Investing in Children: Ideas for Action

Contents

Reporting organization:	Canadian Council on Social Development
Workshop Chair:	Doug Drew Centre for Education Statistics, Statistics Canada
Presenters:	Bruce Ryan Department of Family Studies University of Guelph Jennifer Connolly Department of Psychology, York University Clyde Hertzman Department of Health Care and Epidemiology University of British Columbia
Commentators:	Wayne Doggett Nova Scotia Education and Culture Jan Eastman Canadian Teachers' Federation

3.1 The Issues

In discussions about the state of children's learning in Canada, media and public attention seems to focus exclusively on the educational system — that is, the schools our children attend, their teachers and the boards that implement and maintain education policy. New research, however, shows that the hours a child spends outside of the classroom have a profound impact on the child's ability to learn, even before formal schooling begins. New research shows that we must take into account the impact of the child's family life, neighbourhood and teachers to improve a child's learning. We must extend the concept of education beyond the schoolyard and take a more inclusive, holistic approach. To do this, we must consider the following questions:

How can families be supported to ensure that their children learn? What kind of activities can be taken to provide such support? Who would be the key agents?
How can we improve children's neighbourhoods to have positive impacts on school outcomes? What factors in the neighbourhood should trigger interventions? By whom?
How should policies and practices in schools and other institutions be amended to accommodate the stress of early adolescence and learning? How should support for boys be different from that provided to girls?
What steps can be taken to ensure that all children have a positive school experience? How can we improve the academic performance of children with low-income families and parents with little education?

The determinants affecting a child's ability to learn are not limited to the classroom. Rather, the three papers based on NLSCY data presented at this conference show that a child's behavioural and cognitive abilities are influenced by the neighbourhood in which the family lives, by personal and parental attitudes, and by expectations towards education and family functioning.

3.2 Workshop Themes

The research papers focussed on the following topics:

Neighbourhood influences on children's school readiness;
Family relationships and children's school achievement; and
Links between personal attitude and parent/teacher support for school.

A. Neighbourhood influences on children's school readiness

Dafna E. Kohen, Clyde Hertzman, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, in their paper “Affluent Neighbourhoods and School Readiness”, explored the relationship between neighbourhood factors and children's readiness to start school. NLSCY had included two indicators of school readiness: cognitive competence (receptive vocabulary) in children aged 4 and 5; and behavioural competence in children over the age of 2. The survey had also examined neighbourhood characteristics, particularly neighbourhood affluence and safety. The researchers looked at children ages 2, 3, 4, and 5, using Cycle 1 NLSCY data.

Children in the early age groups (2-3) are mostly too young to explore their surroundings on their own. For this reason, individual and family differences probably affect them more than neighbourhood characteristics. For children in the school-starting age bracket (4-5), neighbourhood characteristics can have important effects.

Children from unsafe neighbourhoods (characterized by littering, loitering, and fighting) and from neighbourhoods low in social cohesion (those where parents saw little cooperation or helpfulness among neighbours) were apt to have lower cognitive scores and more behavioural problems. This was also true of children from low-income families and children whose mothers had little education. Children from neighbourhoods with large numbers of lone-parent families were more apt to have poorer scores, because these neighbourhoods tend to be unsafe, not because the child is being raised in a lone-parent family.

Conversely, children from neighbourhoods with a high proportion of families with incomes of more than $50,000 had higher cognitive scores, fewer behavioural problems, and better school-readiness. These findings complement American research, which has shown the benefits to all children living in a given neighbourhood in which 5 percent or more of its inhabitants are highly visible community leaders. Neighbourhoods with this proportion of community leaders have been shown to be more cohesive and therefore more likely to produce children better prepared to begin their formal education.

The authors call for investment in early childhood development, for programs directed at both the neighbourhood and the family, and for efforts to reduce the inequities between children in different socio-economic situations, including housing support.

B. Family relationships and children's school achievement

Obviously neighbourhoods are not the only factors in a child's readiness to learn. Bruce A. Ryan and Gerald G. Adams, in their paper “How Do Families Affect Children's Success in School?”, show that family dynamics exert a tremendous influence, both positive and negative, on a child's learning ability.

For too long, the authors explain, scholarly research and educational policy have regarded the family and the school as separate entities. Over the last 20 years, however, parents and educators have begun to recognize the link between these two complex systems, and have begun to call for more co-operation, communication and parental involvement in children's education. A better understanding of the relationship between these two worlds will help in improving children's educational outcomes.

The researchers developed their Family School Relationships model to explore the relationship between a child's personal and family characteristics and school performance. It groups characteristics in several levels that together affect a child's school performance. The first, or most central level is the child's own personal characteristics — for example, intelligence, skills, self-esteem, and ability to handle frustration. Next in importance are family characteristics, school-focused or general (general parent-child interactions, general family relations, personal characteristics of the parents). How willing are parents to help with homework? Can they provide educational experiences? What level of education do they have? What is the family's emotional health? Finally, the model considers exogenous social-cultural variables, of which socio-economic status is the most obvious.

The researchers found that a child's educational outcomes are most heavily influenced by his or her own personal characteristics. Nonetheless, parent-child interactions, whether school-based or not, can also influence a child's academic success. In addition, general family functioning, parental characteristics and socio-cultural values all exert influences to varying degrees on the child's success at school. Though different coefficients were found between boys and girls, the Family-School Relationships model is equally applicable to both sexes.

The family's socio-economic status, Ryan and Adams found, has a profound effect on the child's academic achievement because it affects virtually every aspect of family functioning. Low-income parents are more apt to suffer from depression and stress, which lead to poor familial interactions. Families higher in socio-economic status are more apt to seek social support and take steps to deal with family problems. They are also less apt to suffer from conflict, anger, and poor communication. Finally, they are less likely to engage in ineffective parenting behaviours, which negatively affect a child's academic skills and competence.

C. Links between personal attitude and parent/teacher support for school

Children aged 10-11 are just beginning puberty, a period that can be stressful for them and their families. In their paper “Academic Achievement in Early Adolescence: Do School Attitudes Make a Difference?”, Jennifer A. Connolly, Virginia Hatchette and Loren E. McMaster investigated the shift among three elements that affect children's academic performance: parental support, teacher support, and the child's own attitudes toward school. They looked at whether the onset of puberty affects children's academic performance and attitudes, and whether boys and girls have different school attitudes and success.

The NLSCY collected data on children's academic success, their attitudes towards school, and the support they perceived from parents and teachers. Generally, the data indicated that children were doing well and felt that their parents and teachers were supportive. There were clear links between achievement and children's positive attitude toward school, support from teachers, lack of pressure from parents, and parents' own hopes for their children's achievement. Of these, children's confidence in their own abilities made more difference than did adult support. “This suggests that in early adolescence, children have begun to internalize the academic expectations and attitudes toward school to which they are exposed. In addition to the support they obtain from adults, their expectations begin to influence their achievement. ”

The children surveyed were pre-pubescent or at the very beginning of puberty; it is therefore perhaps too soon to tell what effect puberty may have on their school performance and attitudes. Some preliminary results suggest that pubertal children suffer a decline in self-esteem and report less supportiveness from their parents. Nonetheless, “few links were established in relation to school achievement” at this early stage.

In general, late elementary school appears to be a good fit for girls. Girls were more likely than boys were to report that their teachers and parents were providing support. Positive school attitudes had more impact on school achievement for girls than they did for boys. For girls, teacher support, parental support, and positive attitudes all contributed to academic success. For the boys, parental support was more important, and teacher support and positive attitudes had less impact on performance.

The authors call for studies of the factors that create a positive school environment for late-elementary students. Schools should foster a positive attitude in students, as well as good family attitudes and strong teacher support. While it is important to continue supporting girls in late elementary school, “boys are benefiting less from what school has to offer” and need more support, especially in internalizing positive attitudes about school. Care must be taken to balance the expected decrease in children's self-esteem and parental support, as children move into full puberty.

3.3 Ideas for Action

Discussions arising from the research presented yielded a number of important themes and suggestions for improving children's education in Canada. While the themes were numerous, all shared a common thread: the need for better communication between the actors in a child's education, and better co-ordination of resources, both financial and physical. These themes are discussed below.

A. The importance of research

Good research promotes sound policies and programs. We need an extensive body of solid, reliable data for four reasons:

to verify, substantiate, and confirm our perceptions of what works (and doesn't work) in promoting good outcomes for children;
to establish program goals, guidelines and priorities;
to integrate existing services and programs for improved delivery and administration; and
to establish a common ground for all entities involved with children (for example, government departments and agencies, NGOs, unions, practitioners, etc. )

We must, however, keep in mind that the leap from research to policy to program can be a large one, depending on the amount of change needed. We cannot leap straight from a given research finding to a policy change. In proposing a particular change in policy, we need to articulate clearly why the change is needed, and we should consider carefully what the outcome of such changes might be in other areas. We should also remember that change takes time, and that results are not always immediately apparent.

We need to expand our areas of research. We should be including all children in research — Aboriginal children, for example. We should look at the diversity of children's needs. Have we examined the benefits of mixed-income communities? Do boys and girls learn differently, and if so, should they be in split classes in some programs? We should examine the impact of teachers as role models. Why are comparatively few men attracted to teaching? These are only a few of the questions that need further research.

Just as the themes to be discussed share a common thread, so do the papers from which the discussion arose. All three research papers recognized the complex interactions of school and family, both complex entities in themselves. In addition, all three papers recognized - from a number of different perspectives - the important influence of socio-economic status on children's educational outcomes. The CCSD hopes that the findings from these papers, combined with others using NLSCY data, will allow policy makers to form a portrait of children and families when considering the allocation of resources, financial or otherwise.

The importance of socio-economic status in affording a child the best opportunities to become productive, healthy members of Canadian society has been well-documented and is well-known. Children whose parents are better-educated and have higher incomes are more likely to succeed. Despite this, research presented by J. Douglas Willms shows an estimated 23 per cent of Canadian children are at risk of not developing their abilities to the fullest. Why is this so?

One major stumbling block has been the failure of legislators, community leaders and governments to articulate the extent of change that has occurred in Canada in recent decades. Changes to CHST (Canada Health and Social Transfer) and EI (Employment Insurance), as well as various reforms to education itself were undertaken without a clear understanding - public or bureaucratic - of why they were necessary. Although previous changes may have been based on sound research, it is conceivable that they were undertaken without a full understanding of why they were needed, or without giving consideration to possible ramifications in other areas not directly involved in policy changes. Rather than leading to a smooth transition in public policy, such wholesale changes in social and educational policy have led to criticisms within and between federal and provincial cabinets, from the academic community, from teachers and from parents themselves. In the future, it is hoped that when devising policies affecting education (and, to an important extent, SES), policy makers will demonstrate a concerted effort at collaboration and co-operation.

B. Improving Communication Between Actors

Criticisms of Canada's educational system, though vociferous, are not always entirely fair. Those charged with the task of improving the learning potential of Canadian children must first take into account that the majority of our children do learn to read, write, spell and do fractions. The majority of them also grow up healthy. While the public tends to view the school system as an amorphous, homogenous entity, this is simply not the case. Canadian teachers are, for the most part, dedicated, talented professionals who enjoy their work.

Unfortunately, not all areas of the country are as well-served as others, either with regard to good teachers, effective teaching methods or resources. In addition, poor or infrequent communication, either between provinces or boards of education, may have hampered the spread of innovative methods and information across the country. How, then, can teachers who wish to exchange and share new ideas, do so? How do we let teachers know they are doing a good job?

One response to both these questions is that provinces and school boards across the country make these strategies known in other jurisdictions. This is currently being done through in-service training, which allows teachers to devote an entire day to examining new approaches to matters relating to education. As teachers are often on the front lines of social and demographic changes, they possess a wealth of knowledge and experience which unfortunately, has remained in the classroom. This first-hand knowledge, when combined with data from surveys such as the NLSCY, would be useful in constructing sound educational reform. However, in-services and similar training forums have been among the first victims of cutbacks to provincial education budgets. Dwindling financial resources have severely restricted teachers' abilities to engage in activities outside the classroom. Opportunities must be found to let teachers share their experiences and knowledge.

C. An integrated approach

Closely linked to improved communications between educators and policy makers is the need for more integration between actors in our children's education. As seen in all three research papers, a child's education begins before he steps foot in a classroom and continues after the final bell. Parents, teachers, community organizations and others all play a role in our children's education. To achieve lasting education reforms, an integrated approach, which acknowledges the role of each of these actors, should be adopted. Additionally, adopting a more integrated approach to program funding will help eliminate (or at least reduce) battles for funding within governments themselves.

With regard to a comprehensive plan for children and youth, the federal/provincial/ territorial National Children's Agenda and the National Children's Alliance (of non-governmental organizations) have much to contribute. The NLSCY itself can be one of the bases for such a plan, helping to inform Canada about future directions from a foundation of solid knowledge.

It is not simply the provinces' reduced education budgets which necessitate a new approach. Adopting a more integrated approach to program funding will help reduce battles for funding within government departments. We must find ways of developing policies and delivering services that research shows will benefit children. Programs must have clear objectives, be supported by research and practice, and be closely integrated, in order to reduce overlap and gaps.

All those interested in children's well-being must move from criticizing each other's efforts to collaboration. Integrating reduces overlap among services and makes the most of scarce resources. Nova Scotia's Child and Youth Action Committee provides a good example. This committee includes a multi-departmental group of senior officials, plus community agencies, working together to develop a coordinated province-wide approach to child and youth services.

Programming should ideally give all children — not just the children of comfortable or privileged families — access to what they need for healthy development. While specific programs are needed for high-risk children, early intervention programs should be available for all children and their families. Drop-in neighbourhood centres for children and parents would be an example of this sort of program.

The federal government has to take a longer-term view of children's programming, making resources available for the long term (10 years or more) for such invaluable programs as the NLSCY itself. Participants suggested that the time has come for the federal government to get involved in supporting schools, as well as ensuring adequate high-quality child care and early childhood education.

D. Schools and the community

Participants noted a need for improved school-community relations. Parents need to be more engaged with their children's schools, something that could be fostered through activities such as curriculum nights, parent preparedness workshops, and the like. They must go beyond traditional parent-school committees and feel part of the school.

Schools could be community hubs, loci for parenting courses and for services such as child care. Already, in British Columbia, the school board area is the same as the health board area. Instead of being closed, under-utilized school buildings could be used as centres for community development projects. New schools could be located and planned as community centres, instead of being on the physical and social outskirts. This sort of integration could help make schools agents of community development and contribute to neighbourhood cohesion. Parents and other community members could run programs at these centres — a way of building not only cohesion, but also people's skills and self-confidence. This could be an invaluable experience for marginalized groups of parents such as recent immigrants or parents on welfare.

If we want parents to support children's education, they need to feel welcomed and at ease in their children's schools. We know little about how well parents are prepared to deal with schools. Are schools making a special effort to make parents welcome who might be marginalized or intimidated — for example, parents with little education, low-income and single parents, or recent immigrants? Schools might have a parent coffee room, for example. Participants suggested that schools present a “parent preparedness” program, with federal or provincial funding, to help parents feel comfortable with their children's school.

Schools must be involved with the community. Law enforcement officers would like to get involved with schools, starting with preschoolers. Schools should be working closely with municipal planners — for example, with Ontario Changes, child care organizations, and the like. We need to take an integrated approach to children's issues, and schools are a logical place to bring together a wide range of programs.

Educators should be encouraged to share information, finding new approaches to make schools more effective and better integrated into their communities. This could be done through in-service programs and communication among boards and between provinces.

In Canada, the growing income gap between the richest and poorest groups in society has the potential to give rise to a new “two solitudes” culture, as it has in areas of the United States. An example of this is the rise of private schooling, which could pose problems for the public school system. Traditionally, middle-class parents have been the backbone of schools and their taxes are the basis for school funding. They have, of course, the right to send their children to private schools; that is a personal choice. But growth in the private-school sector could come at the expense of public education, risking a two-tiered school system in which public education deteriorates and in which children from poor families are socially and educationally marginalized. The federal government has a role to play in combating this potential problem.

E. Parent-friendly workplaces

Especially for lone parents, parents in highly regimented industries, and parents holding down shift-work jobs, children's school activities may be forced to take a back seat to work. If workplaces were more family-friendly, the results could make a considerable difference. U. S. surveys show that about 30 percent of the American workforce needs a few hours each week for family matters. Giving working parents the flexibility to spend this time with their children could have substantial long-term benefits. France and some Scandinavian countries now fund some workplace flexibility programs, sick leave, and family leave. Except for Quebec, Canada has failed to follow this example.

On-the-job literacy programs could have substantial payoffs for both children and their parents, since children from families with higher literacy levels do better in school. Programs like this could foster life-long learning, an essential part of adapting to the new global economy. Federal and provincial government could lead the way in this area.

F. Social cohesion: “It takes a village... ”

Growing up in a neighbourhood with poor social cohesion or social problems can decrease a child's ability to learn. Using schools as community hubs, as discussed above, is one potential way of building community cohesion. What other factors affect neighbourhoods, and what are our options for making them better places for children?

What is a healthy neighbourhood? One in which people know each other, feel safe, and know that there are social and friendship support systems. Neighbourhoods with a socio-economic and cultural mix can help provide a “boost up” for disadvantaged children and help build tolerance, respect, and cohesion among different social groups.

More old-fashioned neighbourliness would do children and their families a world of good. Such social ties can grow up around community development projects that improve children's physical surroundings. Public parks, skating rinks and other recreational areas provide physical and intellectual stimulation to all young children and bring neighbours together. Too often, projects like these have fallen victim to budget cuts at the provincial and municipal level. As it now stands, a child's access to recreation and sports depends in large part upon his or her family's socio-economic status. This is yet another example of economic polarization and the growing disadvantages faced by lower-income families.

G. Boys at risk

Most of the previous discussion concerned children of both genders. But we know from the research that boys are at greater risk of performing poorly in school as they reach puberty. Boys in early adolescence (between the ages of 10 and 12) demonstrate a marked decline in interest in their education, a downward trend that seems unaffected by teacher support or involvement. This problem is particularly evident among young Afro-Canadian boys in Montreal. A lack of role models for boys, both in and outside schools, may be part of the problem.

Participants suggested two ways to address boys' alienation from school. First, we need to find out why fewer men are going into teaching, in order to promote the recruitment of more male teachers in elementary schools. What is it about teaching that makes it an unattractive career choice for young men? Second, we need to find out what engages young boys' attention and energies, and bring those qualities and characteristics to the curriculum. The aim is to make school a place where boys want to spend their time.

H. The conditions necessary for good teaching

Ensuring that Canadian children have the education they need to be productive, healthy adults depends upon four conditions, identified by a poll by the Canadian Teachers' Federation in April 1998:

students' willingness to learn;
teacher quality;
parental involvement; and
time spent by teachers with students

Obviously these require the involvement not only of good teachers, but also of parents and students as well. Since children's ability to learn depends on their surroundings, we should create environments at home and at school that are conducive to good teaching. A number of points need consideration:

We need to make good schooling universal, so that parents will not feel a need to send their children to private schools.
Curricula should include not only the basics but art and music as well.
Curricula should also reflect our cultural diversity.
We need to give special consideration to immigrant children who have not yet learned English or French.
Student evaluations should not be based on administrative priorities, but on the student's own needs.
Reducing class size may have comparatively less effect on improving performance, although it may be more important for the lower grades, which should have a maximum of 15 students (Nova Scotia has a class size reduction project in these grades).
We need high-quality assessments of students in order to provide feedback on policy impacts.

I. Supporting low-income families

Children from low-income families are notably at risk for poorer school performance. Income inequalities probably have more of an effect than income itself, a factor that becomes more important with the growing income gap in Canada. We also have to consider the differences between long-term poverty and temporary poverty.

We need income supplementation, education and training, jobs, and child care to reduce the problem of poverty in Canada, and the threat it poses to child outcomes. We need to discuss how best to use funds in the Employment Insurance program (formerly Unemployment Insurance) to foster child and human development, instead of a payment to people who are out of work.

Finally, we need to discourage segmentation of communities by income and to encourage policies directed toward inclusive housing and community development.

3.4 Conclusions

The Canadian Council on Social Development, which drafted the report for this workshop, has a mandate to advance economic and social security for all Canadians. Much of its work is in the area of family income and income support programs. The CCSD believes that in a country as rich as Canada, people need more than the bare necessities of food and shelter. For children, this means equal access to such amenities as recreation and cultural activities. Above all, children need family economic security. It is in Canadian children's interests that governments at all levels act to give all children equal life chances, regardless of their family's socio-economic status.

The CCSD believes that the federal government's most important role in the well-being of children is in the area of income security. It is clear from this workshop and others that poverty affects every aspect of a child's life, academic achievement included. Any action the government takes to ensure the economic security of Canadian families can only have a beneficial effect on child outcomes on all fronts.

The federal government should consider using part of EI funds to promote and support flexible work arrangements, as a number of European countries have done. We should not penalize parents who want to spend time with their children. Any federal action in this area should consider the needs and positions of employers and educators.

We need an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to social and educational policy, one that integrates services and reduces competition, duplication, and overlap in the delivery of services, if we want to achieve lasting improvement in Canada's education system. Unfortunately, our record in this regard is poor — witness the implementation of reforms to Canada's EI system in the middle of a severe recession. Single, targeted interventions can be disruptive in the short term and ineffective in the long run.

Before enacting any future legislation, the federal government should consult all stakeholders and consider the possibility of unintended outcomes in other areas, especially education. Better communication and a more integrated approach by all levels of government could make the process of instituting these changes run more smoothly, and would be less damaging to families and children.

To sum up, participants called for a number of actions to support Canada's school system and to promote good school outcomes for children:

carrying out more research, as a basis for sound decision-making;
closely linking research with policy;
taking an integrated approach that involves all stakeholders in the school system;
taking the long view and committing adequate resources;
establishing schools as community centres;
promoting parents' involvement in schools;
supporting public (vs. private) schooling;
creating family-friendly workplaces;
promoting cohesive, supportive neighbourhoods;
addressing pubescent boys' alienation from school;
creating the conditions that children need to learn; and
supporting low-income families, whose children are at high risk for school problems

Only government has the infrastructure to address these needs. One of the federal government's roles is in conducting the NLSCY itself. Good data is the first step in shaping public policy. Participants in the workshop strongly endorsed both the NLSCY itself and the use that HRDC's research program had made of the data.

Among industrialized countries, Canada has an extremely poor record of providing high quality affordable child care. Providing equal access to high-quality child care in all provinces and territories would go a long way toward ensuring that all children enter school with the grounding they need to learn. Parents need this support in order to work, giving their children a stable economic situation.

The federal government should work with municipalities to provide more affordable housing, in order to reduce the growing economic polarization of neighbourhoods in Canadian cities. Affluent neighbourhoods offer advantages to children of all income groups. In future, zoning laws and urban development projects could be designed to encourage the creation of more economically integrated neighbourhoods, which would promote more safety and cohesion. We need a renewed federal commitment to public and subsidized housing, particularly in urban cores that have borne the brunt of suburbanization.

We know that children who do poorly in school show a greater likelihood of having social, emotional, and behavioural problems in adulthood. Turning a blind eye to these problems will cost our society dearly in 20 years' time. If schools, communities, governments, and individuals can work together to enhance our children's learning, we can expect a wide range of payoffs in the long term. Our investment must, however, be based on accurate information and sound, integrated federal/provincial policy.