Oh, it's so painful for me to realize, now that I'm middle-aged, how much I missed as a child. Just think how much I could have accomplished, how much happier I'd be, had I been as lucky as 3-year-old Elliott Baines of Guttenberg, N.J. Alexander Russo linked the other day to a story in the Wall Street Journal that reported on the adventurous travel vacations families are taking their young children on to give them enriching experiences. Little Elliott, for example, "has already cleared customs in Israel, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, France and Canada. His parents...say they believe the experiences are shaping Elliot's personality even at this early age. For instance, when Elliot and a group of children were pretending to fly in their gymnastics class, other youngsters said they were going to Florida, while Elliot said he was en route to Paris." All my family ever did was drive one time from Ohio to the East Coast to visit family friends, and we weren't even allowed to stop at the Mystery Spot along the way.

But, seriously, articles such as these are what I like to call "rich porn" and are a staple of the Journal, the Times, Vanity Fair, and other publications aimed at the elite. Those of us who spent our childhood catching tadpoles and playing baseball with kids in the neighborhood instead of flying off to Thailand to ride bikes through the jungle love to be voyeurs observing the lives of people with so much money it skews their judgment of what's important. A little skepticism about whether such trips actually put kids ahead of their peers, and a little context as to how few families actually take such vacations would be nice. But that would make such stories far less entertaining.

The Associated Press and Washington Post report that the House of Representatives has passed by a more than 7-to-1 margin a Head Start reauthorization bill that increases spending by $500 million, increases enrollment, boosts salaries, and expands services. The bill also sets a goal for increasing the percentage of Head Start teachers who have gone to college and raises the income ceiling for eligibility. It also ends the controversial National Reporting System for monitoring program quality and bars programs from using religious beliefs as a factor in making personnel decisions. The Senate is working on similar legislation. The AP reports the White House opposes the bill. The Post puts a finer point on it, saying the legislation rejects the Bush Administration's main effort to make the program more academic.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is in a tight spot. She's caught between a here-and-now plunge in current tax revenues and the need to prepare children of today as best she can to function the world of the future. She wants a $1.5 billon tax increase to offset a deficit over two years of $2 billion. To get the additional revenues, she's threatening to force massive cuts in health care and education starting June 1. State Supe Mike Flanagan has told school districts to start cutting preschool immediately. Actually, that's a shrewd move. Cut those preschool classes and send Michigan parents who depend on them into an instant frenzy, which could pressure the Michigan Legislature to go along with the tax hike Granholm wants. "We can invest in order to pull this state out of this economic slump or we can disinvest and further the spiral downward," Granholm said in seeking to get the Legislature to act.

The National Institute on Early Education Research has weighed in, with an op-ed arguing that cutting preschool is like a farmer "eating his seed corn."

Easy quick-hit story would be for a journalist to go out to one of the school district preschools and talked to a dozen or so parents dropping off their children about what they'd do if, starting June 1st, their kids had nowhere to go.

'The story Tracy Jan published in the Boston Globe about a month ago on the frank and disturbing study of preschools and kindergartens in the city got a lot of attention, as it should have. I've been waiting to find a copy of the full report to link to but so far haven't. I'll keep looking.

According to Jan's story, which was followed up by a hardhitting editorial, the study by the Wellesley Centers for Women found "mediocre instruction, unsanitary classrooms, and dangerous schoolyards." The study also found that the quality of about 70% of the classrooms were not good enough to achieve the goal of closing gaps in kindergarten readiness between white and Asian children and Latino and African-American children.

A couple points from the Globe story to emphasize: The teachers in the classrooms studied all had bachelor's degrees but a fifth of them didn't necessarily have degrees in early childhood education. One school of thought in early childhood education insists on college degrees as a measure of quality. An alternative view is that teachers in preschools need to be highly skilled. It sounds like the same point but it's not. If preschool teachers can gain critical skills and knowledge of how young children learn and how best to help them learn in community college or in a special training program, then what's the purpose of insisting on a bachelor's degree? It's heartbreaking but the researchers found that many of these kids were sitting in their seats in kindergarten and preschool, being lectured to and responding to flash cards. No wonder these preschools aren't helping much.

Another point to emphasize comes from Elizabeth Reilinger, a member of the Boston Schools Committee. She commented that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino had pushed to expand preschool too quickly. Is this a problem around the country? Is the pressure so great to expand pre-k spending as quickly as possible causing the creation of poorly funded, poor quality programs that are accomplishing little?

One other observation. Yes, these were the conclusions of researchers. But couldn't journalists have made some of these same observations by visiting a lot of classrooms? A journalist who knew a little bit about how young chldren learn would have noticed that kids were sitting still too long and doing worksheets instead of engaging in purposeful, creative activities that involved a lot of conversation, right? I hope so.

One of the greatest challenges of education policy and, frankly, education journalism, is that accurately measuring education quality is very difficult. So, instead, we pay attention to what's available to us: spending, class size, teacher experience, teacher test scores, graduation rates, college-going, test scores. All of those are proxies for what really matters--the interactions between teachers and students. But how do you measure the quality of those interactions? How do you measure whether they will help children not just learn facts but understand, think, question, grow in their confidence as learners and speakers and do-ers?

I had a chance the other day to listen in to a "webinar" put on by two of the great minds on preschool quality--Robert C. Pianta of the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning at the University and Barbara Bowman, the Chief Early Education Officer of the Chicago Public Schools and the founder of the Erickson Institute in Chicago. (The event was sponsored by Pre-K Now and a link to the slides for the call as well as the slides for previous calls with experts on a variety of topics can be found here.
Bowman made the point that children have a "natural predisposition to develop" and they do so through exploration of their senses, relationships, language, play and self-regulation. But school learning is different. School learning requires what she called "decontextualized language," meaning, for example, the words for categorization of objects. School learning also involves symbolic skills, small muscle control, social skills, complex grammar, a large vocabulary, clear enunciation and other things. The point is that those who say "kids learn naturally" are right. They do develop and learn some things naturally. They're programmed to, though at different rates. School learning is different. And it requires intentional, thoughtful, planned learning opportunities and interactions. What a useful way to break down that old teaching vs. development argument! It's also useful for journalists, to help them better understand child development and schooling and how they are similar and different.

Bowman's point also leads right into what Pianta had to say. Pianta's research involves lots and lots of observations of classrooms. His observations have led to the development of a scale that measures the quality of teachers' interaction in pre-school and kindergarten classrooms with their children. Pianta says that scale predicts quite accurately how much children learn. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates that the quality of those interactions is often not very good. Pianta wrote a piece in the journal Education Next a while back. In that piece, he asserted that only about a quarter of the pre-k classes and classes studied provided students with the high levels of emotional and instructional support needed to maximize learning.

Fortunately, however, Pianta and his colleagues have developed some training tools that help pre-k teachers get better. He asserts that it is the skill and knowledge of the teachers--not their degrees or certifications--that matters. In fact, his data show no correlation between degree attainment and teacher performance. What does matter is training and professional development tied to knowledge and skill about teaching in actual classrooms. A "webinar" caller asked about that. If there's no connection between B.A. degrees and children's learning, the caller asked, doesn't insisting on college degrees for preschool teachers just raise the cost of those programs?

Advocates for higher quality such as Libby Doggett of Pre-K Now acknowledge that the evidence that children who have teachers with more formal education learn more is ambiguous. But she said in response to the caller that degrees have to be required if the teachers are to be paid a professional salary and be regarded as professionals. In other words, it's about positioning pre-k as part of the formal education system, which requires formal degrees and credentials. That may be the right strategy. But one hopes that somewhere along the line the teachers, whatever formal degrees they have, also get the kind of training Pianta is talking about.

All Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, did was post on his blog the headline "Preschool Pays" and link to the Joel Waldfogel Slate entry mentioned just above. That touched off a flurry of comments, pro and con. Many of the comments wrestle with the economic analyses themselves, especially what can be concluded from the Perry Preschool study of the effects of high quality preschool designed to serve the most disadvantaged. But some reflect the fears referenced by Waldfogel, that good quality voluntary preschool undermines the family and replaces parents with "government agents." (One has to think that if preschool teachers really were government agents they'd be earning a lot more money!).

In any case, I urge economists or journalists who are examining the economic returns of investing in preschool to start with the superb "Dollars and Sense" report to gain perspective. Although put out by a group that advocates for universal preschool, the report examines the strengths and weaknesses and generalizability of various analyses of economic returns from preschool. It also acknowledges the bias of Pre-K Now, which issued the report.

"> Anyone who pays attention to the unfolding debate over the propriety and educational effects of public investments in preschool and child development has encountered fears of "government" brainwashing. Though not all such fears emanate from the dark imaginings of the far right, that crowd is certainly far more vocal. (Never forget that the seeds of dreaded liberalism tomorrow find fertile ground in the preschool sand tables of today!).Judge Roy Moore, (left, at a younger age), the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was ousted after refusing to remove stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments from his court room, demonstrated this once again in this Internet column.

The column is a mish-mash of references to studies and research that he misapplies and misinterprets for his purposes. In addition to the usual rhetoric, however, the good judge added a new leap of logic that I've never seen anywhere. The "founding fathers," reared in 18th century colonial America, did not go to public schools and they did pretty well. Americans back then were the "most literate and well-informed in history," he contends, and "poetry, religion, and history flourished...without support from the state." I know that many critics of public education claim, without much foundation, that student achievement has been sliding the past three or four decades. But I had no idea that the zenith of U.S. education was in the 1750s! Sure, recreating slavery, ridding ourselves of 300 years of technology and medicine, and reclaiming our true heritage as colonies would be problematic, but is there any other way to be competitive in this global economy? Let's turn back the clock three centuries before it's too late!

The Washington Post picked up on a report from the advocacy group Pre-K for All DC that says (no surprise) free pre-kindergarten would more than repay its cost. The actual study is not yet up on the group's Web site. But a quote from the Post story indicates that its authors tried to calculate the short-run economic benefits from expanding pre-k as well as the long-term gains. A high quality program would provide 6,300 jobs in the city, support working parents, and cut down on employee absenteeism, according to the article.

This kind of information is powerful. It is a compelling counterpoint to those who argue that the long-term gains don't justify the short-term expense, when balancing the budget is a priority. I'll look forward to reading the actual report but I was glad to read about it in the Post. However, the Post article does not mention how this study fits in with the many other recent economic analyses of pre-kindergarten's effects. Nor does it mention that the D.C. advocacy group is one of dozens pushing universal pre-k nationally. I know print reporters are being pressured to write short stories. Adding a paragraph providing readers with a little bit of context, just a pinch, would have been easy.

Hartford Courant reporter Hilary Waldman produced a fascinating, compelling story in yesterday's paper that was based on a....research study! But the story about a study of the effects of putting mental health consultants in pre-kindergarten classrooms was anything but dry. The spine of it was the story of a three-year-old boy named Terrence who was described by his teachers as a "human tornado," wreaking fear and destruction in the classroom. His teachers sought help and a state-funded program supplied a consultant, who helped them develop strategies for how to help Terrence learn to adjust socially.

The details in the story, the national context, the clear explanation of how the research was conducted and the human drama it captured--all were impressive. The article shows how richly visiting classrooms and making connections with real teachers, kids and their parents pays off journalistically. Journalism such as this will always find an audience no matter the "platform"--print or digital.

Sara Mead has an insightful and illuminating commentary on the similarities between school choice and universal pre-k advocates--two groups that likely would be uncomfortable rubbing shoulders at the same wonkfest. (Yes, it's a real word. You can look it up. Synonym is wonkapalooza) It's worth reading the whole thing. One insight, for example, is that both groups are committed to "redefining the boundaries of publicly-supported education--In preschool, to include younger children; in school choice to include private, charter, and other non-traditional schools."

One other similarity I'd add. School choicers want to privatize education through vouchers and subsidies for private charter management organizations. UPK-ers would prefer to have states invest preschool money in programs in public schools. But the fact that there is already a mature, mixed public-and-private school delivery system for preschool means that, inevitably, public dollars end up subsidizing private school operations. So....if public dollars can subsidize private preschools and private colleges (through loan subsidies and reseach grants), why the adamant opposition in so many places to doing so in K-12?

Story idea: As state legislatures are considering expanding spending on pre-kindergarten, examine the lobbying efforts of groups representing private preschools. You'll find they fight hard to maintain what they would call a level playing field, so that public spending on preschool doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Florida newspapers, television stations and bloggers all reported on the release of the state's so-called accountability system for the mostly private pre-kindergarten programs that get public money. Leslie Postal in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel came closest to calling the state accountability system what it is: a mess. As she points out, the state set an artificial limit of 15% on how many schools can be low-performing. That means, in reality, that 15% of the schools will be labeled substandard no matter how they do and schools that may be weak against an objective set of standards, but not as weak as others, will get a seal of approval. But there are two even bigger problems with the so-called accountability system: 1. It doesn't take into consideration the characteristics of the kids served or the size of gains they made. Not surprisingly, as Postal notes, "low performing" preschools had more poor, disabled, and Spanish-speaking kids. 2. It tests kids in kindergarten and attributes their performance to the preschools. What about the rapid development of kids that age? What about all the other influences in a child's life that are more significant?

Sure, we all want all kids to be the same. But can 540 hours (which is what the state pays for) of relatively low-quality preschool really make it so? Florida's preschool program satisfied only four of 10 quality criteria established by the National Institute of Early Education and Research and the state spends only $2,163 per child on the program (when part-year attendance is taken into consideration.) The effect of this so-called accountability system will be to discourage these private schools from accepting the very kids who need help the most.

The CBS affiliate in Tallahassee got right to the point. The Gainesville Sun did not take note of any of the shortcomings of the rankings. The Gradebook, the education Web log of the St. Petersberg, noted that the system was unfair but that so was life. The state says it is holding preschools accountable. Journalists should hold the state accountable for at least acknowledging that their accountability system is "low performing."

It's a long journey from kindergarten to high school graduation and even longer to adulthood. Those of us who think a lot about how kids get off to a good start on life's road sometimes forget about the bumpiness and dead-end exits along the way. Starting off in the right direction with a smooth-running vehicle full of gas does not mean one is assured of arriving at his destination safe and sound. Three good stories over the weekend are good reminders that, as important as it is to give kids a proper start, it doesn't necessarily assure them of a smooth ride through school or life.

Erin Einhorn and Carrie Melago of the New York Daily News worked backwards from interviewing a young man about to graduate from a New York high school who is headed to Carnegie Mellon to major in physics. They tracked down his kindergarten teacher, still in the classroom, and she led them to the class of children identified as gifted that she taught in 1994. Their story shows that pregnancy, violence, family instability, large, impersonal schools, uncaring teachers and many other unforeseen bumps in the road can make the ride rocky even for kindergarteners who are bright and ready for school. One girl who overcame the violent deaths of both of her parents to make it to graduation with the help of an iron-willed grandmother had this to say: "You have to have family support," she said. "You have to have a good relationship with teachers. You have to have motivation within yourself. ...And you have to have hope." Part three of the series is here.

Dale Mezzacappa, the veteran education writer for the Philly Inquirer who took a buyout sometime back, returned with a terrific profile of a class of 112 6th graders who had been guaranteed a college education by a rich Connecticut investor. George Weiss spent millions, mentored them, gave them tutoring, jobs and contacts and more. Now, 20 years later, Mezzacappa fills us in on where they ended up--and the news is mixed. Less than two-thirds of them graduated high school (twice the rate of other poor African Americans in Philadelphia from that year) and 20 earned bachelor's degrees.

Sara Rimer of the New York Times had a front-page profile that looked at the friendship of two very different girls, who became one another's support system through high school. Their friendship helped them get to graduation with good
grades and glowing recommendations--despite trials rivaling those of Job. Again, the point's the same: a great preschool experience is certainly a good start--a full tank of gas in a car that runs, as it were. But teachers, friends, resilience, luck, opportunities, family stability and so much more are required along the way.

(By the way, all three have audio, slide shows and other stories that add to the printed stories. At the NY Times site you can watch the commencement address given by Queen, one of the two girls Rimer profiles.)

Over the past three years Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has steadily increased his state's spending on high-quality pre-kindergarten classes. Last week the governor addressed a group of editorial writers who gathered at Teachers College in New York City for a two-day seminar sponsored by the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media that dealt with early education issues. Pre-k advocates talk a lot about the studies that tout the long-term returns for investing in pre-kindergarten. But Bredesen, who has a degree in physics from Harvard, said those studies were not what persuaded him to push pre-k. What did the trick, he told the editorialists, was conversations with teachers around his state.

I went around the state and I talked to teachers and I asked them, "If you had one more dollar to spend on education, how would you spend it." When you forced people to pick one thing, it's amazing how many pick pre-kindergarten. It seems like there's a broad consensus.

Rather than plunge into a universal pre-k program all at once and launch poor quality programs with the intent to improve them later, Bredesen decided to establish high-quality programs and roll them out slowly. The Tennessee program employs only certified teachers, keeps class sizes small, and uses only approved curricula. Surprisingly, Bredesen said, the biggest political fight had to be fought over quality. Day care centers and private pre-k programs did not employ certified teachers or pay decent salaries and so they saw the state program as a "threat to their livelihood."

Bredesen said that he hopes that any parent in Tennessee who wants to send their child to a state-funded pre-kindergarten will be able to do so. Right now, he said, the state is about 40% of the way there. But he said it was a "realistic goal" that can be reached in about three and a half years.

More about the seminar over the next few days.

The Hechinger Institute, in collaboration with the National Conference of Editorial Writers, gathered 30 or so editorial writers from around the country June 29-30 to discuss early education issues, emphasizing, in particular, the effects of poverty on children. Three of those who attended have already written commentaries, spinning off in different directions. The latest came from Kay Semion of the Daytona Beach News-Journal, who Download file">chided her state's leaders for cynically offering up a sub-standard pre-k program in response to the plea of voters for a high quality, universal program.

Earlier, Mary Ellen Schoonmaker wrote a lovely column in the Bergen (New Jersey) Record that drew on comments from a wonderful young pre-school teacher we had at the seminar as a speaker. And Linda Valdez in the Arizona Republic focused on the comments of New York developer and philanthropist Daniel Rose, who exhorted the writers to refer to high-quality pre-kindergarten as an investment, not an expense. Valdez referred to Rose as a "triple shot of espresso" for his rousing talk.

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."

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.

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.

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.

I didn't know it and you may not have either but, in the blogosphere, yesterday was "attack John Edwards Day." At least, that's what I'm surmising from the deepening pond of bile and name-calling in right-wing blogs fed by an article in the Concord Monitor.

Here's the lede of the article:

John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone.

In reaction, cries of socialism and all manner of other sins suddenly appeared here, here, here, here, and here. The entries were rife with name-calling of Edwards, the most progressive of the three leading Democratic contenders for the presidency who is, according to media pundits and polls, running third behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Apparently they all got the memo that said Edwards' plans to address poverty would drive away investment capital, undermine the family, coddle those who are lazy or stupid or just plain unlucky, and result in brainwashing of the children. Note to the memo-writers, two red states--Oklahoma and Georgia--have universal pre-school programs that others are trying to emulate and Republican legislatures and governors support expanded investments in pre-k.

Speaking of presidential candidates and publicly funded pre-kindergarten, Hillary Clinton was in a Miami Beach preschool yesterday touting her plan for the federal government to spend up to $10 billion a year to match state spending on pre-kindergarten. This is the AP article in the Washington Post. According to the article, Clinton praised Florida for its preschool program even though most experts and advocates consider it to be a low-quality, on-the-cheap effort that will accomplish little. According to the advocacy group Pre-K Now, Florida actually cut spending this year because fewer that expected students enrolled.

Talk to early education researchers for a few minutes and you're likely to hear an acronym that sounds like "eckles", rhyming with "freckles." What they are referring to is one of the sets of data known as the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, that are gathered by the federal government's Institute of Education Studies. The latest in the series was released this month and it's a good statistical snapshot of U.S. 4- and 5-year-olds during 2005-2006.

Some interesting data:

* Only 20% of children are cared for only by their parents. (Therefore, the conservative cry that expanded public investment in preschool is equivalent to yanking kids out of their parents' hands is silly. The vast majority of children already are cared for outside the home.)
*Preschools and pre-kindergartens, public and private, serve more than three times the number of children than does the Head Start program. (So this sector merits more attention.)
*About two-thirds of these children are know their shapes, numbers, and colors when they go to school. But math proficiency is more highly correlated with income than is language development. (Makes sense. Math is primarily developed in school and the more money a family has the more likely they are to be in preschool centers and less likely they are to be in Head Start programs.)
*Hispanic children are least likely to be served in centers and most likely to be cared for by relatives. The numbers for white children show the opposite.

Good descriptive data to feed into political and policy stories on pre-kindergarten. Also looking at the data may give rise to questions that may, with a little more work, lead to good solid stories in your community.

Douglas Besharov, a well-known scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, came out last week with a new study that found that the true cost of early education--when the cost of increasing the quality of current programs, providing others services, and administering the programs is added in--are much more expensive than the figures usually used by policy makers and advocates. Here are the amounts he and his co-authors calculated:

* For center-based child care, about $8,908--not the widely cited $4,388 to $6,582.
* For pre-kindergarten/preschool programs, about $14,026--not the widely cited $3,551.
* For Head Start, about $21,305--not the widely cited $7,467.

A blog called BlueNC that says it is "community-driven website that promotes progressive values and policies in North Carolina" has what appears to be a comprehensive analysis of the positions of the Democratic presidential candidates on issues of child care and preschool. Hillary Clinton's position has been talked about a lot but this breakdown looks at all the candidates.

Two reports within days about the South that, in a way, show two sides of the same coin. A report from the Southern Regional Education Board notes that the 15-state region leads the nation in offering publicly funded preschool and then quantifies that claim. Mississippi's Jackson Sun editorialized about the report. The Southern Education Fund this week issued a report saying that a majority of students in the region are poor. Seems like one is related to the other.

I was struck this past weekend by the number of television ads for toys aimed toddlers. Christmas selling and buying season starts right after Halloween. The ads caught my ear because they were talking about how babies develop skills with the right toys.

A couple of days ago I Googled eBeanstalk, the company whose ads for toys for infants I'd seen over the weekend. The philosophy of the company seems to be "teaching" begins at birth and that every interaction between a parent and a child requires a "lesson plan" and goal that can be measured. For example, the site sells socks for newborns with rattles " attached. The rattles "give him a first taste of cause and effect" because when he kicks his feet the baby will hear the sound. The socks will also spur emotional development and dexterity--all for only $10. What tutor charges so little?

Or, take the colorful child-safe mirror toys. (Basic: $18.95. Premium: $44.95. For those who REALLY love their children): These toys develop neck control, teach him that things disappear and reappear, aid in self-recognition and allow the baby to play peek-a-boo. Generations of babies have grown up without these "skills," apparently, because they lacked such devices. Helpfully, the site provides instructions for how parents can play with these toys. It turns out that playing "peek-a-boo" requires special training--for parents as well as babies. After a few lessons, babies will be able to play "peek-a-boo" with themselves, relieving parents of that chore after a long, hard day at the office.

Gender differentiation starts early. A package of bath toys--a pirate ship and shaving kit for the boys! Pink Tub Fashion and Princess in the Tub sets for girls!--can be had for $75 apiece. Perfect for 1 to 3 year olds. Spurs imagination, they're educational, and improve dexterity. (I hope parents don't leave their baby in the tub to work on their homework on their own.) Even Baby Einstein, a Disney company that sells toys and gear to make kids smarter, doesn't go as far as eBeanstalk in its educational claims.

The Wall Street Journal on November 1 carried a story about Eee PC, a computer aimed at first graders. It's just one of several companies selling computers to parents anxious to give their kids a head start on the technology of the future. (By the time they reach high school, of course, PCs will be the "technology of the past.") An Oklahoma company called Digital Dimensions sells a pink PC for girls and a red, blue, or black racecar PC for boys, both equipped with software for children as young as 2.

Journalists have written quite a bit about the phenomena of affluent parents willing to do just about anything to give their kids an edge. Cloaking consumerism in pseudo-science that makes natural development seem to depend on the right toys--rather than just loving, talking to, reading to, and playing with your children--helps fuel this unfortunate parental instinct. This impulse among some parents creates business opportunities and it's no surprise companies are out there capitalizing on them. Sometimes the universal pre-kindergarten movement overemphasizes education, as well, causing opponents to complain that schooling is more important than just fostering normal, healthy development. These issues are worth more critical attention, I think.

An editorial in the New York Times over the weekend commented ironically on "guides" that purport to teach kids the "basic skills" of childhood. With just the right note of sarcasm, the editorial suggested that such books (and, I would add, toys) make natural development seem like a take-home test.

“Lying on your back in your crib, point your knees outward and draw your heels toward your stomach. Using both hands, grasp your left ankle, if you are right-handed (or right ankle, if left-handed), and slowly draw your toes into your mouth. Chew with caution!”

I took note earlier this month of the intense focus of toy makers on making toys educational, to lure in parents who are predisposed to think the hunt for the best college begins in the womb. Latest entry on this theme is the story in the New York Times this morning on digital toys for the younger and younger set. Seems today's toddlers aren't satisfied with toy phones and cameras and computers, they want the real deal. The story quotes a woman from the San Francisco Bay Area who returned digital toy telephones because her twin year-old daughters preferred real cell phones. Gee, Mom, how can I text my posse during naptime if you only let me have a toy phone? "They know what a real cellphone is, and they don’t want a fake one,” the mother is quoted saying. Computers for toddlers are designed to help them learn "computer basics" but to what end?

Jeff Solochek of the St. Petersburg Times started off the new year with a fine example of journalism that mixes perceptive close-in observation of a classroom with a sense of the broader set of policy issues that surround pre-kindergarten. Here's an excerpt that in just a few paragraphs captures the mix of fun and academics that the best teachers achieve.

Hector approaches carrying a peg board where he's fashioned the letter E. He proudly holds it up for [the teacher Brenda] Roberts to see. She offers him praise, and more. What sound does E make, she asks, kicking off an impromptu lesson. Whose name in the class starts with E? After a few more questions comes more encouragement.

"Thank you, Hector, for making that for me," Roberts says. "I love that E."

No sooner does she turn away than Ruth appears, smacking rhythm sticks together, seeking her moment with the teacher. "What sound are you making?" Roberts, ever smiling, asks. If the noise irritates her, you can't tell.

"Choo-choo train," Ruth responds.

Roberts starts dancing. "You make that sound, girl," she says, making chugging sounds as Ruth happily keeps the beat.

I'd urge reporters to look at that passage carefully. The children are certainly enjoying themselves. They're also learning skills that will prepare them to read. Those who pooh-pooh pre-k by saying "why can't we just let them have a childhood" and those who say "let's teach those kids their ABCs!" should be challenged. Clearly, those goals don't conflict.

Thanks to Russo's This Week in Education just read a Q&A with David Kirp, the author of "The Sandbox Investment." Newsweek also touched down on the growing state investment in preschool here. Kirp made similar points here and here.">here and here.

Kirp's political analysis is compelling but he sometimes loses his footing and overpromises. Perhaps it was the editing of the Q&A (the media does this!) but he seemed to be saying that a dose of high-quality pre-kindergarten would solve all ills for all children. Journalists (and their editors) love quick fix, silver bullet, utopian policies but they ought to be a little more skeptical. (Not so skeptical that they assume a presidential candidate's emotions are a campaign trick, like the Queen of Nasty Maureen Dowd, but just a little more.)

Smart editorial in the Washington Post applauds legislation that would add 125 pre-k classes in the district. But the editorial also, rightfully, urges advocates and city council members to focus on quality and choice as well as quantity. D.C. has a higher percentage of its 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool that any jurisdiction. Those children may not be getting much out of the programs, though. The new bill is built to make sure community centers--which often feel threatened by a significant expansion of public spending on preschool--continue to get their share of the pie. It does this by limiting how many of the 125 new classes can be placed in charter schools, which are very popular with D.C. parents, or in regular public schools. The bill also restri