|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
The Abecedarian Project
David Profitt University of Dayton
If one were to develop an educational intervention program for children from birth to five years of age, it is very unlikely that the intervention would focus solely on the child and his private world. Children of this age are dependent upon others and are born with only reflexive skills, such as the sucking reflex, which assist caregivers in their nurturing and support (Newman & Newman, 2003). It is for this reason that any program designed to improve the academic life of children this age will have to focus not only on the child’s studious needs, but on the physical, nutritional, and social needs of the child. Even though there are many child-oriented programs available, it is the quality of the program which makes the difference (Denton, 2001). A high quality intervention will help children be better prepared for official schooling, assist children in scoring higher on standardized tests, lower the likelihood that a child will need to repeat a grade, decrease the need for special education, and increase the chances that the student will graduate from high school. One such program shown successful in improving the lives of children is the Carolina Abecedarian Project (Waldfogel, 1999). The Abecedarian project (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/executive_summary.htm) is unique from other childhood intervention projects in several ways. While several interventions have focused on academic gains of school children, this program is unique in that the intervention began in infancy and lasted throughout the first five years of life. This study has been and continues to be a long term scientific study on the effects of early, high quality childhood intervention for poor, at risk youths. The study involved 111 infants who were randomly placed into either an experimental or control group. The control group for the Abecedarian Project received free formula and disposable diapers for the period of the study (Campbell & Pungello, 2000). Motor and mental tests for infants showed that both groups were similar at onset (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/executive_summary.htm). The program worked to improve the lives of children by increasing the level of education in both the children and mothers (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/). The benefit to the mothers of the children in the program was auxiliary (Pungello, Campbell & Miller-Johnson, 2000). Even though there was no direct intervention provided to the mothers, simply having their children in the program seemed to encourage the mothers to finish high school (if they were still in high school when their children were enrolled into the Abecedarian Project). If the mothers were out of school at the time of their children’s enrolment, they were more likely than control group mothers to be off welfare and working at the 4.5 year mark. These findings were especially true for younger mothers, though similar, less intense gains were seen in the older mothers. Twice as many younger mothers of treated children eventually attended post high school education than did similar mothers in the control group. The Carolina Abecedarian Project, which started in 1972, targeted children who were considered at-risk and between six weeks and three months of age (Denton, 2001). Most of the children came from single, female parent families. The mother’s average age was 20 years at the time of the study. The project provided full day child care services which lasted year round. These services also included child health services and parent support services. Teacher to child ratios were three to one for infants and toddlers and six to one for older children. Children remained in the program for five or eight years, and though there were clear, significant benefits for those who left after five years (when the child started regular school), the benefits were even higher for the children who remained in the program until they were eight years of age. For those who stayed in the program, there was additional-to-school educational assistance for the first three years of regular schooling. The Abecedarian program’s curricula consisted of learning games which were specifically and systematically assigned to each child, from infancy to preschool (Campbell & Pungello, 2000). As the youngest of the children learned from the games, they were advanced to new levels. The curricula and games included math concepts, activities designed to develop gross and fine motor skills, social skills, problem solving skills, and language and pre-literacy development. Children who participated in the Abecedarian project scored higher on cognitive tests throughout school, and most recently, at age 21 (Campbell & Pungello, 2000). In mathematics, participants who ended the program at five years of age and those who stayed in for the additional three years of services held similar gains. In reading scores, however, participants with the additional three years of services showed greater improvements than those who only received services for the first five years. For all participants, those who received services completed more secondary and post-secondary education than did controls. Though high-school graduation rates were similar, twice the number of participants were still in school at age 21 than were members of the control group. As adults at age 21, recipients of the Abecedarian services were significantly more likely to be employed than the controls (Campbell & Pungello, 2000). Treatment participants were over one year older than controls when they had their first child. Conversely, treatment participants were just as likely to have used illegal drugs or participated in heavy alcohol use as were controls. Also, treatment participants were equally likely to report having carried a weapon. Evidence gathered in the study lends support to the idea of having children enter similar programs, such as Head Start, at a younger age (Campbell & Pungello, 2000). The academic gains of interventions similar to the Abecedarian project are far greater for students who entered the programs earlier in their life. Simply, pre-school age interventions can accomplish more than any school-aged program. In addition to the academic gains, programs such as the Abecedarian project have been shown to improve job ratings and social class for participants. Childhood intervention programs should be thought of as more than just academic in nature, but social and economic as well. Campbell, F. A. & Pungello, E. (2000). High quality child care has long-term educational benefits for poor children. Paper resented at the Head Start National Research Conference, June 28, 2000. Denton, D. R. (2001). Improving children’s readiness for school: Preschool programs make a difference, but quality counts! Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. (July, 2003). The Carolina Abecedarian Project. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/ Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. (July, 2003). Early Learning, Later Success: The Abecedarian Study. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/executive_summary.htm Newman, B. M. & Newman, P. R. (2003). Development through life: A psychosocial approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Pungello, E., Campbell, F. A., Miller-Johnson, S. (2000). Benefits of high quality childcare for low-income mothers: The Abecedarian Study. Paper presented at the Head Start National Research Conference, Washington, DC, June 28, 2000. Waldfogel, J. (1999). Early childhood interventions and outcomes. London, England: HM Treasury Workshop on Persistent Poverty and Inequality, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics. Download the class handout here. Filed under: EDC 510-511 Consultation in Schools and PracticumCopyright: September, 2003 - David Profitt |
|
|