1

Science,Policy,and theYoung Developing ChildClosing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Doby Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D.

Dean, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management Brandeis University

Published by Ounce of Prevention Fund

The notion of “starting earlier” to make sure that moreyoung children arrive at school eager to learn is gainingmomentum. Yet, there remains a staggering gap betweenwhat we know and what we do as a society when it comesto early care and education. The gap exists for three basicreasons: mistaken impressions, misunderstandings andmisplaced priorities. First, many people think that infants,toddlers and preschoolers are “too young” to learn.Second, many people do not have a clear understanding of how a good early learning program works. Third, toooften, political rhetoric about the critical importance ofearly education is not translated into reality when publicofficials are devising and voting on budgets.

The Ounce of Prevention Fund invited a nationally recognized expert, Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D., to examine thecurrent state of early childhood, and to explore ways to close the gap between what we know and what we do asa society. Dr. Shonkoff, the Dean of The Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University,spoke at the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s 20th AnniversaryDinner. This report, written by Dr. Shonkoff, expandsupon his remarks.

Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D. is Dean of The Heller School for Social Policy and Management and theSamuel F. and Rose B. Gingold Professor of Human Development and Social Policy at BrandeisUniversity. He currently serves as chair of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, a new multidisciplinary collaboration comprising many of the nation’s leading neuroscientists and child development researchers, whose goal is to bring sound and accurate science to bear onpublic decision-making affecting the lives of young children.

1

The time has come to step back and ask how well we are doing as a nation of communities to shape theearly experiences of all our children. This is a very important question for one simple reason—decades of scientific research have concluded that experiences in the first few years establish a foundation for human development that is carried throughoutlife. And how well these foundations are constructed constitutes an important shared responsibility.

This brief is informed by the findings of a landmark report issued in 2000 by the National Research Council andInstitute of Medicine of the NationalAcademy of Sciences titled, From Neuronsto Neighborhoods: The Science of EarlyChildhood Development. Like all reportsfrom the National Academies, that document was subjected to a highlydemanding review process by a distin-guished group of scientists to assure thatits conclusions and recommendationswere credible scientifically and free from even a trace of political advocacy.

The results of this extensive effort have implications for us all—from policy-makers to parents, and from early childhood educators to city planners.

Let’s begin with four well-established, scientific principles of early childhooddevelopment.

Principle 1Each of us is the product of an ongoing interaction between the influence of our personal life experiences and the contribution ofour unique genetic endowment, within the culture in which we live.

The question is not whether early experiences matter. That question hasbeen answered again and again—andthe answer is “yes, absolutely.” Theimportant unanswered question is, howdoes experience make a difference? How does it get into the brain? How is itthat everything about each and everyone of us is the product of both our environment and our genetics?

The answers to these questions are likelyto come from the combined efforts of behavioral researchers (who have beenteaching us about the developing childfor decades) and neuroscientists (whoare learning incredible new things abouthow experience actually affects brainarchitecture). Even the molecular biologists who cracked the genetic codeare weighing in on this debate, for theyhave learned that gene expression itself is affected by environmental influences.

What We Know:Promoting the Healthy Development of Young Children

2

Principle 2 Human relationships are the “active ingredients” of environmen-tal impact on young children.

Research tells us that a wide array of people play an important part in shapingyoung children’s lives. These includeneighbors, friends, and teachers, in addition to parents, grandparents, andother extended family members. Forlarge and growing numbers of children,it also means the other adults who care for them in the early childhoodeducation programs where they spend a substantial part of every day.

Central to the impact of relationships on children in the early years is theirquality, particularly as it is expressed in the continuous back and forth interaction that takes place between ayoung child and an invested adult. Whenrelationships are nurturing, individual-ized, responsive, and predictable, theyincrease the odds of desirable outcomes.That is to say, they promote healthybrain development, as positive experi-ences contribute to the formation ofwell-functioning neural circuits. Wheninterpersonal experiences are disruptive,neglectful, abusive, unstable, or other-wise stressed, they increase the probabilityof poor outcomes. In the case of excessive childhood stress, for example,chemicals are released in the brain that

damage its developing architecture. Thislink between adult-child relationshipsand children’s later achievements is not based on intuition or wishful thinking. It is grounded in hard science andreflected in evolving brain function.

Thus, when we measure the quality of anearly care and education program, it’sthe people—and the relationships theyestablish with the children—that makethe difference between a good and a badplace for a young child to spend a largepart of each day. It’s the extent to whichcaregivers are motivated to respond tochildren as individuals, which is hardlypossible if you are responsible for 20young children or if you think of yourjob primarily as keeping them safe anddry, rather than helping to facilitate their development.

Principle 3The development of intelligence,language, emotions, and socialskills is highly inter-related.

If you build a home, you don’t ask whetherthe electrical wiring in the living room is more important than the plumbing inthe bathroom or the heating system inthe den. Like the inter-related systems inthe structure of a house, science tells us that you can’t isolate discrete abilities in the brain of a real live person, even in the earliest months of life.

3

There isn’t an exclusive brain area that determines intelligence, nor isthere one for emotions or social skills.Scientific knowledge on this issue is crystal clear—cognitive, emotional, andsocial competence evolve hand in hand. When a supportive environmentis provided, the emerging structure issound, and all the parts work together.

Learning is an interactive process thatdepends on the integration of multipleabilities and skills. It is never just onething, particularly with respect to achild’s readiness to succeed in school.

Principle 4Early childhood interventions can shift the odds toward morefavorable outcomes, but programsthat work are rarely simple, inexpensive, or easy to implement.

There is extensive, credible evidencefrom several model programs thatdemonstrate our capacity to facilitate

positive outcomes for children who livewith a variety of developmental burdens. These programs include interventionsfor children with specific disabilities,interventions for children who live in poverty, and interventions for childrenwho live in violent homes, among others.

Stated simply, there is no quick fix in the world of early childhood intervention. Programs that workrequire sufficient resources to be implemented effectively. The question,therefore, is not as much about cost as itis about cost-effectiveness and return on investment, or doing the right thing at the right time in order to have thegreatest impact on a child’s future.

Poorly designed services delivered bystaff who are inadequately trained,underpaid, and/or overburdened withheavy caseloads generally cost less butare unlikely to produce significant benefits. Knowledge-based interventionsthat are funded sufficiently and delivered effectively by well-compensat-ed staff with appropriate skills can pro-duce important outcomes that generatea substantial return on the investment.

The former are unacceptably expensive,regardless of their relatively lower cost.The latter provide good value, evenwhen the price tag is high. Generallyspeaking, prevention is less costly thantreatment. But in the end, as is true formost things, you get what you pay for.

4

Policies that dismiss or ignore the science of early childhood developmentmiss important opportunities to addressthe root causes of many of our nation’smost pressing social concerns.

The most recent decades of scientificfindings lay out a blueprint againstwhich we can now evaluate our collectiveeffectiveness in shaping the future forour children. Are the policies and programs that our communities supportconsistent with the science? As soon aswe begin this exercise, we discover significant gaps between what we knowand what we do to promote the healthydevelopment of young children. Thishard realization should lead all of us toconsider four very important questionsthat demand sober reflection andthoughtful responses.

How can we invest in expensive education reforms that requirestronger performance standards andfinancial incentives to attract andretain talented teachers for gradesK-12, while we tolerate inadequatetraining and poor compensation for the providers of early care and education throughout the importantpreschool years?

Once we understand the new science of development, this contradictionbecomes illogical and untenable—andwe realize that education reform mustbegin earlier. Science tells us that learning extends from birth through

childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.There is nothing about kindergartenentry that indicates a sudden need forskilled teachers that did not exist before.That kind of thinking not only contra-dicts mountains of scientific evidence—it also just doesn’t make any sense.

When we understand the implications of new research on brain development,we recognize the need to expand ourconcept of education reform in ways thatpromise to be much more effective in the long run—because we realize theneed for a stronger foundation wellbefore the first day of kindergarten.

How can we all agree about the critical importance of supportingfamilies, yet do so little as a societyto provide an economic cushion to help parents delay their return towork after the birth of a baby, andthen not assure access to decentquality child care when they re-enterthe workforce?

The critical role of an environment of nurturing and stable relationships in promoting the healthy development of children is clear and incontrovertible.This is particularly important during the early childhood years, when positive experiences are shaping the normal architecture of the brain and excessive stresses are stimulating therelease of chemicals into the centralnervous system that can disrupt thatevolving architecture.

What We Do:Ignoring the Science Undermines Progress

5

The policy implications of these scientific findings are clear. We must figure out how to provide more viablechoices for mothers and fathers aboutwhether or when to return to the workforce after the birth or adoption ofa child. A depressed mother who isworking around the clock and trying tocare for a new baby is not able to be fullyavailable to the child. These situationscan be predicted and prevented, andappropriate interventions are amongthe most cost-effective we can make as asociety. And, at the same time, we mustassure the availability of stimulating andstable relationships with caring adults inthe daily arrangements made for youngchildren whose parents are at work.

Why do we measure the success of welfare reform without evaluating the extent to which we have increased the likelihoodthat affected children will have better opportunities to improvetheir life outcomes?

Why don’t we recognize that thoseopportunities start well before thechildren ever enter school, and that we can improve their long-termodds by improving their early environments?

As the public debate about poverty continues, it is striking that argumentsover the relative success of programsaimed at low-income adults simplyignore the population we are most likelyto be able to help—the children.

When we understand that the qualityand predictability of a child’s personalexperiences matter greatly to the developing brain, we also begin tounderstand why poverty is such a strongpredictor of academic difficulties inschool. More importantly, we can appreciate the implications of recentevidence that suggests that poverty inearly childhood is a stronger predictorof not completing high school than ispoverty in later childhood.

Perhaps most difficult to understand isthe extent to which our nation’s publicpolicies attempt to address problems invulnerable families while ignoring themost compelling needs of the children.It is well known, for example, that a significant percentage of women whohave been unable to secure steadyemployment are burdened by limitededucation, depression, family violence,and/or substance abuse, all of which are well documented threats to the well-being of young children.

6

Why are the needs of these children not on the radar screen when we talk about time limits and mandatedmaternal employment in the welfarereform debates?

How is it possible that the welfare systemhas expended such a limited amount of energy on providing high qualityearly care and education or specializedintervention services for vulnerableyoung children? This skewed policyapproach is particularly problematic in view of the finding that high qualityservices help shift the odds toward betterhealth and developmental outcomes.

Simply put, we are focusing our policieson adult behavior and not investing our dollars in helping children build the capacity to triumph over adversity. Most important, science tells us thatcapability begins to be shaped by experiences in the first few years of life. And those experiences can be enhancedthrough a wide range of communityinvestments, from child care and education to health care and housing.

How can we reconcile our concernabout violent crime with the factthat we have developed effectivetreatments for young children who have been exposed to familyviolence or have been abused orneglected themselves—yet mostemotionally traumatized youngstersnever receive these mental healthservices?

Early exposure to violence is a highlystressful experience for the developingchild. Science tells us that when youngchildren are subjected to significantperiods of stress, chemicals are releasedin their brains that interfere with thedevelopment of its normal architecture.In some cases, this can produce a lastingchange in the “set point” for aggressiveresponsiveness, which can lead to agreater risk for violent behavior later inlife. What’s new about the emerging science is that we now know that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Many young children who have beentraumatized emotionally by witnessingor experiencing violence directly develop a variant of post-traumatic stressdisorder, a serious mental health problemfirst described in adult war veterans. The encouraging news is that there is arich clinical knowledge base to informthe treatment of such children. The badnews is that our public priorities do notinclude sufficient funding for these programs, and therefore severely restrict the number of affected children who receive appropriate help. Thisshort-sighted set of priorities results inintergenerational cycles of domestic and community violence that clearly can be reduced.

7

The encouraging message that comesfrom extensive scientific research is thatwe can do better. To this end, there arescience-based solutions that policymakersat all levels of government can rely on to help build stronger communities thatwill produce healthier and more capablecitizens. What is needed is a blueprintfor the future that helps us put our knowledge into practical use.

The following three examples illustratehow we can strengthen the connectionbetween state-of-the-art knowledge andenlightened action.

If we really want to enhance children’s readiness to succeed inschool, then we must pay as muchattention to their emotional healthand social competence as we do to their cognitive abilities andemerging academic skills.

If you can’t sit still in school or controlyour temper in a classroom, no amountof reading instruction will improve your chances for achievement.

Moreover, your ability to pay attentionto the teacher is heavily influenced byyour early brain wiring and not simplyby your willpower.

If we are really serious about promotingearly school success, then we should be training and recruiting teachers forearly care and education programs who have the skills to create exciting learningopportunities as well as to promote social competence and manage emotional and behavioral difficulties.This should not be a competitionbetween early literacy experiences andmental health. Both are essential, andthe science of social and emotionaldevelopment is as sophisticated as thescience of cognition.

If we really want to support families and promote healthy relationships between children andthe adults who raise them, then we must create more viable choicesfor working parents who are tryingto balance their responsibilities to their children and their jobs.

The central challenge of the work-familyconflict facing our nation is the need to provide both wage replacement forparents who wish to stay at home withtheir babies and decent quality care and education for the children of thosewho return to work.

Closing the Gap:Using Science to Inform Public Policy

8

All our children deserve and need thesame attention to their early develop-ment and learning opportunities thatother industrialized countries havebegun to recognize and already put inplace. These countries have less wealththan we do, but they have decided tomake children a priority. Our challengeas a nation is to come together acrossparty lines and agree on how we canprovide economic security and decentquality care and education for everyyoung child.

If we really want to secure a promising economic, social, andpolitical future for our country, thenwe must enhance the value of ourinvestments in all young children.

Central to a prudent investment strategy for our nation is a well-balancedchild portfolio that combines threeessential components:

● effective supports for parents● a serious commitment to expanded

training and enhanced compensation for non-family providers of early care and education

● high-quality, evidence-based services that begin early and make a real difference for children at considerablerisk for poor outcomes because of developmental disabilities or significantfamily problems, especially maternal depression, parental substance abuse, and/or family violence.

If we really want to break the cycle ofintergenerational poverty, then we mustinvest in the care and education of youngchildren whose life circumstances seri-ously limit their opportunities for success.This is particularly critical for childrenin families who face economic hardshipthat is complicated by mental healthproblems. For example, science tells usthat babies of depressed mothers showevidence of unusual brain development,which can improve if the needs of themothers and children are addressed atan early age.

If we really want to reduce the economic,political, and social costs of violent crime,then we must confront its early roots byproviding effective treatments for youngchildren who have been victimized byabuse, neglect, or early exposure to familyviolence. Science says that the key toreversing this trend is providing skilledmental health services for very youngchildren. The clinical knowledge base toinform such treatment is available. But cur-rently those services are very hard to find.

9

This brief ends with the identification of four fruitless and non-productivepolarizations that have burdened theearly childhood field for decades andthat continue to consume precious energy that could be channeled intomore constructive public discussion.These false dichotomies must be put torest. In fact, if we can get beyond suchfutile debates, we will begin to discoverthe answers to many important ques-tions that are right under our noses.

False Dichotomy 1Nature versus nurture.Science tells us that the developingchild is influenced by both genetics andexperience. There’s no such thing asone without the other, and they bothmatter a great deal. So let’s stop arguingabout which is more important.

False Dichotomy 2Cognitive versus emotional development.Developmental scientists have concludedthat you can’t really separate these twodomains of development within a child.And educators know that it doesn’t

matter how well you are able to read if you are pre-occupied with anxiety orfear or you can’t control your behavior.Since a kindergartner who is emotionallyhealthy but has not mastered any pre-academic skills also is headed for difficulty in school, why are we wastingour time arguing about the relativeimportance of reading skills versus emo-tional well-being? Why can’t we simplyagree that they are both very important?

False Dichotomy 3Individual versus shared responsibility for children.Accountability for the healthy develop-ment of young children cannot beviewed through a single lens. Are parentsthe most important people in theirchild’s life? Of course. Can parents raisechildren by themselves? Absolutely not.

What communities, businesses, and government do, or not do, can havetremendous impact on how families areable to succeed in this critical responsibility.

There are things that only communitiescan do, like provide essential informalsupport for families. There are thingsthat only the workplace can do, like provide flexible time for working parentsto visit their child’s preschool program.And there are certain things that onlythe government can do, like reducepoverty for working families through taxpolicies, enforce quality standards inearly care and education programs, andassure sufficient funding for specializedinterventions for all children with special needs.

Putting an End to Four FalseDichotomies

10

False Dichotomy 4Social justice versus economicinvestment.The care and protection of young children is a fundamental moral respon-sibility. But if we truly are committed to meet that responsibility, we must gobeyond simple lip service about valuesand recognize the indisputable fact thatthe future of our nation really is depend-ent on the well-being of our children.Moreover, we must be willing to confronthard questions about what it will cost tosecure that future, and how we can maximize the return on our investment.

The concept of return on investment, in turn, must be driven not only by economics. There is an equally compellingimperative about what we might callmoral capital. That is to say, there are certain things that are important to dobecause of what they say about our valuesas a society, above and beyond what they cost in monetary terms.

The protection of frail elderly people is one such imperative. We don’t investin nursing care for people at the end of their lives because of the taxes theywill pay later. We do it because it is the right thing to do and because it makes a statement about who we are.

Similarly, we should invest publicresources in our young children, notonly because they will be more produc-tive citizens later, but also because it says something about the value we place on the quality of their lives as an important goal in its own right. It saysthat we will not allow any child to livebelow a certain level of decency in oursociety because it’s the right thing to do.

Why do we argue about whether takingcare of young children and maximizingtheir opportunities for successful lives is a question of social justice orsmart economics? We should insist onthe importance of both.

11

Finally, if we really want to change the way we address the needs of young children, then we have to reframe the public dialogue. This means movingbeyond blaming parents, communities,business, or government, and finding an appropriate balance between individual (private) and shared (public) responsibility for the healthand well-being of all children. It meansestablishing common ground for an enlightened approach to early childhood policies and programs that isguided by science, value, and values.

A focus on science can help us understand the complex interplay ofinfluences that result in healthy development, as well as assess the kindsof interventions that can make a difference. A focus on value reminds usthat wise decisions about resource allocation are less about cost and moreabout cost-effectiveness and return on investment. And finally, a focus on values asks us to think about how wetake care of all our children, and whatthat tells us about who we are and thekind of world in which we want to live.

Reframing the Public Dialogue toFocus on Science, Value and Values

12

ReferenceNational Research Council and Instituteof Medicine (2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of EarlyChildhood Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of EarlyChildhood Development. Jack P.Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds.Board on Children, Youth, and Families,Commission on Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington,D.C.: National Academy Press.

13

The Ounce of Prevention Fund works with parents, policymakers and earlychildhood providers to ensure that more youngchildren grow up safe, healthy, eager to learnand ready for school. Founded in 1982, theOunce is a place where the most promisingacademic theories are tested in “real-world”circumstances and then turned into best practices shared with the early childhood field.

To learn more, please visit www.ounceofprevention.org.

The Heller School for Social Policy andManagement at Brandeis Universityis committed to developing new knowledge and insights in the field of social policy and in health and human services management.Through the education of students and pursuitof research, The Heller School is activelyengaged in examining policies and programsthat respond to the changing needs of vulnerableindividuals and social groups.

To learn more, please visit www.heller.brandeis.edu.

The National Scientific Council on theDeveloping Childbrings sound and accurate science to bear onpublic discourse and decision-making thataffects the lives of young children. Composedof many of the nation’s leading neuroscientistsand child development researchers, the Councilpublishes reports that explain the relationbetween early experience and the developingarchitecture of the brain, and address the gaps among early childhood science, policy,and practice.

To learn more, please visit www.developingchild.net

© Copyright 2004 Ounce of Prevention FundDesign: Silvio Design, Inc.Photography: John BoozPrinting: IPP Lithocolor

14

Ounce of Prevention Fund122 South Michigan AvenueSuite 2050Chicago, Illinois 60603-6198Telephone 312 922 3863Fax 312 922 3337www.ounceofprevention.org

The Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityMail Stop 035 Waltham, MA 02454-9110781 736 3800heller.brandeis.edu

National Scientific Council on the Developing ChildA Project of The Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityMail Stop 035 P.O. Box 549110Waltham, MA 02454-9110781 736 3883www.developingchild.net