Three Years Is All It Takes

Every education wonk knows about the research indicating that having a great teacher for three consecutive years makes the difference between achieving academic success and falling further behind.  Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, Tom Kane of Harvard and others have become famous and prosperous for spreading that message far and wide. They did it so effectively that “Three Great Teachers” became the rallying cry of just about everyone from Arne Duncan on down. That’s all it takes, so (this means you, teachers) shape up and do a better job!

New research, however, indicates an even more surprising finding: Three consecutive years of quality nutrition, medical care, housing, clothing, and emotional support at home and in school does even more than having three great teachers.  In a carefully-controlled study, an independent researcher has found that poor children who were given those advantages for three years turned out to be happier, healthier, more capable academically, better behaved and more likely to contribute to their community than children who were denied those basic needs.

The long-term study was a painful challenge, researcher Pierre DeRien told me in a phone interview.  “We had to create a control group of perfectly matched children, and in at least two dozen cases that meant we had to deny identical twins the decent housing, nutrition, medical care and personal attention that their siblings were receiving.”

“Policing that was tough,” he said with what sounded like a rueful laugh. “We often had to intervene to make sure one twin didn’t share his meal or his warm clothing with his sibling, but research comes first.  Frankly, some parents were angry that they had to choose between children, kind of a Sophie’s Choice, but I guess they realized that having one kid well off was better than none.”

Wasn’t that a little bit like a TV cameraman filming a drowning person instead of jumping in to save him, I asked Dr. DeRien?  He was silent for a long minute, perhaps embarrassed, but then recovered.  “Science comes first,” he said, “And our findings will end up saving thousands, perhaps millions of children, so sacrificing those few hundred in the control group was necessary…and right.”

I asked Dr. DeRien about the policy implications of his findings.  Specifically, was he now calling for decent housing, medical care, nutrition, clothing for the estimated 25 million U.S. children now growing up in poverty?  After all, child poverty in the US is easily the worst among developed nations and a national embarrassment.  Perhaps he saw this as the spur America needs to take immediate action.

“Oh, no,” he replied. “All we did was study what happened over three years to 2300 children when we gave them what is the birthright of middle class and upper class children.  I’m seeking funding so I can repeat the study for another three years, this time with at least 25,000 children in the study and another 25,000 in the control group.”

But we have 25 million children in poverty now, I said. They can’t wait three more years, can they?

“The whole point of research is to be sure,” he chided.  “Policy has to be grounded in fact, not some do-gooder fantasy,” he said before hanging up.



10 thoughts on “Three Years Is All It Takes

  1. I’ve always maintained that, instead of enacting No Child Left Behind, Congress should have passed the following three bills: No Child Goes to Bed Hungry, No Child Goes without Medical Care, and No Child is the Victim of Violence. If we can be “aspirational” when it comes to schools, why can’t we be equally asiprational when it comes to other vital social concerns?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I wish I shared your optimism. I think we often load on the schools the responsibilities that we are really not willing to face up to. As you no doubt figured out, I made that study up. Pierre’s last name is French for “It’s nothing.” (though it’s written de rien).


  2. Whew. I’m really glad that my guess was right and you had made the study up. Unfortunately in these times I feared I might have been wrong! In any case we don’t actually need a study, do we? It is so basic, as any teacher who teaches children who come to school hungry, ill clothed, without having had a safe place to sleep, will tell you.

    As you know this has been the focus of the Broader Bolder Initiative for many years–a group Arnie Duncan purported to endorse. Somehow he never did anything that showed much support.

    I don’t have much hope that either of the major party candidates for president is going to use their position to really address this, though we have a better chance with Clinton than with Trump. But I am less pessimistic than you, because I think that in the not too distant future enough real studies will show that the blaming school game only makes matters worse, and people will be forced to look at the real roots.


    • My Pierre, entirely fictitious, has the last name of “de rien,” meaning in French “It’s nothing.” I was attempting satire. Perhaps I should keep my day job? Oh, wait, I’m retired and don’t have a day job. Uh oh… 🙂


  3. John:

    Children need both. Children with all the advantages who get lousy teachers for three years in a row, will also suffer in their academic pursuits.

    Don Nielsen


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s