Story the other day in the New York Times on a hearing on child poverty and how to address it. Brookings child and family policy luminary Ron Haskins was there. So was Columbia's Jane Knitzer, who co-authored the National Center on Child Poverty report on what pre-k programs should look like if they're to help poor children catch up. The story also said the Democrats were likely to pass Head Start legislation. Ed Zigler told me the same thing the other day.

South Dakota is one of only 10 states without any statewide pre-kindergarten program. Sioux Falls business man Ron Moquist, who describes himself as politically conservative, wants to change that. Moquist headed up a three-year Chamber of Commerce research effort that looked at the potential of pre-kindergarten programs to offset the often-debilitating effects of child poverty. He tells Minnesota Public Radio in this story that:

"If you start from a poverty background you will have a difficult time in school. So what we said is that we've got to get to these kids sooner because so many of them are starting kindergarten 18 months behind their peers and most of them never catch up."

Kudos to MPR for picking up on this story. Business leaders and Republicans nationally are among those who support investing in education early, because the pay off is greater. Story also reaches out to a pre-k expert, who talks about what makes for a quality preschool.

The Record of Bergen County in New Jersey, my home newspaper, has made an extraordinary commitment to education coverage over the past several months. Education stories appear in the paper EVERY DAY, almost always on the front page on Sundays. Today's story is the best takeout I've yet seen on full-day kindergarten. It gives the local picture, the national context, a look at what goes on inside classrooms that's different, and even some research perspective. I know the reporters on the education beat and their editor, Susan DeSantis, are working very hard and feeling exhausted, but their hard work is paying off. The Hechinger Institute has invited Susan to talk about their big education push at a seminar for education editors in San Diego in early March.

Up in Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed increasing spending on preschool by $29 million. But members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party say that's "just a down payment.". They want to give families a voucher, based on their income, to use to pay for programs that get kids ready for kindergarten.

And in Massachusetts, legislators and advocates with the Early Education for All Campaign are hopeful that the universal preschool bill passed last year and vetoed by former Gov. Mitt Romney will pass again. New governor Deval L. Patrick supports it. His wife Dianne Patrick, a former preschool teacher, told the Worcester Telegram that her husband:

is determined to make sure every child in this commonwealth is able to have the same opportunity that he had.

Teachers College Prof. Sharon Lynn Kagan, one of the smartest people I know, spoke last week at a colloquium that was part of the festivities in connection with the inauguration of Susan Fuhrman as the 10th president of Teachers College. Lynn is one of the world's leading authorities on pre-kindergarten policy and standards. There's a summary of her remarks explaining why early childhood education has become such an important issue on the TC Website. She quoted former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond's comment that "when you want to make knowledge count, three crucial ingredients are necessary. First, you must have a codified and compelling knowledge base. Second, you must have the public will. And third, you must have a codified social strategy."

She said early childhood education is a case in point.

"Fifty years ago, it was thought that ‘little children should be seen and not heard.' That there was not much going on in their little heads. That they should be at home with their mothers and babysitters because all they do is play. Today, every Governor, every business leader, every educator endorses investment in young children."

What’s changed? she asked

"We’ve got a useable knowledge base, with legs, that speaks to power. And it’s not just brain development studies, but also data on cost effectiveness – for example, that for every $1 invested in early childhood education, there’s a return of up to $17. There’s public will. People have been made to understand why early childhood education is necessary. Kids have appeared on the cover of Time, parents are now discerning about what good early childhood education really is, there has been testimony in Congress. Even nerdy academics like me have gotten involved in doing public relations."

A social strategy also has emerged. “Historically, early childhood education was characterized as 1,000 random acts of good intentions. We have worked hard to stress what it would take to create a system, what that would look like, and how to market it. So Julie was right. The lesson from him is the lesson for all of us. Moving practice and policy can never be just about knowledge. We can’t stop with just knowledge production.”

Sarah Carr, an excellent reporter with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, just got back from a five-week reporting trip in China. While there, she developed stories about the privatization of education. She has some great stories to tell, about education, academic pressure, teachers, food, and culture in this online chat.

This past Sunday the Record had a frontpager on full-day kindergarten. Today the editorial page followed up, arguing the state should make full-day kindergarten universally available. Right now, districts can offer it but the state does not cover the cost.

Education officials in Trenton need to make universal, full-day kindergarten a priority. Kindergarten used to serve as the transition year between home and school. Children would attend for about three hours a day. They would learn to play in groups. They would memorize the alphabet and practice pre-reading skills. These days, that happens in preschool.

The story of the rapid spread of publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs in the U.S. is an education story, to be sure, but it's also a story about the productivity of the work force, closing income gaps, improving health outcomes and so on. The "Economix" columnist for the New York Times, David Leonhardt, wrote a succinct, comprehensive, insightful piece on the Oklahoma pre-kindergarten program the other day--in the business section.

Leonhardt referred to an evaluation done at Georgetown University. Another one, done by the National Institute of Early Education Research, can be found here. Gov. Brad Henry said in his state of the state address this week that he wants to expand the program for four year olds so that it also serves three year olds.

A guy named Don Pesci, who writes a blog in Connecticut that he calls "Red Notes from a Blue State," had a nasty reaction to Gov. Jodi Rell's plan to expand preschool and education spending. Here's a quote that captures the flavor of his condescending attitude toward anyone who puts their children in pre-school at age 3. "Pre-pre-kindergarten classes are pedagogical holding pens for the children of parents many of whom must hold down multiple jobs or work longer hours to meet their own private budget obligations." Makes working hard to make ends meet seem like a crime, doesn't it? I put these comments on the blog to remind journalists that, at least in the blogosphere but no doubt in the four-dimensional world as well, there's plenty of people who think that anything that makes life easier for mothers or their children, or that tries to use government programs to create greater opportunity or reduce disparities, excuses the importance of individual responsibility.

Down in Tennessee, on a blog called TennesseeTicket, there is this nice description of children and learning and the role of society:

Children at this young age do not see learning as a “required” activity. They just do it. All one needs to do is provide access to the materials and information, and they set about having fun soaking up the knowledge. It is for this reason that pre-K learning should be seriously considered as a common goal. Yes, there is a strong argument that the primary responsibility of a child’s education lies with the child’s parent(s), but that stance could be (and is) used to argue against public education in general. If we accept that the society, through its state, has an interest in a well-educated populace, then our provisions wisely include measures to address this motherlode of time-sensitive learning capacity.

Editorial in the Akron Beacon-Journal called on new Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland to invest more money in the state's Early Learning Initiative. The editorial said "Preschool is a 20-year workforce development plan."

President Bush's budget proposal cuts Head Start by $100 million. It's interesting that, even as states are investing more in pre-kindergarten, the feds are cutting their stake in Head Start. I understand federalism and that states have the biggest role in education. But ever since the 1960s the federal government has taken some responsibilty for helping people overcome disadvantages. Cutting Head Start is not the way to do it. Here's the release from the National Head Start Association, which talks about how strapped programs are now. I'd like to see journalists go out to some of these programs and see it for themselves and report back on the low pay of Head Start teachers, the way social workers are stretched, and so on.

Sara Mead over at Education Sector and one of the "team" of bloggers behind The Quick and the Ed, the companion blog to Eduwonk, tells me my post from last night on cuts in the Head Start budget failed to detect the self-interests of the National Head Start Association. I guess I've been out of the newsroom too long. I relied on a press release from the organization that claimed that the president's budget cuts $100 million from Head Start. Mead points out that, actually, the Head Start budget was level funded at $6.8 billion, the same as in 2007. Here's the actual budget numbers. Sara says that NHSA, like a lot of special interests, "always talks about level-funding of Head Start (and even increases below baseline) as a 'cut' or a 'cut in real terms' because it doesn't include increases for inflation...Obviously there are legitimate arguments to be made there about how a lack of spending increase leads to reductions in services, but simply calling level-funding a cut without further explanation confuses people and assumes a perpetually growing government budget."

She notes, rightly, that "it's important for people who disagree to make the case as accurately as possible." It's also important for bloggers to check out such claims. (I stand by my statement that it would be worthwhile for journalists to look at how Head Start is being affected by the growth of state pre-kindergarten programs.)

Bill Roberts of the Idaho Statesman fills in some more information about the strangely anachronistic "debate" over even "allowing" Idaho schools to spend money on preschool for four year olds. Turns out that the schools would be given permission to seek private or federal funds to pay for the services. The bill being discussed strictly prohibits the use of state funds. Backing the bill is, as is the case across the country, business leaders and a coalition of pre-kindergarten advocates. Opponents, in addition to worrying about some malevalent Orwellian "nanny state," also said that the preschools would be financed "on the backs of Title I children." That's a strange way of thinking about it. The state is unwilling to spend any money on young kids so to serve their interests harms older kids. Bravo to Bill Roberts for laying out these perspectives.

While other states--Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois and so on--are investing in pre-kindergarten, the Legislatures in Idaho is debating whether to even ALLOW four-year-olds in schools. AP coverage balances the statements of supporters who cite the studies showing the long-term benefits of pre-kindergarten while the opponents say they worry about the government taking over parenting. That's the old, he-said, she-said, we're only journalists, we don't take sides, we're can't sort out the truth, we're objective, and only report what we hear style of journalism. Maybe the wires have such a culture that that's all that's possible. But that doesn't mean other journalists have to follow their lead.

Oh, blimey, those Brits are crazier than New Yorkers about getting into the "right" preschool. Wall Street Journal had a front pager out of London this week that described what it takes.

At Wetherby, the boys school near Hyde Park, head teacher Jenny Aviss advises women scheduling Caesarean sections to have them early in the month in order to secure one of five places that the school allots to newborns each month. "If you have the option, don't wait until the 31st, have it on the first and call on the second," she says.

At Wetherby's sister school next door, the Pembridge Hall school for girls, headmistress Elizabeth Marsden says one parent called the school twice a day for six months. Another sent flowers every week. One woman refused to leave the building until her child was given a place. She had to be removed by the police. Ms. Marsden says none of these efforts helped secure a spot at the school, whose tuition is $22,820 a year.

The Journal reports that the competition is becoming more intense as rich immigrants from Russia, India, the Mideast, and Hong Kong come to London to escape paying taxes in their home countries. What I wonder, though, is why is this market broken? If there's such demand, then why don't more schools open? I would think the Journal would be the paper that would explain that.

Three commenters gave thumbs' down to the proposal to eventually provide most Iowa 4 year olds with free, voluntary pre-kindergarten. One wrote: "How about those who HAVE kids, PAY FOR THEM!!!!!!!!! Yes, and let's just disband society because all of us can survive completely on our own, looking out only for our own personal, narrow, economic interests.

Another commenter said she'd spent a lot of time with her young child and didn't send him to preschool. And he turned out OK. Sure, if the 70% of women who are now working just quit to stay at home, most kids would probably do OK. But not necessarily. Depends on the parents.

A third commenter said: "This is daycare shrouded in educational lingo."

Point is there's a lot more opposition to public pre-k than journalists might assume.

Lynn Campbell of the Des Moines Register has a good comprehensive story about legislative proposals in Iowa to increase the state's investment in pre-kindergarten so that the program eventually serves 90% of 4 year olds. The story gives a good sense of how the new proposal fits into the existing pre-kindergarten landscape. It offers the reactions of parents, some of whom worried about the quality of state-funded programs. And Lynn even put the Iowa proposal into a national and international context. It's a model for journalists to emulate. Only quibble is that the story does not say how much money would be spent per child, though it does say the amount would be similar to current public school spending. Hard to know whether it would be enough to pay for a high quality program.

Bridget Gutierrez, who is writing the Get Schooled blog on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website, noted that although kindergarten is offered in public school systems all around Atlanta and the state provides free pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, a third of children get to first grade without having attended either one. Gutierrez was commenting on legislative proposal to lower age of mandatory education to five.

The Get Schooled blog gets lots and lots of traffic. This entry had 64 comments. Many along the lines of "the government is taking away our children" or "destroying families" and lots of use of the word "indoctrination." Somehow I suspect that those who worry about such things are not exactly spending a lot of time talking to their kids, nurturing them, playing with them.

Report by Leslie Postal in the Orlando Sentinel says entering Florida kindergartners are more ready than they were in the past to begin to learn to read. That's according to results on the school readiness test used by the state. Florida uses those results to judge the performance of preschools from the state's program for 4 year olds.

Advocates of high quality pre-kindergarten often say Florida's program falls far short of the mark. The Sentinel story also illustrates that when such evaluation data is available, it will be reported. The data does allow a conversation to take place about quality. But it's important for journalists and policy makers to keep in mind that the outcome measures are, to a large extent, determined by the characteristics of the children who attend

The Charleston Gazette of Charleston, West Virginia had a perceptive editorial the other day, urging the state to accelerate and formalize efforts to fulfill a commitment to having universal pre-kindergarten available to all 4 year olds by 2012. The editorial took note of a political dynamic that I've rarely seen mentioned but is something journalists need to keep in mind. The editorial said:

The payoff from investing in early childhood education requires patience, because it takes 20 years to measure. Who will still be in office to take credit or to feel the satisfaction of the effort? That’s all the more reason why West Virginia should waste no time in boosting the potential of every new mind born here...

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry's plan to expand his state's highly regarded pre-k program for 4 year olds to serve 3 year olds has stalled in the state Legislature. Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee all voted against it, with their leader saying they had successfully blocked an expansion of government. Henry called it "pure politics."

Post editorial describes a Senate compromise between Head Start backers who say learning is most important and those who say health and social development should take precedence. Any good program will include both, of course. Post also reports that the legislation proposes $7.9 billion in Head Start funding, less than the newspaper says is needed but more than than the $6.8 billion the White House had offered. The editorial urges greater cooperation and coordination between state pre-k programs and Head Start. I renew my suggestion that journalists go out and take a look at their local Head Start programs to see how they stand financially and also how state expansion of pre-k is affecting them.

Earlier this month, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a $100 million investment in early learning--$75 million for pre-k starting with 3 year olds and $25 million for full day kindergarten. Were the proposal to pass, it would mean that 11,000 more children from the Quaker state would have access to high quality pre-kindergarten. In addition, 65% of all eligible children would be able to attend a full day kindergarten class. (Preference would be given to communities with more than 30% of the children living in poverty.) Rendell added significant amounts to the state’s spending on pre-k since becoming governor four years ago. But still, only 31% of the state’s 3 and 4 year olds are receiving high quality early childhood education.

So, where’s the coverage? My Google search turned up a few stories that mentioned this new initiative in passing as part of a story about the governor’s budget announcement. It also turned up a commentary by far right columnist Robert Holland who offered up the usual complaint that expanded public spending on pre-k amounts to a raid on parental rights. Where’s the Inquirer? Post-Dispatch? Daily News?

Rendell himself said that legislators elected on anti-government spending platforms could prove to be an obstacle. Four years ago, a Rendell proposal for expanding public spending was turned into a tax credit for private companies that offered money up to start pre-k programs. So, there’s likely to be some political back and forth. Shouldn’t the media be out there explaining that before it happens?

Argus Leader reporter Terry Woster wrote a great piece on the debate over pre-k in South Dakota. Woster reports that a bill to establish state standards for pre-k has aroused the ire of pre-k opponents. The state is helping fund a tiny pilot pre-k program in Pierre. Critics say the standards effort, and the pilot program, will drive private preschool and day care operators out of business and that the state will either have to spend more money to offer the services or parents won't have any choice but to send their kids to government programs. Woster does a fine job of reporting various views without it seeming at all like a he-said, she-said cop-out. Nice job.

By the way, the six comments on the story on the newspaper's website were quite thoughtful. And two of them said they appreciated the paper's in-depth coverage.