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.