The slow, opaque, and often convoluted nature of program evaluation that doesn’t allow for improved understanding of what works for whom in what context and why, which would allow for rapid-cycle improvements on the pathway to scalability Ī lack of appropriate measures and an overreliance on “close enough” substitute or proxy measures and,ĭifficulties on the journey to scale, whereby programs (if they can scale) often lose impact.Īddressing these challenges is no small feat. Among many others, these include:Īn overreliance on “evidence-based” programs that have shown a statistically significant difference on any outcome on average when compared to a control group, which lacks precision and replicability There is, however, a short list of challenges that we know may contribute to a lack of progression toward more substantial impact. This is complicated work, and anyone who suggests that there is a silver bullet, frankly, shouldn’t be trusted. For example, those who are focused on early learning have different funding streams, delivery systems, and accountability measures than those focused on child welfare or public health-yet they often serve the same “customers” whose varied challenges make progress more difficult. Why then, with the power of this knowledge, have we made such little progress in improving child and family outcomes over the past 50 years?īy their very nature, complex social challenges have many wide and varied stakeholders, all of whom come with unique goals, objectives, and languages. Somewhat ironically, we now have more information than ever with which to design and strengthen the impact of our work and yet, we are not moving forward in the leaps and bounds that this depth of knowledge should allow.
This stagnation has occurred even while our understanding has deepened of precisely how the experiences children have early in life “get inside” the body and affect their learning, health, and behavioral outcomes. And, policymakers and practitioners often invoke this evidence base to build support for existing programs.īut, here’s the thing: in reality, the average magnitude of intervention effects has not increased substantially in 50 years. Many will recognize this period as the time of the famous Perry Preschool and Abecedarian studies, both of which demonstrated our ability to improve life outcomes for children through high-quality preschool programs.Īs Duncan and Magnuson’s 2013 study tells us, half a century of program evaluation research has demonstrated repeatedly that effective early childhood services can improve life outcomes for children facing adversity, produce important benefits for society, and generate positive returns on investments. We have been drawing on this powerful insight to help narrow societal disparities, even as far back as President Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s. While the science continues to evolve, and our understanding continues to deepen (including some of the latest insights about the development of critical feedback loops between the brain and the body early in life), we have known for decades that the early years are a time of incredible opportunity. More recently, science has shown us that the best time to influence lifelong learning, health, and behavioral outcomes is in the earliest years of a child’s life-including during the prenatal period. Since the dawn of public schools, societies have recognized the value in public investments to help all children thrive. That is, instead of asking “Which program should we invest in?”, perhaps we should be asking a different set of questions altogether. And for those seeking greater impacts for children and families, this may just be the big idea we have been looking for. As we face some of modern society’s greatest challenges, from the COVID-19 pandemic to our ever-changing climate, the need to draw upon the latest scientific thinking for solutions is clear.Īs any number of Albert Einstein quotes will tell you, identifying the right question is a critical step toward finding the right solution.
Never in living memory has the importance of independent, rigorous scientific thinking been so apparent.
0 kommentar(er)
