This forward-looking story from an Iowa television station tells us why the eligibility criteria for Head Start matters. The story says that a recently enacted hike in minimum wage in Iowa will make some families ineligible for Head Start. This is certainly a thread that journalists ought to be pulling to figure out the implications of the current minimum wage debate in Congress.

The "father" of Head Start, Yale University professor emeritus Edward Zigler, predicted yesterday that the reauthorization bill "will pass this time" now that Democrats hold the majority of seats in both houses. The first time the Bush Administration tried to get Head Start reauthorized the bill would have given experimental "block grants" to eight states to run it. That bill eked through the House with a one-vote majority but didn't stand a chance in the Senate. Even Republicans were reluctant to undermine the federal program. Zigler, now in his 70s, fought to block it.

"I spent a lot of my time trying to defeat that plan. The key reason is quality. I'm convinced that Head Start is superior in quality to most state programs. As soon as the states demonstrate they can do it as well as the Feds have done it, I'll switch."

He now is advising Congress on the reauthorization bill but, he said, "the problem is money again. They want to raise the eligibility up to 130% of poverty to serve the working poor. But they've never served all the kids eligible at 100% of poverty. What makes them think they'll make 130%? I don't see the money for it. They will also recommend that a third of the Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees. But I'm opposed to unfunded mandates."

Stay tuned. This came from a Q&A I did with Zigler and as soon as I'm done editing it I'll post it here and possibly elsewhere.

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.”

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.

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.

Edward F. Zigler has been a leading national authority on child development and early learning for more than four decades. He was part of a small group of advisers who created Head Start and then became its first director. Today, as growing numbers of policymakers embrace pre-kindergarten as an important source of education opportunity, Zigler, an active scholar and prolific author at 77, continues to play a central role in shaping the nation's thinking on early learning. When I spoke to him recently for a Q&A that is posted on the Web site of Education Sector he decried the poor quality of much of the child care in this country, gave a strong endorsement for Head Start, argued that pre-kindergarten ought to be universal, offered in regular public schools, and start at age 3.

Showing that he's stilling willing to court controversy, he said that, "The catastrophe for kids, the catastrophe for families, is the big split between child care and education. Education is looked as the state's responsibility. Child care is thought of as a family's responsibility. But we wind up with the kids in our schools. We don't know how to change. The Right Wing will fight anything that makes the lives of mothers and children better."

You can read the entire interview here Download file

The Washington Post's Valerie Strauss broke the story Sunday that the Democratic Congress is likely to vote to end the National Reporting System, the test that's been given twice a year to a sampling of Head Start students to measure the effectiveness of the program. The story does a good job of explaining a difficult but essential concept of testing--that assessments need to be field-tested to determine if they measure what they're supposed to measure. Concerns have been raised in many quarters about the validity of the National Reporting System. Even the Bush Administration, which pushed for the assessments and which wants the tests to continue, acknowledges the problems.

One of the most vocal critics has been Sam Meisels of the Erikson Institute, and Strauss quotes him in her story. Meisels, who is a member of a national task force on accountability convened by the Pew Charitable Trusts, has twice spoken at Hechinger Institute events about his concerns. He illustrates his criticisms with a description of a test item that he argues is developmentally inappropriate and contains a distinct class bias.

The teacher giving the test shows the child four line drawings--including a wine decanter, a trophy "cup," an ice bucket, and a vase. The testgiver is supposed to ask the kid which of the drawings is a flower "vahz," pronounced to rhyme with "oz." Meisels likes to quip that he's probably used each of the objects as a vase. But he also objects to the preferred pronunciation. Meisels talks about a test item that shows four drawings of faces and the child is asked which one shows "horrified." It's difficult, he says, for a child to distinquish between afraid or angry and "horrified." Sounds like Congress is starting to listen to Meisels and others, who include Edward Zigler.

Joanne Jacobs picked up on the item I posted the other day about the pushback in Congress that may lead to the demise of the Head Start National Reporting System. I noted the criticisms of the technical quality of the test, which has led many experts to say that it doesn't answer the questions it was intended to: in other words, how well are Head Start programs helping children develop skills they need to be ready to learn to read.

You can read a dispassionate overview of the NRS here. One of the criticisms of the test is that it does not evaluate Head Start's performance in helping children develop socially and emotionally. It turns out that the NRS this year is adding an assessment of those domains. Information on that can be found here.

The anti-test position of the National Head Start Association can be found here. The far right opposition to the test is here.

Others have taken positions in favor of the keeping the test. The Fordham Foundation's Checker Finn offers a rousing and rhetorically edgy defense of the test here. In a strange way, Finn and Head Start icon Edward Zigler aren't that far apart on this. Both think that Head Start should help kids get ready to succeed in school.

I'll repeat that I'd like to see a story done this spring that tells me how the NRS actually works in practice, by going out and observing the administration of the test.

Maria Glod of the Washington Post did a nice job over the weekend of reporting on the efforts of pre-school programs to get Latino parents on board with the fact that these programs are supposed to be educational. The story drew on classroom visits, interviews with parents, experts, policy makers and research. Similar approach could be taken to reporting on the research that's the focus of the next post.

Here's an excerpt from Maria's story.

Latino children nationwide tend to start kindergarten knowing less about letters and numbers compared with their non-Hispanic white peers. Many never catch up. Improving early childhood education is one of the best ways to narrow the achievement gap, educators say, citing such programs as the family book club. But many Latino families face economic, linguistic, educational and even cultural barriers.

"It's partly about parents not understanding the American system," said Eugene E. Garcia, an Arizona State University administrator and chairman of the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. "Hispanic parents think school is good and education is good. They just don't have the tools they need."

About 40 percent of Latino 3- and 4-year-olds (and 5-year-olds not yet in kindergarten) are enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs, compared with about 60 percent of white and African American children, according to the District-based advocacy group Pre-K Now. In addition, a new report from Garcia's task force noted that Hispanic mothers generally read and talk less to their children compared with white parents. Hispanic families also tend to have fewer children's books at home.

Education Week's Linda Jacobson offers a well-reported, thoughtful roundup of the issues facing Head Start. [free registration required] Journalists in states where state-funded pre-kindergarten is expanding should set this aside electronically or in hard copy as a reference document and story list. How is the expansion of pre-k creating competition for Head Start? What is the culture clash in Head Start centers that also receive state money? [Hint: preschool teachers have to be persuaded to brush the teeth of four-year-olds.] Is the expansion of state pre-k causing greater racial and economic isolation in Head Starts? Is gentrification in cities undermining Head Start programs? Are Head Start programs failing to serve children speaking Spanish, African languages, Asian languages? No shortage of good stories.

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.

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.

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.

David L. Kirp, author of "The Sandbox Investment," a new book about the pre-school movement and what he calls "kids-first politics," gave the Virginia and Leonard Marx lecture last night at Teachers College. David is a UC Berkeley public policy professor but also has been a newspaper editorial writer. So, while he backs up what he says with research, he's also an engaging raconteur who gets his point across with stories and clever turns of phrase and is not afraid to be blunt. (Just the kind of source journalists need!)

He talked about the bipartisan politics behind the growth of state spending on pre-kindergarten over the past five years or so but he also noted, as others have, that the billions in additional dollars are being spread over far more kids so in many states the per-pupil spending has gone down. "The challenge," he said,"is to make sure the early education children get is not just a slogan." That's where journalists can help, of course. Just because a state or district has a program doesn't mean it's achieving what officials say it is and we can ask questions that get at the heart of the matter.

Kirp said he feared that "we'll do preschool on the cheap and researchers will come along in 10 years and find no effect. Then, conservatives will say, 'See, we told you so. The Nanny State can do anything.' " He said his nightmare is that conservatives will then "say quietly, see, those kids really can't learn," referring to poor and non-white children.

In a post on the HuffingtonPost blog Sen. Edward Kennedy describes the key characteristics of the long-delayed Head Start reauthorization bill. He doesn't mention that the bill eliminates the National Reporting System, the test-based accountability system that Head Start advocates hated and many early childhood education and assessment experts said was so badly flawed it was a waste of time. But the National Head Start Association says the demise of the NRS is one of its most important provisions. If President Bush signs the bill or not it's a big story with plenty of localization possibilities. The program itself would be expanded slightly, teachers paid more, and spending on Early Head Start increased. Watch for it.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley picked up a couple of important endorsements for his plan to triple state spending on pre-kindergarten. Riley, a Republican, is meeting resistance from his own party in the state and Republicans are dragging their heels in South Carolina and Tennessee as well. The Head Start association and the organization of private providers in Alabama are both on board with Riley now. Why is this signficant? The reason is that Head Start is often wary of pre-k proposals, because they tend to be better funded. And the private providers usually balk because they fear losing their paying clients to a free service. For example, Gov. Phil Bredeson in Tennessee told the Hechinger Institute last spring that one of the biggest hurdles he faced in expanding pre-k there was the private providers group.

The tension between these groups can be found in just about all the states that are expanding their pre-k spending so it's worthwhile for journalists to pay attention to the compromises that result. In some states, such as Massachusetts, these groups have found common ground. That's interesting too.

PreKnow, the advocacy group for universal pre-kindergarten, this week launched a letter-writing campaign aimed a pressuring Congress to increase what the organization says is a paltry Bush Administration budget request for Head Start. The Head Start program was reauthorized at the end of November, nearly five years late, and the compromise bill was hailed by all sides. The bill is designed to improve quality, increase accountability, and expand the population eligible to participate. But advocates contend the additional $150 million in funding requested by Bush is not enough to keep up with inflation.

It's interesting that the pre-k crowd is getting so involved in this fight. Normally, they don't see Head Start as their issue. Head Start and advocates for pre-k have even squared off in some states, leading to closed door discussions to find a way that everyone can play nicely in the same sandbox. Wonder what deals may have been struck to get everyone on the same side.

Ezra Klein, who blogs for the American Prospect, chides liberals for not getting behind universal prekindergarten. He says research shows universal prekindergarten is "tremendously cost effective" and produces "massive educational benefits." He bolsters his case with a link to the well-known William Gormley study of the universal program in Oklahoma. Gormley's study does, indeed, show positive results from the program but the biggest gains were made by Latino children learning English. To quote Gormley: "Preliminary results from a growing body of research on the
effects of pre-K programs are encouraging, but not entirely con-
vincing." He also cites Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman as supporting universal prekindergarten. Heckman, however, is something of a thorn in the side of supporters of universal programs because he actually says the higher payoff comes from targeted programs: "There are many reasons why investing in disadvantaged young children has a high economic return. Early interventions for disadvantaged children promote schooling, raise the quality of the work force, enhance the productivity of schools, and reduce crime, teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. They raise earnings and promote social attachment. Focusing solely on earnings gains, returns to dollars invested are as high as 15% to 17%.”

Klein knows this but has ignored the distinction in the past as well.

While some states are pushing for all day kindergarten, Texas and Florida are jump-starting pre-school, trying out children as young as 2 and 3-years-old with the help of a $6 million grant from the University of Texas.

A piece by Staci Hupp in the Dallas Morning News noted that pre-school is "moving to the potty-training set,'' and took a look at a new project coming to Dallas that aims at training child-care workers to connect with children early to help boost their success in school later on.

Dallas is home to a fast growing Hispanic population with children younger than 5 making up the largest age group. The city also has a disproportionate population of poor children who are more likely to start pre-school developmentally behind and the hope is that starting children younger by building their vocabularies and school routines will only help them give them a better academic start.

It will be interesting for reporters to visit these early start programs and talk to some of the caregivers and teachers. What kind of structures and curriculum are in place, and how is the program being evaluated and measured? What are the expectations, and what are the hoped for -- and achieved -- outcomes? Is anyone measuring progress once they do start school, and if so, how? What constitutes success for the potty-training set?

No one should doubt the power of a picture of cute young children – especially when they are dressing up like adults. The Washington Post took up most of the space above the fold on its front page Thursday, June 12, with this photograph of two Head Start children "graduating" from a program at a Washington, D.C. school that Chancellor Michelle Rhee is shutting down due to low enrollment. It is also a good reminder that Head Start programs can be offered by public schools as well as non profit agencies and others.

The anti pre-k arguments Lisa Snell and Shikha Dalmia of the Reason foundation made in the Journal last Friday were based on a paper they published two years earlier. When the first paper came out Steve Barnett of the National Institute of Early Education Research at Rutgers rebutted both that paper and also one by the libertarian Lexington Institute in a 2008 paper. Roy Bishop, the president of the Oklahoma Education Association, linked to Steve's rebuttals on his blog.

A new era is about to begin, and as usual, Sara Mead at Early Education Watch is keeping on eye on the post-election developments in early childhood education. While it will be months before newly elected President Barack Obama details how he will carry out his early childhood pledges, it's important for journalists to be reminded of what he said -- all the better to watch what he does.

Mead points out where Obama has stood on education issues in her post today. Education Week also took note of the education agenda ahead, while Alexander Russo of This Week in Education weighed in with a round-up of commentary on what the new president faces.

Closer to home, New York Times writer Lisa Belkin, who writes a new blog called "The Mother Lode,'' for the New York Times, focused on the dilema parents faced this week -- whether or not to allow their kids to stay awake and witness history.

It remains to be seen how educators coped with all the nodding heads and blinking eyes post-election day. I keep picturing a classroom filled with sleeping children.

Turns out a puppet named Twiggle the Turtle has an important lesson to teach us about how preschoolers learn: Social skills matter.

An Associated Press story this week described the results of a study by Karen Bierman at Penn State, who took at a look at Head Start programs in Pennsylvania. The study concluded that weekly social skills lessons and sessions with puppets like Twiggle can teach young children specific problem solving skills and improve both vocabulary and behavior.

I particularly liked the story's use of examples to bring the study alive. A description of Twiggle's emotional reaction after a friend knocked over his block tower, for instance, helped illustrate the unpredictable nature of 4-year-olds. As part of a conflict resolution lesson, an older, wiser turtle puppet urged Twiggle to go inside his shell after having his blocks knocked down -- and then to take a deep breath and talk about his feelings.

The teachers then urged the students to cross their arms to be like Twiggle in his shell, which, according to Bierman, became a habit more helpful than the old "use your words,'' approach.

The study -- funded by the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies -- divided about 350 students from 44 Head Start classrooms. About half of the four-year-olds were in classrooms that added puppets and problem solving skills sessions.

The study is another reminder of the need for reporters to go and visit preschool classrooms and find out what is being taught -- and why. It comes at a time when educators are under pressure to show that preschools provide a strong academic foundation. As Bierman noted in the article, though, a focus on the just-the-facts in preschool will miss "the engine that's going to drive the desire and motivation for learning."

Score one for Twiggle.

Linda Darling Hammond, who is heading up the Policy Working Group for the Obama transition team, said at a National Academy of Education gathering in Washington Nov. 18 that Obama would hold true to what he said during the campaign regarding spending on early childhood education. Asked during debates which of his initiatives would have to fall by the wayside due to the recession, Obama answered that one thing he would not cut would his spending plans for early childhood education. Darling Hammond assured the 500 people attending the National Academy event that he would not falter in that commitment. Here's the Obama plan as laid out during the campaign. If he can get this through Congress (perhaps as part of a stimulus package), the federal government would spend $10 billion a year to expand pre-kindergarten, and spending on Head Start and child care would go up substantially. With many calling for a stimulus package of $700 billion or more, the $30 billion Obama wants to add to education spending is, as Darling Hammond has called it, "decimal dust."

Sam Dillon's front-page piece in today's New York Times offers education journalists a guide to the early care and education stories that will bear watching in the coming year and also a list of some of the key experts and resource people.

Over the past few weeks I've talked to a number of Washington education folks involved in the transition and they all have told me that, whatever the economic situation, President-elect Obama's plans to invest in early education will very likely go forward. If the federal government does become a significant source of funding for preschool, it would redefine the relationship between the federal government and parents and families.

A little more on the sources in the article:

Barbara Bowman happens to be the mother of Valerie Jarrett, a key Obama adviser. She also is a legendary figure in the field of early childhood education. She was one of three founders of the Erikson Institute, the nation's premier graduate school for child development, was a 2005 winner of the McGraw Prize and today is the head of the Chicago Public Schools' Office of Early Education. Chicago superintendent of schools Arne Duncan, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Education, no doubt learned a lot from Dr. Bowman and now will be charged with helping carry out the president's agenda on that issue which, by the way, Duncan had a big hand in developing.

Cornelia Grumman, a former Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune editorial writer, heads up the First Five Years Fund. The fund is dedicated to promoting investments in expanding early learning services for children birth to age 5. She keeps close track of what's going on nationally on these issues.

Libby Doggett, the executive director of Pre-K Now, will be a good source on how the federal efforts connect with what states are doing in preschool. Pre-K Now advocates for universal pre-kindergarten.

Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley is a good source as well. Fuller will voice concerns about using public funds to make preschool available to all, regardless of income. This will be something to watch in the administration's specific proposals. Most state programs now are targeted to the poor.

Sharon Lynn Kagan of Teachers College is a leading policy expert on early education who has studied pre-kindergarten quality extensively. Look for a paper from her on how the federal government can invest in high quality programs out soon from the Center on Education Policy.

As the economic crisis deepened in late December, Obama indicated that early education would be part of the recovery package, along with school construction, and tuition assistance. Details to come in January, perhaps before the inauguration. Congress will get involved. Look for strong support. But, as everyone knows, the child care-early learning-preschool landscape is a complex and crowded one. Don't expect that the federal money will all go to public entities. Several of the federal revenue sources, such as Child Development Block Grants, now support public as well as private service providers. Looking at Obama's platform, he'd like to devote some of the money to helping states coordinate all of these various services. All of which is an overly bureaucratic way of saying that tracking where that federal money goes and how it is used and whether it supports high quality learning environments.

By the way, another good source on these issues is the Ounce of Prevention Fund. Contact there is Jelene Britten.

Columnists can freely give their opinions without explanation, but Early Stories would have liked to hear the thinking behind David Brooks' op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he "fervently hope[s]'' that a Head Start expansion is dropped from the stimulus package.

Brooks clearly articulated what he believes is wrong with the $819 billion tax-and-spending bill, but he didn't say why he wants to jettison the $2.1 billion proposed for Head Start, the national program to promote school readiness. The package calls for giving $2.1 billion to allow the longest-running anti-poverty program in the U.S. to serve an additional 110,000 children. The National Head Start Association had hoped for a $4.3 billion boost for both Head Start and Early Head Start.

The NHSA noted that the $2.1 billion "would create new jobs and provide safe, high quality services for children as parents go back to work,'' and would provide help to children and families who most need it.

Early Stories decided to find out what David Brooks' objections to Head Start are, since he omitted them from his piece, and discovered a column from 2005 where he declared "there is little evidence that it actually transforms lives.''

The piece had links to a 2005 study that Brooks used as the basis for his dislike of Head Start.

If Brooks wants Head Start money out of the bill now, he owes us a cogent explanation of why Head Start should not get help in this bill. Others have expressed skepticism of the bill's education spending, but few have addressed Head Start. Sara Mead over at Early Education Watch, meanwhile, has done a good job of analyzing what the provisions could mean for early childhood education.

Early Stories did find some more objections -- not surprisingly -- from Chester Finn Jr. at the Fordham Foundation, whose conservative views may have influenced Brooks: "Forty years of evaluations have demonstrated that Head Start does next to nothing to prepare its young charges....to succeed in kindergarten and beyond,'' Finn noted.

Finn went on to describe what he dislikes about the program, which Brooks now has an obligation to do. The view may not be a popular one during this economic crisis, but it should be explained.

The possibility and promise of a new administration and new spending requires reporters to shine a light on which early childhood programs are effective, rather than to simply report the amount of money earmarked for new initiatives. Yale University psychology professor Edward Zigler offers some concrete suggestions that are worth a close read in a thoughtful Education Week piece published on Feb. 5 that looks at spending on Title 1.

The foundation of the government's commitment to closing the achievement gap is now known to all as No Child Left Behind, a cornerstone of the George W. Bush administration.

Zigler, widely regarded as one of the founding “fathers” of Head Start ,has always been a staunch advocate for children and families and a leading researcher of program and policies designed to support children and families. He calls on President Barack Obama and Congress to support a plan that "would enable Title I to evolve from a hodgepodge of efforts into a single program that had performance standards to guide quality and made Title I more accountable. ''

Zigler makes the case that spending on early childhood education is beneficial; "the younger the better,'' he says. He also says spending more federal money on it without a hard look at the results is not the answer.

Zigler wants money set aside to evaluate Title 1, nothing that the program launched in 1965 as part of then-president Lyndon B. Johnson's "war on poverty,'' has turned into a stream of money that allows school administrators to "mount any type of initiative they feel will be beneficial to the academic progress of poor children.''

Zigler raises important questions for journalists to think about as they keep a close eye on new education spending, along with what kinds of questions to ask about how existing programs have -- or have not --worked.

Early Stories took David Brooks of the New York Times to task recently for railing against Head Start without detailing what it is about the program he dislikes. Over the weekend, a more persuasive Times opinion piece by Douglas Besharov detailed why he believes Head Start has not filled its promise.

As the House and Senate debate different versions of the $800 billion plus economic stimulus package that could see Head Start losing the $2.1 billion originally earmarked for the program, it's important for the public to ask hard questions.

Besharov, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland,says that Head Start as it is managed now is failing children, although he pointed out that Head Start programs and centers differ widely. So
what does a truly effective Head Start program look like and what kinds of statistics are available to measure it? Who is keeping track?

Besharov acknowledges that there are some "really good,'' Head Start centers and urges the centers that are less than successful to follow their example. He also notes that this is difficult to do because Head Start advocates in 2007 "persuaded Congress to eliminate the program’s new National Reporting System, which would have measured how well individual centers were doing.''

That leaves education journalists, who are busy covering K-12 systems and rarely visit Head Start centers, with a large and largely unfilled responsibility to try and find out what is happening in their own communities.

How are the Head Start graduates faring down the line? Do teachers in K-3 and beyond note any kind of differences among the children who have been through such programs? How do they measure their academic success? Are any local studies or research available?

As the political and financial support waivers and the arguments continue, these questions will remain relevant and well worth asking. In the meantime, journalists tracking the early childhood provisions can check out the different versions in this excellent chart.

Sara Mead at Early Ed Watch is keeping track of the money in the economic stimulus legislation for early education. She notes that 15% of the $13 billion in the bill for Title 1 would be set aside for pre-kindergarten. The Senate bill cuts $500 million from Head Start and $500 million from Early Head Start. It's hard to know the potential impact of these cuts. Besharov (see next entry) argues that Head Start now costs $22,000 per child, far more than pre-kindergarten. On the other hand, Head Start offers a comprehensive array of services to children and families that pre-k programs don't.

Steve Barnett of the National Institute for Early Education Research says Besharov is way off in his claim that Head Start costs $22,000 per child. He says the cost is $8,000. A fact sheet on Head Start from the Administration for Children and Families, which runs the program, says it costs about $7,300 per child.

Although the increase in Head Start funding will be smaller than the NHSA wants, and maybe even smaller than the House of Representatives wants, it will still be an increase. Steve Barnett is very concerned about the $40 billion the Senate compromise cuts from direct aid to states to prevent reductions in services. He says the number of children in publicly funded pre-kindergarten classes is now about the same as are in Head Start. States are already slashing spending on preschool and more are no doubt on the way. Won't that make it all that much harder for parents to get a job?

Early Stories has pushed for better journalism on Head Start and for more explanation from early childhood experts who have criticized the program and urged that it not get any more federal money.

On the same day the Senate voted its approval of an $838 billion stimulus plan that provides $1 billion less than originally anticipated for Head Start, U.C. Berkeley professor David L. Kirp weighed in with a defense of the program in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Kirp warns that any decision to cut money for Head Start "is a mistake whose reverberations will be felt long after the recession is over."

Kirp, author of "The Sandbox Investment,'' argues that Head Start is indeed an "economic pump-primer,'' and noted that every Head Start dollar "means new jobs for teachers, aides and staff, many of them poor women who are the economic anchors of their communities.''

Early Stories has suggested that it's time for reporters to take a hard look at centers in their own communities. What is the quality of instruction? Are there long waiting lists to get in? How do the children do once they get out? Is anyone tracking their long-term performance?

Still confused over the differing views about Head Start? Further explanation is available over at Early Education Watch ., which takes a look at a number of recent articles on the topics and offers some new ideas as well.

While pondering the role of Head Start in the economic stimulus package, Early Stories has looked at a variety of views and lamented the lack of journalism on this longstanding and often maligned federal program.

We somehow missed an excellent piece in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a paper whose clock may be sadly running out since the Hearst Corporation announced last month it is putting it up for sale.

The article makes several good points, noting that stimulus funding could create 300,000 more spots for children in child care -- and some 5,530 in Washington state, quoting an analysis by the national Center for Law and Social Policy.

"If you want to get smart people back in the work force, then you have to give them the opportunity to get child care that makes sense," Anna Lemchen, a North Seattle mother of two daughters told the paper.

Head Start, meanwhile, issued a press release urging that the original $2.1 billion earmarked for Head Start be maintained as negotiations continue, noting: "the truth is that up to 60,000 jobs could be created – and that is not even including related construction positions – with the $2.1 billion that Congress has discussed for Head Start and Early Head Start.''

As educators and policy makers sort through the meaning of the slimmed down compromise stimulus, journalists are trying to figure out the meaning in their own communities. How much of what was promised was cut? What will any new money be spent on? Who is setting the priorities?

A few good resources -- beyond speaking to school officials, Head Start operators and other early childhood education providers -- can be found on the Ed Money Watch blog.

Economist Steve Barnett of the National Institute for Early Education Research has also weighed in, and it's likely that schools of education are watching the developments closely.

Early Stories had a chance to listen to one of the top experts in the U.S. this week,
Sharon Lynn Kagan of Teachers College, Kagan emphasized that what matters about the stimulus spending is the quality of early childhood education it may be providing money for, from child care to pre-kindergarten. The vast majority of existing programs are mediocre, she noted.

"There are very, very few high quality programs and those are the ones that produce the high effects that we tout in the research literature,'' Kagan said.

NIEER has some quality markers. Most states now have early childhood education standards. The National Assn. of Early Childhood Education has its guidelines. So does Head Start. Kagan noted one element of quality that concerns her greatly. Only 36% of Head Start teachers and 30% of child care workers have a bachelor's degree. She also worried that, as these programs expand, the teachers they hire will not have the background and training they need. "Those coming in often are less qualified than those leaving," she said.

As details of President Barack Obama's stimulus package trickle down to the states, journalists who dig into the emerging story are finding the new spending may not solve entrenched financial problems of districts struggling with deep budget cuts and already sending out layoff notices to teachers. Larry Abramson of National Public Radio spoke to superintendents in Florida, Michigan and California and found enormous concern. Many journalists are find themselves writing about new spending and budget cuts simultaneously.

Education Week noted the lack of specific numbers in the plan, and a variety of other concerns and questions are being asked. Richard Lee Colvin of EarlyStories raises good questions for journalists to ask as well in the latest edition of Education Next . Will the money reshape and reform the landscape of public education for years to come, he asks?

The New York Times Sam Dillon is also doing an excellent job keeping track of the many interest groups watching every move Education Secretary Arne Duncan is making around the stimulus money. Pre-K Now is closely watching the early childhood proposals and Duncan's budget.

A recent television report scratched the surface of the many issues journalists ought to start exploring when looking at the planned expansion of the federally funded Early Head Start and Head Start.

The story reported on the lack of qualifications of Head Start teachers in Orange County, Florida and noted that many teachers involved in Orange County's Head Start program may not be qualified. The story also cited recent test scores showing that Head Start students were falling behind others in the state and nation "in all the critical areas that help prepare them for elementary school.''

It did not delve into what will be a critical issue in the coming years as Head Start teachers will be asked to be certified with at least a bachelor's degree. The issue comes at a time when Head Start should face scrutiny by journalists and the public after President Barack Obama pledged an expansion of Early Head Start and Head Start using $5 billion in federal stimulus money.

EarlyStories has noted that few journalists bother to visit Head Start centers and report on their quality or effectiveness. A recent conversation with W. Steve Barnett of NIEER yielded some excellent questions and points journalists might think about when covering Head Start.

Barnett, Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University, suggested that reporters take a look at the extensive research available on Head Start, including a study by Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University, which concluded that Head Start produced few sustained educational benefits.

The study, Barnett noted, had "numerous methodological flaws and has been roundly criticized.''

Other studies are quite mixed; Barnett said the best long-term studies suggest "modest positive benefits across a wide range of outcomes including mortality and health."

Barnett urges journalists to take a look at the ongoing Head Start Impact Study, a nationally representative randomized trial that he said provides the most rigorous evaluation to date of Head Start’s effects.

Initial results from the study released in 2005 found very modest gains from participating in one year of Head Start, "with the largest impacts on parent reports of their children’s literacy skills and receipt of dental care,'' Barnett said in an email to EarlyStories. He added that while the results may be strong enough to justify the cost of Head Start on purely economic grounds, "even the most generous assessment of the results finds that the impacts on language and mathematics are disappointing and compare poorly to the impacts of other large scale preschool education programs as the programs providing the rationale for Head Start."

Barnett wants to know why the federal government has released no further findings from the study -- a question journalists may want to pose. He added several more good questions. For example, it how much of the Head Start budget is spent at the center level and classroom level and how much goes to particular aspects of the program’s mission such as: education in the classroom, health related services, and services to parents?

The Orange County story did not attempt to answer this questions, but it managed to create a dialogue in the community about what qualifications Head Start teachers -- who in this case earned little more than $13 an hour -- should have. In addition, it raised questions about the value of the program and the quality of what learning is -- or is not -- taking place.

Without even a nod to his new book, an editorial in the The Examiner of San Francisco managed to pick up on many of the arguments Chester E. Finn Jr. has been making in his new book "Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut." (Hoover Press, 2009)

The editorial noted that "there is no evidence that expanding the time American children spend in state-run schools will produce any educational benefits at all,'' an assumption that many educators, researchers and pre-kindergarten advocates vehemently disagree with. Journalists who are covering this issue have to challenge such views by finding an array of research and visiting programs and classrooms to see what is -- or is not -- happening.

The editorial notes that President Barack Obama's top domestic goal is government-financed preschool for all 3-and 4-year-olds and concludes that his "Zero to Five'' initiative would most likley "drive small, privately owned preschools out of business in order to create more jobs for NEA members, who will be the real beneficiaries of this latest educational scam.''

The editorial has already produced some nasty disagreement; one comment on the Examiner site complained about misinformation and suggested that all the writer can do "is pound your highchair."

EarlyStories for months has lamented the lack of substantive reporting on Head Start, , the program the United States Department of Health and Human Services started in 1964 that provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.

It's an area few journalists delve into, leaving the public without the benefit of understanding what happens inside Head Start programs. That's why it was refreshing to see a story appear in the Danville News in Danville, Virginia, where a reporter actually attended a Head Start graduation and attempted to find research that addresses the effectiveness of such programs. The Danville program received more than $1 million in federal and state funding and donations for the 2007-08 fiscal year, so it makes sense to find out what kind of impact it is having on the lives of small children.

The reporter tried -- but could not find -- local data about the program. She was also unable to reach the school superintendent to hear more about what happens to the graduates later on and how they perform in elementary school. She did include the results of a national Head Start impact study by the Society for Research in Child Development for the Department of Health and Human Services, which found that "nationally, Head Start reduced the achievement gap by 45 percent in pre-reading skills between Head Start children and the national average for all 3- and 4-year-olds.''

At a time when President Barack Obama's budget allocates $800 million in grants and incentives for states and local districts to invest in early child programs, it's more important than ever for journalists to visit and and ask questions. Interviewing parents and educators and watching the young children in action, along with seeking out research, is an important way of explaining the effectiveness of investing in these programs to the public.

EarlyStories spends a lot of time observing and commenting on the way journalists cover early childhood education. It's a tough area for many who are consumed with the demands of the K-12 beat and may not realize how much the early childhood landscape is changing. That's one reason the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media is hosting a webinar on June 24th. We will explain the main federal programs in early childhood education and describe how the Obama administration hopes to expand and fund them.

We'll ask and try to answer:

· What will an infusion of money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) mean for states and districts, and how will it influence what early education programs and policies look like?
· What sorts of new and developing partnerships between K-12 systems and early childhood care providers are on the horizon as superintendents and school officials clamor for programs they believe will assist their test scores later on? How can journalists assess the quality of such programs?
· How will investing in Early Head Start and Head Start expand access to quality child care for children from working families?
· What kind of training will be offered to early childhood workers and how can journalists assess if it is any good? What kinds of credentials must they attain?
· Is the federal investment sufficient to stave off cuts to existing pre-k programs and to reinvigorate plans for pre-k expansion?

This webinar is scheduled for one hour and is completely free. Apply online

Journalists who are covering early childhood education these days find themselves watching two distinct trends that often diverge: cutbacks in long-planned pre-kindergarten expansion due to state's economic woes, and a new federal involvement in the lives of children from birth to five. Understanding and covering these dual trends will require some explanation, and that is one reason the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media is hosting a webinar on early childhood education on Wednesday.

President Barack Obama has proposed spending $10 billion annually to support early childhood investments. How will his agenda change the early education landscape from birth to age five, and how does it connect to the larger K-12 world?

Journalists must keep an eye on the unprecedented new federal funding coming to states and districts through stimulus funds, which could drastically re-shape early education programs and policies. What will this mean for communities and at risk children across the U.S.?

Speakers include former Chicago Tribune editorial writer Cornelia Grumman of the First Five Years Fund and Scott Palmer, a partner and co-founder of EducationCounsel LLC, an affiliate of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.

Sign-up on the Hechinger website.

For years, educators have believed that very young children were not capable of learning math. But a new book finds that children in public and private preschools, including Head Start and other programs aimed at low-income children, should be spending much more time receiving high quality math instruction. Reporters can request a copy at from the Office of News and Public Information.

The report is a terrific starting point for journalists who are interested in how math is taught for young children. It concludes that activities around math should include mathematical reasoning, measurement and spatial thinking, and suggests that teachers receive professional development to help implement a strong early childhood math curriculum. Teachers College experts Sharon Lynn Kagan and Herbert Ginsburg contributed to the report. Ginsburg developed an early math education program called "Big Math for Little Kids,'' that he is now evaluating, and has long pointed out that most preschools either don't teach math or instruct children in a narrow range of math content.

Journalists who visit early childhood programs should ask about math instruction and ask to see a curriculum or for an explanation of what concepts are being taught and why. According to Ginsburg, "...there is a growing consensus that early childhood math education is not only necessary....but should be comprehensive. It should include play with materials and objects that set the stage for math learning, teachable moments, in which teachers in which teachers observe kids in spontaneous situations that can be exploited to promote learning; teacher-guided projects of complex topics—like figuring out how to create a map of the classroom; and deliberate instruction using a planned curriculum to actively introduce math concepts, methods and language. This curriculum is not, of course, a textbook, but a carefully sequenced set of exciting activities. "

EarlyStories spends a great deal of time commenting on the way early childhood education is covered by journalists, and pointing out new ways to think about the issue and get inside classrooms for visits. Now there is a new guide available with a wealth of resources all in one place: "Covering the Pre-K Landscape: New Investments in Our Littlest Learners,” the newest publication from the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media. The 20-page publication includes guidance for covering all aspects of the rapidly expanding pre-k landscape, from Head Start to state-sponsored pre-k programs.

Barbara Kantrowitz, staff editor for the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media, edited the guide, conceived by the Institute's director Richard Lee Colvin and written largely by longtime former Education Week assistant editor Linda Jacobson, along with Karen Springen, formerly of Newsweek and Hechinger Institute staff.

Kantrowitz notes that the guide is important because education reporters for years neglected coverage of preschool in favor of k-12 or higher education issues. But in the last decade, early childhood education has jumped to a prominent place on the national agenda with huge increases in state and federal spending for the littlest learners. The Obama administration is accelerating that trend, by allocating billions for Head Start and other programs that reach young children. Suddenly, preschool is on the front pages. What brought about this dramatic change? And what’s the wisest way to spend the new federal dollars?

A major message is the importance of skepticism when covering preschool. Policy makers and advocates often cite studies showing that every dollar spent on preschool returns as much as $17 in savings on future social services. The guide points out that much of this research was conducted on high-quality programs and many preschools today do not meet those same standards. There’s a useful list of things to look for in assessing whether a preschool is doing a good job (and signs that the school is failing its students). The publication also includes a rundown of experts and research studies to guide further reporting. The publication was funded with a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

To request a copy, email Hechinger@tc.edu.

While EarlyStories is pleased to see attention focused on the Harlem Children Zone and Geoffrey Canada's efforts to combat poverty with education, it would be nice to see some other examples of early childhood programs that work. Do they not exist, or are education journalists too caught up with other stories to visit them? What research is available on such programs?

Here's why it's important:President Barack Obama has said to be a great admirer of Canada's model, and he hopes to replicate it in 20 cities, according to a front page article in the Washington Post. A closer look at just about every aspect of Canada's quest can be found in Paul Tough's excellent new book, "Whatever it Takes,'' which should be required reading for anyone who is covering early childhood issues.

The Post piece laid out Canada's approach, which starts in the womb and includes programs "that begin before birth, end with college graduation and reach almost every child growing up in 97 blocks carved out of the struggling central Harlem neighborhood,'' according the the Post story.

The U.S. Department of Education is poised to offer applications for grants that could expand the program in 20 cities, in so-called Promise Neighborhoods. Some $10 million in the 2010 budget has been set aside for planning.

It will be interesting to see what other kinds of programs emerge from this and whether the Harlem Children's Zone can be replicated or emulated elsewhere.

Journalists who wonder how early childhood education fits into the larger K-12 landscape have a great opportunity to learn more about this critical topic. The Journalism Center on Children & Families in Maryland has extended the deadline for its September training conference and fellowship, entitled "Ladders of Success: Covering Early Childhood Learning."

The conference features experts including Ellen Galinsky of the Families & Work Institute and Gene Steuerle of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. It takes place Sept 13-15, 2009 (Sunday through Tuesday) at The Inn & Conference Center and the University of Maryland in College Park, Md.

The two-and-a-half day seminar will encourage 20 journalists to examine the best way to fix the country’s underfunded and fragmented early childhood system.

Sessions will include:

Born Learning: A look at the science of early education

Economic Reality: Funding early education during a recession.

Leveling the Learning Field: One out of every five children in the United States is the child of an immigrant. How do communities address the needs of immigrant families and their young children?

Early Intervention: For many children, learning the alphabet and counting comes before they start their formal education. But many children struggle with these early concepts because of limited exposure to learning or because of undiagnosed disorders in cognition or learning.

What Works: Where to find pre-k programs that are thriving in at-risk communities?

Ready to Learn: in 2005, only 31 percent of fourth-graders read at a ‘proficient’ or better level. What do young children learn in early education that helps prepare them for lifelong success? How do programs successfully link early learning to the early grades?

For details and an application, visit at www.journalismcenter.org

EarlyStories is keeping a close eye on efforts to bolster early childhood education in North Dakota, one of only 12 in the U.S. that does not offer any state-funded programs. The state has long resisted the idea, so any conversation around the concept brings out advocacy groups in force.

That is what happened last week at a summit organized in Bismarck by the Head Start State Collaboration Office, according to an article in The Bismarck Tribune.. The story pointed that out only about 8,725 children out of some 40,000 children in this rural state are enrolled in either a nursery school or a special program such as Head Start.

Those are very small numbers, so it will be interesting to see what could change as a result of these early conversations. Will North Dakota continue to resist funding programs at a time of unprecedented federal interest and involvement in an early childhood agenda? Will it embrace President Barack Obama's belief that what happens in the early years pays big dividends for education later on?

It's particularly interesting to watch what is happening in North Dakota, a state where kindergarten teachers backed a proposal to require youngsters to be a bit older when they enter first grade. If they get better preparation beforehand, will the age matter as much?

Press attention on President Barack Obama's early childhood education agenda focused much on a perceived expansion of Head Start, the national program that promotes school readiness and also provides services such as health and nutrition to enrolled children and families. But in these increasingly tough economic times, with states locked in budget battles over federal and state resources, some Head Start programs are in big trouble, according to an excellent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

EarlyStories has often noted the lack of attention Head Start gets from journalists. When any early childhood program that families depend upon shut down or reduce their hours, the press should take notice. A quote in the story from a father named Nathanael Pomiabo -- worried that his son would lose out on all that he gained by attending a Head Start program -- summed up the importance instantly:

"I see the difference in him," said Pomiabo, 31. "It's all changed how much he's learned and how much he wants to learn."

EarlyStories has pointed out early and often how little credible journalism exists about Head Start, even though investing in the program is part of President Barack Obama's early childhood agenda.

Busy education reporters pay more attention to pre-kindergarten, in part because such stories often involve statehouse debates and are either part of budget stories or can go into the K-12 mix. But Head Start gets left out a lot, and that could be because journalists don't know much about the national program that promotes school readiness "by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families."

Kudos goes to the New America Foundation and its Early Ed Watch blog for its seven-part series that contains a great deal of helpful background, and could be a terrific starting point for journalists who want to delve into this critical issue.

The most recent entry looks at the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Law, which former President Bush signed into law in December 2007.

This fall, as the economic downturn continues, journalists are starting to notice cut-backs and closings of Head Start centers. Bringing more background and understanding to the stories will be enormously helpful as the issues and debate continues to unfold. The background is a great starting point for visiting centers and finding out what value they add -- or don't add -- in a given community, as well as providing context and understand about the national agenda.

From one of the new websites aimed at covering education came a comprehensive and well reported piece that put together the many challenges facing early childhood education in Pennsylvania, specifically Philadelphia. The Notebook describes itself as "an independent voice for parents, educators, students and friends of the Philadelphia public school system."

The story by Dale Mezzacappa, a former longtime education reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, described the many obstacles to getting more young children into pre-kindergarten classes in the city and the state, along with providing a progress report that detailed many state developments.

Despite an increase in quality and access, Mezzacappa wrote, "early education options in the city remain a confusing hodgepodge. While spending for child care subsidies has gone up, less than half the eligible low-income families actually get them, and thousands are on waiting lists."

The lengthy, well reported piece reminded EarlyStories of what is missing in education coverage, as beat reporters struggle in many cases to cover both multiple school districts and higher education at the same time. Too often, important developments and stories about what happens even before children enter a classroom are neglected.

Mezzacappa's piece contained important information about an array of programs and services, described lengthy waiting lists for slots and detailed confusion and uncertainty that exists around early childhood education. She performed an important public service -- one that is more needed than ever as newspapers cut back on education coverage.

Head Start, which doesn't get a lot of media attention, is back in the news for offering preschool children in its program a chance to establish healthy eating habits. The federally funded program is now pushing fresh fruits and vegetables, along with low-fat milk,and making sure children spend time playing, according to an article in USA Today.

The article is based on a survey of Head Start directors that serve some 829,000 children, and had some frightening conclusions: Some 30 percent of kids in Head Start are overweight or obese. Findings were published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, based on the work of researchers from Temple University and Mathematica Policy Research.

Directors are aware of and concerned about these issues and are offering healthier food when they have their own cooks or work directly with food services, the article noted..

A key quote in the story summed up why it's important for journalists to look in on Head Start programs from time to time and find out what is actually going on in the classrooms of the largest federally funded early-childhood education program, which serves about a million low-income children:

"Currently, there aren't any federal standards for Head Start that limit kids' TV time, specify how much time they need to spend each day being physically active or the kind of milk that is served," said Robert Whitaker, professor of public health and pediatrics at Temple University in Philadelphia, the lead author of the study, supported by supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through two national programs, Healthy Eating Research and Active Living Research.

So what is happening in many of these centers? Are the kids watching television? Are there play areas or designated outdoor space?

Thanks to our colleagues over at Early Education Watch for raising iquestions about the important new study that may not bode well for Head Start, the national school readiness program that is integral to President Barack Obama's early childhood strategy.The study made its way to Congress on Wednesday.

The study found that while Head Start had a positive influence on school readiness after one year, the gains were minimal by the end of first grade. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services immediately announced plans to strengthen Head Start programs, and it will be important for journalists to follow up.

Early Ed Watch concluded that the study points to the need for giving disadvantaged children more than a a year of high quality education, and that improvements in teacher training for Head Start and all pre-kindergarten programs are needed. W. Steve Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, offered another perpective: he noted that the findings "are based on comparing children who went to Head Start with other children who likely also received some kind of preschool experience – sometimes Head Start in another place or a state-funded pre-K program. It is especially significant because that kind of comparison will not likely show big differences."

He also pointed out in a press release released by NIEER that "the promises of Head Start can only be fulfilled if the program is funded and staffed at the levels that have proven to make a real difference in the lives of children, something that has not happened in the entire 40-year history of the program.''

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted in a press release that Head Start must be improved. “The program provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition and social services to low income children and families,'' she noted. “Still, for Head Start to achieve its full potential, we must improve its quality and promote high standards across all early childhood programs.”

How will questions and concerns about the future of Head Start be addressed? EarlyStories has noted repeatedly that this is an issue worth paying attention and too often ignored by the press.

With the release of President Barack Obama's budget this week, much of the media attention has been focused on what the president hopes to do with the No Child Left Behind Law as well as his Race to the Top program. Few journalists have the luxury these days to focus exclusively on early childhood education, but those who do might want to spend some time on the website of the New America Foundation and click on the Early Ed Watch blog.

Early Ed Watch points out that Obama's priorities offer a stark contrast to budget cuts that are part of life in tough economic times, with significant boosts to an array of programs, including $989 million for Head Start. The president has also proposed another $1.6 billion for federally funded child care programs.

So what will a potential new infusion of cash mean in local communities and cash-strapped states that have cut back on pre-kindergarten and other early childhood programs? And what will other proposed changes and consolidations of early learning programs mean? The New America Foundation has come up with a list of key questions that should be a useful jumping off point as the budget battles begin to unfold.

Some fascinating findings came out of a comprehensive survey of U.S. teachers, released this morning at Scholastic headquarters in lower Manhattan. The results of a questionnaire on American education sent to some 40,000 teachers found many teachers have doubts about the ability of their students to succeed after high school.

Nine out of 10 teachers said that not all of their students could leave high school prepared to succeed in college. The teachers had lots of ideas and recommendations about how to better prepare them, and the 100-page report that came out of a collaboration between Scholastic and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is filled with strategies and ideas for moving forward.

The report should be required reading for all education journalists, but EarlyStories was particularly interested in what the findings mean for the way the U.S. does -- or does not -- educate children well before they even set foot in a classroom. Beth Prince, a kindergarten teacher at Hearst Elementary School in Washington, D.C. was on hand to share some of her thoughts on the topic.

"If you get it right in the early years, from pre-kindergarten to third grade, and look at early learning styles, you can get that spark and love for learning going early on,'' said Prince, who has worked with young children in private child care and public school settings for over 19 years. Prince said she always notices the difference when children arrive in kindergarten without having attended a pre-school, nursery school or a Head Start program.

"They don't have that letter and number recognition, or that sense of having been read to,'' she said, adding that children who start kindergarten without any formal sitting have particular difficulty sitting still.

Francie Alexander, Scholastic's chief academic officer and a former kindergarten teacher, noted that the findings of teachers confirm the importance of establishing trust with parents early on. "It really starts in kindergarten,'' she said. "Parents really want to know how my child is doing."

One finding that supported that view came from teachers, who said family support is a critical part of keeping students engaged in school. Teachers cited a lack of encouragement from family and friends as a major obstacle to student success.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, was on hand to hear the results of the survey and called it "one of the most reveting conversations I've experienced. Teachers will tell you their real world experiences if you listen."

While the survey was anonymous, excerpts of their remarks appear throughout the report from both elementary, middle and high school teachers that provide insight into their thinking on everything from student achievement to standards, performance pay and retention.

Harris Interactive conducted the survey, which also provides an in-depth look at state-by-state data that show how teachers in different states view the issues.

Vicki L. Phillips, the director of education, College Ready at the Gates Foundation, said the findings show that teachers support a stronger curriculum that relates to the establishment of clear academic standards and reliable data on student learning.

"The survey tells us that what's good for students and student achievement is good for teachers too -- in fact, it's what they want,'' she said.

One other interesting note about what teachers think is important to keeping good teachers in the classroom: good leaders. More teachers say it is absolutely essential to have supportive leadership (68%), time to collaborate (54%), and quality curriculum (49%) than it is to have higher salaries.