-paying jobs that support their families. This is not to say that it is ever “too late” to invest in a child, but what it does suggest is that the return on your investment diminishes with time. The best investments are the ones made early in life, since the benefits accrue over a longer timespan.

The American emphasis on test scores and academic achievement has only precipitated a cyclical phenomenon where the privileged remain privileged and the underprivileged, underprivileged. An emphasis on cognitive skills, however, as measured in standardized tests only paints part of the picture. More than “smarts” are needed to succeed—self-esteem, motivation, perseverance and character are also important. These are the non-cognitive skills that influence the ways we learn and interact with others. Whereas cognitive skills are largely determined by age 10, non-cognitive skills take longer to develop. This is because the prefrontal cortex—the area of the brain responsible for executive function—continues to develop well after early childhood and into adolescence.

Government-run early childhood intervention programs, like Chicago Child Parent Centers, have proved effective in maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing negative ones associated with the cultivation of these skills. They also make sure that parents are involved in the rearing of their children—a “no child left behind” philosophy inherently entails a “no parent left behind” one, too.

The path to building a better future starts early in life. Government policy should reflect this, and certainly not forget it. Policy should also match our scientific understanding. By emphasizing good nutrition and amendable environments, programs like the Chicago Child Parent Centers serve to enhance cognitive skills more than non-cognitive ones. This is a good start, but until non-cognitive skills receive the same amount of attention, our investments will never be fully realized.

That is because cognitive and non-cognitive skills cross-fertilize each other—a gain in one is a gain in both. The best students don’t just solve problems, they stick with them even if they seem insolvable. American schools may do a better job at building “brains” than they are given credit for, but they do little to build character, which counts just as much. And even though biology suggests that there is an expiration date on the ability to nurture cognitive skills, no such deadline exists for non-cognitive ones. People will live and learn. So when we think of the educational journey that we want our children to embark on, we should acknowledge the importance of amassing cognitive skills early, but never forget the impact that cultivating non-cognitive skills can have—even when it seems too late.