Letters in the New York Times today respond to Monday's story about ex-Manhattanite parents putting their kids into private schools. One letter (from Walt Gardner, a former Los Angeles teacher who seems to get a letter in the Times about 20 times a year) says that the critical factor in the quality of schools is not the teaching, the curriculum, the sense of purpose, the quality of the learning environment or anything else that the educators are responsible for. No, the critical factor is the parents and the size of their pocketbooks. So, by that logic, the private schools in Scarsdale and other high-end suburbs will be "better" because the parents who put their kids in the private schools have the money to do so.

Another letter from a parent in Short Hills, N.J. (another high-end suburb) reports that when the writer's daughter was out sick he e-mailed two of her teachers for homework help and one responded immediately electronically and the other called. A good story for the Times and other journalists would look at all the ways that electronic communications are changing (and improving) the interaction between parents and teachers.

Story in the New York Times on Monday here's the linkbemoaned the terrible fate of Manhattan parents who hold their noses and move to the suburbs to put their kids in the public schools and then are disappointed. The story hangs on ambiguous and flimsy statistical evidence and a couple anecdotes that say more about the neuroses of the parents than about educational shortcomings. One parent complains that her first grader engaged in such "half-baked" art projects as gluing spray-painted macaroni on paper. Another complained that her kindergarten-age son was "developing all sorts of bad habits" and thought that school was about playtime. The parent isn't lacking in self-knowledge, however. She noted that she was a "neurotic mess."

I’ll be interested in seeing how this gets covered. Will the local journalists venture out into the preschools and see how well kids are being served and examine the quality of the programs the tax is supporting? Or, will they simply make calls to those setting up the program, the lawyers challenging the tax on separation of church and state claims, the critics, the advocates and report on the dry talk at the meetings to discuss the program. Stay tuned, as they say. But I wonder how many days it will be before a parent is quoted

The Post ran a bizarre pre-election column saying the city had bigger needs, like an irrigation system and saving a “vulnerable tree canopy.” The columnist argued for expanding preschools already in the public schools, asserted that only the poor should get help, and questioned allowing private individuals to oversee the spending of the tax money. Of course, some might say voters had their say, that those who will be appointed to oversee the program are part of the community too, and that lots of middle class folks struggle to pay for high-quality pre-kindergarten. In fact, pre-kindergarten participation is actually lowest among the middle class.

Maybe it was the approach of the Thanksgiving holiday, but the Denver Post and The Rocky both seemed to be caught flatfooted in their coverage of the narrow passage of Measure 1A this week. The local NBC television station, Channel 9, was way out ahead in getting reaction and analyzing what lies ahead. The measure will raise about $12 million through a local sales tax increase and the money will go for vouchers for preschool tuition, the amount to be determined by family income and the quality of the preschool the children attend

I've been biting my tongue before commenting on the story on the "unschooling" movement that appeared over the weekend in the New York Times. "Unschooling" is a term coined in 1977 by John Holt, author of "Teach Your Own." It means that rather than be taught by adults, kids ought to be free to explore their world at their own pace, discovering knowledge and skills by tripping over them. It's one of those quirky, fringe notions that seems to capture journalists' imaginations. (Maybe because they secretly want to be unleashed from controlling editors!) Stories have appeared in the Kansas City Star, MSNBC, local television stations and elsewhere of late. A typical line in such stories is that kids, left to their own devices, will learn to read when they're "ready," almost by magic. I'd like to suggest that all future stories about unschooling include a line that says: "Learning to speak is natural, and brains are hardwired by millions of years of evolution to do so. But reading is an unnatural act and must be taught."

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.

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.

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."

That Associated Press story from last week providing a national wrapup of the growing state investment in pre-kindergarten based on the latest NIEER report continues to have legs. Each day my Google alert for pre-kindergarten turns up two or three uses of the story. It was just posted on CNN.Com here.

Shows how even in this local, local news world, at a time when news gurus are talking favorably about the contributions of average joes and janes with a computer and a cell phone camera, and are predicting the demise of Mainsteam Media, an old school news organ like AP can have a big impact.

Bruce Fuller, the author of "Standardized Childhood" just out from Stanford University Press offers this measured and thoughtful response to my entry a few days ago about his book:

I’m miffed by friend Richard Colvin’s instantaneous commentary on my new book, Standardized Childhood, just out from Stanford University Press, coauthored with Margaret Bridges and Seeta Pai. Richard ends his blog-spray by admitting, “I confess I haven’t read the book.” [Disclosure: the rules of evidence or substantiation in the blog world remain a mystery to me.]

The book offers readers a concise historical tour, illuminating the age-old debate around how elites and institutions eagerly push to define the inner nature and proper upbringing of other people’s children. Sure, it takes a village. But the pivotal question moving forward is, who gets to call the shots across America’s diverse villages, and what are the ethics and evidence on the proposition that what’s best is a more homogenous way of raising and instructing young children are best?

Earlier feminist and child care movements stressed options for parents and children. But now influential born-again preschool advocates [disclosure: who are financially supported by the same national foundation that pays for Colvin’s blog site] have converged on a singular remedy: free preschool, preferably attached to public school bureaucracies, for all families, no matter how rich or poor.

Journalists, local activists, and state policy makers – as this movement unfolds – must wrestle with key issues. First, in the context of No Child Left Behind many kindergarten teachers are under enormous pressure to drill-and-kill information into children’s heads, to pump-up their test scores. The book takes readers into several preschool classrooms where teachers now feel the same pressure. So, let’s get clear on the risks and potential benefits of attaching three and four year-olds to public schools in the present environment of top-down accountability.

Andy Rotherham, the policy analyst and provocateur who is co-founder of Education Sector, gave us ink-stained wretch types a good assignment the other day. Here's the nub of it:

What I'd really like to see is a big picture and long article about where the nation is and where it is going on pre-kindergarten education. It seems to me that through various venues, for instance state initiatives, the Tough Choices report, advocacy groups, and the attention of presidential candidates we're having a national conversation about what amounts to adding a grade to school. To be sure, it won't work like that because the pre-K system is more choice driven and pluralistic than elementary school and different in other ways, too. Yet that would be the effect, a big shift toward another year of school.

Any takers?

Pre-K Now, the advocacy group underwritten by The Pew Charitable Trusts, has put out a helpful, dispassionate report that provides journalists and policy makers with very helpful tools for analyzing the many studies that calculate precise economic benefits of high quality preschool. What I like about the report, by Albert Wat, is that it gives journalists these analytical tools in a way that even non-economists can understand. It's a good resource that you should keep on your desk. (I know, under that enormous pile of other reports that seems like it's always about to slide off into your lap, burying you forever--or, at least until your editor comes over looking for you.)

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.

I completely understand why the story of expelled preschoolers won't die. ABC News did a version of it earlier this week. But many of the stories go too far and, guess what, sensationalize it. A few years ago a Yale researcher was gathering data about various early childhood settings and discovered a small but significant number of kids kicked out of preschool. Followup interviews revealed that behavior problems were involved. The latest round of stories are hooked to a recent report the same researcher, Walter Gilliam, did proposing some solutions.

This ABC piece, in particular, suggests that these expulsions are rising dramatically. But there
(ABC Photo)
is no longitudinal data to show any change over time. Plus, the stories don't differentiate between examples of serious emotional or developmental problems and kids who, while difficult, are essentially normal kids throwing an occasional or maybe not so occasional tantrum.

The ongoing coverage has had an unfortunate side effect: blame is cast variously on society, TV, diet, lax parents, vaccines, mothers who work, or pre-kindergarten itself. (Peruse the more than 100 comments on the ABC story and see for yourself.) In our stories we ought to be more clear about the nature of some of these kids' problems and not feed these meanspirited but predictable generation-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket reactions.

When Professor Robert Lynch appeared before Congress Tuesday to testify about the economic benefits of pre-kindergarten, he hoped it would focus more attention on an issue he believes is dramatically under covered by the press.
“Pre-kindergarten doesn’t get the attention it deserves, although now that there is more activity on the state level, it is starting to get more,’’ said Lynch, an economics professor at Washington College and the author of “Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation, (Economic Policy Institute) 2007.
Lynch detailed why investing in early childhood education is one of the best ways to “improve child well-being, increase the educational achievement and productivity of children and adults, and reduce crime,’’ in testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and education.
He believes press coverage of the issue is “woefully inadequate,’’ and offered a few theories about why.
“Obviously, children don’t have a strong political voice, as they aren’t a voting group,’’ he said. “And I still think there is a general misunderstanding of the importance of investing in children in the early years.’’
Lynch, who has served as a consultant to private businesses, labor unions and government and research organizations, told Congress that children who participate in pre-kindergarten not only end up with higher scores on math and reading achievement tests but have higher employment rates once they enter the labor force “and their incomes are higher, along with the taxes they pay back to society.’’
Lynch’s analysis of the issue is also explained in a briefing he wrote for WestEd, the national nonprofit research and service agency.

The word “rigor,’’ is one of the new buzz words in education, used to describe everything from stringent new graduation standards many states are adopting to advanced placement courses that give college credit to high school students. Lately, the word has crept into the pre-k lexicon with little explanation.

In Washington D.C., for example, pre-kindergarten is about to get a lot more rigorous, according to a Washington Post article.

And…what exactly does that mean?

Earlier this week, the article points out, the D.C. Council committee unanimously approved legislation that would “increase the rigor of the curriculum for early childhood education throughout the city.’’ A quick google search found the term creeping into the pre-k conversation throughout the U.S.

The Post article did a fine job of describing some of the hurdles to expanding pre-kindergarten in the District of Columbia, where about 12,000 children are enrolled and another 2,000 or so are not being served. However, it did not question, examine or explain what a “more rigorous.’’ program would look like.

Shakespeare instead of sand box play? Early SAT preparation? Pre-pre-calculus? Degree requirements for teachers? The question really should be, does the program reflect high standards? And what does that mean? What is the student teacher ratio, for example? Is there a curriculum? What are kids expected to know and do?

Journalists – and the public – should challenge words that don’t say a lot. The next time a pre-k program promises to be “rigorous,’’ find out what it means.

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.

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.

(Different cities are trying new things to get kids ready for school)

I came across two very different stories about pre-kindergarten today, both illustrations of good intentions -- getting children ready for school. One illustrated a program that is working well, the other highlighted once again the tremendous problems New York City is having just getting kids registered.

St. Louis is offering a mini-program that teaches children to stand in line, raise hands and recognize numbers and letters. The story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch noted that some students need a little more help making the transition to school, and the month-long programs some school districts offer can give them a great start by the time they arrive in the fall.

I couldn't help note the contrast with a New York Daily News story that once again highlighted the mess New York City finds itself in, after using a new selection process to fill 15,000 pre-kindergarten seats.

The story showed the real impact this misguided process is having on children and families, who can no longer get a spot in neighborhood schools just steps from their home in many cases. Across the city, siblings are shut out and even families and students who registered on team and followed all the proper registration steps must tell their children they cannot go to pre-school next year after all -- even when the building is next door.