6.8 The promise of executive functioning as an equity strategy

Objectives:

A. Understand the rationale for applying what we know about EF to address early

educational disadvantage related to socioeconomic factors.

B. Understand that the success of EF-related early interventions will hinge on the

careful definition of cognitive and socioeconomic terms.

C. Identify early intervention approaches and strategies suggested by EF research.

In recent years, demographically sensitive research methods and models have raised awareness that cognitive development is impacted by low socioeconomic status (SES) and other related forms of early adversity. Accordingly, studies looking at the development of executive functioning began to address the interactions of factors such as household income, race, individual differences in preschool EF performance, and educational outcomes.

In a related trend, equity work has become a priority in public school systems worldwide. This broad improvement initiative values diversity, social justice, and equitable opportunity in recognition that many disadvantaged groups of students need more or different kinds of support to succeed. From the point of view of educators, a first step in ensuring a more equitable educational system is the commitment to recognize and remove barriers to success faced by identifiable subpopulations of students.

Researchers and educational policymakers are confident they can exploit the relationship between EFs and early achievement to reduce the educational disadvantages associated with lower SES. Their reasoning is not complicated. Academic disadvantages linked to extreme poverty are buffered in children with strong EF skills (see, for example, Masten & Tellegen, 2012; Zelazo, 2016). We also know that EFs predict achievement (see Section 6.6), that an underprivileged background tends to deter EF development, and that EFs improve with practice. Those premises lead many to conclude that systematic efforts to improve EFs in the early years would improve outcomes for students from lower-SES households. Other recent findings strengthen the case. For example, brain maturation in combination with school experience is known to give rise to rapid gains in executive function during the early years (Jones & Bailey, 2016; Brod et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2021), and most especially for youngsters from lower-SES families (Finch, 2019; Schmitt et al., 2015).

The complexity of cognitive development tempers the promise of EF training as an early intervention equity strategy. SES-related EF differences in preschoolers emerge for various reasons and are likely to vary in response to interventions. Consider the effects of the stress hormone cortisol, for example. As mentioned in the previous chapter, our ability to engage with the world attentively is grounded in an arousal system that is neurochemically regulated (see Section 5.7). In situations where arousal rises to a moderately stressful level, cortisol is released into the bloodstream to support a healthy stress response that includes a peak executive functioning level. However, in a highly stressful situation, cortisol is further increased to levels that can reduce or impair EF activity in support of a fight-or-flight emergency response (Blair et al., 2011; Blair & Raver, 2016). As well, having to live with chronic stress will result in an elevated baseline level of cortisol in the bloodstream. This well-studied longer-range response to adversity is understood to substantially disrupt typical brain development and EF functioning (McEwen et al., 2016; Blair & Raver, 2016; Blakey et al., 2020). What’s more, the effect is pronounced in children living in poverty. Although a positive change in a child’s social and environmental circumstances can correct an elevated cortisol level, some kinds of neurophysiological damage associated with prolonged elevation may be partially or even largely irreversible.

Other SES-related EF differences that arise before school entry may be more responsive to early intervention. From an equity stance, neurotypical children are viewed to be born physiologically ready to develop EF skills suited for learning at school. SES-related differences appear between children because each child can only develop a repertoire of cognitive skills that reflects the opportunities and demands of their preschool situation. A prevailing hypothesis holds that underprivileged children are deprived of opportunities to develop the pre-academic learning skills that will serve them well at school. Some researchers have suggested that low SES works to canalize early experience (Raver et al., 2013; Blair & Raver, 2015, 2016). According to this interpretation, the typical experience of children in privileged households canalizes to provide opportunities suited for developing pre-academic learning skills favourable for learning at school. Conversely, the typical experience of children in lower-SES homes canalizes in a different direction, depriving some school-supportive opportunities and rendering others less valuable. Stress level in the home would no doubt factor in the outcomes being described here, as would environmental factors known to vary with SES, including parenting behaviour, cognitive stimulation, and language exposure (Lawson et al., 2018; see also see footnote 1), as well as household chaos (Andrews et al., 2021).

The equity stance on individual differences relating to EF development and school readiness is addressed in a recent position paper by the EF+Math Program and captured in this brief passage:

We do not take a deficit-based view of these differences, however, because the EF assets of each child develop in context, and optimize to the environments that a student grows up in. In other words, the EF skills developed in one environment are not objectively any better or worse than those developed in another environment. (EF+Math, 2020, p. 6)

From this perspective, the EF skills of a child from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background are not in themselves better or worse but different and developing in a direction that is less likely to prepare that child for classroom learning. Unfortunately, a youngster arriving at school without school-ready EF skills will likely face a slippery slope of continuing disadvantage, perhaps via lower teacher expectations and reduced challenge. While we know that the preschool EF gap generally diminishes because of the boost that school experience provides to disadvantaged youngsters (Little, 2017), ongoing canalization of experience can result in accumulating advantage for some children and accumulating disadvantage for others. This ever-widening achievement gap afflicting some children can be attributed to the cascading tendencies of social capital and privilege and is sometimes referred to as the Matthew effect.

Our ability to leverage EFs as an equity strategy to reduce early disadvantage will hinge on further clarifying how SES influences cognitive development. That groundwork is well underway but is no small undertaking and requires extraordinary care from researchers. One concern is that well-known but poorly understood complications relating to the interpretation of EF findings could confound the design and evaluation of early interventions. Readers will recall that EFs and their interactions can present in ways that seem to be fickle. Which EFs we measure, how they are measured, and at what age we measure them, all conspire to affect findings. One leading team of EF researchers has claimed that clarifying these matters as they relate to school readiness is a scientific priority (Willoughby et al., 2012).

The groundwork asked of EF researchers also includes deriving improved definitions of SES-related terms so that individual differences can be reliably measured and studied. For example, how can we accurately estimate the early disadvantage experienced by children from lower-SES households? Historically, various metrics have been used, including household income, parent education, the prestige of parent occupation, or the number of parents either living at home or gainfully employed. In their longitudinal study of 1,259 American preschool children followed from birth, Raver et al. (2013) outline multiple ways to measure poverty with greater precision for EF research. One innovative suggestion recommends moving away from household income as a gross measure and instead calculating an income-to-needs ratio. Such a ratio would provide a more accurate index of financial strain and household stress. A second suggestion involves surveying parent perception of psychological strains at home to see if those self-reports predict children’s EF more accurately than financial metrics on their own. Third, the authors cite evidence that only chronic exposure to poverty and hardship (versus short-term exposures) is a reliable predictor of preschool EF.

Let us zoom out to refresh our perspective. Only a couple of decades ago, early intervention research was focused on boosting IQ to support the school readiness and achievement of SES-disadvantaged children. That focus began to shift as research on the role of EFs grew (Zelazo et al., 2016). Subsequent interventions targeting EFs to address the consequences of early adversity have found varying success, but broad findings are encouraging. For example, EFs have been found to be “promising targets for interventions that aim to improve outcomes for children and families living in poverty” (Jones et al., 2016, p. 5). They improve with training or practice at any age, and children who test as having lower EFs consistently show the greatest initial gains (Diamond & Ling, 2016). Furthermore, evidence supports the implementation of structured interventions during pre-kindergarten and kindergarten (Blair & Raver, 2015). These and other such conclusions strongly suggest that EF-related equity work in the early years is undeniably important and on a promising track.

Be that as it may, EF-related equity efforts have not yielded easy answers or silver bullet

programs. Consequently, some researchers and practitioners have shown an interest in identifying common attributes of successful EF interventions that would likely advantage new initiatives in varied contexts. Going forward, these leading practices could be combined or layered with some confidence, an optimizing strategy often used by teachers in standard curriculum delivery.

Investigating the role of stress and poverty on executive function and self-regulation behaviour, a team of researchers reviewed the literature and recommended several effective early intervention program strategies (Jones & Bailey, 2016). These strategies include the use of brief and targeted activities, some explicit skills instruction, mindful skills practice embedded in social interactions, progressive challenge, and a supportive environment led by familiar models/mentors.

More recently, another highly regarded team of EF researchers examined 179 peer reviewed studies that had experimentally evaluated a program or method for improving executive functions (Diamond & Ling, 2020). One of the outcomes generated by this process was a list of program activities most likely to improve EFs. The list included challenging EF skills in continually changing ways; embedding EF skills practice in daily routines, multiple subject matters, and real-world activities; promoting commitment and emotional investment; involving supportive and inspiring mentors; and promoting personal wellness, self-confidence, and pride. Throughout their review, Diamond and Ling address the much-debated matter of near transfer and far transfer of EFs and cognitive skills in general. While acknowledging the inconsistent and generally weak evidence for far transfer even in children, the authors highlight program strategies most likely to generalize training effects to some degree. Those include varied practice of multiple skills in novel situations and diverse real-world situations; training embedded across multiple subject matters; employment of skilled instructors; an emphasis on challenge; and extended training so that full benefits can be realized (see footnote 2).

Others have recommended that interventions simply work around the far transfer issue. For instance, the EF+Math project is a research initiative founded by the Gates Foundation and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to address math achievement gaps in elementary Black and Latinx students by improving EF skills. The initiative’s evidence-informed recommendation: “EFs should be trained in the contexts in which they are to be expressed” (EF+Math, 2020, p. 6). In other words, to improve EF skills with math achievement in mind, it is best to embed EF training during math learning times.

EF researchers must sometimes feel as though they are wading in an ocean of equivocal findings. But all of us can feel confident on some matters. We know that SES-related EF gaps are amenable to early intervention opportunities for training and practice. We know a vast landscape of research opportunities lies waiting before us. And we know that if our prescriptions can help youngsters transition to school and hold information in mind, regulate impulses and actions, and control focus as required, then those youngsters will be more likely to enjoy achievement and well-being through their school career and beyond.

Notes:

1. Some factors have been found to reduce the susceptibility of cognitive development to early SES-related environmental stress. Raver et al. (2013) reported that susceptibility can vary due to individual differences in the “temperamental predispositions” of young children (p. 292). As intriguing, Berry et al. (2012) found that higher versus lower levels of sensitive parenting is associated with lower levels of cortisol in 7 to 24-month-olds, and reduced cortisol levels are associated with both higher EF at 3 years of age and pre-kindergarten achievement. It has since become well-established that high-quality caregiving effectively offsets the impact of poverty on cortisol levels and EF development (see discussions in Blair & Raver, 2015; Bierman & Torres, 2016; Finegood & Blair, 2017).

2. In an earlier review, the authors also strongly recommended that exercising varied EF skills in wide-ranging, authentic situations is the way to generate and generalize positive program effects (Diamond & Ling, 2016). Such training could be embedded in widely different program contexts, such as a school subject curriculum or a martial arts program.