New research suggests that chronic stress may have a direct impact on the brain’s working memory–an insight with big implications for education and efforts to close the achievement gap.
“There’s been lots of evidence that low-income families are under tremendous amounts of stress, and we know that stress has many implications,” Gary W. Evans of Cornell University tells the Washington Post. “What this data raises is the possibility that it’s also related to cognitive development.” Evans and Michelle Schamberg of Cornell published a study on the phenomenon in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week. Says the Post:
Previous research into the possible causes of the achievement gap between poor and well-off children has focused on genetic factors that influence intelligence, on environmental exposure to toxins such as lead, and on the idea that disadvantaged children tend to grow up with less intellectual stimulation. But Evans, who has been gathering detailed data about 195 children from households above and below the poverty line for 14 years, decided to examine whether chronic stress might also be playing a role.
The Economist, which picked up on the story last week, summarizes how Evans and Schamberg measured the level of stress experienced by 9 to 13-year-old children:
The two researchers used an index known as allostatic load. This is a combination of the values of six variables: diastolic and systolic blood pressure; the concentrations of three stress-related hormones; and the body-mass index, a measure of obesity. For all six, a higher value indicates a more stressful life; and for all six, the values were higher, on average, in poor children than in those who were middle class. Moreover, because Dr Evans’s wider study had followed the participants from birth, the two researchers were able to estimate what proportion of each child’s life had been spent in poverty. That more precise figure, too, was correlated with the allostatic load.
“When the researchers analyzed the relationships among how long the children lived in poverty, their allostatic load and their later working memory, they found a clear relationship,” the Post notes. “The longer they lived in poverty, the higher their allostatic load and the lower they tended to score on working-memory tests. Those who spent their entire childhood in poverty scored about 20 percent lower on working memory than those who were never poor.
The Economist concludes the research offers a potential explanation for why the cycle of poverty is so difficult to break: ”The Bible says, ‘the poor you will always have with you.’ Dr Evans and Dr Schamberg may have provided an important part of the explanation why.”
This research lends force to the argument that school reforms should take in-school and out-of-school influences on student achievement into account. Some commentators have suggested that growing interest in out-of-school influences represents a retreat from high academic expectations. This research suggests quite the opposite.
Claus, couldn’t it also be argued that this is part of the secret sauce that makes KIPP with it’s extended days, Saturdays and summers successful? Same with the so-called “New Paternalism” schools. I wonder to what degree such schools, with their emphasis on order and regimentation insulate children from the worst effects of stress.
I also wonder to what degree such effects are reversible, and to what age? Where’s Dan Willingham when you need him?
I recall some radio interview with the principal of one of those “outlier” schools that had succeeded in making a “turn-around” following a demographic shift that had negatively impacted academic achievement. I remember being impressed by his statement that they learned that lower-income kids “thrive on structure.” It was striking to me because so frequently the statement is that they “need” structure, as if this is some innate deficit–some special need resident in low-income children that more middle class kids are born without.
I rather suspect that kids from more predictable lives are more tolerant of chaotic structures, and more able to create their own sense of order. When dropped into a situation where the adults are scrambling, they have something solid to fall back on. The traditional wisdom about kids and “testing” behavior, is that they want the adults to show them the acceptable limits to their behavior, that they are asking for the adults to, in short, be adults, and affirm that there are limits–and someone is in charge.
What I see too frequently in low-income schools, and particularly those with minority populations, are teachers who lack a grounding in the culture of their students, and who expect that students have been trained, somehow, by their backgrounds to “misbehave.” They may view such students with a high level of suspicion. Rather than being able to say with authority to little Johnny, “I know your mother doesn’t allow you to stand on the chairs at your house,” a fledgeling teacher may approach with wholly inappropriate responses, “Johnny, would you please get off the chair?” (as if such behavior is negotiable) or “Johnny, what would your mother say?” (as if one might believe that Mom would endorse such a thing).
Just as the academic expectations for low-income children have been set, by educators, at a lower level, so have the behavioral expectations. I recall a conversation with a middle school teacher (my son’s school). I was really disturbed by the number of kids wandering the hallways during class on an ongoing basis, as well as various bathroom diversions that I considered dangerous (and some of them illegal). The teacher responded that she thought they were doing pretty well for an urban school.
I have talked to kids who were disgusted by (sexual)behavior that was tolerated on school busses and in school bathrooms. Lunch-time behavior is apparently expected to be chaotic, with the only other possibility seen as a militaristic stance with all eyes forward. We have to do better than this. We have to learn to have meaningful conversations with students and families and be dedicated to structuring stability into schools. We have to pay attention to transitions and other potential disruptions (no, an open house the night before school starts isn’t enough). We may even have to consider whether some of those 21st century skills–collaboration, communication, all that, might have a meaningful role in all this.
Indeed, it could be argued that removing poor children from their households entirely and making them all wards of Eli Broad would be even better.
I read this out loud in the teachers’ lunch room and the comment was, “Now can they prove that water is wet?” To us, the results here are obvious. We would any doubt that stress interferes with the learning process? But its great getting the scientific confirmation.
Does Eli have enough room, Tom?
Sure, we all intuited that stress interferes with learning, John. But now we might have a clearer picture of the mechanics.
John:
Another NPR piece (I learn a lot during my drive time) concerned a study of the mental health needs of children in a Native American community. A bit ho-hum, but what was unique was that during the time of the ongoing study there were two events in the community being studied. One was the settlement of a large class action suit that brought an influx of cash to most families in the area. The second was the opening of some new employer that moved many adults into emplyment. Guess what–mental health of children improved.
Does that mean that the problems previously experienced were insignificant, or things that the mental health system ought not/could not address? Then what use is the information–since most communities of impoverished kids are not likely to receive an infusion of cash followed by new employment opportunities? Might this not change the focus of the things that the mental health community does work on? Might it spur a more family oriented practice? Are there responses that can moderate the effects of poverty and unemployment? These are significant research questions.
I don’t hear the education community as a whole–or certainly the teachers in the lunch room–asking these kinds of questions. If stability is a factor that contributes to cognitive development, are schools actively involved in enhancing stability–either within their own walls, or nearby? I think of the study my district did on family mobility. One of the significant factors that fed mobility was seeking a better school situation. Another was that although the district had official school policies to provide transportation to families who moved and were willing to finish out the year in the same school, these policies were unknown (and therefore not communicated to families) at the building level. Some parts of the solution lay wholly within the purview of the district. [One recommendation was that principals do exit interviews when families leave a school or the district. I just saw another article last week relating that the district is again aghast at the number of kids who left the district--they didn't see it coming. Don't know what to do. I don't think they ever acted on the exit interviews--or by now they might have a handle on who is leaving and the factors that drive exit]
When we look at the “water is indeed wet” conclusion regarding the need for stability (as opposed to stress) in order to foster cognitive growth, are we also asking whether the life inside the school building falls on the chaotic and stressful side or the orderly, predictable and nurturing side? Can we honestly look at a chaotic classroom and determine that there is a problem to be addressed, within that classroom–or do we dismiss the chaos as being the result of some other adult not doing the job we want them to do, or call for other classrooms or buildings to bounce the disrupters to?
Do you think that someone in a district or building (maybe even a group of teachers) might consider saving the dollars that are spent on testing workbooks and invest them instead in solutions that build towards stability? Might even increase test scores.