Sue Shellenbarger, who writes the Work & Family column for the Wall Street Journal reports on new Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing more women staying home to be with their young children. She reports that about-to-be-released data shows that women from all income groups are tending to stay out of the workforce, usually for one to three years. The column notes the case of a mother and father who are teachers in Overland Park, Kansas, and who say that their knowledge about how babies' brains grow was a major factor in the mothers' decision to stop working after their twins, now 2½, and their third child, now 15 months old, were born. At home, Ms. Gunderson says, "I try to make sure everything we do together involves some kind of learning."

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

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

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

Connecticut Post carries a story about unfilled vacancies in pre-kindergarten programs in Bridgeport, which also has more than 900 kids on waiting lists. The story serves a useful purpose, alerting folks to the situation. The story notes that most of the unfilled slots are only part-time. Journalists should be aware that when schools or agencies offer half-day pre-kindergarten, without what are known as "wrap around" services that allow kids to be at the center all day, it's very difficult for working parents to participate.

New York has a way of putting the rest of the country in perspective, by defining extremes. Latest evidence of this is the rush of parents in affluent parts of Brooklyn to get their kids into the "right" preschools, where tuition can run to five figures. The breathy story here from New York Magazine says the "brownstone-Brooklyn baby boom is causing a sort of educational crisis," leaving parents to ask, "When did this turn into Manhattan." The story notes that one pre-k set up a lottery for it's "juice-party interview slots" and quotes a parent who says the competition is "preposterous." Sort of makes you wonder how half-day public programs that spend $3,000 or so per kid can achieve their stated aim, of closing achievement gaps.

I was traveling last week so didn't catch up with the terrific Wall Street Journal (as in funny, terrifying, depressing) story about what they called "BlackBerry Orphans," kids who are neglected as their parents compulsively check email on the devices. The story tells the story of kids trying to put limits on their parents' usage, which extends to the dinner table, while driving, during school plays, and so on.

A few parents say "BlackBerry" is in their toddlers' early vocabulary. Lucas Ellin, a Los Angeles 5-year-old, pretends he has his own, parading around the house with a small toy in his hand while shriking, "Look, Mommy, it's my BlackBerry."

Another story I'd like to see has to do with cell phone usage. When I'm out running in Manhattan or elsewhere I see parents pushing strollers or walking hand-in-hand with their child while talking on their cell phone. The time parents spend with their kids talking to them and answering their questions and discussing all that they are seeing is infinitely valuable for their development and learning. So, when these parents are out with their kids but have their minds elsewhere, they're not really doing much good. Better to let the nanny take the kids and talk to them than you, Mom or Dad, go somewhere with the kids but spend the whole time talking on the cellphone.

"The Pursuit of Happyness," the well-reviewed and successful movie starring Will Smith, is worth seeing. Education is a big theme. Chris Gardner is a smart guy who ends up homeless with his young son while he's trying to become a stock broker. He studies day and night to pass a broker's test. Gardner passed, got the job and went on to start his own bond trading firm and become fabulously successful.

In the movie, Gardner takes his son everyday to what he thinks is a good pre-school. He finds out his son spends most of his time watching television. When he confronts the proprietor, she says he can't expect to get anything more for the amount he's paying. Lots of working folks find themselves confronted by the same agonizing dilemma, knowing that this precious time is being wasted but being unable to afford something better.

The other plot point involving a current education issue has to do with that test. Many folks in the anti-testing crowd argue that a) tests can't measure all that a child knows, b) tests are inherently biased, c) some people aren't good test-takers and so on. In the hard, cruel, pragmatic world of work, however, sometimes a test is a hurdle you have to get over to get a job or promotion (think police officers, fire fighters, CPAs, attorneys, doctors, etc.). Learning to study and to do well on tests is not such a bad skill to learn in school.

Now for a dose of juicy and satisfying voyeurism of the rich. So many of Manhattan's superrich who send their kids to the superexclusive preschool at the 92nd Street YMCA on the Upper East Side use chauffeured vehicles that they have to double- and triple-park outside the school in the morning and in the afternoon. Folks not familiar with the city's geography would not know that many of these cosseted children live within 10 to 15 blocks of the school. The problem's become so bad the Y's director has sent out a letter threatening the harshest possible treatment--she will consider telling the super-exclusive kindergartens these children apply to that their parents don't play well with others. Horrors!

We know all of this because the New York Times devoted a lot of reporting time to figuring out who owned those big black cars parked outside the school. (This is the same school that Wall Street analyst Jack Grubman crowed had admitted his twins because he'd inflated his rating of a particular stock that was of interest to his boss, Sanford Weill.) This is a variant on a story that appears frequently in the New York media. Striving, image-conscious, nouveau-riche Manhattanites do whatever they can to get into a handful of expensive preschools because they think the schools will guarantee their kids a quick-trip to the Ivy League and we make them look silly in the bargain. Old story. Easy target. But beyond its obvious entertainment value, does it matter?

A guy named Don Pesci, who writes a blog in Connecticut that he calls "Red Notes from a Blue State," had a nasty reaction to Gov. Jodi Rell's plan to expand preschool and education spending. Here's a quote that captures the flavor of his condescending attitude toward anyone who puts their children in pre-school at age 3. "Pre-pre-kindergarten classes are pedagogical holding pens for the children of parents many of whom must hold down multiple jobs or work longer hours to meet their own private budget obligations." Makes working hard to make ends meet seem like a crime, doesn't it? I put these comments on the blog to remind journalists that, at least in the blogosphere but no doubt in the four-dimensional world as well, there's plenty of people who think that anything that makes life easier for mothers or their children, or that tries to use government programs to create greater opportunity or reduce disparities, excuses the importance of individual responsibility.

Argus Leader reporter Terry Woster wrote a great piece on the debate over pre-k in South Dakota. Woster reports that a bill to establish state standards for pre-k has aroused the ire of pre-k opponents. The state is helping fund a tiny pilot pre-k program in Pierre. Critics say the standards effort, and the pilot program, will drive private preschool and day care operators out of business and that the state will either have to spend more money to offer the services or parents won't have any choice but to send their kids to government programs. Woster does a fine job of reporting various views without it seeming at all like a he-said, she-said cop-out. Nice job.

By the way, the six comments on the story on the newspaper's website were quite thoughtful. And two of them said they appreciated the paper's in-depth coverage.

New report due out Thursday (March 8) will say that Hispanic children are underrepresented in state pre-kindergarten programs. The report from the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics says there are too few affordable seats in Hispanic communities, parents are uninformed, and there are language barriers. Journalists in cities with large numbers of Hispanic children might venture out into Hispanic neighborhoods on Wednesday and find out what parents know about pre-kindergarten and what they've tried to do to line up a spot for their kids. Or, they might talk to kindergarten teachers and principals and schools there to ask about whether children are showing up at the school door ready to learn.

Good piece in the San Jose Mercury News that I missed described a program offered by De Anza College that provides free college classes for child care workers in child development. The program highlights one of the real stumbling blocks to raising the quality of child care and preschool: a lack of affordable training available to a low-income workforce and a lack of financial incentive for bothering. Good to see journalists highlighting the issue. More attention to it will be needed if the current Head Start reauthorization proposal passes. As written, the reauthorization legislation would require that more Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees.

Remember the item a little while back about the debate over whether 4 year olds should even be allowed in Idaho public schools, for the purpose of pre-kindergarten? Well this week, the Idaho Legislature was debating a "non binding resolution to encourage" the creation of state quality standards for pre-kindergarten as a means of deciding where to spend scarce federal funds to preschools. My colleague Gene I. Maeroff notes that the Legislature voted that measure down 43 to 27. One inspiring quote in the debate over the bill came from State Rep. Lenore Barrett, Republican of Challis, who said: "In the old Russia the state owned the children for all intents and purposes and directed their education. This is not the proper role of government." Gene's comment was: "I guess they still have commies hiding under the beds in Idaho." Barrett's remark reminds me of the position of the John Birch Society on the issue.

A blogger in San Francisco who is a parent described the application process to that boutique city's preschools:

My defeat has all to do with the horribly broken, outrageous and utterly unfair preschool application process and school system in San Francisco. I kid you not that we were asked to attend open houses, tours and interviews (it was mandatory that both parents be present) all during the work day (I took many mornings and even a few days off work to accommodate these requests), write essays about how our child and our family are a good fit for each school, explain our toddler's behavior, temperament and unique qualities, write about our two year olds separation anxiety, explain our theories on structure and discipline, give a list of referrals that the schools could call to question, put forward our interest in fundraising and volunteering, attach a family photo and pay between a $50 and $200 fee per application (and we pay taxes for a subpar, lottery enrollment, public school system).

Edward F. Zigler has been a leading national authority on child development and early learning for more than four decades. He was part of a small group of advisers who created Head Start and then became its first director. Today, as growing numbers of policymakers embrace pre-kindergarten as an important source of education opportunity, Zigler, an active scholar and prolific author at 77, continues to play a central role in shaping the nation's thinking on early learning. When I spoke to him recently for a Q&A that is posted on the Web site of Education Sector he decried the poor quality of much of the child care in this country, gave a strong endorsement for Head Start, argued that pre-kindergarten ought to be universal, offered in regular public schools, and start at age 3.

Showing that he's stilling willing to court controversy, he said that, "The catastrophe for kids, the catastrophe for families, is the big split between child care and education. Education is looked as the state's responsibility. Child care is thought of as a family's responsibility. But we wind up with the kids in our schools. We don't know how to change. The Right Wing will fight anything that makes the lives of mothers and children better."

You can read the entire interview here Download file

A blog written by a mother in Arkansas notes that her five-year-old in preschool was assigned "homework" to practice writing her name. The teacher even sent home stickers for the mom to give as rewards for a good job. Feature story idea for a slow day: talk to pre-k teachers and parents about whether they assign "homework" and, if they do, what types of assignments?

The Education Writers Assn. Web site has a new "issue brief" by Linda Jacobson that looks at the pros and cons of locating publicly funded pre-k in public schools or centers. The "brief" has some good experts and background information and notes that teacher unions have pushed for locating public pre-k in the schools, anticipating that teachers will be better paid and will be union members. But the brief notes that school-based programs often are limited to just the school hours, making them inconvenient for paretns. It also notes that one critic, Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley, doesn't want pre-k in schools because he fears they'll be too academic and focused on getting kids ready for kindergarten. Head Start "grandfather" Ed Zigler, in my recent interview with him, strongly favors having all pre-k in public schools.He also wants schools to offer pre-k all day and also after school, to serve working parents' needs.

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.

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

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

New report from the University of Albany, SUNY draws on data from the 2000 Census to conclude that immigrant children “account for 20 percent of all children in the United States, and their numbers are growing faster than any other group of children…The proportion of children in immigrant families falls below 5 percent in only 11 states, and that proportion rises to 10 percent or more in 22 states and the District of Columbia…” The report says four of five of the children are U.S. citizens and three out of four are fluent in English. “At the same time, children of immigrants are less likely to be enrolled in preschool programs, putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to the cognitive aspects of school readiness and English-language fluency.”

Would like to see a story out of a neighborhood with many immigrant children about the quality and availability of preschool. Often, such preschools need to put a lot of effort into recruiting immigrant families. Those efforts, too, are worth a story.

The Honolulu Advertiser tackled an important story today, examining why seats in publicly funded preschools were not being filled. The piece got right to the point: "The state has money to help needy parents defray the costs of preschool. Now it just needs more parents to apply." The story quotes a parent who says the program makes it possible for her to send her daughter to an accredited pre-school rather than leave here with a babysitter. "I would go to some homes that just had a blank white wall, no toys and 10 kids," the mother said. "You just don't feel comfortable leaving your child there."

The piece notes that cultural resistance is a factor in what preschool experts call the low "uptake" for services. "Hawai'i continues to be the type of society that we let our parents or grandparents or aunties and uncles take care of the young," said Henry Oliva, the deputy director of the state agency that administers the program.

This is not only an issue in Hawaii. It is an issue in many mainland cities, especially those with large Latino populations. What are the programs in the cities you cover doing to make sure families know what services are available and how to access them? Are they getting the word out in Spanish-language and other ethnic publications? Are they going door to door? Does the state subsidize outreach efforts? My guess is that there are many neighborhoods where good programs are not being full utilized.

Oh, it's so painful for me to realize, now that I'm middle-aged, how much I missed as a child. Just think how much I could have accomplished, how much happier I'd be, had I been as lucky as 3-year-old Elliott Baines of Guttenberg, N.J. Alexander Russo linked the other day to a story in the Wall Street Journal that reported on the adventurous travel vacations families are taking their young children on to give them enriching experiences. Little Elliott, for example, "has already cleared customs in Israel, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, France and Canada. His parents...say they believe the experiences are shaping Elliot's personality even at this early age. For instance, when Elliot and a group of children were pretending to fly in their gymnastics class, other youngsters said they were going to Florida, while Elliot said he was en route to Paris." All my family ever did was drive one time from Ohio to the East Coast to visit family friends, and we weren't even allowed to stop at the Mystery Spot along the way.

But, seriously, articles such as these are what I like to call "rich porn" and are a staple of the Journal, the Times, Vanity Fair, and other publications aimed at the elite. Those of us who spent our childhood catching tadpoles and playing baseball with kids in the neighborhood instead of flying off to Thailand to ride bikes through the jungle love to be voyeurs observing the lives of people with so much money it skews their judgment of what's important. A little skepticism about whether such trips actually put kids ahead of their peers, and a little context as to how few families actually take such vacations would be nice. But that would make such stories far less entertaining.

I missed this when it first came out but Sara Mead of Education Sector has put together one of her typically smart, dispassionate, let the chips fall where they may discussions of the evidence. This time her focus is on the overselling of the importance of the birth to age three window for brain development. It's a paper that all journalists interested in child development and education should read. Brains keep developing and learning throughout life. Plus, trying to hard-wire intelligence by sitting toddlers in front of a screen to watch a video runs against what we know about how young children learn best--through social interactions with those who love them and make them feel secure. Mead's analysis doesn't mean that what goes on early isn't important. It certainly is and the body of evidence showing the value of such programs as David Olds' Nurse Home Visiting Program is building. But it does mean that later investments are also crucial and that there isn't the trade-off between zero-to-three and pre-k and kindergarten that some people pose.

Joel Waldfogel, a business prof at the Wharton School, bases a commentary on Slate on the James Heckman/Dmitri Masterov analysis of the economic returns of preschool from high quality programs serving the disadvantaged. He says government programs are needed to make up for the weakness of many families, which makes them unable to function as caregivers and nurturers of children. He concludes:

A sales problem remains: These programs invade the traditional province of the family, and in Heckman and Masterov's conception, they would target disadvantaged populations that are disproportionately minority. Wanted: a credible and sympathetic pitchman. Paging Barack Obama

Obama, the Illinois Senator running for president, has yet to announce his position on expanding the federal role in pre-kindergarten. Hilary Clinton, the New York Senator and presidential candidate, though, supports phasing in a $10 billion federal fund to match new state investments in high quality preschool.

"> Anyone who pays attention to the unfolding debate over the propriety and educational effects of public investments in preschool and child development has encountered fears of "government" brainwashing. Though not all such fears emanate from the dark imaginings of the far right, that crowd is certainly far more vocal. (Never forget that the seeds of dreaded liberalism tomorrow find fertile ground in the preschool sand tables of today!).Judge Roy Moore, (left, at a younger age), the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was ousted after refusing to remove stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments from his court room, demonstrated this once again in this Internet column.

The column is a mish-mash of references to studies and research that he misapplies and misinterprets for his purposes. In addition to the usual rhetoric, however, the good judge added a new leap of logic that I've never seen anywhere. The "founding fathers," reared in 18th century colonial America, did not go to public schools and they did pretty well. Americans back then were the "most literate and well-informed in history," he contends, and "poetry, religion, and history flourished...without support from the state." I know that many critics of public education claim, without much foundation, that student achievement has been sliding the past three or four decades. But I had no idea that the zenith of U.S. education was in the 1750s! Sure, recreating slavery, ridding ourselves of 300 years of technology and medicine, and reclaiming our true heritage as colonies would be problematic, but is there any other way to be competitive in this global economy? Let's turn back the clock three centuries before it's too late!

The Hillary Project is a website dedicated to attacking anything the former First Lady and now Senator and presidential candidate says or does. Not surprisingly, the "Project" quickly picked up former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Moore's column (see item just below) recommending a return to the educational practices of the 1750s as a way to restore enlightenment and wisdom to the Republic. Hmmmm. So, let me see if I understand the strategy of the judge and his intellectual fellow travelers: How about we use the Internet to distribute a screed arguing for going back educationally to a time before electricity....

I know these are fringe elements but the point of view that rearing children prior to school ought to be in the hands of Mommy wearing an apron while Daddy goes off to work at the big office on the train remains strongly held by more people than a journalist might suspect.....talking to these people and letting their views be examined and questioned is an important task....

Hartford Courant reporter Hilary Waldman produced a fascinating, compelling story in yesterday's paper that was based on a....research study! But the story about a study of the effects of putting mental health consultants in pre-kindergarten classrooms was anything but dry. The spine of it was the story of a three-year-old boy named Terrence who was described by his teachers as a "human tornado," wreaking fear and destruction in the classroom. His teachers sought help and a state-funded program supplied a consultant, who helped them develop strategies for how to help Terrence learn to adjust socially.

The details in the story, the national context, the clear explanation of how the research was conducted and the human drama it captured--all were impressive. The article shows how richly visiting classrooms and making connections with real teachers, kids and their parents pays off journalistically. Journalism such as this will always find an audience no matter the "platform"--print or digital.

Sara Mead has an insightful and illuminating commentary on the similarities between school choice and universal pre-k advocates--two groups that likely would be uncomfortable rubbing shoulders at the same wonkfest. (Yes, it's a real word. You can look it up. Synonym is wonkapalooza) It's worth reading the whole thing. One insight, for example, is that both groups are committed to "redefining the boundaries of publicly-supported education--In preschool, to include younger children; in school choice to include private, charter, and other non-traditional schools."

One other similarity I'd add. School choicers want to privatize education through vouchers and subsidies for private charter management organizations. UPK-ers would prefer to have states invest preschool money in programs in public schools. But the fact that there is already a mature, mixed public-and-private school delivery system for preschool means that, inevitably, public dollars end up subsidizing private school operations. So....if public dollars can subsidize private preschools and private colleges (through loan subsidies and reseach grants), why the adamant opposition in so many places to doing so in K-12?

Story idea: As state legislatures are considering expanding spending on pre-kindergarten, examine the lobbying efforts of groups representing private preschools. You'll find they fight hard to maintain what they would call a level playing field, so that public spending on preschool doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Eleanor Chute wrote up an elegant little study paid for by PNC Financial Services Group. The basis for the study was a national survey of parents and teachers, asking them what they thought were the most important aspects of school readiness and how well they thought kids these days were to start kindergarten. Teachers thought being able to listen and follow directions and play well with others (also a trait of those who succeed in newsrooms!) were roughly twice as important as more academic skills, in terms of predicting future success. But elementary school teachers thought that very few children were well-prepared academically or socially. You can find more on the study here. PNC is paying for other research as well. More details on that, here.

PNC, based in Pittsburgh, has been a leading corporate advocate favoring bigger investments in pre-kindergarten. The company was one of the sponsors of a big 2006 conference of economists and corporate leaders in New York that drew a lot of media coverage. It's also putting its money behind the effort, planning on investing $100 million in an initiative it calls PNC Grow Up Great.

Newsweek's Nov. 12 edition has a short piece on the growth in preschool enrollments in both public and private settings, pegged to the release of a new report on participation data due out from the National Institute of Early Education Research. (on the web here. According to the article, NIEER says 69% of 4 year olds attend preschool, up from 59% in 1991. That's consistent with federal data released late last month.

Of course, Newsweek doesn't feature a free, state-funded pre-k. Rather it focuses on a $22,000 preschool in the affluent Boston suburb of Needham, Massachusetts where parents get a daily written narrative of everything their child did that day, including who he or she lunched with.

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

Pat Kossan in the Arizona Republic has a nice little story about how having her kids go to pre-k has changed a parent's interactions with them. This is a good angle on early childhood education I don't see mentioned much. One of the important components of the Perry Preschool Project studies from many years ago and Head Start have been their parent outreach efforts. How do the public pre-k programs in your state work with parents?

(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.

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.

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

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

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