EarlyStories read the New York Times piece on an outdoor kindergarten in Saratoga Springs New York with interest. Finally, a story about something other than how kindergarten has become so academic: "It's the new first grade.''

Ultimately, though, the story was disappointing. It noted that 23 children in upstate New York are spending three hours each day outside, no matter what the weather, and that it is an extreme version of outdoor learning that is taught at Waldorf schools -- which are largely private and emphasize nature and the arts. The story noted that forest kindergartens are "increasingly common in Scandinavia and other European countries like Germany and Austria.''

It's nice that a handful of kids whose parents can afford it are enjoying the great outdoors while in school. But the story gives no context for what the nature-based curriculum can and cannot do, nor does it compare the Waldorf program to what kindergarten looks like for millions of U.S. children.

What goals do we have for these four, five and six-year-olds? (The age range varies according to district entrance requirements). What evidence is there that tramping about in the woods for several hours a day will make for a better thinker or reader later on? What does the research show?

A cute woodsy feature story about one program can and should go further at a time when the U.S. is seriously considering national standards and much debate is taking place about what children should learn and when. Is the program prompting urban schools to consider taking more field trips, for example? Do the kids who don't get outdoors suffer? Is anyone proposing a different approach for city schools, based on the Waldorf's results? And what are those results?