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.

Stories about the insanity of Manhattan parents who become distraught when there aren't enough $30,000 a year kindergarten spots for their offspring always make good headlines and copy. I certainly did my share of them over the years as a reporter covering New York City, and The New York Times weighed in on the trials of the under-5 set today.

But I wish just once a reporter would take the time to truly explain WHY public education options are shunned (class size? teacher quality? facilities? student population? after school programs?) and why-- and if -- the private schools provide a better education. What curriculum do they use? How qualified are their teachers and what kind of training did they receive? How are children evaluated? Are methods for teaching reading and math much different than what is offered in public school, and if so how?

There are some obvious advantages that private schools like the Mandell School, highlighted in the Times for its efforts to expand; have -- for example, a ratio of five teachers for each student, impossible to achieve in a public school

The story says the school focuses on "teaching to each student's strength and weaknesses,''' although there was no explanation of how that might work.

One reference point the Times managed to include -- the private school competitive chaos impacts only a very small percentage of parents in a city where some 1.1 million students attend pubilc school vs. 150,000 in private. But these stories would be so much better if tthey are more than a glance at the concerns of the wealthiest Manhattanites.

Why not use the opportunity to ask some probing questions about what makes private education so much different than public school? If there is such a rush to expand private school in the city, a question is begged -- what choices exist in the public school system that are driving this trend at a time when Wall Street revenues and bonuses are falling? Are all the reforms promised by New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein disappointing parents, or are many scared off by stories of how hard it was to get into a public pre-kindergarten this year?

My excellent colleague-in -blogging at the New America Foundation had the same reaction that I did yesterday about the plight of elite parents in New York City in search of private schools -- as in "oh, no, not again,'' after reading the story displayed so prominently in the New York Times

However, Sara Mead took it a step further, offering some tremendous resources to help reporters find more meaningful stories about pre-kindergarten.Here are some from her Early Education Watch blog.

I do have to say one thing in defense of the New York Times story: it was likely gobbled up by the small population of nervous private school wannabe parents, and likely seen elsewhere in the country as one of those "aren't New Yorkers crazy'' pieces.

Such stories are annoying to those who know they stray far from the issues and obstacles that deeply impact a much wider population struggling with finding quality child care and early education options, but they are enormously popular. Here's a link to a piece I wrote in 2004 for Bloomberg News, that ran in the Seattle Times and all over the world. Not exactly hard-hitting investigative journalism, but you know what my editors wanted? More stories like it, because by internal measures such pieces were among the most popular and well read of the year. (I must have written three or four similar pieces)

Of course, back then there weren't as many bloggers ready to jump in with sarcastic commentary aimed at shaming journalists and reminding them of their critical role -- to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

There's plenty of room to do so on the pre-kindergarten front, and Mead's resources are a great starting point. That's not to say headlines won't fly around the world when New York City's private kindergarten tuition top $35,000 annually, which will likely happen by 2010.

The Washington Post picked up on an important trend that journalists covering pre-kindergarten issues ought to be aware of and to follow closely. The growing Hispanic population will continue to change the nature of and makeup of schools.In three suburban counties outside of Washington D.C. the number of children ages 4 and younger who are minorities has reached 60 percent, according to Census Bureau figures used by The Post.

Not all of the immigrants are Hispanics, but the growth of that population will force school systems to accommodate larger numbers of immigrant students whose parents do not speak English at home.

Some important follow-up questions and stories remain. Are school systems hiring much larger numbers of English as-a-second language teachers and does that include pre-kindergarten and kindergarten? What are their qualifications and is there a shortage? Are language barriers creating other issues for these children and for schools, especially with increased testing under No Child Left Behind? What other plans do local school systems have to meet and follow the needs of this changing population? Are they measuring an achievement gap between white and Hispanic students and consulting research that shows pre-kindergarten can reduce such gaps?

News of population shifts and trends is a great starting point for a host of important stories and follow-up.

It's refreshing to see newspapers stay on top of the many ways the economic downturn hurts small children and their families. In ailing Michigan, the Heritage newspapers reported some startling data from the annual Kids Count survey in the Michigan Data Book, finding that poverty affects one out of every four children in a state hit hard by auto industry layoffs.

The report, produced by the Michigan League for Human Services, found "stark disparities for minorities in Michigan threaten the well being of large numbers of young children and their families.''

EarlyStories would like to see journalists go beyond reporting the depressing but not surprising numbers and talk to some of the families about how they are coping. What government efforts, if any, are there? What programs are being cut? Who is hurt? What are nonprofits, also struggling, doing to help?

Are any leaders emerging during these terrible times? Journalists might want to look for inspiration at the story Paul Tough, a New York Times wrote this week in Mother Jones Magazine about the efforts of Geoffrey Canada of Harlem's Children Zone to combat poverty and educate children in a poor New York City neighborhood.

The piece describes the efforts of Canada and Harlem Children's Zone to educate poor parents and children in ways large and small, including a simple trip the Harlem Children Zone aimed at exposing young children to everyday language.

"The point wasn't to learn about nutrition, but rather about language—how to fill an everyday shopping trip with the kind of nonstop chatter that has become second nature to most upper-middle-class parents, full of questions about numbers and colors and letters and names,'' Tough wrote, describing what he saw on the trip with parents to a local supermarket. "That chatter, social scientists have shown, has a huge effect on vocabulary and reading ability.''

Tough's magazine piece looks at an effort to solve some of the most intractable problems of poverty, and grew out of his new book on the Children's Zone.

The supermarket anecdote is great example of the kind of show-don't-tell journalism needed more than ever right now, alongside the data and statistics quantifying the ways children are hurting in tough economic times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a politician announces a number of new initiatives, the stories that follow often end up looking like a laundry list. However,journalists have to do more than allow politicians to spew rhetoric without demanding a full explanation. One good example comes from the speech Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley made this week to the State Board of Education, where he announced a new program for tracking student performance from pre-kindergarten through the end of college.

Early Stories is curious to know how a pre-kindergarten student might be tracked and what exactly the governor meant. For one thing, many states and school systems first enroll students in kindergarten or first grade. And not all have developed evaluation systems for pre-kindergarten that measure such things as cognitive and language abilities, reading and mathematics achievement, health or behavior problems, for example.

How will school systems measure the achievement of pre-kindergarten students and what sorts of tests will they get? Will they be assessed on their ability to recite letters and numbers?

To get a few more answers, Early Stories checked out the text of his speech which implies said that he wants the Board of Education to "develop a comprehensive performance measurement system that tracks student achievement and development from Kindergarten through higher education.''

So, now the questions can begin about what such a system might look like in Maryland, which was ranked number one for having the best schools nationally by Education Week. Who will do the "tracking,'' and what will be tracked? How much will it cost? Will all publicly funded pre-kindergartens be required to track their students?

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

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

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

EarlyStories applauds journalists for looking into the connection between education and the economy, and it's natural that the New York Times would want to see how private schools and the parents who pay for them are faring. What new financial struggles might be emerging for the many formerly flush Wall Streeters and other now hurting professionals who once lined up eagerly to pay more than $30,000 a year for kindergarten?

Unfortunately, the lengthy article contained almost no description of how private school differs from public school (described as "unthinkable,'' in one particularly memorable passage). Private school is viewed as as "a marker of educational values, religious identity, social standing or class aspirations."

It's possible that such stories make fascinating reading, but at the same time EarlyStories expects a lot more. It's not exactly news that some families can no longer afford hefty tuitions, even if it may be comforting to pick up the newspaper and read about the money woes of others. What parents and the public really want to know is why the education at private schools merits such soul searching and angst, to the point where one unnamed (naturally) parent declared that her decision to choose private school amounted to "financial suicide.''

How big are class sizes at private schools compared with their public counterparts? (sometimes half as big). Are the teachers trained any differently? Are they hand-picked by the principal? Is their quality (a well known key to effectiveness) higher and if so, how is it measured? Is it the fields, facilities, sports and arts programs that draw parents to private school? Are new charter schools and other efforts to provide competition having any impact on private school enrollment? Also, what are the private school children learning, especially at a younger grade, that makes the education superior (if in fact it does) or at least so coveted?

Why not visit a public and private school kindergarten and ask to see the curriculum. How is it different? How do assessments differ? Can the backgrounds of the teachers be compared? Private school teachers often don't need to be certified and the schools can hire young, recent college graduates who don't have master's degrees. What kind of support and training do private school teachers get and how do they differ? How do parents view the quality of the education in both settings?

To the Times credit, the story did point out that of the more than three million families with at least one child in private school, almost two million of them have a household income of less than $100,000. Some are struggling just as mightily with tuition bills of less than $4,000.

Still, private school should not be seen entirely as a class entitlement issue, particularly as the recession economy blurs the lines. It's far more important to thoroughly compare and evaluate how such schools differ from public offerings. Cash-strapped families really want to know what their dollars are buying.

The social class issue, however, cannot be ignored. When asked about the financial struggles of parents and the additional requests for aid, George Davison, the headmaster of the Grace Church School, told the Times: “We’ll say, ‘You can’t really go to Vail this year and ask for financial aid.....And they look surprised and say, ‘But we already paid for the tickets!’ ”

I hope ABC News doesn't try to pass off its Friday night special, co-produced with the Reason Foundation, as journalism. One of the segments of the ABC special is on universal preschool, which the libertarian Reason Foundation opposes, loudly and often. That's fine. We like a plurality of views in America. Otherwise, how could Rush and the many far-right ideologues dominate talk radio? But how does a legitimate news organization, assuming that ABC News still is one, co-produce a report with a foundation like Reason that has been one of leading voices battling universal preschool?

The ABC report is based on videos produced by Reason.tv, which is an arm of the Reason Foundation. The videos are part of what Reason.tv calls "The Drew Carey Project." Yes, Drew Carey the comedian. I guess that if Al Franken can be a U.S. Senator, Drew Carey can be a cranky commentator. The main voice in the video is Reason's Lisa Snell.

Here are the reasons Snell and others give for opposing universal preschool:

1. Family day care providers will be put out of business. The person who makes this argument runs a family day care and says that she doesn't have time to get a bachelor's degree.
2. Universal standards, that would come with universal funding, would cause children to "lose out on the magic that is preschool."
3. Non-profit operators would lose out, because they couldn't compete with free, high quality preschool.
4. Choice and competition has given us successful day care operations and preschools and the government support would upset the preschool free market.
5. As she's argued many times, Snell says that if universal preschool worked so well then Oklahoma, which has one of the most successful such programs, would have higher school level test scores.
6. She also says that, if government funding were good for education, then the K-12 system would be more successful. That it is not, in her view, means that government spending will ruin preschool too.

It's a hodgepodge of ideas that celebrate unregulated markets, privatization, competition and so on. Haven't we been trying those ideas for the last 30 years? Early childhood education sector is probably the sector that has embraced these ideas the most. And one would have to be slavishly ideological to argue that it's worked out well so far. Much of the child care in this country is so bad that it's actually harmful to kids. Many family preschools are run by people with little or no formal education. Kids spend lots of time watching TV. Many state-funded preschools offer very poor quality as well. And, despite the bad quality, parents don't have a choice. They have to work. They need to have a safe place for their children. They hope that it is at least somewhat educational. Some private preschools are great, of course. So are some child care centers. But there aren't enough of them and middle-income families often can't afford them.

Edward Zigler, the Yale eminence grise of preschool and childcare, speaks in the Drew Carey video in favor of providing high quality preschool. He says studies find that the average quality of day care in the U.S. is between poor and mediocre. He says that getting kids ready for school is the nation's biggest challenge. He doesn't disagree that many public school need to improve. But he doesn't think that excuse should be used to refuse to help children get ready to succeed academically.

In the interests of full disclosure, the Pew Charitable Trusts, which supports universal preschool, has been a supporter of the Hechinger Institute. The Hechinger Institute does not endorse universal preschool. It does endorse, however, high quality journalism. And this is not journalism. And ABC News, and Stossel, shouldn't claim that it is.

EarlyStories blogged yesterday about ABC News' partnership with a libertarian foundation to produce a so-called "news" report that, guess what, espouses libertarian anti-government ideas. The item was based on a Reason.tv video on the same topic. The program segment (to air tonight) mainly features Mia Levi, the operator of a string of private preschools who is worried about having competition if the government supports preschool. Levi advertises herself as one of leading opponents of universal preschool in Southern California. (Here is the response from Pre-K Now, which advocates for universal preschool. Download file

Here is a link to one of those schools, the Manhattan Academy in Manhattan Beach, California. Manhattan Beach,
for those who aren't familiar with it, is a very affluent beach town in Los Angeles. A place where small homes sell for seven figures. That's her market. Her school is preschool-to-sixth grade. Not surprisingly, enrollment tails off after kindergarten, because, despite her comments in Stossel's report about failing public schools, the schools in Manhattan Beach are terrific. It's hard to sell a product for $12,000 or more per year when parents can get a much better product--i.e. the public schools--for free.

Here are some comments about the Manhattan Academy
posted by parents on the Web site Greatschools.net:

Individual teachers are great while they last. Director is very difficult to work for or deal with. Parents have no input and those who complain are troublemakers. Lots of drastic staffing changes happen at school year end, but parents can't comment or question, and those who dislike the way the school does things can just leave, since there's a pre-school waiting list.

Frightening turnover. Wonderful teachers/staff disappear suddenly leaving parents and kids stuck with an administration that cares only about $$. They put on a good show, until they rope you in, then forget you're paying the bills. Parents & staff jumping ship as fast as they can. Almost no kids left beyond upper primary (kindergarten).

The teachers at this school are dedicated and the curriculum is good, but unfortunately the school is run as a business first and educational facility second. Parent participation is not always appreciated by the directress.

Diane Flynn Keith, a homeschool advocate who runs an anti-public school listserv and an online site for homeschoolers, reported in a message to her listserv that the ABC producer for the Stossel show had contacted her and asked her to put together parents who would oppose universal preschool. She said the producer contacted her again today and asked her to stir up her base to have them comment on the Good Morning America version of the show . Here's what she wrote in her message:

just spoke to the producer and she tells me that they've
already received "a ton of negative feedback" on the ABC
website. She wrote, "Some positive feedback would be great!"
She said the more feedback - the more likely ABC would be to
revisit the subject.

The comments on the Good Morning America segment show that her base responded. Most of the comments on the site that support the show's conclusions say things like: the government wants to brainwash your kids and turn them into socialists, the government ruined K-12 and it will ruin pre-k, public pre-k programs will do nothing but test kids to death. One comment jumped out, though: "Most of the people commenting on this have never been in a good pre-kindergarten and have no idea what they're talking about."

EarlyStories has for months urged journalists to visit pre-school classrooms and glimpse what is happening (or not happening), especially as states battle over funding cuts and the prospect of economic stimulus money.

So it was gratifying to see a reporter from the Beaumont Enterprise observing the routines of 4 and 5-year-olds at a private pre-k provider, watching how they absorbed "the basics of language and social skills,'' in preparation for starting kindergarten.

The story examines the choices parents in Texas consider when they look at both state-funded and private programs. It also includes good advice about the questions that parents (and, EarlyStories would like to add, journalists) should be asking about providers, which are often subject to agency guidelines. For example, what kind of education do pre-k teachers have? Do they have early childhood experience? Have they been trained and have they taught in pre-k settings? How will children be assessed?

Steve Barnett, co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, notes in the story that students who attend state pre-k programs are less likely to fail a grade or need special education-type services; he adds that children exposed to a curriculum that forces them to think through their actions and exercise their independence often have fewer behavior problems or aggression issues later on in life.

All of that information is helpful to parents and the public at a time when the cost and benefits of pre-k programs are being weighed closely. But the story might only have been a series of interviews and study summaries without the anecdote describing how young children curled up their faces up and squealed when describing the sour taste of a lemon. Sometimes classroom visits are the only way to bring home points about how and if young children are learning

EarlyStories has been watching The New York Times blog "The Choice,'' with great interest, waiting for Harvard Admissions Dean William Fitzsimmons to be asked about the connection between "the right pre-school,'' and getting into Harvard. Inevitably, it just had to be among the flood of angst-filled queries that in many cases read like an out and out plea for Harvard acceptance.

Two such questions were posed, but even the parents who asked them seemed bewildered by the concept of Ivy League dreams for the toddler set. Fitzsimmons, however, has been asked about the pre-school connection before; he once assured Bloomberg News of a fact that he's often repeated to parents: Harvard ultimately admits, in addition to countless valedictorians and peerless scholars, students who have never set foot in a formal classroom in their lives.

Fitzsimmons made the remark in the context of straightening out parents who bring a similar mentality to finding "the right preschool.'' In New York City, the quest has become something of a competitive sport, as the hilarious documentary "Nursery University,'' detailed last spring.

The early learning questions to The Choice unfolded as follows: "How do you manage to deal with all these Harvard-obsessed parents and students, who begin a mindless academic death march in kindergarten with the sole purpose of being the last one standing at the end of the admissions process? " A second parent described attending a preschool admissions tour where a parent actually asked how many of the preschool’s graduates had attended Ivy League colleges.

Fitzsimmons did not address them head on, to his credit instead focusing on a more important and far reaching issue in education: equity.

"As important as it is to help students cope with the pressure found in many (usually more affluent) communities, a bigger public policy issue is how to assist the 30 percent of students who want their parents to be more involved in their college search,'' Fitzsimmons responded. "The waste of talent in America—the denial of the American dream for a large portion of our youth—is a serious threat to our nation’s future. A student from the top income quartile is more than six times as likely as a student from the bottom income quartile to graduate with a BA within five years of leaving high school."

Imagine if instead of obsessing over how to get one's progeny into the most selective schools, parents, policy makers and the press would turn more attention to the challenges facing needy students and their efforts to attain a better education in the United States. President Barack Obama is pushing degree completion and access, and focusing on community colleges as a way of meeting the goal of getting more Americans to graduate from college.He also is pushing an early childhood agenda that would raise the quality of early learning and care programs that serve children from birth through age 5.

Still, far more children want to get a high quality pre-school experience than can afford it, and cash-strapped states are finding it difficult to forge ahead with promises of expansion.

These issues should take center stage and are far more critical than the make-up of the class of roughly 2,067 talented and able students Harvard will accept this spring. The more than 22,000 highly qualified applicants they will turn down are not the students we need to be worrying about either.

EarlyStories read the New York Times piece on an outdoor kindergarten in Saratoga Springs New York with interest. Finally, a story about something other than how kindergarten has become so academic: "It's the new first grade.''

Ultimately, though, the story was disappointing. It noted that 23 children in upstate New York are spending three hours each day outside, no matter what the weather, and that it is an extreme version of outdoor learning that is taught at Waldorf schools -- which are largely private and emphasize nature and the arts. The story noted that forest kindergartens are "increasingly common in Scandinavia and other European countries like Germany and Austria.''

It's nice that a handful of kids whose parents can afford it are enjoying the great outdoors while in school. But the story gives no context for what the nature-based curriculum can and cannot do, nor does it compare the Waldorf program to what kindergarten looks like for millions of U.S. children.

What goals do we have for these four, five and six-year-olds? (The age range varies according to district entrance requirements). What evidence is there that tramping about in the woods for several hours a day will make for a better thinker or reader later on? What does the research show?

A cute woodsy feature story about one program can and should go further at a time when the U.S. is seriously considering national standards and much debate is taking place about what children should learn and when. Is the program prompting urban schools to consider taking more field trips, for example? Do the kids who don't get outdoors suffer? Is anyone proposing a different approach for city schools, based on the Waldorf's results? And what are those results?

At a time of unprecedented federal involvement and investment in education, coverage of the issue is so lacking it makes up only 1.4 percent of national news coverage, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution.

The report, entitled: "Invisible: 1.4 Percent Coverage for Education is Not Enough,'' finds scant coverage of critical issues like teaching, learning and curriculum; most stories "dealt with budget problems, school crime and the H1N! flu outbreak,'' according to the report, funded with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The findings are not surprising, coming at a time when newspapers are under pressure simply to survive and other news outlets are struggling due to declining ad revenues and other economic pressures. And there were some bright spots: local reporting still produces quality journalism about important education topics in cities like Providence, Minneapolis and and Phoenix.

At EarlyStories, we often lament the lack of substantive reporting on pre-kindergarten and early childhood issues; the Brookings report did not isolate the issue, but noted that budget issues dominated coverage of pre-school programs. The report zeroed in on wire service coverage of education and noted that much of it "focuses on stories that have nothing to do with education itself,'' and instead are about crime, sex and scandals involving educators.

You can watch a webcast of the event, which includes recommendations, on the Brookings website: