A 20-year Follow-Up to an Early Childhood Stimulation Program in Jamaica(povertyactionlab.org)
povertyactionlab.org
A 20-year Follow-Up to an Early Childhood Stimulation Program in Jamaica
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/20-year-follow-early-childhood-stimulation-program-jamaica
56 comments
Am I missing something in the wide gap between those figures - Children who got intervention X stayed in school for ~7 months longer and were also three times more likely to start college
The 5% more and the 300% more just seem wildly out of kilter
(It kind of makes sense - if all your peers stop school at 16 and you stay for 7 months or more, suddenly getting to college is a much easier step.) I think i am just surprised by how surprised i am
The 5% more and the 300% more just seem wildly out of kilter
(It kind of makes sense - if all your peers stop school at 16 and you stay for 7 months or more, suddenly getting to college is a much easier step.) I think i am just surprised by how surprised i am
As I mention below, the very large 200% increase in college attendance is more likely to suggest that this demographic group has extremely low college attendance rates than that the intervention has an extremely high impact.
If you do your intervention and 2 out of 127 children enroll in a college when you would have expected 0.7, you've tripled the expected rate, but that was easy to do by chance.
In this case, the sample size was presumably half that, around 64.
If you do your intervention and 2 out of 127 children enroll in a college when you would have expected 0.7, you've tripled the expected rate, but that was easy to do by chance.
In this case, the sample size was presumably half that, around 64.
They're not comparable on the same scale.
Say... Kids get 10.5 years schooling on average in neighborhood A. 12 years in neighborhood B. That is a 1.5 years or 15% difference. In a 12 grade system, this is the best possible result implying a 100% completion rate.
Neighborhood A sends 10% of all kids to college. Neighborhood B sends 50% of all kids to college. That's a 500% difference.
This example seems pretty plausible. A neighborhood where an average kid makes it halfway through 10th grade probably sends a lot fewer kids to college than a neighborhood with a 100% completion rate for grade 12.
Say... Kids get 10.5 years schooling on average in neighborhood A. 12 years in neighborhood B. That is a 1.5 years or 15% difference. In a 12 grade system, this is the best possible result implying a 100% completion rate.
Neighborhood A sends 10% of all kids to college. Neighborhood B sends 50% of all kids to college. That's a 500% difference.
This example seems pretty plausible. A neighborhood where an average kid makes it halfway through 10th grade probably sends a lot fewer kids to college than a neighborhood with a 100% completion rate for grade 12.
This. Especially since if Jamaica is anything like the US, dropping out prior to age 16 is illegal.
Well the 5% is averaged over the whole group while the 300% is from a base rate of those who go to college.
I haven't seen the data, so I don't know if this is the case, but one explanation is that this intervention works really well for some people, and not at all for others. Also, I think "3x more likely" means 200% more people.
So the numbers could be something like: 100 participants, 5 would have gone to college. The social stimulation really benefited 10 kids. They, in turn, did years more schooling and went to college. 5% -> 15% college rate is 3x more likely, but the 10 kids' large increase in attendance was averaged out over the group of 100, so the overall increase was just 5%.
Not saying this is the case, just showing a way those numbers could be plausible.
I haven't seen the data, so I don't know if this is the case, but one explanation is that this intervention works really well for some people, and not at all for others. Also, I think "3x more likely" means 200% more people.
So the numbers could be something like: 100 participants, 5 would have gone to college. The social stimulation really benefited 10 kids. They, in turn, did years more schooling and went to college. 5% -> 15% college rate is 3x more likely, but the 10 kids' large increase in attendance was averaged out over the group of 100, so the overall increase was just 5%.
Not saying this is the case, just showing a way those numbers could be plausible.
It’s probably not just that they attended a little more, but that they were more on the ball when they were attending. I didn’t read the article tho
A better quality metric might be emerging if so, instead of the usual # of butts in a seat, or hours per student.
GPA
Methodology of evaluation:
Randomized Control Trial
Randomized Control Trial
Simply put this research at this stage proves nothing, however it could indicate an area requiring further analysis, but that's about it.
"Correlation does not imply causation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequen...
It's really easy to see that lots of reasons that aren't directly due to the program could have caused the changes. It could have been as simple as an expectation change amongst the parents, upon joining the program; how their children will perform better and therefore they did or it could have been the parents in the neighborhood most engaged in their children having a better life and when the opportunity to join the program became available they joined.
Stuff like this is notoriously difficult to prove, but I'm hopeful and glad to see research is being done.
"Correlation does not imply causation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequen...
It's really easy to see that lots of reasons that aren't directly due to the program could have caused the changes. It could have been as simple as an expectation change amongst the parents, upon joining the program; how their children will perform better and therefore they did or it could have been the parents in the neighborhood most engaged in their children having a better life and when the opportunity to join the program became available they joined.
Stuff like this is notoriously difficult to prove, but I'm hopeful and glad to see research is being done.
"The original ECD program, which lasted two years, enrolled 127 stunted children aged 9-24 months. Researchers randomly assigned these children to one of four groups: a psychosocial stimulation intervention, a nutrition intervention, both interventions, or neither intervention (the comparison group)."
That was my first thought too: the positive results could be effect of special attention and expectations (placebo effect). However comparing "both interventions" group with each single intervention group should address this.
That was my first thought too: the positive results could be effect of special attention and expectations (placebo effect). However comparing "both interventions" group with each single intervention group should address this.
[deleted]
Another Heckman study. Oh, I thought this sounded familiar: http://andrewgelman.com/2013/11/05/how-much-do-we-trust-this...
I'm pretty sure this study was mentioned in a recent episode of EconTalk, where the guest was talking about statistical significance, p-hacking, etc. I'm Jamaican, so I perked up when it came up.
Three times as likely to get college level education is amazing, children and parents really are the future.
Nurture is the major factor in nearly every aspect of human achievement. Alternative explanations justify genocide, neglect, and let adults off the hook.
> Alternative explanations justify genocide, neglect, and let adults off the hook.
While possibly true, none of those claims have any bearing on whether or not those alternate explanations are false.
While possibly true, none of those claims have any bearing on whether or not those alternate explanations are false.
Genocide? Umm, care to explain how that follows?
If some part of the gap in achievement is genetically determined (which by all measurements is the case.) than there is no way to close that gap. Children from poor parents stay poor, poor communities can not move up etc.
What's proposed is that the only possible way eliminating differences is eliminating people (in either direction.). Of course this does not infact justify genocide or any of the sort, but that's the argument.
> Three times as likely to get college level education is amazing
To me this seems like a warning that the intervention is unlikely to have much effect as applied to society in general. Three times the likelihood of an impoverished Jamaican going to college isn't that impressive. On the other hand, if we accepted this assessment of impact in the terms being reported here, applying it to better-off people could lead to more than 240% of their children going to college!
...which again suggests that whatever's going on is probably better viewed in other terms.
To me this seems like a warning that the intervention is unlikely to have much effect as applied to society in general. Three times the likelihood of an impoverished Jamaican going to college isn't that impressive. On the other hand, if we accepted this assessment of impact in the terms being reported here, applying it to better-off people could lead to more than 240% of their children going to college!
...which again suggests that whatever's going on is probably better viewed in other terms.
I do not understand you at all, you comment can be read as a fairly common statement around here: education for rich kids is not always a good thing. While the article is about how families that have time to value their young are much more likely to educate them. How can you compare these two outliers?
You completely missed the point. OP is impugning the validity of one conclusion of the study - the claim "three times as likely to go to college". Such an outsized effect is only possible if we moved from an extremely minuscule likelihood to an only moderately minuscule. The claim is dubious when it comes from a sample of 105, a control of 65 and doubly so when the priors aren't mentioned. IE, would we expect .3 people out of 100 in this demographic to go to college?
I'm saying "increase the likelihood of the child going to college by a factor of three" doesn't make a lot of sense as an evaluation of the impact of this intervention, for two reasons:
- It's very easy to increase really small numbers by a factor of three, but this large percentage increase is not particularly meaningful.
- Many demographics go to college at such high rates that it would be impossible to increase those rates by a factor of three. Since it's impossible, the intervention probably can't accomplish it.
- It's very easy to increase really small numbers by a factor of three, but this large percentage increase is not particularly meaningful.
- Many demographics go to college at such high rates that it would be impossible to increase those rates by a factor of three. Since it's impossible, the intervention probably can't accomplish it.
Nobody here tried to extrapolate the 3x into a general rule, except you. Not sure why you’re upset by something only you are doing.
Helping the less advantaged merits more of our attention than the well to do anyway.
Helping the less advantaged merits more of our attention than the well to do anyway.
> Nobody here tried to extrapolate the 3x into a general rule, except you.
The top-level poster replied to here clearly did.
The top-level poster replied to here clearly did.
[deleted]
I'm surprised that the psychosocial intervention was as effective as it was, however I expected the nutrition arm of the trial to fare better. I guess interacting with intelligent and engaging adults as a child really has long-term developmental benefits.
nutrition is a relative concept. Cornmeal and skin milk are not going to produce amazing result by themselves.
The cornmeal and skim milk was provided to the baby's family in order to discourage them from distributing the baby's formula:
"The nutritional intervention (groups 2 and 3) consisted of giving 1 kg of formula containing 66% of daily-recommended energy (calories), protein, and micronutrients provided weekly for 24 months"
The article implies that the families likely split the formula for multiple members, thus diminishing any effect it may have had on the baby's development.
"The nutritional intervention (groups 2 and 3) consisted of giving 1 kg of formula containing 66% of daily-recommended energy (calories), protein, and micronutrients provided weekly for 24 months"
The article implies that the families likely split the formula for multiple members, thus diminishing any effect it may have had on the baby's development.
Education should be society's #1 priority. I find it truly baffling that we have yet to agree on this -- or, if by some reason you think we have agreed, that we haven't acted on it.
Really? The #1 priority? Over keeping people fed and housed?
Yes. People can feed themselves and afford housing if they're educated.
Education is often used as a proxy for other things that actually benefit our lives. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. Certainly the kind of education being discussed matters.
It can certainly be argued that children that sit in a classroom for 16 years may lose much of the spontaneity and natural desire to explore that they were born with.
They might be a lot more passive, accept what is handed to them with less skepticism and fewer questions, be hesitant to try things without social proof, and may be ignorant of how the world actually works. They may be more likely to live in their heads and be less in touch with their own very real needs.
It can certainly be argued that children that sit in a classroom for 16 years may lose much of the spontaneity and natural desire to explore that they were born with.
They might be a lot more passive, accept what is handed to them with less skepticism and fewer questions, be hesitant to try things without social proof, and may be ignorant of how the world actually works. They may be more likely to live in their heads and be less in touch with their own very real needs.
> It can certainly be argued that children that sit in a classroom for 16 years may lose much of the spontaneity and natural desire to explore that they were born with.
A lot of things can be argued, but not all can be substantiated. Even if I agreed that studying somehow harms children, that would only encourage society to rethink _how_ but not _whether_ to train children.
A lot of things can be argued, but not all can be substantiated. Even if I agreed that studying somehow harms children, that would only encourage society to rethink _how_ but not _whether_ to train children.
Take transcripts of what happens with young children in classrooms and other settings, and code them for instances of curiosity, whether spontaneous or encouraged. You find a dramatic change in the classroom -- even greater than I expected; I seem to have lucked out in my own schooling. https://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Mind-Origins-Curiosity-Childho...
(Where "lucked out" doesn't mean it was worth it. It's relative.)
(Where "lucked out" doesn't mean it was worth it. It's relative.)
Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing for no training of children.
Do you think menial jobs will just magically disappear when people are educated? Will we just pay everyone equally for their time?
Menial jobs get outsourced or automated, with very few exceptions.
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11225.html argues that we have way too much education. That matches my experience. It's a giant problem that too many people are ignorant, but I don't agree that more school is the answer.
I think the authors misses the target as his arguments seem to be mostly against the current educational system as it stands, not against an educated workforce.
I'd say let's talk about giving that system more of our lives, rather than less, when they show they can use what they're getting a lot more effectively.
You can't half-ass something and just your lack of interest in its perceived "inefectiveness".
You just need to look at the upside enjoyed by other countries which have seriously invested in education. The easiest example is South Korea. I'm not saying it's perfect, but they went from the Korean War to Samsung and LG in half a century.
You just need to look at the upside enjoyed by other countries which have seriously invested in education. The easiest example is South Korea. I'm not saying it's perfect, but they went from the Korean War to Samsung and LG in half a century.
The book we're talking about discusses this. I went to the trouble of summarizing the claims, including one that addresses your point, in another comment. I don't think "half-ass" is a reasonable response to me here.
I meant society half-asses it, not you.
This notion of an educated workforce seems very ambiguous and abstract. How about a concrete example -- what education is the guy driving a cement truck lacking?
The one that would afford him a better job.
Does education = learning, and does education result in knowledge, does education = benefit to society?
The reason I ask is: we did an exercise recently where we had to go through the various assumptions for a product. The assumptions we made were
1: education = better outcomes
2: more education = better
3: formal higher education is necessary for getting a job
4: people actually need to get jobs
I am not convinced these are true.
The reason I ask is: we did an exercise recently where we had to go through the various assumptions for a product. The assumptions we made were
1: education = better outcomes
2: more education = better
3: formal higher education is necessary for getting a job
4: people actually need to get jobs
I am not convinced these are true.
Agreed. When I have traveled to Nepal, a very poor country some children speak very good English, so that implies a certain level of education, yet there are very few opportunities for them there.
Someone who has a lot less education in the UK would likely have far more opportunities.
Someone who has a lot less education in the UK would likely have far more opportunities.
Then you have to ask yourself where that belief comes from for each item try hard to disprove it. It is only based on opinion to a certain point.
The book I linked to in another comment collects relevant studies. To try to summarize, a degree does seem to matter to getting a better job (especially a bachelor's or a high school diploma); but an incremental year of schooling matters disproportionately less, and the bulk of the benefit was in the degree (the sheepskin effect); a more-educated populace does not make a country richer, among current nations; and intangible benefits are dubious when you measure the outcomes on adults, whether it's knowledge of facts, skills, preferences for more-elevated art, or even political indoctrination. The idea that the economic benefit of education is mostly signaling makes sense of the fact that people consume more and more schooling in the face of its ineffectiveness.
How many years of education is the right amount?
It's not just about quantity. And even if the central issue was figuring out how many years of education people need, that wouldn't negate my claim that the subject is of the utmost importance.
The stimulation intervention included weekly home visits by trained community health workers, who encouraged and instructed mothers on how to play and interact with their children. For the nutrition intervention, health workers distributed weekly nutritional supplements to homes, as well as additional cornmeal and skimmed milk powder to discourage sharing of the supplement with other family members.
Result:
Most notably, children who received stimulation achieved 0.6 more years of schooling, or 5.6 percent more schooling, than participating children who did not receive stimulation, and were nearly three times as likely to have had some college-level education.