A project in Aberdeen has shown that intensive work with
pre-school children and their parents and carers leads to a
better start in reading.
Children in disadvantaged communities whose families worked
with the family learning team started P1 (primary school)
with a significantly higher average reading score than their
peer group and maintained their advantage by the end of P1.
Assessments are carried out through the value-added measure
of Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) programme
run through Durham University. The city has used PIPS testing
since 1997-98 and shows that teachers are making substantial
differences to basic literacy and numeracy under the early
intervention programme.
Efforts to lift achievement through the family approach began
with staff from the community learning and development department
working with parents and carers of children aged three to
six years old in eight primaries to encourage them to become
more involved in formal learning. They helped them become
more aware of learning possibilities and value their own input.
At the same time, the team helped the adults to improve their
literacy and numeracy skills.
The city is now planning to make family learning a priority
and hopes to extend the programme to more primaries. Early
intervention has proved to be a broad success, but in reading
the city reports only a slight narrowing of the gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged children overall.
Meanwhile, results from the standardised PIPS testing show
clear and significant improvements in reading over the past
five years across city primaries. "The amount of value-added
by schools has increased significantly", the council
says.
Reading and maths attainment at the end of P1 is higher than
ever and has progressed steadily since 1999-2000. As ever,
how well pupils do at the end of P1 depends on their attainment
at the start.
One of the key intervention strategies has been to narrow
the gap between boys and girls, and in 2004-05, for the first
time, there was no gap in reading attainment in P1.
(TES, 13 January 2006)
Too many parents have lost the art of play and do not allow
their children's imaginations to run riot, leading charities
said in August 2004. What time parents are able to set aside
for playing with their children is often too stage-managed
and rule-bound for children to enjoy and benefit from it properly.
The Children's Society and the Children's Play Council urged
parents to loosen the reins on their sons and daughters so
that they have more time to "run wild".
The advice comes as a survey reveals that parents and children
have wide differences on what constitutes play. As the Government
and society put increasing emphasis on ensuring that children
get good schooling, parents are turning playtime into education
where fun takes second place. Almost three quarters of parents
believe that they play with their children every day, but
according to the children's responses only a quarter of parents
play with them daily while more than a third play only rarely
or never at all. In the survey, carried out to help mark Playday,
a national celebration of play, children complained that their
parents are too tired or too busy, are no fun because they
are bossy, or have forgotten how to play properly.
The charities are calling for parents to look at play "from
a child's perspective" and give them more freedom to
decide for themselves what to do. Rather than sitting down
for an "educational" numbers game, parents should
get down on the living room floor with their children and
join in their make-believe games. Even trips to museums should
be reconsidered, the charities say, in favour of going to
a park where the children can run around and invent their
own entertainment.
Playing is held by experts to be an important part of growing
up because it gives children the opportunity to learn how
to socialise, how to recognise the boundaries of acceptable
behaviour and how to understand their own emotions. Tim Linehan,
of the Children's Society, said: "Play is important because
it's how children enjoy their lives. They learn about rules,
sharing, taking turns, community and all those social behaviours
that make us rounded people. It's about relationships. Play
with a parent is just as much about relationships and trust.
If a family doesn't play well together communication and security
suffer. No one ever grows old regretting the time they spent
playing with their children."
The survey was carried out among 600 parents and 1,200 children.
Tips for playing properly:
- Let them choose the game
- Don't be too competitive - allow them to beat you
- Take them to parks, even at the expense of museums
- Join in make-believe, no matter how silly you might feel
- Let them get filthy
- Get to their level - off the sofa and onto the floor
- Let them teach you how to use their toys
- Show them what you played as a child
- Allow them to take reasonable risks
(Times, 4 August 2004)
Parental support is eight times more important in determining
a child's academic success than social class, according to
a new study.
The Campaign for Learning found that parental involvement
in a child's education can mean the difference between an
A* and an "also-ran" at GCSE.
The report, called Give Your Child a Better Chance, by Dr
Leon Feinstein of the London School of Economics, said: "Interested
parents made a huge difference regardless of class or income.
"However, low education, low social class and low income
are often associated with low parental interest. It is necessary
to find ways of encouraging and supporting involvement, rather
than simply blaming parents."
The study found that almost half of parents did not talk
to teachers even once during a school term because many felt
inadequate or lacked knowledge about the curriculum, and were
fearful of "getting it wrong". Others had bad memories
in their own school days which tainted their view of school
and teachers.
The campaign wants more funding for courses and activities
that support parents in their children's education, and more
campaigning to promote the value of parental involvement.
(TES, 10 October 2003)
Young children whose parents are involved in their early learning
make "significantly more progress" than those whose
parents aren't, an evaluation report of the Oxfordshire PEEP
project has found. The children achieved 5% more in language
comprehension and nearly 8% more in numeracy than their peers.
The report, The effects of the Peers Early Education Partnership
(PEEP) on Children's Developmental Progress, by Dr Maria
Evangelou and Professor Kathy Sylva of the Department of Educational
Studies at Oxford University, looked at the initiative, which
was set up in 1995 in three deprived estates in south-east
Oxford, but is now expanding throughout Britain. They focused
on whether the children whose parents participated in the
PEEP programme made greater developmental progress than children
whose parents have not participated in it.
Dr Evangelou and Professor Sylva noted how the PEEP programme
has a structured curriculum for each age group that is based
on specific curricular areas such as listening, talking, numeracy
and self-esteem, and that each week the curriculum for parents
includes specific books, rhymes, songs and activities. They
found that three to five-year-old children showed gains in
vocabulary, language comprehension, understanding about books,
and number concepts, as well as having higher self-esteem
than comparable children whose parents did not take part in
the project.
The effects of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP)
on Children's Developmental Progress is available from
www.dfes.gov.uk/research,
reference RR489.
(Nursery World, 23 October 2003)
More
on PEEP
Babies who are looked after by relatives when their mothers
return to work are slow at learning to read, write and speak,
according to a Government-funded study conducted by researchers
from Bristol University. The 12-year study, the largest of
its kind to investigate the effects of working mothers on
children, assessed the development of 12,000 children born
in 1991 and 1992, at four stages.
It found that one in seven mothers returned to full-time work
within 18 months of the birth of their child. However, babies
cared for by relatives were slower at developing basic learning
skills compared to those cared for by their parents or a professional
childminder.
The research found that among the 14% of mothers who returned
to full-time work within the first year-and-a-half of giving
birth, the children of those who left them with relatives
were slower to develop basic learning skills. Between the
ages of two and eight, the children were "negatively
affected" in terms of reading, writing and speaking.
Boys were affected more than girls.
It concluded: "It is only those children whose non-parental
care consists solely of unpaid care by a friend, relative
or neighbour - such as a grandparent - who experience significant
detrimental effects. Short periods of care by relatives appear
not to be damaging: it is sole reliance on relatives to cover
full-time working that appears to be less beneficial."
Reassuringly for working mothers, the study also found that
returning to full-time employment after 18 months had no adverse
effect on children's development. However, the report highlighted
the need for policies encouraging flexible and part-time working
practices for mothers, as well as inexpensive and high quality
child care.
(Independent, 13 August 2003)
Regular reading with a parent can significantly reduce antisocial
behaviour among disruptive children, researchers have found.
A team from the Institute of Psychiatry observed considerable
improvements in the behaviour of more than 100 five and six-year-olds
in an inner London borough after 10 weeks of regular reading
with their parents. The project was funded with a £500,000
grant from the Department of Health.
Stephen Scott, senior lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry
at the institute, who led the research, said that the study
provided clear evidence that simple, focused parenting programmes
could be highly effective in improving behaviour from a very
young age.
Parents taking part in the study, conducted in eight schools
in Lambeth, South London, were invited to attend a course
of ten 2.5-hour weekly meetings during which they were taught
how to look at books with their children, using a method that
is known as "pause, prompt and praise".
They were advised to turn off their mobile phones before
sitting down to read with their children, outline the story
before starting and take time turning pages and looking at
pictures.
"The idea is that they must not leap in to correct mistakes,
but try to prompt children to sound out letters and read to
the end of the sentence or read the sentence again and look
at the pictures if they can't make out a word," Dr Scott said.
"If they cannot read, they are encouraged to tell the story
in their own words by looking at the pictures."
Their children's behaviour was measured at the beginning
and end of the research. Reading was chosen as the focus of
the programme because it would have the additional benefit
of helping the children with schoolwork. "What children really
want is attention," he said. "They can get this through reading
with their parents."
"It is also helpful in a wider sense. Poor reading in adults
is associated with unemployment and criminality."
Families also took part in a ten-week parenting skills programme,
which produced similar improvements in behaviour. This consisted
of ten sessions in which parents were taught the 'right' and
'wrong' ways of handling children.
Dr Scott said: "Telling children what not to do does not
tell them what they should do. So instead of telling a child,
'Don't run along the corridor', you could say, 'I really like
it when you walk slowly indoors'."
Dr Scott said that quite apart from improving the quality
of life of parents and children, such programmes could save
the State considerable sums of money.
His previous research has shown that children who display
serious anti-social behaviour at 10 will cost society more
than £70,000 in terms of benefits, extra education services,
foster-care and crime by the time they reach 28. That compares
with £7,423 for other young people.
"The cost savings of such things as parent training programmes
are likely to be considerable, and the quality of life gained
suggests that they should be used more widely," Dr Scott said.
(Times, 2 September 2002)
Research has shown that families have a more profound effect
on children's learning than schools. One answer to the question
of how to support teachers in providing stimulating work for
gifted and talented pupils is to provide informal learning
and "edutainment" opportunities where children and their families
come together to engage in learning activities.
Family study days, where the school provides themed activities
and specific tasks designed for adults and children, show
that parents' knowledge and understanding of their children
is an important asset in helping children to learn effectively,
particularly when backed up with good materials. Resources
such as galleries and museums, zoos and arts centres can be
capitalised on for their "edutainment" value and provide ideal
opportunities for parents and children to discuss, explore
and learn together while having fun at the same time.
Family learning, "Edutainment" and the needs of more able
children is by Carrie Winstanley, University of Surrey, Roehampton.
(TES Primary, July/August 2001)
At the beginning of November a story hit the media about
the decline in bedtime story reading: Six in 10 kids go to
sleep without a story (Mirror), Once upon a crime (Daily
Mail), Busy parents bid goodnight to bedtime story[ies]
(Times & Guardian).The research findings were based
on questions to 84 parents with 150 children aged between
two and eight. The latter two papers mentioned the size of
the survey in their articles. The survey seems to tally with
anecdotal evidence.
The research was carried out by psychologist Dr Aric Sigman
who was commissioned by Powergen after an increase in calls
from parents asking for advice about light and heat in children's
bedrooms. The research found that more than half of those
questioned said they did not have time to read or tell bedtime
stories to their children every night, despite the obvious
value to family life. Less than a third of the children had
a bedtime story on five or more nights a week, compared with
three-quarters of their parents' generation at the same age.
Only a minority - 16% - have a bedtime story every night,
compared with more than a third of their parents.
Dr Sigman commented that watching television or playing computer
games before going to sleep was potentially harmful because
it could over-stimulate the brain and delay sleep. "A lot
of multi-media stimulation, from TV or computers, is now thought
by many scientists not to be very good for children."
(November 2000)
British parents are investing nearly an hour a day more in
their children than their European or American counterparts
despite a culture of long working hours, according to a leading
family expert.
Research by Professor Jonathan Gershuny of the Institute
of Economic and Social Research shows that the time British
parents spend playing, doing homework or reading with their
children has more than quadrupled during the past 35 years
for both working and non-working parents. The research is
based on the analysis of weekly diaries from 3,000 British
parents and 60,000 parents worldwide in 1961, 1975, 1985,
and 1995.
The research shows that although more women go out to work
than at any time in the past 100 years, the average working
mother spends more than twice as long reading and playing
with her young children than mothers did in 1961. The study
shows that in 1995 a British working mother spent an average
of 135 minutes a day reading to, or caring for, her young
children, compared with 95 minutes a day in 1961. For
non-working mothers the average is 189 minutes a day compared
with 95 minutes in 1961.
Fathers who are working full time now invest an average of
88 minutes a day in looking after their children; eight times
more than they did in 1961.
The average figures for the rest of the world, based on parents
in 20 countries, show that British working mothers spend at
least 30 minutes more per day with their children, while British
working fathers spend 50 minutes more a day with their offspring
than their international counterparts.
(Independent, 27 October 2000)
Europe's biggest study of pre-school children, being carried
out by researchers from Cardiff University, Oxford University
and the Institute of Education, provides an insight into how
infants from disadvantaged backgrounds can be given a better
start in life.
The research project, called the Effective Provision of Pre-school
Education project, has identified several ways in which parents
from poorer homes can accelerate their children's intellectual
and social development.
The six-year study, analysing the daily lives of 2,800 pre-school
children from 141 pre-school centres in England from all social
backgrounds and 200 who have not attended a centre. is funded
by the Department for Education and Employment. Its interim
findings are being considered by politicians and officials
involved in early years education and the Surestart pre-school
programme to tackle social exclusion.
The research shows that parents who draw their child's attention
to sounds and letters help to develop not only their literacy
but their early number skills. Professor Edward Melhuish of
Cardiff University, a contributor to the study, said: "The
quality of the home educational environment is one of the
most powerful predictors of cognitive and social development.
It is as important as social class or the parents' level of
education.
"Telling families about the kinds of activities they could
get involved in with their children would therefore be a very
positive step for Surestart to take."
The project has three years to run. It has confirmed that
pre-school experience can help to combat educational disadvantage
and has a marked effect on literacy. Predictably it found
that the quality of education and care in pre-school centres
varies hugely.
Social/behavioural and cognitive development at 3-4 years
in relation to family background by Edward Melhuish, Kathy
Silva, Pam Sammons, Iram Siraj-Blatchford and Brenda Taggart.
Contact b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk
(TES September 8, 2000)
The report below sums up the earlier findings of this project.
(The report above deals with more recent findings from
this project.)
The first outcome of the Effective Provision of Pre-School
Education Project, conducted by researchers based in Cardiff,
London and Oxford, is that children from all backgrounds benefit
from good pre-school education. The team does not accept the
verdict of American researchers that the mother's education
is the crucial factor in preparing a child for formal learning.
Kathy Sylva, Professor of Educational Psychology at Oxford
University, who presented the initial findings to the House
of Commons Select Committee on Education, acknowledged the
importance of family background but said that her group's
research showed that the quality of pre-school provision was
equally influential. "This is the first study to show that
more important than a mother's education is what the mother
does with her child. If she reads to the child, plays reading
games, sings songs, talks about letters and takes the child
to the library, these can compensate for a low educational
level."
The second key finding suggests that parents may be right
to question whether a reception class is as good for their
child as specialist nursery education. An analysis of seven
different types of provision gives highest marks to combined
nursery/school centres, but nursery schools do significantly
better than reception classes.
The study, which makes allowances for age and prior attainment,
rates state and private nurseries play groups and schools
on two scales. One scale focuses on the learning environment,
quality of activities and relationships, while the second
includes the Government's "desirable learning outcomes". On
both measures, playgroups are bottom of the seven groups.
The researchers preliminary analyses suggest that children
attending ten sessions a week - mainly private nurseries and
reception classes - make no more progress than those limited
to five.
(The Times, 29 June 2000)
The government is to suggest in a Green Paper that grandparents
have an important role to play in supporting children at school,
and that pensioners can volunteer in schools. 'Grandparent
mentors' will be encouraged to provide good examples to children
whose own parents are failing to bring them up properly. Ministers
believe that much youth crime, unemployment and low educational
achievement is the result of poor parenting.
(The Times, 2 November 1998)
A two year research project by the University of Exeter,
recommends that parents should be given training in the best
way to help their children to read. The study was based on
a survey of 1,400 primary schools. Researchers, led by Professor
Ted Wragg, found that half the parents in the study had received
training or advice from teachers. However some parents did
little to make the reading experience enjoyable, in some instances
putting too much pressure on children, making the event counter-productive.
The researchers also recommended that fathers be encouraged
to read with their sons, as boys were found to lag behind
girls in reading from the age of six. As the children grew
older, parents read with them less. Around 75% of mothers
and 50% of fathers read with infants (Year 1 and 2); by the
age of eight only 50% of mothers and 25% of fathers shared
a book with their children.
Sally Ward, of the Speech Language and Hearing Centre in
London, claims that talking to babies for 30 minutes or more
a day can dramatically improve their IQ and language development.
Dr Ward studied 140 nine month old babies who lived at home
with one or more adult carers during a 7 year project. They
advised half on how to talk to their babies while the other
half were left to their own devices. Dr Ward tested the children
and found the language skills of the intervention group were
very significantly higher than the others. There was also
an enormous difference in the general intelligence of the
children in the intervention group compared to the other children.
The average intelligence of the intervention group was a year
and three months ahead.
(Guardian, 14 October 1998)
L
The ESRC's research centre on micro social change at the
University of Essex said that the culture of long working
hours was destroying parents' relationships with their children
at a crucial stage of education and development. Parents who
work long hours are most likely to report difficulty managing
their children and least likely to talk to them or monitor
their homework. Men with children under 12 were the group
most likely to work excessive hours, defined as 60 hours or
more a week, despite their family responsibilities. Single
people are the most likely to work a standard 30 - 40 hour
week. The researchers studied 9,500 people in 5,000 households,
using data collected through the British Household Panel Study.
They found that 49% of men and 74 % of women working more
than 60 hours a week had children under 12. Only 26% of fathers
and 25% of mothers working more than 48 hours a week said
they talked to their children most days, compared with 42%
if fathers and 57% of mothers working 30 to 40 hours a week.
While 72% of parents working 30 to 40 hours said they regularly
monitored their children's homework, only 58% of parents working
more than 48 hours did. Working mothers appeared to have the
greatest problems with their children.
(Guardian, 6 October 1998)
At home and in schools, girls in a recent survey by Elaine
Millard, viewed their reading more positively than boys. 'Significantly
it was girls who cited themselves most frequently as the person
in the family who read the most, and the strongest competition
for the title of most avl id reader was provided bv mothers
who were also mentioned as reading a lot of fiction.'
'Most interviewees, however, described their fathers as reading
mainly football results, sports reports and newspapers, but
not very often fiction.'
'Fewer boys than girls expressed positive attitudes to themselves
as readers.'
Some boys actually expressed a strong dislike of reading
-'they represented their reading as a hypothetical construct.
That is they could read but chose not to. In other words they
were alliterate rather than illiterate and their reading skills
were being allowed to stagnate.'
(Source: Some Thoughts on Why Boys Don't Choose to Read
in School by Elaine Millard, Sheffield University, May 1996.)
|
80px.gif)
