Providence

Low-Income Kids Face a Massive Word Gap. Here’s One Way to Fix It.

A Rhode Island program is trying to boost the vocabulary of low-income kids by recording and evaluating the words they say. Is this a novel approach, or seriously invasive?

A mother reads a story to her children at Union Station in Washington, D.C.
National Journal
Emily Badger
Add to Briefcase
Emily Badger
Dec. 17, 2013, 4 a.m.

This art­icle is part of a weeklong Amer­ica 360 series on Provid­ence.

PROVID­ENCE, R.I. — Small chil­dren in the most talk­at­ive homes hear, on av­er­age, 20,000 to 30,000 words in a day. That num­ber may sound im­plaus­ible. But all of the over­heard con­ver­sa­tions, nurs­ery rhymes, and ad­mon­ish­ments add up.

And, for up­per-in­come chil­dren, they add up much faster than they do in homes deep in poverty. This cre­ates a so­cioeco­nom­ic “word gap” between low- and high-in­come chil­dren.

This gap ex­ists in the dif­fer­ence between read­ing and watch­ing TV. It’s in the dif­fer­ence between hand­ing a tod­dler a bowl of cer­eal, and us­ing that cer­eal as a ploy to talk about mouths and tum­mies. The gap widens be­cause a low-in­come par­ent, who works two jobs, isn’t around as much to talk to her chil­dren, or has less en­ergy when she is home. And it grows be­cause a child whose par­ents can­not af­ford a stuffed ele­phant may nev­er have much reas­on to talk about ele­phants at all.

By the time poor chil­dren are 3, re­search­ers be­lieve they have heard on av­er­age about 30 mil­lion few­er words than chil­dren the same age from bet­ter-off fam­il­ies, set­ting back their vocab­u­lary, cog­nit­ive de­vel­op­ment, and fu­ture read­ing skills be­fore the first day of school. This dis­ad­vant­age is “already al­most ir­re­vers­ible,” says Ken­neth Wong, a pro­fess­or of edu­ca­tion policy at Brown Uni­versity.

In Provid­ence, many of these chil­dren fill up the pub­lic-school sys­tem: 87 per­cent of stu­dents dis­trict-wide here are eli­gible for free or re­duced-price lunch. Come Janu­ary, the city plans to launch an un­con­ven­tion­al in­ter­ven­tion with a few dozen low-in­come chil­dren — then hun­dreds more — in a bid to al­ter their life pro­spects by chan­ging how their par­ents talk to them.

“Un­for­tu­nately, Provid­ence takes turns, it seems, with De­troit and New Or­leans to see who’s go­ing to lead in child­hood poverty,” says John Kelly, CEO of Meet­ing Street, which runs an Early Head Start home-vis­it­a­tion pro­gram in town that will be cent­ral to the ini­ti­at­ive, called Provid­ence Talks. “That doesn’t cre­ate al­ways healthy, happy home en­vir­on­ments.”

Provid­ence won a $5 mil­lion grant over three years from Bloomberg Phil­an­throp­ies to de­vel­op the ini­ti­at­ive in part­ner­ship with com­munity-ser­vice pro­viders, re­search­ers at Brown, and a Col­or­ado found­a­tion that’s figured out how to build a pe­do­met­er for words.

The device, a 2-ounce spe­cial­ized re­cord­er about the size of a deck of cards, maps the in­tens­ity of com­mu­nic­a­tion between par­ents and chil­dren. The in­fants and tod­dlers in Provid­ence Talks will wear it twice a month, tucked in­to a cus­tom-made vest, for 12 to 16 hours at a time. The re­cord­er then plugs in­to a com­puter, where soft­ware auto­mat­ic­ally con­verts the au­dio files in­to charts that can be used by Meet­ing Street to coach the par­ents on how and when they might speak to their chil­dren more of­ten.

The pro­ject has at­trac­ted na­tion­al at­ten­tion for both the Bloomberg money and the curi­ous tech­no­logy. Provid­ence Talks is also nov­el for its high stakes: May­or An­gel Taver­as wants to scale the ini­ti­at­ive city­wide, while pri­vacy ad­voc­ates raise con­cerns about the pro­gram’s in­tru­sion in­to res­id­ents’ lives. Bloomberg’s not-for-profit gave Provid­ence this money on the gamble that it could val­id­ate a chain re­ac­tion that oth­er cit­ies could fol­low. Close the word gap, ad­voc­ates say, and you might close the achieve­ment gap and maybe even dis­rupt the cycle of poverty.

***

For years, we didn’t no­tice this in­equal­ity of vocab­u­lary — or the ex­tent of it — be­cause it was a painstak­ing thing to meas­ure be­fore the ad­vent of smarter re­cord­ers and soft­ware. A sem­in­al study, pub­lished in 1995 by two child psy­cho­lo­gists at the Uni­versity of Kan­sas, Betty Hart and Todd Ris­ley, manu­ally iden­ti­fied the ef­fect.

They spent two-and-a-half years study­ing 42 Kan­sas City fam­il­ies of vary­ing in­comes with chil­dren who were, at the start of the study, 7 to 9 months old. For an hour each month, Hart and Ris­ley re­cor­ded and ob­served everything that took place in a home around a child. They ul­ti­mately spent four years tran­scrib­ing and ana­lyz­ing 1,300 hours of ob­ser­va­tion. Their res­ults showed that chil­dren in fam­il­ies on wel­fare heard half as many words per hour as chil­dren of work­ing-class par­ents, and a third as many as chil­dren of pro­fes­sion­al par­ents.

Over time, the chil­dren also came to mir­ror their par­ents in vocab­u­lary and in­ter­ac­tions. “When we listened to the chil­dren,” Hart and Ris­ley wrote, “we seemed to hear their par­ents speak­ing.”

Their sample size was ad­mit­tedly and ne­ces­sar­ily small. But the ef­fect was so start­ling and con­sist­ent across time that the re­search­ers hoped that the 30-mil­lion-word gap would change some part of early child­hood edu­ca­tion.

Ten years ago, the tech­no­logy still didn’t ex­ist to eas­ily re­peat what they had done. But the non­profit LENA Re­search Found­a­tion in Col­or­ado began try­ing to train com­puter al­gorithms to parse the minute verbal dif­fer­ences that Hart and Ris­ley had tran­scribed by hand. Over sev­er­al years, LENA’s speech-re­cog­ni­tion en­gin­eers de­veloped soft­ware that could tell the dif­fer­ence between a child speak­ing and a par­ent, between a live voice and one on tele­vi­sion. Sim­ul­tan­eously, the found­a­tion was work­ing with a re­cord­ing device that could, for the first time, re­cord for 16 hours straight.

Today, no hu­man has to listen to the au­dio cap­tured by LENA’s re­cord­er, a “di­git­al lan­guage pro­cessor.” The soft­ware ana­lyzes it in a few hours and tab­u­lates the total num­ber of adult words a child hears in a day (not count­ing TV), or the num­ber of give-and-takes between child and par­ent.

Some 200 uni­versit­ies and hos­pit­als now use the tech­no­logy for clin­ic­al or re­search pro­jects that of­ten have noth­ing to do with poverty. The device is also used by lin­guist­ic de­part­ments, in aut­ism and hear­ing-impair­ment re­search, to meas­ure in­ter­ac­tions with the eld­erly, or between teach­ers and stu­dents in a classroom. Dana Sus­kind, a Uni­versity of Chica­go re­search­er whose work in­spired Provid­ence’s ini­ti­at­ive, has been us­ing LENA for a sim­il­ar, smal­ler-scale pro­ject on Chica­go’s South Side.

Sus­kind’s evid­ence sug­gests that Provid­ence Talks could work. Adults and chil­dren in Chica­go in­creased their word counts and the fre­quency of their in­ter­ac­tions with each oth­er over the course of sev­er­al months. Her re­search has also giv­en par­ents peri­od­ic feed­back from the LENA re­cord­ings, along­side a home-vis­it­ing cur­riculum to coach them along the way on the im­port­ance of vocab­u­lary and the many subtle op­por­tun­it­ies — while play­ing, eat­ing, singing, clean­ing — when chil­dren ab­sorb it.

Sus­kind is eager to see this strategy, backed by more re­search, help more than a hand­ful of fam­il­ies. Ima­gine, for ex­ample, if ag­greg­ated data from a pro­ject like this could help cit­ies make the case for more lib­rary fund­ing in neigh­bor­hoods where chil­dren do not hear as many words.

“We need this to suc­ceed. We want this to suc­ceed,” Sus­kind says of Provid­ence Talks, whose ad­vis­ory board she has joined. “If this can be shown to be ef­fect­ive on a lar­ger scale, it would be a great thing.”

***

Kissiy Puello sus­pects that her 2-year-old, Nor­al­iz, hears maybe 500 vocab­u­lary words a day. The 36-year-old moth­er of three lives in Provid­ence’s West End neigh­bor­hood, where her Early Head Start home vis­it­or was mak­ing a reg­u­lar vis­it earli­er this month. Nor­al­iz already talks a lot. “That’s her per­son­al­ity, the way she is,” Puello says — so there’s every reas­on to be­lieve she’s already tak­ing those cues from some­where. But next month, Meet­ing Street will be­gin giv­ing Puello more tar­geted guid­ance on how to talk about emo­tions, or how to re­peat Nor­al­iz’s own words back to her, or how to try out new vocab­u­lary through fin­ger plays.

Provid­ence Talks will be un­like Sus­kind’s pro­ject, not just for its am­bi­tion to do this with hun­dreds of fam­il­ies, but also be­cause the LENA Found­a­tion has nev­er heard of a loc­al gov­ern­ment play­ing a role in an idea like this be­fore.

City Hall has the re­sources to yield the widest im­pact, ap­proach­ing the kind Sus­kind has in mind. May­or Taver­as ul­ti­mately wants to identi­fy and in­vite fam­il­ies to par­ti­cip­ate from the mo­ment they go through a state-man­dated new­born screen­ing in a Provid­ence hos­pit­al. In the city, 2,700 ba­bies are born each year.

But the in­volve­ment of gov­ern­ment also prompts a level of alarm for civil liber­tari­ans that would not ex­ist if this were simply a Brown re­search study with an identic­al design. “There’s al­ways a con­cern when we walk in with tech­no­logy in­to lower-in­come fam­il­ies, im­mig­ra­tion pop­u­la­tions, minor­ity pop­u­la­tions, and we say ‘This will help you,’ ” says Hil­lary Dav­is, a policy as­so­ci­ate with the Rhode Is­land ACLU, “and we don’t ne­ces­sar­ily re­cog­nize the threat to their own safety or liberty that can ac­ci­dent­ally come along with that.”

Provid­ence has built in sev­er­al pri­vacy pre­cau­tions that oth­er users of the LENA tech­no­logy don’t al­ways take. (The ACLU, which has been talk­ing to the city, would like those in writ­ing.) The re­cord­er it­self has no “play” but­ton, should the device get lost. And par­ents, who vo­lun­teer to par­ti­cip­ate, have the op­tion of pur­ging a re­cord­ing be­fore it’s pro­cessed if they change their minds about par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pro­gram. After the soft­ware (held at Meet­ing Street) does ana­lyze the files, it also auto­mat­ic­ally de­letes them, Meet­ing Street says. Skep­tics wary of even well-in­ten­tioned tech­no­logy may not be re­as­sured by these pre­cau­tions.

But An­drea Ri­quetti-Sal­vatore, the dir­ect­or of Early Head Start at Meet­ing Street, fig­ures that the tech­no­logy has been easi­er to in­tro­duce be­cause she and the may­or are us­ing it with their chil­dren, too.

Since Novem­ber, Puello and about a dozen fam­il­ies have been test­ing the re­cord­ers at home. At this point, on the eve of the full rol­lout, the feed­back is mundane but valu­able: One 4-month-old spit up on the vest the first time she wore it. (Now she’s wear­ing a bib). Puello didn’t real­ize she was sup­posed to keep the re­cord­er on even while Nor­al­iz was sleep­ing.

Baby Nor­al­iz has also not been en­tirely fooled by the device hid­den in her LENA vest. “She no­tices it at­tached to her,” Puello says. “I ex­plained to her she has to do that for school. So she doesn’t touch it, she doesn’t take it off.”

The idea that a 2-year-old has to “do this for school” is a play on her de­sire to seem like her older sib­lings, the one who goes to Early Head Start, and the oth­er who’s in the sixth grade. But it’s also a lit­er­al state­ment. Maybe this will help her in school one day.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
16 hours ago
THE LATEST
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
WHAT WILL PASS?
McConnell Doubts Criminal Justice Reform Can Pass This Year
20 hours ago
THE LATEST
×