Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T23:22:36.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leveraging science to inform social policy: How Ed Zigler created a movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2021

Kimber Bogard  and
Ruby Takanishi
Kimber Bogard*
Affiliation:
New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
Ruby Takanishi
Affiliation:
New America, Washington, DC, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Kimber Bogard, 1216 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY10029, USA; E-mail: kbogard@nyam.org.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ed Zigler believed that developmental science should be applied to policy, programs, and practices to improve the lives of children and families. He shared this belief with others and paved the way for alternative career pathways. This paper describes how Ed influenced others to connect science with program development, evaluation, and policy, and created networks of applied scholars. Ed Zigler's influence is broad and spans beyond academia to influencer organizations. We weave our own professional experiences throughout the paper, which we organized around three lessons we learned from Ed: (a) explore alternative career pathways and build the field; (b) start with the science and think application; (c) apply the knowledge and influence policy.

Keywords

Ed Ziglermentorshipphilanthropypolicyscience
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: Honoring the Legacy of Ed Zigler's Lifetime Contributions to Science, Society, and Child Wellbeing , May 2021 , pp. 431 - 440
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Deceased August 8, 2020

References

Adams, D., Bornfreund, L. A., Carinci, J. E., Connors-Tadros, L., Fraga, L., Guarino, A., … Williams, V. (2017). A unified foundation to support a highly qualified early childhood workforce. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). The Bowlby–Ainsworth attachment theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 436–438. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00075828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, & and Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/9824Google Scholar
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5, 25–50. doi:10.2307/1602366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogard, K. L. (2006). Testing a PK-3 approach to education in three urban public schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University). Publication No. AAI3216905, ETD Collection for Fordham University, https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI3216905Google Scholar
Bogard, K., & Takanishi, R. (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education for children 3 to 8 years old. Social Policy Report, 19, 1–24. doi:10.1002/j.2379-3988.2005.tb00044.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First Focus. (2019). The Children's Budget 2019. Washington, DC: First Focus on Children.Google Scholar
Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners take all: The elite charade of changing the world. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Gormley, W. T. Jr, Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41, 872–884. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.872CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M. E., Stadler, J., & Sirin, S. R. (2006). School environments and the diverging pathways of students living in poverty. In Huston, A. C. & Ripke, M. N. (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Developmental contexts in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood (pp. 198–216). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499760.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children (NBER Working Paper 13016). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins-D'Alessandro, A., & Jankowski, K. R. (2002). Science for society: Informing policy and practice through research in developmental psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/19401Google Scholar
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 409–426. doi:10.1086/499760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the upper-middle classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1529–1549. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000758CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luthar, S. S., Burack, J. A., Cicchetti, D., & Weisz, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luthar, S. S., Kumar, N. L., & Benoit, R. (2019). Toward fostering resilience on a large scale: Connecting communities of caregivers. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 1813–1825. doi:10.1017/S0954579419001251CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luthar, S. S., Kumar, N. L., & Zillmer, N. (2019). High achieving schools connote significant risks for adolescents: Problems documented, processes implicated, and directions for interventions. American Psychologist, doi:10.1037/amp0000556Google Scholar
NASEM. (2017a). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24677Google Scholar
NASEM. (2017b). Communities in action: Pathways to health equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24624Google Scholar
NASEM. (2018). Transforming the financing of early care and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24984Google Scholar
NASEM. (2019a). The promise of adolescence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25388Google Scholar
NASEM. (2019b). Vibrant and healthy kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25466Google Scholar
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2016). Parenting matters: Supporting parents of children ages 0–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21868Google Scholar
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238. doi:10.1086/499701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S. R., & Topitzes, J. W. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75, 1299–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00742.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takanishi, R. (2016). First things first! Creating the new American primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Takanishi, R. (2020). An oral history with Ruby Takanishi. Interviewers: Kimber Bogard and Martha Zaslow. New York, NY: Oral History Protocol of the Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
Zigler, E. (1978). The effectiveness of Head Start: Another look. Educational Psychologist, 13, 71–77. doi:10.1080/00461527809529196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigler, E. (1993). Communicating effectively before members of Congress. In McCartney, K. & Phillips, D. (Eds.), An insider's guide to providing expert testimony before Congress (pp. 11–15). Chicago, IL: Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
Zigler, E. (1998). A place of value for applied and policy studies. Child Development, 69, 532–542. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06206.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigler, E. (2003). An oral history with Edward Zigler. Interviewer: Elena Grigorenko. New York, NY: Oral History Protocol of the Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
Zigler, E., Abelson, W. D., Trickett, P. K., & Seitz, V. (1982). Is an intervention program necessary in order to improve economically disadvantaged children's I.Q. scores? Child Development, 53, 340–348. doi:10.2307/1128975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigler, E., & Berman, W. (1983). Discerning the future of early childhood intervention. American Psychologist, 38, 894. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.8.894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigler, E. F., Finn-Stevenson, M., & Stern, B. M. (1997). Supporting children and families in the schools: The School of the 21st Century. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 396–407. doi:10.1037/h0080242CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zigler, E. F., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America's most successful educational experiment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2002). A life lived at the crossroads of knowledge and children's policy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2002, 5–16. doi:10.1002/cd.54CrossRefGoogle Scholar