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!!!

My friend Joanne Jacobs was kind enough to take note on her blog of yesterday's rant on the column in the NY Times heralding a teacher who brought to her classroom her pet dog as an audience for a reluctant reader. Joanne added something I should have said. By the end of 3rd grade, the boy the teacher was trying to help had progressed to reading picture books on his own. So, as Joanne notes, he's now where he should have been in the fall of first grade.

Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty has a terrific overview of the early childhood policies that research has found to be most effective in narrowing the achievement gap between poor children and their more affluent peers. One crucial element, the center's report says, is what it calls an "intentional curriculum."

The report defines this as a curriculum that is:

content driven, research-based, emphasizes active engagement with children, includes attention to social and regulatory skills, and is responsive to cultural diversity and children just learning English. An intentional curriculum is directive without using drill and kill strategies; it is fun for young children and promotes positive peer and teacher interactions. An intentional curriculum is developmentally appropriate.

Whole report gives a very concise helpful overview of the research on this crucial question. Good one-stop shopping for the press.

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.

Report by Leslie Postal in the Orlando Sentinel says entering Florida kindergartners are more ready than they were in the past to begin to learn to read. That's according to results on the school readiness test used by the state. Florida uses those results to judge the performance of preschools from the state's program for 4 year olds.

Advocates of high quality pre-kindergarten often say Florida's program falls far short of the mark. The Sentinel story also illustrates that when such evaluation data is available, it will be reported. The data does allow a conversation to take place about quality. But it's important for journalists and policy makers to keep in mind that the outcome measures are, to a large extent, determined by the characteristics of the children who attend

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."

Important new research out from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina. From a press release:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, English-only pre-kindergarten classrooms may not help native Spanish-speaking children become better prepared for school. According to research by FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Spanish-speaking children had better social skills when their teachers spoke some Spanish.

“Many early childhood programs are moving toward a system that may isolate children who are learning English, leaving them at risk for social and language problems,” said an author of the study, Gisele Crawford, a research associate at FPG. The study will be published in the April issue of Early Education and Development.

“Programs that have the potential to mitigate the achievement gap between children from different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups may be doing just the opposite. This study suggests that, too often, iniquities already are present in early educational experiences between non-English speaking and English-speaking children,” Crawford said.

Why is this important? One word: Demographics. Twenty percent of children in the U.S. aged zero to eight are Hispanic, 90% of them American citizens. Here's more information from the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics.

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 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."

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.

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.

(Virginia Governor Tim Kaine during State of the Commonwealth address Jan. 9)

David Harrison of The Roanoke Times did a good job Sunday pointing out the obstacles to expanding pre-kindergarten programs in Virginia.

These are issues well worth exploration by reporters. Harrison found problems filling slots and finding space for pre-kindergarten classes in two areas of Roanoke and Roanoke County, and noted that it meant state money had to be left on the table. The issue is particularly important in Virginia because it comes at a time when Democratic Governor Tim Kaine is pushing to make preschool available to an additional 7,000 children over the next two years, at a cost of $56 million.

In his state of the state address on Jan. 9, Kaine noted that children who attend high quality preschool “are more likely to finish school, find good jobs and are less likely to commit a crime.’’ Kaine has already taken a step back from campaign promises to provide pre-kindergarten for all, after facing skepticism among Republicans in the General Assembly and state budget problems.

Kaine instead said he would focus on the neediest children in the state. Virginia now provides preschool for almost 19,000 Virginia low-income children. But Harrison found that some school districts can’t afford to pay for their share of the costs, or don’t have enough room for all the children who are eligible. Another district has problems getting parents of high-risk 4-year-olds to fill out the paperwork and come to the sites for screening.

Harrison went beyond making a few phone calls and told his readers why pre-kindergarten matters by visiting a classroom, watching what took place and interviewing parents. One father delighted in the fact that his son came home from pre-school and asked to be read to. It’s an example that gives readers a clearer sense of why early childhood education matters to parents rather than simply covering what the politicians have to say.

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.

Early Ed Watch also riffs off the report on how young children can best be helped to learn English while retaining their home language. If children who speak Spanish or other languages at home can learn English why can't English speakers learn a second language, before they hit middle school? This is an area that doesn't get talked about enough. Children in China and much of Asia start learning English as soon as they start school. (One exception is India, where longstanding government policy that goes back to independence, prevents the teaching of English. That is one of the reasons private education is burgeoning in India--parents want their kids to learn English.)

An editorial in the Charlotte Observer followed up on the excellent reporting by Ann Doss Helms earlier this month on Bright Beginnings, a program aimed at helping at-risk children succeed later on by giving them preparation for kindergarten and helping them learn to read.

School officials in Charlotte-Mecklenberg told the paper that tracking the children in the program so they could analyze its long term impact had not been on their radar screen.

It should be, noted the editorial, pointing out that any data gathered could shed light on how pre-kindergarten programs can help close the achievement gap -- and illuminate the value of public investment in pre-kindergarten.

It falls to the press sometimes to make such arguments on behalf of the public. At a time when public investment in pre-kindergarten has moved front and center, the public needs details of what works -- and what doesn't.

Information, the editorial noted, is power.

(Poll finds deep concern with quality of education, preparation in U.S.)

At a time when many states are debating or having difficulty financing publicly funded pre-kindergarten, some troubling -- but hardly surprising -- news about U.S. education was revealed in a poll released by the Associated Press and carried in USA Today and other newspapers on Friday.

Half of Americans surveyed found U.S. Schools are doing only a fair to poor job of preparing students for college and the workplace, even though education ranks behind only the economy and gas prices as a top issue for Americans.

Another half said the U.S. education system is falling behind that of other countries, and six in 10 said the quality of American schools has declined in the past 20 years.

The AP survey of 833 adults and 854 parents, financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and conducted by the consumer information company Knowledge Networks, follows a poll of kindergarten teachers in 2004 that found kids who did not attend quality pre-kindergarten arrive at school unprepared.

(Kindergarten students who have had some preparation have a big advantage in Ohio)

Edith Starzyk of the The Plain Dealer in Cleveland did the kind of story on Monday that really helps illuminate why and how pre-kindergarten can make a difference -- and why the public should care.

Starzyk compared the kindergarten readiness of students in the Bay Village district -- where eight of 10 students shows up with the skills needed to start reading -- with those who are coming from Cleveland's public schools. In a series of interviews, she found the poor quality of child-cCare centers in the city poses obstacles for city students, as does the lack of pre-kindergarten.

Some 70 percent of students in the more affluent Bay Village district have attended preschool, an opportunity not as readily available in Cleveland -- although Starzyk did an excellent job of explaining how and why that is changing, and who is behind the push for improvement.

She also pointed out that success in kindergarten rises for children who have attended high-quailty pre-school -- an important point to bring home in communities where there is some skepticism about spending public money on such programs.

(If presential hopeful Barack Obama had his way, schools would teach two languages in kindergarten)

Last week, an Associated Press story widely picked up about a Virginia school teaching Chinese in kindergarten caught my eye, and piqued my interest in President George Bush's National Security Language initiative aimed at teaching the youngest students foreign languages he deemed critical to U.S. security.

Spanish was not among those languages. But Presidential candidate Barack Obama believes it should be, and he's ignited something of a debate on blogs and other media after suggesting last week that every U.S. child should be bilingual.

Obama noted the importance of teaching languages earlier in school, and pointed out that being bilingual can be "a powerful tool to get a job.'' He noted that young children learn foreign languages far easier and acknowledged his own shame that he doesn't speak a language. Almost instantly, he found himself under attack by conservative media and right-leaning blogs along with groups advocating English as the official U.S. language.

Obama defended himself against the criticism earlier this week, but the debate over what languages should be taught when and who should decide has ignited further discussion and debate all week that is instructive -- and reveals how controversial the teaching of languages can be in the U.S.

Education Week has an interesting forum, asking how vital is it for schools and districts to provide opportunities to study another language?