DENISE JORGENS: Good
afternoon, everyone.
My name is Denise
Jorgens and I'm
the Director of
International House
for the University of Chicago.
And I'm President of
International Houses Worldwide,
which today is a network of
17 houses on four continents.
I'm also an alumna of
the university receiving
my MA from the social
sciences division and my PhD
from the Department of
History, and I should
add, a fellow Minnesotan.
I'm originally
from Golden Valley.
Oftentimes, I hear--
and I'm sure you've
heard many times as well--
that the University of Chicago
is characterized as
unique or uncommon.
And this gives me a
great sense of pride.
Fittingly, the University
of Chicago campaign Inquiry
and Impact is also
unique and uncommon.
And I want to tell you two
reasons why this is the case.
The first reason is the size
of our campaign, a $4.5 billion
comprehensive campaign, which
puts us in the top five largest
campaigns in the history
of higher education.
The second reason is
the scope of our goals.
At the same time we
announced the $4.5 billion
fundraising goal, we also
announced an alumni engagement
goal, a goal to engage
125,000 of our alumni
during the lifetime
of our campaign.
Other universities have
had engagement goals
as part of their
campaign totals.
But to launch it publicly
and to measure it
just as much as we are
measuring the $4.5 billion
fundraising campaign, this
makes us the first university
to do so.
We're making strong
progress on both.
We recently reached
the milestone
of raising $3 billion.
By coming this
afternoon, you are
counted among the nearly 75,000
engaged alumni and thousands
of connected friends.
I'd also like to share a few
more statistics with you.
Engaging 125,000 alumni
represents about 70%
of our alumni community.
So this is really
an ambitious goal.
Over 2,300 alumni live
and/or work in Minnesota.
Over 2,100 alumni live or
work in the Twin Cities area.
And of the Twin Cities
area alumni population,
the top five schools
or units represented
are 31% from the Booth School of
Business, 25% from the college,
9% from the social
sciences division,
7% from the law school,
and 7% from the division
of the humanities.
54% of all of these alumni
have graduated since 1990.
And now I'd like to share
our engagement goals
and our progress in
this second area.
During the campaign, which
is from 2014 to 2019,
our goal is to engage 1,550
alumni from the Twin Cities
area.
To date, 883 alumni from
the Twin Cities area
have been engaged
in the campaign.
And so we're about 57%
toward reaching our goal.
29% of the cumulative campaign
engagement from the Twin Cities
area has come from attending
events such as this one today.
Engaged alumni from
the Twin Cities area
currently average three
instances of engagement
since the beginning
of the campaign.
So that means going to
an event, making a gift,
helping or volunteering, or
connecting with our community
online.
You are all key to reaching
our ambitious goals
by engaging yourself
and inviting
fellow alumni to engage.
As I said, there are many ways
to engage-- to go to an event,
to make a gift, to
help or volunteer,
or to connect online.
Thank you all for being
here this afternoon
and for making
our university one
of the great centers of
education, discovery,
and impact.
Enjoy the afternoon.
[APPLAUSE]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
ROBERT ZIMMER: The
University of Chicago's--
DEREK DOUGLAS: Urban.
RAGHURAM RAJAN: [INAUDIBLE]
JUAN DE PABLO: Courageous.
JAMES HECKMAN: Unusual.
OLUFONMILAYO
OLOPADE: Phenomenal.
SPEAKER: Rigorous.
SPEAKER: Fabulous.
JAMES HECKMAN: Outspoken.
ANDREW ALPER:
Economics and pizza.
ALYSSA BIVINS: Pushing borders.
JAMES HECKMAN: Invigorating
NEIL SHUBIN: An
intellectual crucible.
JENS LUDWIG: That pushes you
to be your best everyday.
ROBERT ZIMMER:
From its inception,
the University of
Chicago focused
on rigorous, intense
inquiries to find everything
about what the University
of Chicago is today
and what it will
be in the future.
JOHN BOYER: The core curriculum
is the symbol of who we are.
Our mission is to get
very talented students
and to put them
through a program
with systematic
interdisciplinary training
and four years later, graduate
Chicago intellectuals.
NEIL SHUBIN: I'll bring up
a discovery that we've made.
Then I'll proceed to
criticize my own discovery.
It's through self-criticism
you create a learning
culture of critical inquiry.
ALYSSA BIVINS: We aren't
just talking at each other.
We're listening.
And at the end of
the class, I might
have a completely different
perspective on the issue.
Some excellent, excellent
students over the years.
They were very much my teachers.
It changed my work.
It just exposed me
to a world of ideas.
JOSEPH NEUBAUER: I was the
beneficiary of a scholarship
from the University of Chicago.
I could not have gone
to business school
without that scholarship.
AIMEE BROWN: I just feel so
grateful that I was selected
to kind of be among the
minds and the intelligence
and the incredible people.
It's been the best
experience of my life.
SPEAKER: I think
supporting young people
to pursue their dreams
opens up the world to you.
All we ask of anybody
is that they do the same
to the next generation.
SPEAKER: The
university is really
made by the people in it.
SPEAKER: Really,
very competitive.
SPEAKER: Very unruly.
SPEAKER: Seeing all the
crazy amazing things
that they're doing.
SPEAKER: Curing
diabetes, cancer.
SPEAKER: Innovation, more
entrepreneurship, new ventures,
new technologies.
SPEAKER: Really forces
me to push for something
beyond what I'm doing.
SPEAKER: In higher
education today--
JOSEPH NEUBAUER: The manners
are really in retreat.
We really think that
it's a responsibility
to continue to foster
growth of the humanities.
A collegium will allow
teams of humanists
from all over the world to
tackle problems that society
needs to deal with.
JUAN DE PABLO: The Institute
of Molecular Engineering
is organized around solving
water, energy, health
problems through designing
matter from molecules up.
Just solving one of all of
these problems we're working on
would be tremendous.
ANDREW ALPER: You're part of
an intellectual community that
attracts individuals who are
intellectually fearless that
will bring together experts
from different disciplines
to help solve problems.
DEREK DOUGLAS: We're
exploring opportunities
to create more portals for
the community and people
in the city to come
into the university
and both get some of the
knowledge that we have,
but also share their
knowledge with us.
JENS LUDWIG: Lots of people
are skeptical about the ability
to use social programs
to prevent crime.
What we try to do
is generate evidence
that is so rigorous
and so compelling
that the most
skeptical skeptic will
have to acknowledge that
there's really something here.
One year of participation in the
Youth Guidance and Becoming A
Man program reduced violent
crime arrests of these kids
by over 40%, which
I think really
challenges the
conventional wisdom
that the only way that you
can control crime and violence
in the United States is
through locking up millions
and millions of people.
SPEAKER: And if you show the
impact, it has global reach.
Billions of people,
not just millions,
billions of people
that you can get to.
RAGHURAM RAJAN: It's very
important in a world which
is becoming more
integrated that you
have these global universities.
SPEAKER: We now have a rather
more ambitious global strategy
with the same goal
standard quality
of curriculum and teaching.
SPEAKER: Students
are going to want
to experience of
understanding other cultures
because this is going to be the
world that they are functioning
in over the coming decades.
RAGHURAM RAJAN: Can we bring
people, scholars, politicians,
administrators, from
these different areas also
together to discuss
what's going on.
ANDREW ALPER: To debate the big
challenges facing the world.
EMILY NICKLIN: Human
illness limits society.
And accordingly, fixing
that, addressing it,
is hugely important.
It's transformative.
SHIRLEY MERTZ: I
had been diagnosed
with metastatic or
advanced breast cancer.
The first thing Dr.
Fumi Olopade said
to me is I want to find
out more about your tumor
so that I can personalize
the treatment for both you
and the tumor.
The survival rate for metastatic
diseases was one to two years.
I really must say that I
have survived the odds.
I mean, I'm still sitting here,
standing here 10 years plus.
OLUFONMILAYO OLOPADE:
You know what?
It's worth every day getting
up and supporting patients
like her.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
SPEAKER: We have an
enormous obligation
to the people who gave us the
opportunity today to do what
we do with these young people.
And in turn, they
have an obligation
to support those
who come after us.
The question for us
today is how do we
realize these values in a
powerful way going forward?
SPEAKER: Together, we are
spreading grace and humanity.
SPEAKER: Together, we are--
SPEAKER: SPEAKER: Thinking
about ways in which you
can have an impact on society.
Together--
JENS LUDWIG: We
have the potential
to change the way people
think about urban problems.
SPEAKER: Together--
OLUFONMILAYO OLOPADE: We make
amazing discoveries possible.
SPEAKER: It's part of our DNA.
It's who we are.
SPEAKER: It's a big,
big universe here.
JUAN DE PABLO: Ours
is a university
of great discoveries.
SPEAKER: Ours is the
university of fearless inquiry.
SPEAKER: Ours is the
university that develops
ideas that change the world.
TOM EVANS: Good afternoon.
My name is Tom Evans.
I'm a graduate of
the college in 1991.
And I serve as President
of the University Alumni
Club here of the Twin Cities.
I'm so glad of all of
you were able to join us
for this opportunity to dive
into U Chicago scholarship
and also have the
opportunity to socialize,
relax, and enjoy a wonderful
Minnesota spring day.
I'm honored in introducing
today's Harper lecture
with Professor Kalil.
In addition to co-directing
the Behavioral Insights
and Parenting Lab,
Professor Kalil
teaches at the University of
Chicago Harris School of Public
Policy and is Director
of the Center for Human
Potential and Public Policy.
A developmental psychologist
who studies economic conditions,
parenting, and child
development, Professor Kalil
recently focused on the
historical evolution
of income-based gaps
and parenting behavior
and children's cognitive
and non-cognitive skills.
Join me in giving Professor
Kalil a warm welcome.
[APPLAUSE]
ARIEL KALIL: Good afternoon.
Thanks so much for coming out.
It's a beautiful day outside.
And I'm delighted to be here.
Before I begin my own
remarks about my research,
I would like to share with
you some exciting news
from the University of
Chicago and from the Harris
School in particular
where I am finishing
my 16th year on the faculty.
And I have a few
things to let you know.
First of all, we are both
delighted and a bit sad
that the Dean of the Harris
School, Daniel Diermeier,
has just been named
the next provost
of the University of Chicago.
He will start his
new post this summer.
And we have just nominated
professor Kerwin Charles
of the Harris School
as our interim dean
while we conduct an
international search
for the next dean.
I also would like to let
you know exciting news
about the new building
that the Harris School
will occupy starting in 2018.
Due to a generous gift of
our university trustee Dennis
Keller, we'll move into a
brand new building which
will triple our size,
and most importantly,
our classroom space for our
growing student population.
In terms of programmatic
developments,
we have a very
exciting new focus
on international global
conflict at the Harris School.
You may have heard that the
Pearson Family Foundation chose
the Harris School to establish
the Pearson institute this year
focused on this topic.
And it was the
second largest gift
in the history of the
University of Chicago.
And we're absolutely
thrilled that this
will allow for growth on
faculty and student programming.
And finally, I just want to let
you know about our new efforts
at the school with the
Center for Economic Policy
under the directorship
of Thomas Coleman who
is the former executive
director and senior advisor
at the Becker Freedman Institute
for Research in Economics.
We will make a priority
in teaching public policy
students about financial
markets and the application
of theoretical tools
to practical problems
in fixed income valuation
and risk management.
So just a smattering
of exciting news
from the Harris School
and the university.
And so I'd like
to turn our focus
next to the work that
I do and the remarks
that I'll share with you over
the next 30 minutes or so.
And I want to begin by orienting
you towards the problem that
has captured my interest and my
scholarly inquiry for, really,
as long as I've been at it.
And that is the
focus on increasing
the life chances of economically
disadvantaged children.
And the reason I am so drawn
to inquiry in this area
is the fact that disadvantaged
children, as you probably know,
fare worse than
economically advantaged
children on just about
everything we can measure.
And we can observe these
gaps in development
from the very earliest point
at which we can reliably
measure cognitive or behavioral
outcomes for children.
And so you probably know that
economically disadvantaged
children do worse
in school, obtain
fewer years of
schooling, they earn less
and are more likely
to be poor as adults,
they are in worse
health and are more
likely to commit and to
be the victim of crime
over their lifetime.
And if we just
think for a moment
about the gap in
cognitive test scores
that we observe
between economically
advantaged and
disadvantaged children,
you can see here this chart
showing cognitive test scores
of children of mothers who
have, in the top bar, a college
education versus
those in the bars
below that red one whose
mothers have less education.
We see that these gaps
in children's test scores
are present, again, as
early as we can reliably
measure them here at age three.
But the really important
thing I want you to focus on
in this chart here is
that these gaps hardly
diminish at all over the course
of children's school years.
This should tell us
two things, or should
make us think about two things.
One is that schools are not
likely to be the only source
for closing achievement gaps.
It may be that in the
absence of schooling,
these gaps would grow even
larger over the course
of children's school years.
But we certainly
can't imagine, I
think, looking at this figure
and many others like it,
that we can put the locus or
the onus of responsibility
on our school system to
close those achievement gaps
between rich and poor children.
We have known this
fact for a long time.
And as a nation, we have tried
many different strategies
for closing the achievement gap.
And indeed, evaluations
of model and
experimental preschool programs
such as the Perry Preschool
Program or the Abecedarian
Early Childhood Intervention
raised our hopes considerably
for expanding preschool
for disadvantaged
children that could help
close these achievement gaps.
And as you can see
here, just showing you
a sort of stylized picture of
the results from those Perry
and Abecedarian
programs, children
who participated in
the program or who
had had the benefit of
receiving the treatment
performed better on
many different measures,
including here, the share who
graduated from high school.
We have a whole set of measures
that showed a lot of promise.
Unfortunately, evaluations
of bigger and more scaled up
and more widespread
programs in this country,
such as Head Start
for example, which
is the main government
funded preschool
in this country for
low income children,
suggest far more modest impacts.
So an experimental evaluation
of the Head Start program
showed that it has, at
best, modest effects
on improving
children's cognitive
and behavioral
readiness for school.
And this is perhaps
not surprising
if you think a little
more about this issue.
And that is because
in the US, children
will spend only about
13% of their waking
hours between birth
and age 18 in school.
And even children who
attend full day preschool
from age three will
only spend about 15%
of their waking hours in school.
So if we consider that
fact, it might not
be especially
surprising to us that
neither preschool nor primary
or secondary schooling
does much to close
the achievement
gaps in child outcomes.
And that suggests to
us and to the work
that I do with my colleagues
at the Harris School
that the key to closing
the gap in child outcomes
is closing the gap
in what families
do with their children.
It is our opinion that
focusing on schools
is not really going to be a
sufficient strategy for helping
promote the life chances
of low income children.
We really need to think
a lot harder about how
to support families,
especially low
income families, in helping
support their children's
development.
So to do that, we have
to think for a moment
about how can we understand
parent engagement in children's
learning and development
in low income families?
Many people have thought
about this problem.
And I would say that the most
important thing that we should
be aware of is the fact that
economically disadvantaged
parents spend much
less time engaged
with children's learning and
early development than do
their higher income or more
highly educated counterparts.
You can see here the red bars
show the number of minutes
per day spent by mothers
who have a college
degree in a set of activities--
from the left, basic care,
and play, and
teaching activities--
relative to those
mothers who have
completed only high school.
And you may say, well,
those differences
aren't all that big.
It's just a handful
of minutes per day.
But if you add up
all those minutes
across the course of a year
or several years, for example,
if we just think about the
gap in the number of minutes
of teaching activities,
if we aggregate that up
over the course of the year,
that's 158 hours less time
in teaching that children in
less economically advantaged
households benefit from.
That in itself is
equivalent to more than half
a year of school
for those children.
So this is just one example
of many I could show you.
And this is a long
standing problem
that many different programs
have been developed to address.
And the programs that we
typically think of that
have aimed to support
parent engagement
with their children's
development typically
combine two approaches.
They often include a classroom
setting or group instruction
for parents to come
together as a small group
to learn information
about parenting.
And this is based
on the assumption
that less educated mothers
or low income parents
don't know how to effectively
engage with their children
or don't have the skills or
know the tools to promote
children's early learning.
Another set of programs is very
intensive and sends one by one
a nurse home visitor
or a paraprofessional
to families' homes to
demonstrate to mothers how
to effectively interact
with their children.
I would say that both of
these types of programs
are incredibly demanding of
parents' time and attention.
Asking parents to come to
a multi-week or multi-month
program at a neighborhood
community center one night
per week or one
weekend afternoon
or to open up their
homes on a regular basis
to invite a professional in
and make time for that person
turns out to be taxing, as I
said, for both parents' time
and attention.
And how do we know that?
Well, we observe that
both by observing
how much parents actually
participate in these programs
and what they tell us about
the participation that they do
engage in.
And what we see here
is that attrition
is high and engagement is low
in these types of programs.
So in the Nurse Family
Partnership program,
for example, half
of the participants
have left the program
by the halfway point.
If we ask parents in a very
well-known program like Early
Head Start how engaged are
you in the program, basically
how much do you like
being in this program
that you volunteered to
come to, parents are not
particularly enthusiastic.
And again, we see this in the
low rates of participation.
And I really want to
underscore this point
that most of our
current programs
use this kind of information
model that I alluded to.
And as I said, they work
primarily on the theory
that economically disadvantaged
parents need more information,
that they don't know that
they should be talking
with their children, that
they don't know they should be
reading regularly
to their children,
and that what
programs ought to do
is simply provide this
information to parents.
But our work shows
something different.
And we believe that information
is in fact usually not
the problem.
We find in our research
with low income families
in the city of
Chicago that parents
do know that their
children benefit
when they spend time with them.
And we show here
if we ask parents,
for example, if you were to
read more minutes per day
with your child, how
much improvement would
you expect to see in that
child's cognitive development,
parents in fact do believe
that investing in their kid's
cognitive development
will result
in better educational outcomes.
And so we have a puzzle.
We know from lots of
survey data that we
have big gaps in
the amount of time
that low and high
income parents spend
with their children
on a measure that we
believe to be important, such
as reading with their children.
Even though we know from
our surveys and from others
that parents believe that
this is an important activity,
they believe it will
have a return in terms
of their children's
development, we've
done research that shows
in fact they enjoy spending
that kind of time
with their children
just as much as do their
higher income counterparts.
But why do we see this
difference in the actual amount
of time that is spent?
And our way of thinking
about this problem
is that what we want to do
is close the gap between what
parents tell us they aspire to
do and what they actually do.
And we sort of
think metaphorically
about how to solve this
puzzle of putting these two
pieces together.
And so about two years ago,
with my colleague Susan Mayer,
who is the former Dean
of the Harris School,
I formed the Behavioral
Insights and Parenting Lab
at the Harris School.
And we are driven by the
mission of solving this puzzle.
And I'm going to tell you about
some of the work we've done.
But first, I'd like
to explain what
we mean by behavioral
insights and why
we decided to call our lab
the Behavioral Insights
and Parenting Lab.
And so I'll do a quick
detour into the field
of behavioral science,
which you may think of-- you
may have heard of
behavioral economics.
Basically, it's a
whole field that's
drawn from social psychology
and cognitive science,
but goes by a couple
of different terms.
And one of the key things
that this field has revealed
to us about human behavior
is that the decisions we make
are influenced by a number of
cognitive biases or cognitive
roadblocks that
we all experience,
and that these common patterns
of thinking that are shaped
by our social context
can often result in less
than optimal decision making.
And I want to talk
just to give you
an example of a
specific cognitive bias
that we have focused
on in our research.
So imagine the
following scenarios.
Take a look at this
delicious chocolate donut.
And remind yourself
of the promise
you made to yourself maybe
January 1 to swear off
chocolate donuts and the like
for some indefinite period
of time.
But the breakfast
meeting comes along.
The tray is put right
in front of you.
And this is your
absolute favorite donut.
And it was made by your
local heritage donut shop.
And really, what
are you going to do?
Are you going to give in?
Or are you going to remember
that pledge to yourself where
you focused on your
future self who was maybe
five or 10 pounds lighter?
And it really is
the case that it
is incredibly hard for all
of us to delay gratification
in the moment for
some future reward.
And in behavioral
science, the term for this
is called present bias.
And the idea here is that
one can put so much weight
on gratification in
the present that we
fail to invest for the future.
And we all do this.
And that's really-- I
think if you remember
nothing else about what I say
today, it's that all of us
are subject to this
cognitive bias.
So we put off exercise today
because we just promise
ourselves we'll do it tomorrow.
We don't save as
much as we ought
to for retirement because we're
too enticed by the consumption
opportunities that
we have today.
And so on.
I'm sure you can think of
many examples in your own life
as a knowledgeable
person who is well aware
and has complete
information about the merits
of doing what you ought to do.
And yet we don't do it.
And what we argue in our lab
is that this present bias can
prevent us from making optimal
decisions as per the examples
I've just given you.
And we really want
to think about this
in terms of the
choices and decisions
that parents make about
the time that they spend
investing in their
children's health development
and well-being.
And we think a useful way for
us to think about this problem
is really procrastination.
And it is procrastination
that creates
that gap between aspirational
and actual parenting behavior.
We may know that we should
sit down and go over
our letters and our numbers
and our early reading
skills with our children.
But we put it off until tomorrow
because life gets in the way
or because there's something
that at that moment
seems more important
to us to do.
And so the work that
we do at our lab
is focused on this problem,
in particular for low income
parents or economically
disadvantaged families.
There is reason to
believe from some research
that economically
disadvantaged adults may
be more prone to this
cognitive bias of present bias.
And there's also many
reasons to believe
that the costs of present
bias may be greater
for low income parents.
For us, these two
things makes it critical
for us to understand the role
of this cognitive bias in terms
of parenting for
low income families.
We also think that parenting
provides ample opportunity
for cognitive biases to get in
the way of our good intentions,
and especially for problems
that arise from present bias.
This is because parenting
requires a lot of self-control
in the present to stick
to good bedtime routines,
to provide consistent time
and educationally stimulating
activities, and so forth.
But the payoff to all
that good parenting
is way off in the future.
We don't read a book
tonight because we
imagine our child's going
to be able to read tomorrow.
We do all these things over
and over and over again.
And they are boring.
And they are taxing.
And our child is screaming.
And yet, we keep trying
because we believe
that there is going to be a
future payoff in that child's
development if we do so.
But because of the monotony
and the challenges of doing so,
it is easy for us to put
off doing those activities
until some later point.
So happily, behavioral
science and this whole field
of behavioral economics
and social psychology
has provided us with
a tool box of things
we can do to try to adapt to
some of these cognitive biases.
And so what we're
not trying to say,
we will never be able to
eliminate these biases
in how people think.
These are just automatic
ways of thinking
that are shaped by
the social context
that we encounter every day.
But what we can do is try to
adapt to them and manage them
so that they don't take us
down a path of decision making
that is ultimately not as
effective as a different one
we'd like to take.
And so for example,
we have a big tool kit
that includes things like
making a goal public.
So if you make a pledge to
quit some unhealthy behavior
or save some sum of money in
front of a public audience
or even better in a room
full of people whom you trust
and whose opinion you
value, you are much more
likely to follow
through on that behavior
than simply saying
it to yourself
that you're going to do that.
If I send you reminders
of the goal that you made,
that can also help
you avoid or overcome
that kind of procrastination.
And so our goal is to
harness those insights
from behavioral science
to help parents achieve
their own parenting goals.
Again, to help close that gap
between what parents aspire
to do and what they actually
do in the service of supporting
parenting in low
income families.
So I'd like to tell you briefly
about one of our projects
from our lab, which was called
the Parents and Children
Together, or PACT project.
And building on the ideas
that I just described,
we thought that one reason
that economically disadvantaged
parents read less or spend
less time in educationally
stimulating activities
with their children
is this procrastination that
arises from this present bias.
And we wanted to
devise a strategy that
would help parents break through
those cognitive roadblocks that
stood in the way
of their reading
regularly with their children.
So what we did in the
study we completed
last year was we gave
approximately 200 parents who
volunteered for
our study-- these
are 200 parents of preschool
children enrolled in Head Start
programs around the
city of Chicago--
we gave all 200 parents
a digital tablet
to borrow and use at home
for a six-week period.
And on this tablet was
nothing but one app that
was a digital library that
included over 500 books
in English and Spanish.
We interacted with English
and Spanish speaking families.
And when parents
opened up the app
to choose a book
from the library,
the app automatically
began audio and video
recording the book reading
session between the caregiver
and the child.
And what we did was we randomly
divided those 200 parents
into two groups.
And one group,
the control group,
was simply told this is a
really neat application.
It's got a lot of fun books
on it, books with words, books
without words, books that--
reading ability was not
a barrier here.
And this might be a fun way
for you to read with your kid.
And please take the
tablet and enjoy it
at home for the next six weeks.
That's it.
Full stop.
The experimental
group, in contrast,
got a whole suite of
behavioral nudges or tools.
First, they were asked to
set a goal for each week.
At the beginning of each
week, tell me, the researcher,
how much time you would
like to spend reading
with your child using
this digital library.
Every weekday, those parents
got a text message reminder
reminding them of their
goal to focus on the pledge
that they had made to spend
whatever amount of time
they chose.
There was no right answer
to how many minutes did
you want to spend this week.
And at the end of
the week, the parents
were shown a chart, an
actual visual, a histogram,
showing how much
time they actually
spent reading versus their
goal that they had set.
And we knew the
actual amount of time
they had spent reading because
that audio and video was
automatically recording.
And we actually
watched all the videos
to make sure that it
wasn't just running
with nobody in the background.
But we counted the
actual number of minutes
spent engaged with the book.
And then if parents
met their goal,
they got a congratulatory
message on the tablet
letting them know that.
And what we found is that
at the end of six weeks,
the treatment
group, those parents
who had been exposed to that
suite of behavioral nudges,
had read more than twice as
much as the control group.
This is a very large and highly
statistically significant
difference.
And it's much larger in
terms of treatment impact
than many more expensive
and intensive programs.
Essentially, we did not
interact with the families
in the treatment
or control group
except in a very
limited fashion.
You know, this is a
very inexpensive way
to communicate with parents
by text and so forth.
But we believe that we achieved
these quite amazing to us
results.
Because the goal
setting and those
reminders brought the future to
the present for those families.
That is, we believe that
those behavioral tools worked
by overcoming the
procrastination that
arises from present bias.
And I want to show you
one more chart that
gives us some insight into
why we think that is so.
And we believe that is
so because we actually
gave all parents an exercise or
a test that actually measures
their present bias.
So there's a number of
stylized measurements
that one can complete
that gives you
an assessment of essentially
how present biased versus
how future oriented you are.
And what we found overall
is that in general,
parents who greatly
discounted the future
and were the most present
biased were the least likely
to read to their children.
Not surprising.
What was interesting to us
is that their reading time
increased the most in
response to our intervention.
So what you can see here
is the treatment impact
of our intervention for two
different groups of parents.
On the left, those who were
already focused on the future.
And on the right in the
maroon bar, those who
were focused on the present.
And so as you would expect
from all the theory I just
described, our behavioral
tools, whose goal
was to focus families
on the future,
were most effective for
those who had the most
growth to do on that dimension.
And so what we conclude
from this is the following.
First of all, and I
think quite obviously,
low income parents who
don't read to their children
as much as do high
income parents
or who are not as engaged on
the many different dimensions
that we observe are
no less likely to care
for their children or to
wish for the very best
for their children.
Perhaps more novel
in our estimation
is our understanding now that
they do not know to any lesser
degree that they should read.
We know from our surveys that
low income parents understand
the importance of
many different kinds
of parent-child engagement.
And in fact, Head Start is
designed with the specific goal
of improving parent-child
engagement in the home
environment.
And they go to admirable lengths
to try to make that happen.
But we think that this
gap between knowing
and doing, or wishing and doing,
arises from procrastination.
And we think that the
gaps in knowing and doing
arise from those who
procrastinate more.
But what's really exciting, we
believe, about what we're doing
is that this very low
cost, light touch,
and highly scalable mode of
intervention with parents
really seems to play a
significant role in overcoming
that procrastination, and might
make a very big difference
to those parents engagement
with their children.
And so I'd like to turn
towards my conclusion
and let you know about what
else we're learning in the lab
to inform future interventions
that can address a wider
range of children's behavior.
And we're not the only ones
at the present time who
are drawing these insights
from behavioral science
to change the way
we help economically
disadvantaged parents and
their children succeed.
But we believe that we need a
much greater effort and a much
greater focus on
understanding how
different kinds of
cognitive biases
influence parents
decision making
and how we can use
behavioral insights
to both enhance
existing programs
or to create new ones that are
cost effective and impactful.
And so all of our work right
now at the Behavioral Insights
and Parenting Lab is
working on solving
the puzzle of how we
can help parents focus
on their children's future,
and how in doing so we hope
we can increase the amount
of parent-child engagement
in the present.
And so we have a number of
different but related studies
that we're engaged in now
that share this common goal.
I'm going to just tell you
about them very briefly.
First, sort of thinking about
the box on the upper left,
we do need to learn
a lot more about how
goal setting and reminders work
for a wider range of behaviors.
We need to find
out, for example,
how long do you
have to text message
or remind people before
they form a new habit
or before they just think of
text messages as junk mail
and start ignoring them.
And I think texting is
super popular right now
in my research world.
And I think there's a lot of
unknowns about how sustainable
a modality this is going
to be for intervention.
But we're doing a project
right now called Show Up
to Grow Up that focuses on
using reminders and commitment
devices to increase attendance
in Head Start programs.
In addition, you really can't
text message people to death.
You can't text message something
for every different behavior.
You can't send five
text messages a day
focusing on five
different behaviors.
And so what we're
hoping to find and test
is one tool that
simultaneously changes
many different behaviors.
And we're working on a
different project using
a behavioral tool called
priming-- it's in the lower
right-- to do this.
In this project, what we're
doing is helping parents focus
on choosing a primary school
for their children to attend,
something that's going
to come up in the year
ahead for parents of
preschool children,
and to use that choice process
to prime or prompt parents
to engage in a set of
educational activities
that will help their children
get ready for school.
And in this case,
what we believe
is that the priming creates a
set of interrelated positive
behaviors all aimed
at a common goal.
In addition, behavioral science
and many other disciplines
have demonstrated the
power of peer influence.
And the children who
we care about who
are attending Head Start and
other low income childcare
centers, we know that
many different adults
are playing a caretaking role
in the lives of these children.
We're devising a
project that will
try to get all of the adults
to reinforce one another's
positive parenting behavior by
actually reminding one another
and sharing a set
of common goals.
The idea here is that we can
create positive spillovers
among a peer group.
You could even imagine
a bigger social network
that shares the common
goal of behavior change
along a relevant dimension.
And the project we're
working on in that area
focuses on children's
early math learning.
And finally, and also relatedly,
one of the things we know
is that good decision
making and this ability
to make a connection
between what you do now
and what the payoff
down the road
is going to look like
requires active focus
and attention, at least in the
beginning when new habits are
being formed.
The idea here is that once
the habits are formed,
it's actually not cognitively
taxing because it's a habit.
But when you're trying
to make a new habit,
it's incredibly
cognitively taxing.
And we're working
on a project that
aims to help parents find
their own focus through the use
of stress reduction
techniques so that they have
the cognitive
bandwidth to manage
these different
cognitive biases.
And so just to sum up our
work and where we're going,
we really believe that we
are taking a new approach
to understanding parenting
and to understanding
how we might effectively
close the gap
between aspirational
and actual parenting
and help support, in
particular, low income
parents with their
parenting goals.
And I think one of the
things I'm very excited about
is that what we're trying to
do is change the assumptions
about why different
types of parents
parent in different
ways, and in doing so
think about what
kinds of programs
are likely to get the
biggest bang for the buck.
And we believe now that
the biggest difference
between the way that
economically advantaged
and disadvantaged parents do
parent is not in what they know
or what they believe in,
and not necessarily even
in the challenges in
their daily lives,
which of course are surely
greater for economically
disadvantaged parents, but
it's about this ability
to adapt to cognitive biases.
And we believe that
this adaptation
to the kinds of
cognitive biases I've
described like procrastination
and many others
is central to promoting parent
engagement and children's
success.
And with that, I would be
very happy to entertain
any questions or comments.
[APPLAUSE]
Yes?
AUDIENCE: You started by
talking about the reading,
playing, and teaching.
ARIEL KALIL: Yes.
AUDIENCE: Maybe
there was one other.
ARIEL KALIL: Yeah, basic care.
AUDIENCE: And you've looked
at the reading part of it.
What about the other parts
of behavioral interaction
with children that effects
the long term outcomes?
ARIEL KALIL: Right.
So there are many,
many studies that
find gaps across many
different dimensions
of parent-child engagement.
We started our own
work with reading.
We chose reading not because I'm
a reading expert in particular.
But in large part,
because this was something
that the Head Start centers
were also very much focused on.
We always partner with
our community partner
agencies to try
to say, what is it
that you're trying to do
that our work can complement.
And also because,
again, as I mentioned,
reading in particular
is something
that in our survey work, in
our interactions with parents,
all parents believe in
and value as an activity
to do with their children.
And we really wanted
to start thinking
about what is a behavior
that parents want
to do that they know they
should do that they're
in a context that is
trying to promote that,
and yet is not closing that gap.
So there are many
different kinds
of other parenting behaviors
that we would like to focus on.
And this is just sort
of where we've started.
Yes?
AUDIENCE: So near
the beginning there,
you mentioned some
preschool programs
that tended to show more
significant results than Head
Start.
Can you just tell
me a little bit more
about the actual content
of that preschool as to why
those would show greater results
than the current status quo?
ARIEL KALIL: Yeah, that's
a fabulous question.
And it's very much the
focus of what I think about.
So those particular programs are
very special-- Perry Preschool
and Abecedarian.
If you work in
this world at all,
you will know that they were
extremely well-implemented,
pretty intensive, quite
expensive, and very long
lasting in terms of children's
exposure to those programs.
They were also tested in a
particular historical era when
there were very few other
opportunities for kids
to participate in.
So what you want
to think about is
kids who got that treatment
got the benefit of a program
that those in the control
group were never going to get.
So one reason that
the Head Start program
has shown fewer effects is
because the control group
in the present time
is participating
in a set of programs that look
pretty similar to Head Start.
And so when you compare
treatment and control
in Head Start, there's not
that big-- Head Start does not
offer a whole lot
more than business
as usual for what many children
can also participate in.
So that's one reason.
And that's a little bit subtle.
I would also just say that Head
Start is a much bigger program
with a lot of diversity in
the fidelity with which it's
implemented in many,
many different contexts.
We talk about this
Perry and Abecedarian,
they were very small boutique
programs in singular locations.
And they have a lot
of internal validity.
So if you speak in the
language of experiments,
they were extremely
well conducted.
We have every reason to
believe the treatment impacts
that they showed.
But for a variety of reasons,
the external validity
I think many scholars
believe is less strong.
These programs are touted
in almost every conversation
that you might have about
the merit of early childhood
intervention.
But we have to be mindful
of when they were conducted,
where they were
conducted, and can we
extrapolate to what
that would look
like if we were to have a
widespread program like that
in the present era.
I'm sorry.
That's a complicated answer.
But it's a very
complicated question.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
Montessori [INAUDIBLE]
ARIEL KALIL: Well,
it's not really
a part of this
discussion, I would say.
Because Montessori is
not generally a program
that large numbers of low
income children participate in.
So I can't really
speak to Montessori.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
ARIEL KALIL: Yes?
AUDIENCE: I'm curious
about how you approached
the parents in this study.
Because my hunch is that an
important component of this
would be the respect that is
shown these people rather than,
we are here--
ARIEL KALIL: Yes.
AUDIENCE: --to tell you've
been doing it badly.
ARIEL KALIL: Yes.
AUDIENCE: And we're going
to give you our solution.
ARIEL KALIL: Yes.
Yeah, I couldn't say
it better myself.
And so thank you for that.
And our whole philosophy, as I
said and I hope I made clear,
is to try to help parents
meet their own goals.
And it's very much our
philosophy of, as I said,
low income parents are no
different from high income
parents in the
goals that they have
for their children's success.
And what we want to
do is use these tools
to help parents develop
the habits that they
aspire to develop.
And so we have no intention of
coming in and telling parents
you should do X, Y,
or Z because this
is what economically
advantaged parents do,
and you're not doing it.
We spend a lot of time
talking with parents,
talking with-- per the earlier
question-- this is also
why we really want to align
what we're doing with what
the program's philosophy is.
We spend a lot of time
talking to program directors
and trying to understand
what it is that they're
trying to do, and to do work
that aligns and complements
that.
SPEAKER: Great.
We have time for just
one more question.
ARIEL KALIL: OK, you pick.
AUDIENCE: Oh, well, thank you.
I worked in South
Florida for two years
in preschools implementing
a positive behavior support
program.
And we would do things
like have visual schedules
where the child-- we would show
them where we were in the day.
If it was circle time or a
different activity, and we'd
cover up the old activity.
They would also pick their
picture and put it in the area
where they were playing.
And we had parents begin to
implement that with children
if they were having
a lot of difficulty.
So just curious about
your thoughts on PBS.
Have you worked with
the PBS type approach
with parents in homes?
ARIEL KALIL: We have not.
That's all I can say.
No.
But again, I think our
tools really-- I mean,
the beauty of these
tools to us is that they
have widespread applicability.
You know, the
bottom line is this
is about forming new habits
that parents wish to form,
that they declare
they want to do,
and really providing the
support and scaffolding for them
to do that in their homes.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
TOM EVANS: Thank you for
the great conversation.
And I invite each of you to
continue this conversation
during our reception which
will follow my quick remarks.
So I am what is holding
you back from having
another glass of wine.
So I will make it very brief.
I'd like to extend
a great thank you
to Professor Kalil for
this vibrant discussion
and fascinating
talk about education
and moving us forward.
I'd also like to extend
a great thanks to Denise
for sharing more information
about the University of Chicago
campaign Inquiry and Impact.
Denise mentioned the
125,000 engagement goal.
And just by being
here this afternoon,
you're helping us
to meet this goal.
You are our best ambassadors.
You are the key to helping
grow the alumni network
and bringing plus ones
to more events like this.
Bringing your
friends and family,
fellow alumni to events
like the Harper lecture
help us to strengthen
our career networks
and reach 125,000
engagement goal.
So your attendance today
counts on so many levels.
Today, you have joined
the thousands of alumni
around the world who are
giving to support scholarships,
a new inquiry, attending
events, leading reunions, and so
much more.
On a local level, we ask for
your active participation
to become engaged with the
alumni club of the Twin Cities.
We have a specific web
page-- uchicagotc.org.
Please look at that website.
If you have an idea about an
event or a group that you'd
like to form, even if
you don't necessarily
know if there's people that
are interested in that idea,
create an event.
Send it to the university.
And you'll be contacted to
look at those ideas, events.
Get like minds together.
In the past last year, we had
a great event at Art-A-Whirl.
Art-A-Whirl is one of the
largest artist community
festivals in the United States.
It happens in
Northeast Minneapolis.
We have an alumni that
has a studio there.
This isn't just about lectures
and professors coming in.
It's really about getting
involved in the community
and getting people of
like minds together.
Additionally, on
Thursday the 5th of May,
there is a live streaming cast.
And I have to look this
up just because it's
a long title-- From the Big Bang
to the Multiverse and Beyond.
It's going to be held
at the Bell Museum.
14 other museums
around the country
are going to have two
individuals talking
about the multiverse,
the Hadron Collider,
where are we in that process
of understanding Big Bang.
There is an admission.
It's $10.
It's at the Bell Museum.
You can register
directly on our website.
These are the type
of events that we
look for grassroots efforts.
If there's an idea out
there, just let us know.
Also, if you want to
be part of the board,
if you want to be actively
involved not only in the alumni
group, but also in the aspects
of interviewing students,
there are different
organizations here in the Twin
Cities that could really
use an active approach
from our alumni.
So with that, I thank you for
being here this afternoon,
for making the university
one of the great centers
for education,
discovery, and impact.
Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
