A very thoughtful comment on my entry on the Times' magazine piece critiqued it for not giving enough ink to what happens to children from birth on. The writer urged me to read a summary of the 1994 "Starting Points" report from the Carnegie Corp. I did and doing so got my reporterly juices flowing. The report noted that, relative to other developed countries, the U.S. was doing a poor job of providing prenatal care and high quality child care, and was seeing a rise in the number of children living in poverty. The report also said children were growing up with little attention from parents and in single-parent homes, due to divorce and a rise in births to unmarried mothers. The commenter suggested that journalists should be asking: "What Early Intervention Programs have been put into place as a result of
that report? Where are they? What follow-up studies have been done? How has
the Federal Government responded to the report? Is the US still lagging far
behind other industrialized nations in addressing this issue? This is the
true SHAME of our society. Those who analyze test scores never get the
point. The cycle of poverty puts generations at risk before they even enter
this world."

Just in November the government reported that 38% of births are to unwed mothers, an all-time record and twice the percentage it was in the 1980s.

The San Antonio Express-News has a very well-written, thoroughly reported package of stories and graphics on the increasingly academic nature of kindergarten. But, unlike a lot of coverage of this issue, the Express-News' piece delves into both the academic challenges disadvantaged kids face as well as the dilemmas that confront educators who are striving to help them catch up and thrive.

For other journalists interested in exploring this subject, this story offers both a good model and several researchers to turn to: they include Sam Meisels and Frances Stott of the Erikson Institute, Jack Fletcher of the University of Houston, and Dominic Gullo of Queens College, here in New York City. Part of the package is a graphic showing the rate at which various Texas school districts hold back kindergartners. Other journalists could track down this data in the communities they cover and explore the reasons for any disparities they turn up.

The three-part series in the San Antonio Express-News on the transformation of kindergarten is now available here. I like a lot about the series. All of its pieces were meticulously reported and instructive, in the sense that they gave readers insights into the dilemmas and decisions of educators in trying to figure out what's best for kids. It was not sensational in any way but it was interesting and filled with real examples. Different viewpoints were offered but it didn't feel like the "he said-she said" stuff that I often see. I also liked that the reporters talked to a lot of kindergarten teachers who seemed like they were given the freedom to express their professional opinion.

Word to principals and supes who try to "gag" teachers and administrators to prevent them from talking to reporters (OK, that phrasing is probably oh so five years ago, but forgive me, I only hang out on a college campus....) You don't get this kind of coverage that explores the issues you deal with all the time, and that helps parents and policy makers understand those issues, unless you provide access to your classrooms and trust your teachers....

A University of Wisconsin study of the positive effects of pre-school is getting plenty of attention up in Canada. Last Friday the Wall Street Journal published a column that said that more women are staying home to give their children a learning advantage. But the new study suggests preschool may actually do more for many kids.

The key is you really have to look at what happens at home vs. what happens at preschool or centre-based care," lead author Katherine Magnuson, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said in an interview with Susan Schmidt of the CanWest news service. "While it's true parents can give one-on-one attention, they also run errands, talk to their friends, put (children) in front of the television.

The study, to be published in the forthcoming edition of Early Childhood Research Quarterly, assessed the skills of a sample of 7,748 children at school entry in 1998. The researchers then tested their academic progress in math and reading in the spring of Grades 1 and 3.

The chorus of governors touting a full day of kindergarten--devoted to learning and not just that silly playing around stuff--continues to grow. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is offering $25 million for districts' startup costs. But Hoosier educators say creating the space for full day kindergarten could cost $200 million statewide. The Indianapolis Star made a good contribution to the public's understanding of the investment required by surveying the facilities needs of the districts in their area, and reporting on how many kids attend fullday kindergarten now. The team of reporters assigned to the story also got into the educational issues. One angle I haven't seen reported elsewhere:

"IPS teachers fight off assumptions that full-day kindergarten amounts to baby-sitting on the state's dime. Kindergartners at School 60 on the Near Northside study continents and oceans on world maps, count money and learn the days of the week....Kindergarten isn't like what it used to be, when they would go to play, socialize, take a nap," Whicker said. "That's history. We have structured curricular time."

The term "readiness" for kindergarten is one that makes me sort of itchy and uncomfortable. I started feeling that way when I read this otherwise innocuous column in a little paper out in Oregon. The column reports that one in five Oregon five-year-olds are "not ready" for kindergarten and that the state ranks 40 out of 50 in terms of the percentage of four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Remember that all kids are ready for learning--their brains (like ours) are hardwired that way. Meanwhile, kindergarten is getting more academic and putting more emphasis on learning. But it doesn't necessarily follow, though, that those coming into kindergarten who are not reading and doing math aren't "ready" for kindergarten. Kindergarten is not like college. Five-year-olds shouldn't have to qualify to get into it and be held back until they're "ready." This stuff worries me because I've seen some charts from researchers that seem to argue that 80% or more of kids aren't "ready" for kindergarten. The standard such data seems to use is that some kids--those who have all the advantages, who have had $15,000 per year pre-school experiences, who have had violin lessons from the age of 3 on--are more advanced at age 5 than others. Therefore, anyone not at the top, top, top of the chart in terms of development is said to be "not ready" for kindergarten. I don't buy it.

The substantive point of my rant is that a great story for journalists would be to talk to kindergarten teachers about what it is that they think makes kids "kindergarten ready." What they're likely to find, and I'm speculating here, is that those who teach kindergarten are thrilled if kids come in being able to sit still in a group, to share, to play with others, to listen, In other words, the social, non-cognitive skills. If the kids know their colors, letters and can hold a pencil that's nice too. Being able to do differential equations and quote Shakespeare? Nice. But not required.

The Washington Post had a frontpager Sunday about the rapid spread of the elementary school version of the International Baccalaureate program. I really like how the story takes the reader inside this program and these classrooms and gives one a very clear sense of the instruction and expectations.

Here's an excerpt:

The program seeks to mold students, from preschool age on, into "transdisciplinary" and bilingual scholars who can deliver a major academic project by fifth grade and then move into deeper studies in secondary schools and beyond. (IB middle schools also exist.) Critics wonder whether it's all a bit much for a student demographic that still receives scratch-and-sniff stickers on written work.

The story quotes a mother, speaking about her husband's motivation for enrolling the kids in IB: "He was like, 'Our kids are going to an Ivy League school, and we need an education that's going to get them on the right track.' "

By the way, I'm collecting statements and references to how preschool will get kids on track for 1. The Ivy League. 2. Science Careers 3. To Become Doctors. Please send in your nominations!

My call for stories in which sources claim that getting into the "right" pre-school or kindergarten is an express ride directly to 1. The Ivy League. 2. Science Careers 3. To Become Doctors. prompted Hechinger Institute Assistant Director Liz Willen to send me a story she did last spring for Bloomberg News. The story had the obligatory only-somewhat-tongue-in-cheek quote about the pre-K-Harvard link. But it also had this perspective quote from William Fitzsimmons, Harvard's admission director: ``You have students who are home schooled, students who have gone to any kind of school you could imagine and even students who have spent no time at all in their lives in a formal classroom who end up getting into Harvard,'' Fitzsimmons said.

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post starts 2007 in a position he's often in, which is way ahead of the competition. Mathews' notes that on the 100th anniversary of Italian physician Maria Montessori opening her first pre-kindergarten, the philosophy is picking up momentum in the U.S. There are about 5,000 Montessori schools nationwide, about 300 of them public. Mathews says Montessori and John Dewey, the Teachers College colossus, were the two most influential 20th-century promoters of a "progressive," child-centered approach to learning. He says Montessori had a much bigger impact because she started schools.

I take issue with a couple points Mathews' makes. He says that the "unstructured" nature of Montessori classrooms is at odds with the "structured" classrooms common today. And he quotes a scholar who says that Montessori believed that kids learned best when they were active and having fun. The implication, then, is that "structured" classrooms, in other words, classrooms where the teacher plays an important role, cannot be fun nor active. I think journalists should keep in mind that the best teachers, especially in pre-kindergarten, have classrooms that are highly structured and intentional. But structure doesn't have to mean regimentation or boredom. Good teachers use structure--of time use, regular one-on-one interactions and lots of conversation--to support and encourage active learning. John Dewey also believed in active learning. But he said that activity for the sake of activity is worthless. Activities, he said, had to be "educative" to be of value. And that implies activities that are carefully planned and, yes, structured.

The NY Times debuted a new column today that, the description says, "will examine problems teachers encounter in the classroom and how they deal with them." That's great. I've often said that I'd like to see general interest publications explain to readers the intricacies of teaching, the dilemmas, the choices, the strategies. Such information, in my view, counters the widely held notion that teaching is something anyone with the right disposition and motivation can do. The column will be written by Susan Engel, director of the teaching program at Williams College. Her first effort is well-written, clear, specific, direct, compelling.

But (and this is a big but) the first column, in my humble, non-expert, biased and unbelievably naive and ill-informed opinion, totally missed the point. The column is about a kid who can't read. And rather than the teacher actually teaching the kid to read, she has the kid read to her dog. So that's the solution. More dogs in classrooms!!!

Howard Blume has a good, sophisticated piece in the Los Angeles Times that profiles an elementary school in Compton that seems to be making it. Compton is thought of in California as a stereotypical, struggling, minority community, with all that connotes. But Bunche Elementary School has test scores on par with those in Beverly Hills, Blume reports. And he gives us some snippets of demanding lessons, illustrating the school's expectations. (Though I'd like to have gotten some sense of how teachers are actually teaching. Conversation? Lecturing? How do they help students acquire learning behaviors?)

Such celebratory pieces often are unquestioning. Blume notes that it's a bit difficult to judge the school's gains, because its early success has attracted successful students from elsewhere. (I don't think this is a problem at all. A bigger group of successful students gives less engaged and accomplished students role models and changes the school culture. But it muddies year-to-year comparisons.) He also acknowledges that the highly structured program and strict discipline at the school may not fly in middle class schools. He reports that Bunche still suffers from high turnover among the young, bright Teach for America teachers it hires. Still, one gets the sense that the high expectations at the school make a big difference.

The Record of Bergen County in New Jersey, my home newspaper, has made an extraordinary commitment to education coverage over the past several months. Education stories appear in the paper EVERY DAY, almost always on the front page on Sundays. Today's story is the best takeout I've yet seen on full-day kindergarten. It gives the local picture, the national context, a look at what goes on inside classrooms that's different, and even some research perspective. I know the reporters on the education beat and their editor, Susan DeSantis, are working very hard and feeling exhausted, but their hard work is paying off. The Hechinger Institute has invited Susan to talk about their big education push at a seminar for education editors in San Diego in early March.

This past Sunday the Record had a frontpager on full-day kindergarten. Today the editorial page followed up, arguing the state should make full-day kindergarten universally available. Right now, districts can offer it but the state does not cover the cost.

Education officials in Trenton need to make universal, full-day kindergarten a priority. Kindergarten used to serve as the transition year between home and school. Children would attend for about three hours a day. They would learn to play in groups. They would memorize the alphabet and practice pre-reading skills. These days, that happens in preschool.

I’ve been holding off on commenting on last week’s NY Times’ frontpager that conflated controversies over the implementation of the federal Reading First law with attempts to stoke the flames of the mostly settled “reading wars.” But I’ve kept my powder dry long enough. Alexander Russo, who blogs at “This Week in Education” on the Education Week site, is thrilled that the story made it into the Times because he sees it as vindication that this is the “BIG STORY” he thought it was all along. Russo, who though he lives here in New York sees himself as an inside-the-beltway mover and shaker, got all het up about what he considered to be a big, hot, dripping scandal involving politicians and bureaucrats in a whirlwind of audits, investigations, hearings, and conflicts of interest. That is a story. It’s just not an education story. Whatever the outcome of all of that activity, the central issue is not what’s the science and pedagogy of early reading. The central issue is actually federalism and education and the limits of policy issued from Washington D.C. That’s a topic for a wonkapalooza at a fancy Washington, D.C. hotel or the American Enterprise Institute. And Mike Petrilli over at the Fordham Foundation entered into that discussion just yesterday with this post. But it’s not really something that most parents of children learning to read care too much about.

The New York Times story was set in Madison, Wisconsin, which has long been known in education circles as a redoubt for the true believers in whole language. Whole language emphasizes to students the value of context and intuition in learning to read. So, the story opens with a kid who encounters the word “pea” and reads it as "pumpkin."

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.

The coverage by the New York Times and the Associated Press of the newest report from the nation's longest running study of child care got picked up by news organizations everywhere. The report gave top billing to the positive effects of high quality care on vocabulary although it also acknowledged a slight increase in problem behaviors among fifth graders, apparently correlated with the amount of time they spent being cared for outside the home.

The Associated Press produced a Sunday story follow-up that also was widely carried. This is a story any news organization could have done. Why do it? Try, survival? A blog called World Views posted a four paragraph excerpt from the Times' first day story. At last count, the item had attracted 65 comments. Many of the comments are thoughtful and even anguished considerations of the tradeoffs facing families with children needing two incomes.

The Times carried six letters in response to the story. Here's an excerpt from one:

We live in a country in which most women work outside the home and are also responsible for child rearing; ours is also one of the only developed countries with no national policy on maternity leave. It is no surprise, then, that we have no coherent philosophy for day care.

As money is poured into studies, American day care continues to morph into an increasingly unstable structure, one with no real foundation or plan.

Greg Toppo of USA Today directed me to Emily Bazelon's thoughtful analysis on Slate last week of the study of child care. (I refuse to use the term "day" care. It's children being cared for, not "days.") She spoke with one of the authors who pointed out that in the sample of children studied there was a correlation between amount of time children spent in child care prior to age four and a half, the quality of the care received by those children, and the very, very slight increase in problem behaviors observed in the fifth grade. Those who were in child care for more years received, on average, lower quality care and had more problems. Bazelon astutely reminds us that infant care is not only the most difficult to do well and the most expensive to offer but also that infants benefit least from the group interactions that characterize good child care for slightly older children. (All of this reintroduces the question that many private child care centers have about publicly funded preschool: the older kids in such centers subsidize the infants. When the older kids are siphoned off by free programs, that makes the economics of private child care for infants even more tricky.) Here's a quote:

It's useless to rail at the press for leading with the bad news and for ignoring the researchers' caveats that no cause-and-effect conclusions can be drawn from their data. Still, coverage like this feels designed to twit working parents. And it turns out that in the case of day care, the headlines and the stories really were alarmist—even wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

The Title I Monitor has been out front on the allegations of conflict of interest among the Reading First program's technical advisors, several of whom also had significant financial ties to publishers of reading materials. Earlier this month, Sen. Ed Kennedy's staff produced a report that detailed those ties and the alleged conflicts, based on emails and other information provided by the four advisors who are being scrutinized. Today, however, the Monitor produced a thorough piece that questions several points made in the highly critical report. In the case of Doug Carnine, for example, he received royalties for a language arts program he authored that was geared to middle school students--not the K-3 students served by Reading First. The report also alleged a conflict related to a meeting where Carnine was to be a speaker--except he never attended. Other flaws are documented as well.

Much of the coverage of the Reading First story has tried to fit a very complex, ethically murky situation into formula that is both easy-to-understand and easy-to-communicate: greedy government contractors ignore good practice and cynically steer contracts to themselves and their friends and pocket big dough. Conflicts of interest--real or apparent--are serious. But much of the coverage in mainstream publications, television and even some blogs has failed to point out that the reading experts involved all were highly reqarded in the highly specialized area of interventions for young children far behind in reading at a young age. The coverage also has underplayed the fact that the Reading First program was independently judged to be successful. Finally, the most vocal people to raise conflict of interest charges had their own economic interests at stake. So, as I say, it's a murky situation. One that the Title I Monitor has worked hard to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA Today the other day took note of initiatives from mayors that put books in the hands of preschoolers to encourage them to read. It seems that mayors are getting on board with the movement that to this point has featured governors in the highest profile roles. The piece reported that dozens of cities have citywide book clubs and reading selections. In Jacksonville, Florida; Longmont, Colorado, Charleston, South Carolina and other cities, the city and private funders are providing preschoolers with books. In Jacksonville, every four year old who wants one receives a backpack stuffed with a book, hand puppet, reading blanket, flashcards and other items. The story also pointed out that these programs are universal, meaning they don’t target just poor kids. My only quibble with the story is that it uses the terms “pre-K” and “child care” interchangeably. That may seem fussy but the two terms really carry quite different meanings.

The other article in the volume that should be of interest to journalists is by Harvard Grad School professor and economist Richard Murnane and is called “Improving the Education of Children Living in Poverty.” Despite the ambitious-sounding title, Murnane’s proposal is both more modest and less sanguine about the positive effects that can be expected. He proposes a number of changes to the No Child Left Behind law (some of which already are being discussed) that would make the law’s achievement targets more realistic and meaningful for teachers. He says the feds should provide states with strong incentives to make their high school graduation requirements better reflect the needs of the labor market and also promote interdistrict transfer programs, such as are in place in Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis. And, finally—and this is the big one—he says the feds must provide competitive, matching grants to districts and states to improve the quality of teaching through recruitment, compensation, preparation, and professional development. Cost? $2.5 billion a year. The piece does a great job of providing a clear, quick overview of what’s going on in education policy, context often missing from education reporting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new research brief on the Web site of the Foundation for Child Development highlights an important issue that suggests a number of good questions to be asked. The report is from the Association for Children of New Jersey and is called "Embracing the Big Picture: The State of New Jersey's Road Toward a PK-3 Continuum." The piece describes an emerging effort in New Jersey to ensure that what happens in kindergarten for children builds on the high quality pre-kindergarten classes the state offers in its poorest school districts.

I know, sounds boring. But research on pre-k effectiveness often shows the gains made by 5-year-olds fade after several years and many say the reason is what happens in the early grades. There's a lot of meat here. The increases in state pre-k spending around the country are not all going to public schools. Depending on the state, the money pays for classes in churches, community centers, private pre-k centers as well as in public schools. Do the state-funded classes do a good job of preparing kids for kindergarten? Do the educators in the local school district even talk to the pre-k providers? How about when the pre-k is in a public school. Does the building principal coordinate with the director of the preschool? Does state policy require any coordination? Is there any effort to help 5-year-olds make the transition to kindergarten? Any visits to a kindergarten in the spring? Do the pre-k teachers provide any information about the preschoolers to their kindergarten teacher?

Effective school districts pay a lot of attention to making sure kids' transitions--from elementary school to middle school, from middle school to high school--are smooth. The teachers at the next level should know something about the new students they're welcoming. Ineffective ones don't pay much attention and so what happens at each level does not necessarily build on previous teaching and learning. When it's a transition from a setting outside the school district to one inside the school district, paying attention to this matters even more.

Katy Murphy of the Contra Costa Times writes a blog called "The Education Report" about happenings in the Oakland (CA) Unified School District. The hook for an item she posted on full day kindergarten was a letter written by a parent whose son attends a public elementary in the (very) pricey neighborhood of Montclair, up in the hills above the city. The parent wrote a letter asking the district to let Thornhill (and other schools, if they wish) out of the district's policy to offer full-day kindergarten. There is a strong class angle to this. Families in which both parents work, or who don't have transportation, and many others welcome full day kindergarten for the academic boost it is meant to provide. But some affluent parents, whose children have rich and varied learning opportunities, and in which mothers (or fathers) don't have to work, don't see the need for it. (Kindergarten teachers, by the way, often oppose all day classes.)

I used to cover the Oakland schools many years ago and I know that many Thornhill children are "flats" children (black and Hispanic) bused into the mostly "white" and "Asian" hills. If those children were sent back down the hill on a bus, to homes where no parent is home during the day, it would create quite a burden. I went on the site GreatSchools and found this comment from a Thornhill parent: "The school is not economically diverse and does not at all embrace cultural differences. If you are not a montclair stay at home mom, you and your child will feel like the bused in outsiders. The classist, superior attitudes are ever present."

Many of these pre-k issues cut along class lines. It's a good thing for reporters to keep in mind.

Missed this big New York story in the Daily News last Thursday. Seems that a week earlier a 5-year-old boy threw a tantrum in a Queens elementary school, was taken to the principal's office, and then was handcuffed by the school's safety officer and taken to a nearby psych ward. The child's babysitter was at the school before the child was sent away by ambulance but the security officer wouldn't let the 68-pound kindergarten student go. The boy suffers from asthma, has been diagnosed as having A.D.D. and has speech problems, according to his mother. Schools chief Joel Klein the next day said he was troubled by how the incident had been handled but he wasn't prepared to condemn it.

Our society has, for a long time, feared adolescents and teen-agers because of their unpredictability. Are we now afraid of kindergartners and pre-kindergartners? (By the way, as of Sunday the original article had drawn 337 comments on the Daily News' Web site. Disturbingly, quite a number blame parents for failing to control their children.)

Dennis Rivera and Jasmina Vasquez (New York Daily News photo)

Strange things happening in politics these days: Rush Limbaugh hammering away hatefully at the soon to be crowned Republican presidential candidate John McCain; Ann Coulter, who has made a career out of childishly calling anyone not a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society stupid, saying she'll vote for Hillary Clinton rather than support McCain. And now, circumlocuting radio host Garrison Keillor, who over the past eight years has been one of the harshest critics of President Bush, is condemning Democrats (via Andy R. at Eduwonk) for failing to back one of the president's signature education programs.

I've always said that reporters often misunderstand the differences between Republicans and Democrats on education issues. On many issues, the usual alignments don't hold. Take the Reading First program, for example. Eight years ago Bush set aside $1 billion to help the lowest-achieving districts in each state use well-researched approaches to reading instruction. The program generated lots of controversy. Not because of the methods it supported but rather because advisors to the program seemed to benefit from it financially. Democrats in Congress saw it as a chance to hit Bush, even though independent evaluations said the program was achieving good results. So, they cut the budget by 70%, hurting not Bush but hundreds of thousands of children who were reading better because of it.

On Monday, Bush introduced his budget, which proposes to restore full funding for the program. It will be interesting to see this play out. Will Democrats really insist on cutting an effective reading program rather than address the real issues? Meanwhile, reporters will find a good story if they look into the Reading First program in their own state. What do the parents of children served by it, most of whom will be low-income and more likely to be Democrats, say? What about their teachers? (Also likely to be Democrats.) Here's one from the Birmingham (AL) News that identifies the state angle, although the reporter doesn't go out into the schools. Sometimes the usual political assumptions just don't hold.

The Associated Press coverage of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's budget announcement highlighted two of his ideas related to early education--a tripling of the state's investment in pre-kindergarten and expanded support for the Alabama Reading Initiative. (You will recall that the reading initiative in Alabama, as in many states, has gotten support from the federal Reading First program, which the Democrats in Congress cut by more than two-thirds.) But Riley is no big government, budget busting Republican. He also wants to cut income taxes to spur the state's economy.

I went over to Sara Mead's new Early Ed Watch blog at the New America Foundation intending to just see what it looked like. Twenty minutes later I was still there. Sara will be covering early education research and offering her own take on what it means. So, now, let's all line up and take a field trip to tour her blog....

The Foundation for Child Development has issued a new policy brief summarizing research on the best way to serve preschoolers who are not native English speakers. In some states, more than 50% of preschool age children fit this description. The brief challenges a number of myths and offers some research-based guidelines for policy makers. The brief also says that effective approaches must be used from pre-K to third grade if they are to work. This is a quote that caught my attention:

Systematic, deliberate exposure to English during early childhood combined with ongoing opportunities to learn important concepts in the home language results in the highest achievement in both the home langauge and English by the end of Third Grade and beyond.