Nicole Christian wrote a compelling editorial in the Detroit Free Press this past weekend, arguing that even though strong evidence for the effectiveness of high quality pre-kindergarten eminated from the state, the state's political leaders have not built on that legacy. She acknowledges that the state is struggling economically, as the auto industry tries to avoid complete collapse. But she says state political leaders could set what she calls a "committed, consistent political tone" in favor of expanding pre-kindergarten. Such a tone would inspire corporate and foundation leaders to get on board and create momentum. That's the strategy used in a number of other states that are now ahead of Michigan, which has sacrificed its early lead in the area.

Out in Spokane, Gary Crooks wrote an editorial in the Spokesman Review making the case that Idaho, one of 11 states that do not invest in pre-kindergarten programs, ought to learn a lesson from other states. He cites the case of Oklahoma, another conservative, relatively poor state that has made a commitment to preschool and the results it is getting, The editorial concludes by saying "let's hope the legislature can close their own learning gap."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Eleanor Chute wrote up an elegant little study paid for by PNC Financial Services Group. The basis for the study was a national survey of parents and teachers, asking them what they thought were the most important aspects of school readiness and how well they thought kids these days were to start kindergarten. Teachers thought being able to listen and follow directions and play well with others (also a trait of those who succeed in newsrooms!) were roughly twice as important as more academic skills, in terms of predicting future success. But elementary school teachers thought that very few children were well-prepared academically or socially. You can find more on the study here. PNC is paying for other research as well. More details on that, here.

PNC, based in Pittsburgh, has been a leading corporate advocate favoring bigger investments in pre-kindergarten. The company was one of the sponsors of a big 2006 conference of economists and corporate leaders in New York that drew a lot of media coverage. It's also putting its money behind the effort, planning on investing $100 million in an initiative it calls PNC Grow Up Great.

Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to (subscription required) label the national trend toward expanded public spending on pre-kindergarten for what it is: "one of the most significant expansions in public education in the 90 years since World War I, when kindergarten first became standard in American schools." The Journal's front page article Thursday did what the paper does so nicely: allow a reader who hasn't been following a developing trend to drop in and get a good sense of who the players are, why they're doing what they're doing, the obstacles, and controversies, and what lies ahead. The story notes, for example, that not everyone is on board with the push for "universal" public preschool. Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, for example, warns about overdoing preschool and says that "scarce resources should be directed to the problem areas." Mr. Murdoch, don't mess with success, ok?

Full disclosure: the Journal article describes the important role The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Trusts' director of education, Susan Urahn, have played in fueling the national movement to expand public spending on preschool. The article also mentions that the Hechinger Institute is a grantee, and that our role is to help journalists become knowledgeable about the issues surrounding pre-k. As I always say, though, we're not advocates for anything other than good journalism about education.

The last time Arthur Reynolds of the University of Minnesota et. al. reported on the long-term effects of the Chicago Child-Parent Center programs the former preschoolers in the study were in their teens. That was in 2001 and the study results got good play in the New York Times and elsewhere, admitting the CPCs into the (small) pantheon of pre-kindergarten programs documented to be successful by tracking the lives of the children they served into their adulthood. An update on how the Chicago group being studied, now about 24 years old, is out this month, appearing in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. (Media can gain access to the study as well as two related articles here.) The study finds that a representative sample of those who attended the centers in the mid-1980s are on average better educated; more likely to have health insurance; less likely to have been arrested, convicted, and jailed on felony charges; and less likely to suffer from depression.

The study has gotten a little attention from a few newspapers and bloggers and has been linked to by other research and advocacy groups interested in equity, education, and early childhood. But the study has a number of interesting findings and also raises some questions which merit follow-up by general interest journalists.

Cohort studies such as this one (others most notable were of the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina and the Perry/High Scope Preschool in Ypsilanti, MI) provide powerful evidence of the value of high quality preschool because they can estimate the long-term economic benefits--to individuals and to society--from early investments. In terms of policy implications, though, the Chicago program is the most important. One reason is that the parent centers are in public schools, they're not super-expensive boutique programs, and they're still operating today (although with some features eliminated). The centers serve three and four year olds, focus on improving language and math skills using a semi-structured curriculum; send teachers into homes to work with parents and require parents to participate in training activities; and include medical screening and meals.

Some of the points that merit further reporting:

1. Boys got a whole lot more out of the program than girls did. In fact, boys' gains in high school graduation accounted for most of the group's gain. About 64% of the boys who attended preschool graduated from high school, compared to a graduation rate of 48% for the comparison group. About 79% of the girls who attended preschool graduated from high school, compared to 78% for those who did not. So, if society were trying to maximize its investment, only boys would attend preschool. That is absurd, of course, so sometimes economic efficiency is trumped by social justice and political reality.

2. The group that attended preschool, may or may not have attended full-day kindergarten, and participated in an afterschool program did better than the comparison group, which was enrolled in full-day kindergarten. In many states, the expansion of preschool is competing for funds and political favor with a strong national movement for full-day kindergarten. This study suggests that the money is better spent on preschool and an afterschool program that targets the needs of disadvantaged kids. A separate analysis on the effects of an afterschool program alone found that it contributed little.

3. Even though the program was offered in the public schools, all of the children were poor and most were African American. The published article cautions against using the study to justify public spending on universally available programs, because they're unlikely to have the same effects.

4. There are no silver bullets: it's true that there were gains, some of them quite large percentage-wise. But, as an accompanying article by James Forman Jr., a D.C. lawyer who founded an alternative charter school in Washington, D.C. said, the study group was still struggling. Nearly 30% did not graduate from high school and only 15% attended college. Sure, the college attendance figure is 50% higher than for those who did not attend preschool but it's hardly a result to be satisfied with. The crime reduction was significant, too. But, still, about one in five of those who attended preschool had served time in jail, 16% had been found guilty of a felony, and arrests for violence were just as high among those who had attended preschool as for those who had not.

"Social scientists can, and should, debate the relative efficacy of different interventions in combatting poverty and its associated ills," Forman writes. "But anybody who claims that reform one aspect of our broken social services infrastructure will, all by itself, make a profound difference is selling snake oil."

As I say, more questions to ask and stories to do. The story on boys, in particular, would be quite provocative and interesting.

The Washington Post's Maria Glod used Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's decision to downsize his "universal" pre-k program to a targeted one as a news hook for a solid roundup of what's going on with the expansion of publicly funded preschool nationally. The article, which ran on A-1, had a glimpse of a good classroom, regional specifics, national sweep, details of Kaine's new approach, research, and quoted the strongest voices on both sides of the "universal" vs. "targeted" debate.

All in all, a fine example of going beyond a news development to provide readers with a useful context in which to understand that event. It wasn't necessary to go into it in this story, but one aspect of it made me think about what the next story on this might be for the Post.

Kaine says he decided to scale back on his idea because he was advised to "take the existing network and focus on the goals of increasing access and increasing quality" rather than start a new program from scratch. That's inevitable when a state expands its spending on preschool. It's not as if three and four year olds are not already going somewhere. But Kaine also may have been responding to pressure, because it is often existing private providers that lobby the hardest against expanding public spending, for fear that they'll be forced out of business by the competition. But Kaine's public-private approach creates another challenge. The state has to figure out how to push existing low-quality programs to improve. That's a hard job. Money helps but, as in New Jersey, public money poured into private centers sometimes leads to more money in the pockets of operators without any improvement in quality. Kaine suggests a rating system that parents will be able to use in choosing a preschool, in effect trying to tap market forces to maintain quality. The fact is, though, parents usually want their young children as close by as possible so the market forces are going to be weaker than they would be if true competition were unleashed. Kaine's right that it's the quality of programs not necessarily who provides them that's most important. But it's harder to ensure that quality in the private sector.

Staci Hupp of the Dallas Morning News did a comprehensive job of examining a new certification system for public and private preschools in Texas. She included many different voices, including parents and skeptical preschool operators.

But based on what I could find out about the certification system, the story makes it seem a bit more scientific than it probably is. Centers apply for certification and then submit information about the center's teachers and learning environment. Children from the center are tested in kindergarten and their scores, combined with the self-reported information, determines certification. Susan Landry of the Texas State Center for Early Childhood Development, which developed the certification system, is quoted saying it will be able to identify classroom practices which predict kindergarten success. Attributing causation in education is a very, very tricky thing.

Secondly, the story had only a smidgeon of (one graf, down low) context. States are spending more on preschool and so are trying to find ways to measure quality. Head Start has been struggling with accountability for several years now using tests and the tests, which were not useful for centers or anyone else, are likely to go away in the Head Start reauthorization. Several states give letter grades. Also, Florida tests kindergartners and judges the preschools they attended by the results. Most observers think that method is badly flawed.

Sharon Lynn Kagan of Teachers College gave an excellent overview of early childhood education and accountability and assessment at the Hechinger Institute seminar for editorial writers in June. She offered a really nice image, saying that, regarding assessment, early childhood education is moving from caring teachers who wore smocks and carried cards in their pocket to write down loving observations about children to be "highly standardized, highly regulated, and much more consistent." She said she didn't think that was necessarily bad but that it's difficult to do and that the necessary assessment tools do not yet exist. Would have been good to talk to someone like Kagan for this story.

Michael Pound had a nicely done piece in the Beaver County Allegheny Times, which serves communities just west of Pittsburgh, that took a look at both full day kindergarten and the growing public investment in pre-kindergarten. Sounds like full-day and pre-k in the local school districts there meld together well. Elsewhere, of course, those two services are sometimes seen as being in competition for short funds. The recent study of the longterm effectiveness of the Chicago Child Parent Preschool program suggested that full day kindergarten, alone, had little effect if it wasn't paired with pre-k.

Here's a couple letters in response to the frontpager in the WashPost last week on the dilemma of targeted vs. universal pre-k. Both letters argue the universal side. The second letter, from a parent who applied for Head Start but was put on a waiting list, is particularly poignant and illustrates the argument universal advocates make all the time, that the income cutoffs for eligibility in targeted programs are sloppy proxies for need.

The Baltimore Sun made their back to school story substantive by reporting on the challenges of the transition to full-day kindergarten. Article links full day to concerns about kindergarten becoming too academic and to NCLB. Critics quoted say that kindergarten shouldn't be about stuffing kids' heads with facts. While supporters, such as Maryland schools Chief Nancy Grasmick, said the longer day gives teachers time to develop understanding of key concepts in reading and math as well as social skills.

To bolster the case that the kids and the teachers are under academic pressure, the article states:

"She has only nine months to get her 5- and 6-year-olds to identify the sequential property of numbers using the calendar, learn the alphabet, recognize letter sounds, learn how to sort by color and number, and learn to share and play nice with one another."

Isn't this what kindergarten has always been about? Learning to count, sort, start to read and play nice? This is overly academic? This is stuffing kids' heads with facts? These are exactly the domains and expectations in good pre-k programs and, because most of these kids will have been in pre-k, they've probably mastered or are very close to mastery of them all. The other idea in here that always bothers me is that, because there is the potential that a teacher, school, or district will make developmentally unwise choices, they shouldn't be given the opportunity to make such a mistake.

Piece has a nice video of a enthusiastic teacher who is new to kindergarten talking about what she hopes to accomplish for the year....worth watching.