Bruce Fuller, the author of "Standardized Childhood" just out from Stanford University Press offers this measured and thoughtful response to my entry a few days ago about his book:

I’m miffed by friend Richard Colvin’s instantaneous commentary on my new book, Standardized Childhood, just out from Stanford University Press, coauthored with Margaret Bridges and Seeta Pai. Richard ends his blog-spray by admitting, “I confess I haven’t read the book.” [Disclosure: the rules of evidence or substantiation in the blog world remain a mystery to me.]

The book offers readers a concise historical tour, illuminating the age-old debate around how elites and institutions eagerly push to define the inner nature and proper upbringing of other people’s children. Sure, it takes a village. But the pivotal question moving forward is, who gets to call the shots across America’s diverse villages, and what are the ethics and evidence on the proposition that what’s best is a more homogenous way of raising and instructing young children are best?

Earlier feminist and child care movements stressed options for parents and children. But now influential born-again preschool advocates [disclosure: who are financially supported by the same national foundation that pays for Colvin’s blog site] have converged on a singular remedy: free preschool, preferably attached to public school bureaucracies, for all families, no matter how rich or poor.

Journalists, local activists, and state policy makers – as this movement unfolds – must wrestle with key issues. First, in the context of No Child Left Behind many kindergarten teachers are under enormous pressure to drill-and-kill information into children’s heads, to pump-up their test scores. The book takes readers into several preschool classrooms where teachers now feel the same pressure. So, let’s get clear on the risks and potential benefits of attaching three and four year-olds to public schools in the present environment of top-down accountability.

Second, we found that over two-thirds of children enrolled in preschool attend one of about 120,000 neighborhood-based preschools nationwide, familiar and trusted fixtures inside churches, YWCAs, and community centers. So, let’s think carefully about the advantages and costs of pushing state governments to shut down many of these programs and move kids into school-based pre-k programs?

Third, four decades of research – summarized in a review chapter – repeatedly shows that quality preschool heartily benefits children from poor families. At the same time, blue-collar families suffer from scarce availability, unable to qualify for public subsidies. Why not move from the established policy priority to aid these children who truly benefit, rather than moving to subsidize affluent parents who can afford to pay for preschool?

Three research teams have recently found few lasting benefits of preschool for middle-class families, as again reported last week, stemming from the longitudinal research of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. In addition, moving to universal entitlements rarely close learning gaps linked to social-class inequalities. Witness the very expensive and very ineffective efforts to reduce class size in all schools. These policies, while politically popular, act to reinforce achievement disparities.

I invite you to sit and read the book. Then, formulate your own positions. This debate holds enormous consequences for which children and families we choose to help, and who holds authority in our society over the most essential human task: raising the next generation.