In reading the National Institute on Early Education Research report on the positive effects of pre-kindergarten in Arkansas, I found myself confused by the method of statistical analysis, which is called "regression discontinuity." Steve Barnett of NIEER and the main author of the Arkansas study patiently responded to repeated emails from me over the weekend, trying to help me understand. Basically, it's a way to control for selection bias, when it's not possible to establish an appropriate "control group," as would be needed for a truly scientific experiment. RD, as the statistics pros call it, depends on being able to establish two groups that are similar, based on some sort of deciding factor or "assignment variable." One such variable might be a study participant's birthdate, when used to determine eligibility for a program or a "treatment." In this case, the "treatment" is pre-kindergarten.

Anyway, I mention all of this because RD has been used in a number of key evaluations of pre-k programs and probably will be used in lots more. One such study is the frequently cited work of William T. Gormley and co-authors who evaluated the Oklahoma state pre-k program, and found positive effects. Journalists, as we all know, became journalists because they couldn't handle math. But we are increasingly being called on to report on (or to choose not to report on) program evaluations. We ought to know enough about statistics to at least be able to ask good questions.

Barnett sent me a several good links that clearly explain RD: They are here, here, and here.

Teachers College Prof. Sharon Lynn Kagan, one of the smartest people I know, spoke last week at a colloquium that was part of the festivities in connection with the inauguration of Susan Fuhrman as the 10th president of Teachers College. Lynn is one of the world's leading authorities on pre-kindergarten policy and standards. There's a summary of her remarks explaining why early childhood education has become such an important issue on the TC Website. She quoted former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond's comment that "when you want to make knowledge count, three crucial ingredients are necessary. First, you must have a codified and compelling knowledge base. Second, you must have the public will. And third, you must have a codified social strategy."

She said early childhood education is a case in point.

"Fifty years ago, it was thought that ‘little children should be seen and not heard.' That there was not much going on in their little heads. That they should be at home with their mothers and babysitters because all they do is play. Today, every Governor, every business leader, every educator endorses investment in young children."

What’s changed? she asked

"We’ve got a useable knowledge base, with legs, that speaks to power. And it’s not just brain development studies, but also data on cost effectiveness – for example, that for every $1 invested in early childhood education, there’s a return of up to $17. There’s public will. People have been made to understand why early childhood education is necessary. Kids have appeared on the cover of Time, parents are now discerning about what good early childhood education really is, there has been testimony in Congress. Even nerdy academics like me have gotten involved in doing public relations."

A social strategy also has emerged. “Historically, early childhood education was characterized as 1,000 random acts of good intentions. We have worked hard to stress what it would take to create a system, what that would look like, and how to market it. So Julie was right. The lesson from him is the lesson for all of us. Moving practice and policy can never be just about knowledge. We can’t stop with just knowledge production.”

Missed this in February but it's worth linking to now. Fed Reserve Board Chief Ben Bernanke spoke to the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce and extolled the economic returns of high quality pre-kindergarten.

Although education and the acquisition of skills is a lifelong process, starting early in life is crucial. Recent research... has documented the high returns that early childhood programs can pay in terms of subsequent educational attainment and in lower rates of social problems, such as teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. The most successful early childhood programs appear to be those that cultivate both cognitive and non-cognitive skills and that engage families in stimulating learning at home.

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.

The Associated Press in Georgia notes that the state failed to keep data that would allow it to evaluate the long-term effects of the state's pre-k program, which is one of the oldest in the country. The lead of the story is punchy and to the point: "Fourteen years ago, Georgia launched a publicly funded pre-kindergarten program that later became the first in the nation to offer free classes to all 4-year-olds.Educators promised better prepared students and eventually lower crime rates when students got older.But don't ask state officials for data on how many of those students graduated from high school and went on to college this past fall. They didn't keep track." The whole story is posted here.

This is a question journalists in any state that either offers pre-k now, is expanding pre-k, or is thinking about offering pre-k. Does the state have a plan for gathering long-term data? Big promises are made about the positive effects of pre-k. But will it be possible to show whether those promises are being kept?

By the way, Sharon L. Ramey, the Georgetown University professor who was one of the authors of the child care study, and her husband, Craig T. Ramey, have produced a wealth of research on early childcare education that journalists should consult. Here's one article that is a great, readable summary of a lot of research.

Here is a list of what the Rameys call: Essential Experiences in Early Learning Years:

What are the crucial experiences needed in the early years of life? Does early caretaking or experience really affect brain development? Are these effects important or lasting? In recent scientific articles and books for parents, we have summarized a vast body of scientific evidence in terms of seven types of experiences that are essential to ensure normal brain and behavioral development and school readiness:

1. Encourage exploration.
2. Mentor in basic skills.
3. Celebrate developmental advances.
4. Rehearse and extend new skills.
5. Protect from inappropriate disapproval, teasing, and punishment.
6. Communicate richly and responsively.
7. Guide and limit behavior.

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.

Spent the week at the American Educational Research Assn. meeting in Chicago (16,000 attendees, sessions at most of the downtown hotels, big receptions, and a program that weighs more than 2 pounds. Many of the hundreds of research papers presented at the annual meeting offer detailed examinations of very specific situations, many are political rants that sound the same year after year, some repeat the obvious, and others examine issues, such as testing, NCLB, school choice, literacy and so on in often helpful ways. This year there were many sessions with an international perspective. Every year I attend AERA I learn a lot and meet some very smart people doing interesting research on important issues.

One of the most memorable sessions this year was a lecture by Deborah Loewenberg Ball, the dean of the University of Michigan School of Education and a former elementary school teacher. Ball is a big star in the education research firmament and for good reason—she’s smart, talks about complex ideas in very clear ways, and can be counted on for a fresh, non-ideological perspective that she’s subjected to her own rigorous thinking process. (Her main area of research involves mathematics teaching and what teachers need to know.)

Anyway, she gave the DeWitt Wallace lecture this year, and she analyzed the often sharp criticism of education schools and the research they do going back almost a century. She tried out various responses to those criticisms to justify the need for Ed schools. One argument would be that schools of education are needed to train teachers. But she said that argument, on its own, is insufficient, especially in a research university. So she made the case that education schools can justify their existence most persuasively if at least some of the research done by education professors focuses on the heart of the educational enterprise.

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post picked up on a report from the advocacy group Pre-K for All DC that says (no surprise) free pre-kindergarten would more than repay its cost. The actual study is not yet up on the group's Web site. But a quote from the Post story indicates that its authors tried to calculate the short-run economic benefits from expanding pre-k as well as the long-term gains. A high quality program would provide 6,300 jobs in the city, support working parents, and cut down on employee absenteeism, according to the article.

This kind of information is powerful. It is a compelling counterpoint to those who argue that the long-term gains don't justify the short-term expense, when balancing the budget is a priority. I'll look forward to reading the actual report but I was glad to read about it in the Post. However, the Post article does not mention how this study fits in with the many other recent economic analyses of pre-kindergarten's effects. Nor does it mention that the D.C. advocacy group is one of dozens pushing universal pre-k nationally. I know print reporters are being pressured to write short stories. Adding a paragraph providing readers with a little bit of context, just a pinch, would have been easy.

Alyssa Haywoode of the Boston Globe attended the Hechinger Institute/NCEW seminar both as a participant and as a presenter--she's written numerous pro-pre-k editorials over the past year. This editorial came out in the Globe the other day. She takes a look at Hilary Clinton's proposal for a federal investment in pre-k--the most detailed of any of the candidates--and finds it wanting. Rarely do journalists focus on the possible federal role in supporting early education. The Globe did.

Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to (subscription required) label the national trend toward expanded public spending on pre-kindergarten for what it is: "one of the most significant expansions in public education in the 90 years since World War I, when kindergarten first became standard in American schools." The Journal's front page article Thursday did what the paper does so nicely: allow a reader who hasn't been following a developing trend to drop in and get a good sense of who the players are, why they're doing what they're doing, the obstacles, and controversies, and what lies ahead. The story notes, for example, that not everyone is on board with the push for "universal" public preschool. Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, for example, warns about overdoing preschool and says that "scarce resources should be directed to the problem areas." Mr. Murdoch, don't mess with success, ok?

Full disclosure: the Journal article describes the important role The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Trusts' director of education, Susan Urahn, have played in fueling the national movement to expand public spending on preschool. The article also mentions that the Hechinger Institute is a grantee, and that our role is to help journalists become knowledgeable about the issues surrounding pre-k. As I always say, though, we're not advocates for anything other than good journalism about education.

The last time Arthur Reynolds of the University of Minnesota et. al. reported on the long-term effects of the Chicago Child-Parent Center programs the former preschoolers in the study were in their teens. That was in 2001 and the study results got good play in the New York Times and elsewhere, admitting the CPCs into the (small) pantheon of pre-kindergarten programs documented to be successful by tracking the lives of the children they served into their adulthood. An update on how the Chicago group being studied, now about 24 years old, is out this month, appearing in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. (Media can gain access to the study as well as two related articles here.) The study finds that a representative sample of those who attended the centers in the mid-1980s are on average better educated; more likely to have health insurance; less likely to have been arrested, convicted, and jailed on felony charges; and less likely to suffer from depression.

The study has gotten a little attention from a few newspapers and bloggers and has been linked to by other research and advocacy groups interested in equity, education, and early childhood. But the study has a number of interesting findings and also raises some questions which merit follow-up by general interest journalists.

Cohort studies such as this one (others most notable were of the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina and the Perry/High Scope Preschool in Ypsilanti, MI) provide powerful evidence of the value of high quality preschool because they can estimate the long-term economic benefits--to individuals and to society--from early investments. In terms of policy implications, though, the Chicago program is the most important. One reason is that the parent centers are in public schools, they're not super-expensive boutique programs, and they're still operating today (although with some features eliminated). The centers serve three and four year olds, focus on improving language and math skills using a semi-structured curriculum; send teachers into homes to work with parents and require parents to participate in training activities; and include medical screening and meals.

Some of the points that merit further reporting:

1. Boys got a whole lot more out of the program than girls did. In fact, boys' gains in high school graduation accounted for most of the group's gain. About 64% of the boys who attended preschool graduated from high school, compared to a graduation rate of 48% for the comparison group. About 79% of the girls who attended preschool graduated from high school, compared to 78% for those who did not. So, if society were trying to maximize its investment, only boys would attend preschool. That is absurd, of course, so sometimes economic efficiency is trumped by social justice and political reality.

2. The group that attended preschool, may or may not have attended full-day kindergarten, and participated in an afterschool program did better than the comparison group, which was enrolled in full-day kindergarten. In many states, the expansion of preschool is competing for funds and political favor with a strong national movement for full-day kindergarten. This study suggests that the money is better spent on preschool and an afterschool program that targets the needs of disadvantaged kids. A separate analysis on the effects of an afterschool program alone found that it contributed little.

3. Even though the program was offered in the public schools, all of the children were poor and most were African American. The published article cautions against using the study to justify public spending on universally available programs, because they're unlikely to have the same effects.

4. There are no silver bullets: it's true that there were gains, some of them quite large percentage-wise. But, as an accompanying article by James Forman Jr., a D.C. lawyer who founded an alternative charter school in Washington, D.C. said, the study group was still struggling. Nearly 30% did not graduate from high school and only 15% attended college. Sure, the college attendance figure is 50% higher than for those who did not attend preschool but it's hardly a result to be satisfied with. The crime reduction was significant, too. But, still, about one in five of those who attended preschool had served time in jail, 16% had been found guilty of a felony, and arrests for violence were just as high among those who had attended preschool as for those who had not.

"Social scientists can, and should, debate the relative efficacy of different interventions in combatting poverty and its associated ills," Forman writes. "But anybody who claims that reform one aspect of our broken social services infrastructure will, all by itself, make a profound difference is selling snake oil."

As I say, more questions to ask and stories to do. The story on boys, in particular, would be quite provocative and interesting.

Theo Emery of the Tennessean turns in a good story about Gov. Phil Bredesen's plan to expand pre-k spending that goes beyond the politics to report on research done on the effect of pre-K. Read it here. As newspapers work to make their Web sites interactive the comments on articles have become an important element of the coverage. In a very interesting twist, the debate generated by a story helps puts the story in context.

The Daily Telegraph of London reports on a Cambridge University review of primary education that found schooling there too stressful, rigid, and oriented toward "performativity." English kids start school at age 4. The study found too much emphasis on testing young children.

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

The folks at Preschool California, as well as members of the California Legislature, acknowledge that the Golden State isn’t quite so golden
when it comes to the quality of its public preschools. The advocacy group’s Deborah Kong points out that the state now meets five of 10 quality benchmarks, because the state adopted learning standards earlier this year. She also notes that pending legislation would establish a commission to explore ways to improve quality and “consolidate and streamline” state and federally funded programs to set the stage for quality improvement.

Demonstrating the effect of the NIEER reports, the legislation quotes the NIEER finding that the state only meets four of 10 quality standards and cites that as a reason to seek quality improvements. The legislation also notes, however, that the state is in a budget crisis and any improvements can’t increase costs. Indeed, with the state facing a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit, Gov. Schwarzenegger has ordered up an across the board 10% cut in spending.

Ann Doss Helms of the Charlotte Observer posed some interesting questions in a Sunday story on Bright Beginnings, a pre-kindergarten program in Charlotte-Mecklenberg schools with a big promise -- to transform the lives of at-risk children and help them succeed later on.

Her story found the $23 million a year program has not kept its promises and that the school system cannot say what its academic impact has been. The Chief accountability officer of the district told Doss Helms that analyzing the success of the pioneer class -- now high school freshmen -- isn't on their radar, at a time when long-term research on the impact of public pre-kindergarten is lagging. A sidebar to the story shows how little data a researcher hired to analyze the program has received.

As states and governors consider investing public funds in pre-kindergarten, it's critical for journalists to follow-up the way the Doss Helms has done and hold the programs and public officials accountable. The questions her story poses -- including what factors determine and shape a student's success, and what influence a strong pre-kindergarten program might have -- must be part of the public dialogue.

While some states are pushing for all day kindergarten, Texas and Florida are jump-starting pre-school, trying out children as young as 2 and 3-years-old with the help of a $6 million grant from the University of Texas.

A piece by Staci Hupp in the Dallas Morning News noted that pre-school is "moving to the potty-training set,'' and took a look at a new project coming to Dallas that aims at training child-care workers to connect with children early to help boost their success in school later on.

Dallas is home to a fast growing Hispanic population with children younger than 5 making up the largest age group. The city also has a disproportionate population of poor children who are more likely to start pre-school developmentally behind and the hope is that starting children younger by building their vocabularies and school routines will only help them give them a better academic start.

It will be interesting for reporters to visit these early start programs and talk to some of the caregivers and teachers. What kind of structures and curriculum are in place, and how is the program being evaluated and measured? What are the expectations, and what are the hoped for -- and achieved -- outcomes? Is anyone measuring progress once they do start school, and if so, how? What constitutes success for the potty-training set?

The Roanoke Times in Virginia published a piece this week by education analysts Robert Holland and Don Soifer that links to a paper they published analyzing federal pre-kindergarten programs, available at the website of the Lexington Institute , a conservative think tank.

Their argument comes at a time when Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is having trouble finding support for his plan to offer tax-funded preschool to all of the state's 4-year-olds, calling it "a large tab for scant investments.''

While most advocates for pre-kindergarten vehemently disagree with this view, reporters covering the pre-kindergarten story need to be familiar with arguments both for and against public investment in such programs as they pursue stories and keep on eye on both local and national legislation.

The Virginia story has been worth watching because Kaine has been unable to fulfill an ambitious campaign promise for universal pre-kindergarten access. He's instead shifted to trying to double the number of underprivileged 4-year-olds who might be eligible. Kaine is among the governors who have started out with big expansion dreams for pre-kindergarten, only to face economic and budget realities in their states.

(New study shows Oklahoma's public pre-kindergarten to be effective)

Two interesting and very different studies have emerged this week on pre-kindergarten quality and effectiveness, including a surprisingly critical finding from Georgia,the first state to offer universal pre-kindergarten.

The state once hailed as a model, it seems, no longer leads the the nation in enrollment, high-quality standards or per-pupil spending, according the report by the Southern Education Foundation, picked up in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Pre-school access in the state is limited by a new population growth, including an influx of new immigrants.Georgia's per-pupil expenditure now ranks 22 against 38 other state-funded pre-kindergarten programs, the report notes, leaving lots of unanswered follow-up questions for journalists.

A study of 3,500 children in Oklahoma, meanwhile, found that pre-kindergarten programs set children up for later success in school, by strengthening reading, writing and math skills. The study published in the journal Science also found the state's pre-kindergarten program to have relatively high standards, pay and benefits to well-qualified teachers.

Participation in Tulsa's public pre-school program increased cognitive development significantly, along with pre-reading, writing and math skills, the study found. Children who participated in Head Start also improved their cognitive skills, though less dramatically.

William T. Gormley, lead author of the study, is the co-director of the Center for Research on Children in the U.S. (CROCUS) at Georgetown University. He believes a strong preschool program can lessen "negative effects,'' of family and environmental risk factors. Copies of the report are available at the AAAS Office of Public Programs at 202-326-6440 or
scipak@aaas.org.

Oklahoma has been an interesting state to watch because more of its 4-year-olds attend public pre-school than in any other state. Other studies have also found that Oklahoma's program improves children's language, literacy and mathematical skills; including a December, 2006 report from the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University.

Following up on the attention paid to the new Bill Gormley study of the effects of the state's $7,000 per year prekindergarten program I came across this ABC television report from May. It shows the power of television when done well. I particularly liked the video of a kindergartner who had attended pre-k writing letters (steady, clear, nicely formed) while, on a split screen, a kindergartner who had not gone to pre-k tried to do the same. (wobbly lines, some unrecognizable letters, slower).

The ABC report quoted candidate Obama saying he supported pre-k because it would return $10 for every dollar invested. I've now come across economic returns estimates of between $2.36 and $17 for each dollar invested. (See Clive Belfield's report as well as this oneby Steve Aos at the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.)

Not sure where Obama's number comes from but what's important is that each of these studies makes different assumptions, uses different methodologies for evaluating costs and savings, and covers different time periods. Point is that even the lowest estimate shows a better than one-to-one return. That return has to be evaluated against the returns from other social interventions, some of which are highly targeted and others, such as public schooling in general, that are universal.

The anti pre-k arguments Lisa Snell and Shikha Dalmia of the Reason foundation made in the Journal last Friday were based on a paper they published two years earlier. When the first paper came out Steve Barnett of the National Institute of Early Education Research at Rutgers rebutted both that paper and also one by the libertarian Lexington Institute in a 2008 paper. Roy Bishop, the president of the Oklahoma Education Association, linked to Steve's rebuttals on his blog.

The Journal News of Westchester County, New York reports that 10 years of data from the Yonkers school district shows children who attended
preschool scoring well above their peers who did not attend, based on their scores on mandated English and math exams. The newspaper reports that "their performance improved regardless of ethnic group, disability, gender, English-language proficiency or whether they received free or reduced-price lunches..."

Yonkers is expanding its pre-k program this year. But the mayor of Yonkers says money may not be available to sustain that expansion, unless the state contributes more. New York provides only about $3,500 per pupil, which forces local districts to bear some of the financial burden. That's something many New York districts resist.

The August 27 opinion piece by two Reason Foundation authors in the Wall Street Journal is still generating lots of traffic in print and in the blogosphere.

Libby Doggett, Pre-Know<

Susan Urahn, of the Pew Charitable Trusts (an underwriter of this blog) and
Libby Doggett of Pre-Know (also largely funded by Pew) collaborated on a Aug. 30 letter disputing the authors' analysis. The same day the Journal also published a letter by economist James Heckman and longtime pre-k advocate Lawrence J. Schweinhart of the High/Scope institute correcting the authors' misunderstanding of Heckman's research. A commentary by David L. Kirp "Sandbox Investment," (author of the pro-preschool book
partially funded by Pew) and Steve Barnett of the National Institute on Early Education Research that included a "fact check" on the original Journal piece appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. Another critique came out from The Think Tank Review Project, which keeps an eye on conservative-minded think tank's under a contract with the National Education Association teachers union.

Keeping the action going, the WSJ published a response by the Reason authors, Lisa Snell and Shikha Dalmia that accepted the clarification from Heckman/Schweinhart and continued to dispute Urahn/Doggett.

Lisa Snell, Reason Foundation

More to come, no doubt.

Roaming around the WWW in search of links to the Reason Foundation Wall Street Journal commentary I came across a Kindergarten, Pre-Kindergarten, and Head Start thread on a blog that was new to me: "Jerry Moore's School Talk" Jerry seems to compile full-text news coverage on a wide variety of education topics on the blog, without comment.

One of the articles he posts is an Aug. 29 Wall Street Journal piece on a British study that attributes significant advantages in early grades math performance to having attended preschool. The study is also interesting in that it attempts to isolate the
relative impact of various influences on children, such as a mother's education, father's education and so on. Interesting stuff.

Given the news of the past two weeks one would expect a group calling itself the "Partnership for America's Economic Success" to talk about credit availability, productivity or market regulation (or deregulation.) But as radio documentarian Emily Hanford reported this past weekend, the partnership of business leaders and foundations actually is devoted to expanding investment in early childhood education. In a piece titled "The Business of Pre-Kindergarten" for American Public Media's Weekend America service, Hanford reported that a founder of the group, Rob Dugger, is an economist and a partner in an international hedge fund. He is trying to get business leaders to think about the return of such investments over the long term. Hanford has great audio of Dugger using business rhetoric that can sound awkward when applied to investments in children.

Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Dugger says: “Our goal for five years has been to informationally weaponize those of you in the early childhood development community so that you can compete successfully in a budget world in which evidence-based long term returns is what is going to be the deciding factor of who gets money and who doesn’t."

A number of foundations are investors, including MacArthur and the Buffett Early Childhood Fund. The Pew Charitable Trusts, which is a supporter of this blog, invests in and manages the partnership. Sara Watson, who heads up that effort, champions the economic arguments. But she also says: “There are some investments in children we should make that will never show an economic return but we have to do them or we should do them. So we want to be careful that we don’t set too high of a bar.”

Early Stories likes nothing better than coming across good journalism about pre-kindergarten. It's fascinating to read about the struggles many states are having over how -- and if -- to fund early childhood education. It's even better when the stories go beyond rhetoric and politics at a time when state governments are strapped for cash. The best stories help the public understand what quality pre-kindergarten can do, and are supported by research and clear examples.

Few stories manage to do that, however. For example, a story in the Bismarck Tribune included an unexplained quote from a state representative who was arguing against the inclusion in a $110 million education bill of a $1.5 million grant to allow school districts to implement pre-kindergarten.

"I just don't think its right for government to be taking kids away from home at the age of 4," said Rep. Bette Grande, R-Fargo.

And exactly what language in the bill described how the government would accomplish that?

The Fargo Forum also quoted Grande as follows: “Pre-K is another chance for government to reach into the families,” taking children away from their homes at the age of 4.'' Again, no explanation.

So what exactly did she mean by that?

Granted, Grande isn't the most progressive of legislators. She introduced legislation that would require any abortion provider to offer a woman a look at an ultrasound picture of her fetus at least 24 hours before she gets an abortion. She also pushed a bill that would have allowed students to drop classes and demand tuition refunds if they claimed they couldn't understand their instructor.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't be asked to explain.

There are numerous resources available for journalists that describe how and why pre-kindergarten can make a difference in the lives of children. They can compare what is happening in the state they are covering with others.

The old argument about government taking away children -- even if it is a deeply ingrained belief -- must be explained, not just reported.

Visit any preschool and you are likely to hear lots of praise and encouragement from teachers. The children, pleased with themselves, may smile in return.

Turns out, all that praise may not be such a great idea.

In fact, it might be furthering a new generation of narcissists, according to a BBC news report.

Carol Craig, chief executive of the centre for confidence and well-being in Scotland, recently warned educators that they are praising children too much, an idea she said had been imported from the U.S.

Craig told educators at a conference that "an obsession with boosting children's self esteem was encouraging a narcissistic generation who focused on themselves and felt entitled.''

EarlyStories remembers visiting a preschool where the instructor pointed out to parents that merely praising children for, say, drawing a beautiful picture of a castle wasn't terribly helpful. Instead, the praise should be targeted and specific; ie, "I like the way you drew that flag on top of the turret.''

That made some sense at the time. Craig is more about keeping educators on track as educators; they are not, she said recently "surrogate psychologists or mental health professionals.''

EarlyStories became curious about the whole issue of praise in the classroom and decided to see what some U.S. experts have to say. It would be interesting to hear what early childhood educators in the U.S. think of Craig's views.

As the House Committee on Education and Labor begin hearings this week on early childhood education, it's a good time for journalists to think about visiting centers of early learning, including Head Start and Early Head Start.

Questions about the quality of programs abound at a time when President Barack Obama's stimulus package includes some $5 billion to grow Early Head Start and Head Start and to expand access to quality child care and early learning.

These excellent questions about how to assess the quality of programs come courtesy of the First Five Years Fund, whose goals include increasing the number of policymakers, private foundations and business leaders who believe in the value of supporting young children early.

On this list are some red flags for the kinds of things you don't want to see when visiting an early childhood center:

What you don’t want to see:

Inattentive, overwhelmed, or unengaged staff
* Unengaged teachers sitting on the side of the classroom but not participating
* Shouting, swearing, or other displays of hostile discipline
* Infants and toddlers crying without being attended to

An unsafe, unhealthy, or un-stimulating environment
* Small, cramped centers or homes without designated appropriate spaces for different ages
* A center or home that smells of urine, has visible safety risks, or is unclean
* Frequent use of television or video to occupy children
* Children easily distracted or frightened by visiting strangers

Activities and routines that are too chaotic or too inflexible
* Children wandering aimlessly, left unsupervised, or displaying unchecked aggression
* Children restrained in car seats or in high chairs at times other than meal time
* Children spending a lot of time waiting around for turns
* Children expected to sit at desks, perform highly structured tasks, or other forms of age-inappropriate expectations

What you want to see:

Educated, attentive, and engaged teachers and staff
* Teachers with four-year degrees and specific training in early childhood education
* No more than 8 infants and toddlers and no more than 20 preschoolers in a classroom
* Teacher to child ratios of 1:3 for infants and 1:10 for preschoolers
* Teachers who crouch to eye-level to speak to children and who hold, cuddle, show affection, and speak directly to infants and toddlers
* Families and teachers exchanging information about the child's development and learning progress

A safe, healthy, and child-friendly environment
* A room well-equipped with sufficient materials and toys
* Classrooms in which materials and activities are placed at eye level for the children
* Materials and toys accessible to children in an orderly display
* Centers that encourage safe, outdoor playtime
* Frequent hand-washing by children and adults
* Visitors welcomed with appropriate parental consent

Stimulating activities and appropriately structured routines
* Children who are engaged in their activities
* Children offered breakfast and lunch and a time to nap
* Children participating with teachers and each other in individual, small-group, and large-group activities
* Children receiving a variety of stimuli in their daily routine using indoor and outdoor spaces and age-appropriate language, literacy, math, science, art, music, movement, and dramatic play experiences
* Preschoolers who are allowed to play independently

It's not always easy for busy journalists to find the time to go out and visit pre-schools and Head Start programs, but stories describing what actually happens in these programs go a long way toward helping the public understand what policies are actually working, and where drastic improvement is needed. At a time when the U.S. is poised to invest significant public dollars in early childhood programs, journalists can shine a light on how its littlest citizens are learning -- or not.

EarlyStories was hoping Florida journalists might pick up on this week's NIEER 2007 report card, which found that Florida's voluntary pre-k program is among the poorest quality in the U.S. The state earned high marks for access, as it is open to every 4-year-old, regardless of income. News about the program is hugely important in Florida's tough economy, where more and more parents are taking advantage of it; some 61 percent of the state's four-year-olds enrolled last year.

The Tampa Tribune noted in a piece this week that Florida educators are worried that the findings did change much over the course of a year. EarlyStories would now like to see journalists spend some time examining Florida's pre-k programs and explaining to the public how to tell the difference between a high and low quality program.

It's not enough to tell us that a program is of poor quality. What are the kids -- and teachers -- doing, or not doing? Are they being prepared for kindergarten? Are they learning letters, numbers and sounds or just playing on a playground? How is quality measured -- what do the standards look like -- and how can parents steer clear of poor programs? What -- if any -- efforts are under way to improve Florida's pre-k's?

The NIEER report should be a starting point for journalists. What are the stories that come next?

Science Daily reported some interesting results of a study this week that could have important consequences for kindergarten students who are struggling to pay attention. The study that appeared in the June issue of the medical journal "Pediatrics,'' found that children who can't keep up in kindergarten are more likely to do poorly on standardized tests in high school.

"The Impact of Childhood Behavior Problems on Academic Achievement in High School," analyzes data on approximately 700 children from kindergarten until the end of high school.

"In our study, a child's inability to pay attention when they start school had the strongest negative effect on how they performed at the end of high school — regardless of their IQ (intelligence quotient)," lead study author Joshua Breslau, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the UC Davis School of Medicine and a researcher with the UC Davis Center for Reducing Health Disparities, told Science Daily. In a fascinating footnote, much of the research was done by his mother, Dr. Naomi Breslau, who was researching the long-term effects of low birth weight more than 20 years ago. Naomi Breslau conducted a random sample of 1,095 diverse children, with 823 participating in an initial assessment of IQ and classroom behavior as they passed their sixth birthdays; follow-up assessments were conducted at ages 11 and 17, Science Daily reported.

Joshua Breslau noted that addressing attention problems early in life could keep some children from entering "a downward spiral of failure."

The message for parents and teachers? Don't ignore signs of inattentiveness in young children, said study co-author Julie Schweitzer, a UC Davis associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) researcher at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute, in an interview with Science Daily.

And what story ideas might the study provide for reporters? EarlyStories can imagine sitting in a kindergarten classroom, observing the explosion of energy and enthusiasm as the children play number and letter games and listen to stories. (That's all still part of most kindergartens, hopefully)

Who is listening attentively and who isn't? Could a reporter draw conclusions and become concerned about a fidgety boy or sleeping girl? Maybe not, but a well trained teacher could (and should). How concerned are teachers about the children who are fading in and out? Do they know the difference between a child who might be just tired out or overexcited on any given day?
And what, if anything, can they do with this information to make sure the child gets the help they need?

Not all studies break news for journalists, but many are worth reading if only to learn more about they mysterious and fascinating ways little minds work in a country where more than half the high school students don't graduate in four years. What happens -- or doesn't happen -- in the early years is enormously important.

EarlyStories for months has lamented the lack of substantive reporting on Head Start, , the program the United States Department of Health and Human Services started in 1964 that provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.

It's an area few journalists delve into, leaving the public without the benefit of understanding what happens inside Head Start programs. That's why it was refreshing to see a story appear in the Danville News in Danville, Virginia, where a reporter actually attended a Head Start graduation and attempted to find research that addresses the effectiveness of such programs. The Danville program received more than $1 million in federal and state funding and donations for the 2007-08 fiscal year, so it makes sense to find out what kind of impact it is having on the lives of small children.

The reporter tried -- but could not find -- local data about the program. She was also unable to reach the school superintendent to hear more about what happens to the graduates later on and how they perform in elementary school. She did include the results of a national Head Start impact study by the Society for Research in Child Development for the Department of Health and Human Services, which found that "nationally, Head Start reduced the achievement gap by 45 percent in pre-reading skills between Head Start children and the national average for all 3- and 4-year-olds.''

At a time when President Barack Obama's budget allocates $800 million in grants and incentives for states and local districts to invest in early child programs, it's more important than ever for journalists to visit and and ask questions. Interviewing parents and educators and watching the young children in action, along with seeking out research, is an important way of explaining the effectiveness of investing in these programs to the public.

For years, educators have believed that very young children were not capable of learning math. But a new book finds that children in public and private preschools, including Head Start and other programs aimed at low-income children, should be spending much more time receiving high quality math instruction. Reporters can request a copy at from the Office of News and Public Information.

The report is a terrific starting point for journalists who are interested in how math is taught for young children. It concludes that activities around math should include mathematical reasoning, measurement and spatial thinking, and suggests that teachers receive professional development to help implement a strong early childhood math curriculum. Teachers College experts Sharon Lynn Kagan and Herbert Ginsburg contributed to the report. Ginsburg developed an early math education program called "Big Math for Little Kids,'' that he is now evaluating, and has long pointed out that most preschools either don't teach math or instruct children in a narrow range of math content.

Journalists who visit early childhood programs should ask about math instruction and ask to see a curriculum or for an explanation of what concepts are being taught and why. According to Ginsburg, "...there is a growing consensus that early childhood math education is not only necessary....but should be comprehensive. It should include play with materials and objects that set the stage for math learning, teachable moments, in which teachers in which teachers observe kids in spontaneous situations that can be exploited to promote learning; teacher-guided projects of complex topics—like figuring out how to create a map of the classroom; and deliberate instruction using a planned curriculum to actively introduce math concepts, methods and language. This curriculum is not, of course, a textbook, but a carefully sequenced set of exciting activities. "

EarlyStories spends a great deal of time commenting on the way early childhood education is covered by journalists, and pointing out new ways to think about the issue and get inside classrooms for visits. Now there is a new guide available with a wealth of resources all in one place: "Covering the Pre-K Landscape: New Investments in Our Littlest Learners,” the newest publication from the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media. The 20-page publication includes guidance for covering all aspects of the rapidly expanding pre-k landscape, from Head Start to state-sponsored pre-k programs.

Barbara Kantrowitz, staff editor for the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media, edited the guide, conceived by the Institute's director Richard Lee Colvin and written largely by longtime former Education Week assistant editor Linda Jacobson, along with Karen Springen, formerly of Newsweek and Hechinger Institute staff.

Kantrowitz notes that the guide is important because education reporters for years neglected coverage of preschool in favor of k-12 or higher education issues. But in the last decade, early childhood education has jumped to a prominent place on the national agenda with huge increases in state and federal spending for the littlest learners. The Obama administration is accelerating that trend, by allocating billions for Head Start and other programs that reach young children. Suddenly, preschool is on the front pages. What brought about this dramatic change? And what’s the wisest way to spend the new federal dollars?

A major message is the importance of skepticism when covering preschool. Policy makers and advocates often cite studies showing that every dollar spent on preschool returns as much as $17 in savings on future social services. The guide points out that much of this research was conducted on high-quality programs and many preschools today do not meet those same standards. There’s a useful list of things to look for in assessing whether a preschool is doing a good job (and signs that the school is failing its students). The publication also includes a rundown of experts and research studies to guide further reporting. The publication was funded with a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

To request a copy, email Hechinger@tc.edu.

EarlyStories often pushes journalists to spend time visiting early childhood classrooms and to see the area as a rich source of story ideas. Sometimes it takes a little jump start to see the connection, and that's why it's an excellent idea to apply for the Journalism Center on Children & Families conference in September "Ladder of Success:Covering Early Childhood Learning.''

Competitive fellowships are available that include travel subsidies, and the 20 journalists who attend will have a chance to hear from some of the top experts in the field. Topics will include the debate about who should attend public preschool, how to train early childhood teachers and ways of educating immigrant children. Experts include Ellen Galinsky, Gene Steuerle, Margaret Freedson and Joan Lombardi.

It's a great chance to get out of the newsroom and come back with ideas, sources and perspective on an issue that is gaining increasing importance due to President Barack Obama's agenda of unprecedented federal involvement and investment in early childhood. Anyone with questions can call 301-405-8808.

Journalists who wonder how early childhood education fits into the larger K-12 landscape have a great opportunity to learn more about this critical topic. The Journalism Center on Children & Families in Maryland has extended the deadline for its September training conference and fellowship, entitled "Ladders of Success: Covering Early Childhood Learning."

The conference features experts including Ellen Galinsky of the Families & Work Institute and Gene Steuerle of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. It takes place Sept 13-15, 2009 (Sunday through Tuesday) at The Inn & Conference Center and the University of Maryland in College Park, Md.

The two-and-a-half day seminar will encourage 20 journalists to examine the best way to fix the country’s underfunded and fragmented early childhood system.

Sessions will include:

Born Learning: A look at the science of early education

Economic Reality: Funding early education during a recession.

Leveling the Learning Field: One out of every five children in the United States is the child of an immigrant. How do communities address the needs of immigrant families and their young children?

Early Intervention: For many children, learning the alphabet and counting comes before they start their formal education. But many children struggle with these early concepts because of limited exposure to learning or because of undiagnosed disorders in cognition or learning.

What Works: Where to find pre-k programs that are thriving in at-risk communities?

Ready to Learn: in 2005, only 31 percent of fourth-graders read at a ‘proficient’ or better level. What do young children learn in early education that helps prepare them for lifelong success? How do programs successfully link early learning to the early grades?

For details and an application, visit at www.journalismcenter.org

Two recent articles shed light on some of the pressures our youngest learners are facing, not through any choice of their own. The first was a fascinating piece in Sunday's New York Times magazine by Paul Tough, the author of "Whatever it Takes.'', which focuses on the Harlem Children's Zone's efforts to improve education for children from birth on.

Tough's piece, entitled, "Can the right kind of play teach self control?'' examined a relatively new way of getting little learners ready for the world they will one day face, via a curriculum that addresses a cognitive ability known by the non-child friendly term "executive function.''

According to Tough, the "new buzz phrase has emerged among scholars and scientists who study early-childhood development, " although he acknowledged that the phrase "sounds more as if it belongs in the boardroom than the classroom.''

EarlyStories enjoyed reading all about the concept, but could not get past the photographs that told their own story: the children looked positively grim, and in some cases deeply unhappy.

On Monday, Meredith Kolodner of the New York Daily News broke a story about an assessment regime for three and four-year-olds in the city's public pre-kindergarten programs, aimed at getting information about developmental delays.

The story raised questions about the relability of testing for children so young, and included the voices of parents who wonder why their children would be tested.

Reading the two stories comes at a time when the press has been focusing on the need for early childhood education to become more playful, so it set up some interesting questions.

What do we want from our next generation of learners, and what are the best ways to get them there?

Diane D'Amico of the Atlantic City Press in New Jersey went where few journalists venture last week, when she took a close look at New Jersey's state nurse family partnership program. The story notes that by age three, children from low-income families "are lagging behind their middle- and upper-class counterparts in vocabulary development," and describes a program that is attempting to reach younger children.

It showed how a nurse with the program worked with a young mother throughout her pregnancy, encouraging her to graduate from high school and providing tools and tips, including a book, to help the mom give her baby a jump start on learning.

The issues D'Amico points out are timely, in part because President Barack Obama pushed an agenda that included an emphasis on early education. The higher education bill the House of Representatives passed in September includes $8 billion over eight years for the Early Learning Challenge Fund -- aimed at improving programs for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, D'Amico points out.

Journalists should be on the lookout for ways this money will be spent. D'Amico wrote about the state's nurse family partnership program, and Family Success Centers that provide various services; she even attended a Baby Bounce program at the Atlantic City library. Similar programs exist or may be starting throughout the U.S.

EarlyStories suggests reaching out to see what kinds of new programs or money might be available for youngsters, even before the enter pre-school. Who are the funders? What is the agenda and the reach? Are families taking advantage -- is there a documented need, or waiting lists? The EarlyEd watch blog is also a terrific resource for following early childhood policy and funding developments.

One of the country's top experts on early childhood education made an interesting observation during a discussion of equity in after school programs this week: Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, the co-director of the
National Center for Children and Families noted at a forum sponsored by the Campaign for Educational Equity that after school programs have a lot to learn from what has happened with early childhood programs in the U.S.

Brooks-Gunn, the Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Child Development at TC, found similarities while working on study of after school programs that "remind me of early childhood education, like a time warp.'' Both are moving toward improving quality as well as "continuous improvement.''

The packed forum at Teachers College included observations by TASC (The After School Corporation) and prompted an interesting discussion of how and if after-school programs can level the playing field for disadvantaged youth -- especially because their participation in such programs is so low.

The forum came during a week after school programs or the lack of them has been in the news, due to a report by the After School Alliance , which found that some 15 million children are alone and unsupervised after school, and that the parents of some 18 million would enroll their children in after school programs if they were available.

EarlyStories enjoyed the discussion, especially because it prompted an opportunity to think about where early childhood education has been and where it is going in the U.S. After school programs, like early childhood education, can play an enormous role in the lives of children, yet neither issue gets the attention it deserves from the media.

Remarks made at the forum also led to the re-discovery of an important resource for education journalists and others trying to get a helpful overview and handle on early childhood issues: a June 2009 report entitled "American Early Childhood: Preventing or Perpetuating Inequality?"

The report is authored by Brooks-Gunn' colleague, Sharon Lynn Kagan,, who is also the Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy at TC and with Brooks-Gunn co-directs the National Center for Children and Families.

A re-read of Kagan's report served as a reminder of why what happens in the early years is so critical right now. The report spells out both important historical developments in early childhood education as well as sketching out the urgency of the current landscape.

As Kagan noted, "...expectations and investments are soaring now as never before....domestically, early childhood is on the agenda of every governor; bills are in the hopper in early every state legislature...internationally, other nations look to America to see if and how we are education our youngest children."

Sara Mead at Early Ed Watch this week put together a comprehensive blog posting that really helped frame an important debate in early childhood education.

Mead used the opportunity of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's speech at the University of Virginia to detail some of the arguments and debate about the credentials needed for early childhood educators, an issue in many states and school districts.

In his speech, Duncan harshly criticized the country's education school as "neglected stepchildren,'' who don't attract the best and the brightest students or faculty members.

Journalists may have heard complaints about education schools before, but Mead succinctly lays out why the issue is relevant to early childhood education, noting that early childhood advocates have been fighting for more than a decade to raise credentials for educators of the youngest students. She also lays out important policy and legislative developments that could make a difference. including the Early Learning Challenge Grants that are now before Congress as part of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

"Research documents the tremendous amount of learning that takes place in children’s earliest years, as well as the importance of nurturing, consistent and stimulating caregivers to children’s development during this time.'' Mead wrote. "Yet childcare and preschool teachers often earn less than parking lot attendants or hotel maids, and many also have correspondingly low education levels."

Journalists can and should ask for the background and credentials of the early childhood teachers in the districts they cover, and find out if there is a debate about their degrees and credentials. What do they earn? How do salaries compare with those of K-12 teachers? What kind of background and experience do they bring to their positions?

EarlyStories managed to miss an excellent series on math education in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that included an interesting look at how math can and should be introduced to the littlest learners.

Talking to young students about math, it turns out, is very important. So is counting, and introducing shapes, all part of "teaching preschoolers in a deep, interesting and systematic way, with lots of activities and without textbooks,'' according to the story, which leans upon a report by the Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics, and the work of Herbert Ginsburg at Teachers College.

Education journalists get caught up in covering math scores and math wars, not realizing what to look for in a high quality early childhood program and how critical it is to math success later on. Locating the excellent series in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette served as a reminder of the good work that can be done on this important topic.

Shameless plug -- the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media has a new guide for journalists on covering math education that includes an extensive interview with Ginsburg on early childhood and math, and is filled with tips, resources and story ideas.

You can download "Math Matters: A Journalist's Guide,'' on the Hechinger Institute website.

For years, the term "school readiness,'' has centered on how literate young children are when they enter school for the first time, based on both their familiarity with numbers and related concepts. A new study from Madhabi Chatterji, Associate Professor of Measurement-Evaluation at Teachers College, found that early supports outside of the home can play a critical role in determining how ready a child is for kindergarten.

Chatterji, who is director of the Assessment and Evaluation Research Initiative at Teachers College, focused her research on the Chemung County School Readiness Project, a community collaboration that’s providing child and family services and has a goal of cutting by half the percentage of children in this southern Finger Lakes region of upstate New York county who come to school unprepared.

Factors known to help a child in kindergarten include having a mother who is at least college-educated, with exposure to informal educational experience and some pre-school. The study aims to develop a comprehensive measure of school readiness based on a number of factors, ranging from a child's health to their social and emotional adjustment. According to Chatterji, the results could be used "to build awareness among parents about the need for comprehensive education,'' along with the role county services might play.

EarlyStories is curious about other county and grass roots collaborations aimed at helping little learners get ready for school.

EarlyStories has been waiting for the post election stories to settle down and hoping New Jersey reporters would start tackling Governor elect Chris Christie's education agenda, particularly when it comes to pre-kindergarten. The Associated Press took a look at the issue in a piece that ran in Education Week, but the story did not mention the stir created during the campaign, when Christie likened the state’s preschool programs to "glorified babysitting," in remarks that offended many who believe New Jersey has made great strides in early childhood education.

The Newark Star Ledger on Sunday published an excellent editorial entitled "Don't mess with success: Gov.-elect Chris Christie should catch up on preschool,'' that laid out strong arguments for keeping the state's hard fought pre-kindergarten programs funded:

"The children graduating from these programs are now in elementary school, and their scores on fourth grade reading and math tests have risen substantially,'' the editorial noted. "This is a key reason why the racial achievement gap in New Jersey is closing faster than in any other state."

There are many questions for Christie about these programs and about how and if he intends to support and maintain funding. The election quips are over; it will soon be time to watch not just what Christie says but what he does.

Anyone involved in covering pre-kindergarten issues at some point hears a reference to the Perry Preschool study, which examined the lives of 123 African American children who were born in poverty. The study was the first of its kind to quantify the impact a high-quality preschool program had on the lives of children, and it is still widely quoted.

Over the years, EarlyStories has heard countless references to the study, but never really thought more deeply about what the actual experience was like for the people involved in it before listening to Emily Hanford's excellent broadcast on American RadioWorks. Hanford's "Early Lessons,'' report should be required for any journalist -- or anyone, really -- with an interest in preschool.

Hanford, a producer at American Radio Works, acknowledges she didn't know much about preschool issues, or about the Perry Preschool Project until she tackled the same question the study attempted to answer: Can preschool boost IQ scores and prevent children from failing in school?

In three visits to Yipslanti, Michigan, where the study took place, Hanford grew fascinated with both the history of the study and the profound questions it attempted to raise about equity in education. She learned a great deal about David Weikart, the Perry preschool founder who died in 2003. Weikart started the Perry preschool in 1958, according to Hanford, "in response to frustration with what he describes in his memoir as "the pace of needed changes in a small, local school system.''

Hanford tracked down at least three of the teachers at the school, who share stories about visits to apple orchards and other ways the children learned about the world around them. The Perry preschool, Hanford's report notes, focused "on cognitive development – stimulating children’s brains, increasing their vocabulary, teaching them letters and numbers.''

Hanford's piece is filled with powerful interviews and descriptions of what life was like at the school: “I would do whatever we needed to do,” former Perry teacher Evelyn Moore told Hanford, “to prove that this many African-American children were not retarded.”

Hanford noted in an interview with EarlyStories: "This is history that is going to go away soon. "The researcher is dead. The teachers will be gone -- most are gone already -- and even the kids are going to be gone, so it was a great thing to capture this history at a moment in time.''

Hanford had not heard of the Perry study before she began the project, made possible with support from the Spencer Foundation which investigates ways in which education can be improved around the world and believes research is part of the equation.

"I literally spent a month just reading and talking to people and trying to figure out what education research has had an impact on policy,'' Hanford said. "I was more interested in the question of how research effects policy...and whether and how research informs public policy in a positive way. It's an open question -- sometimes research doesn't do what it should.''

A transcript of Hanford's project is available here, and the program can also be downloaded.

Will Elmo and his buddies from Sesame Street be able to convey a meaningful message about the need to improve math and science in the U.S.? That is apparently what President Barack Obama's administration hopes, as evidenced by the announcement of a new campaign described in the New York Times.

The campaign comes at a time when U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has pointed out that “none of us should be satisfied” with student results on recent math tests, which revealed that under 40 percent of U.S. students in fourth and eighth grade are proficient in mathematics.

The National Math and Science Initiative and the Carnegie Corporation are both promoting new initiatives, described recently in a Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media webinar, available here. Journalists should do more than simply cover the cute advertisements and industry partnerships the White House is announcing; they must examine and find out what, if anything, the schools and districts they cover are doing to help prepare the country’s 50 million students for secure jobs and higher education in math and science.

That effort must start in pre-school, so it's worth asking to see the curriculum and find out what role math and science plays at the earliest levels.

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?

A smart and well reported piece on so-called helicopter parents in Time Magazine at first produced in EarlyStories the kind of reaction such pieces intend to produce -- a sigh and a shrug, directed, as it should be, at parents who have once again gone too far.

But a second read produced a different reaction. At a time of high unemployment, and with so many families struggling financially, the timing seemed a bit off. Do parents worrying about foreclosures, credit card debt and job loss really have the time and inclination to over manage their kids lives in the way the Time piece described?

The answer is that that most don't, although the more upscale parents Time spoke with seem to have more than enough, according to the extreme examples from Nancy Gibb's cover article. Parental transgressions ranged from buying macrobiotic cupcakes and hypoallergenic socks to hiring tutors to correct a 5-year-old's "pencil-holding deficiency,'' and showing up at school unannounced to bring matching accessories. Let's not forget hooking up broadband connections in a treehouse or buying leashes for children and knee pads for toddlers.

"We were so obsessed with our kids' success that parenting turned into a form of product development,'' Gibbs wrote. "Parents demanded that nursery schools offer Mandarin, since it's never too soon to prepare for the competition of a global economy.''

All of this may be true. But so is this: More than 75 percent of the nation’s four-year-olds and an even larger percentage of 3-year-olds still have no access to state-funded pre-k programs, much less mandarin programs. Despite worries about the overscheduled child, some 18 million children need, but don't have, after school programs. Some 28 million parents work outside the home and as many as 15 million "latchkey,'' kids go home to an empty house.

So EarlyStories has concluded the following. The helicopter parent may not be hovering in many U.S. households at the moment. But reading the story was a nice substitute for buying Entertainment Weekly.

With so much debate and discussion over charter schools lately, EarlyStories found it fascinating to read the New York Times style piece Sunday, entitled, "Scholarly Investments.''

First thought: What on earth is a story about charter schools doing on the style page? The answer of course, can be seen in the picture of Ravenel Boykin Curry IV, who helped found two Girls Preparatory Charter Schools, posing with six uniformed young students in the Bronx.

Turns out that well connected, socialite hedge fund managers like Curry are are embracing charter schools as their new cause; these maverick investors have decided they like this new model -- whatever that means. So now it's in vogue to be supportive of charters in the largest school system in the U.S., with more than 1.1 million public school children -- although according to the story, only about 30,000, or 2.5 percent of them, attend attend charters.

So why are the money folks choosing charters instead of embracing some of the other struggling public schools, many of which could use an infusion of hedge fund cash at a time of deep budget cuts?

Because, according to Nancy Hass of the Times, "their obsession — one shared with many other hedge funders — is creating charter schools, the tax-funded, independently run schools that they see as an entrepreneurial answer to the nation’s education woes.''

Curry himself explained that hedge fund mavericks see charter schools as “exactly the kind of investment people in our industry spend our days trying to stumble on.''

The story did not explain why the wealthy fund managers are attracted to the type of education that charter schools offer, or how it differs from what happens in some of the 1,600 New York City public schools. Are they excited about the quality of teaching and learning, and the success of students? It did point out that studies on the effectiveness of charter schools differ in their conclusions.

One manager suggested the attraction has to do with the way charter schools rely "on metrics and tests to measure progress,'' -- a concept that is also deeply ingrained in the public school culture in the aftermath of No Child Left Behind, and also part of U .S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's education agenda. (He is also a big fan of charter schools)

The hedge fund managers appear to be excited by the notion that charter schools are “scalable,” with models that could be emulated in many communities that have long waiting lists of parents looking for free alternatives. Charter schools, for the record, also pay their employees differently and don't choose their staffs from teachers unions.

There are many good questions that should be raised here, and the style piece attempted to raise some of them. EarlyStories can't help but want to see more journalists spending time in charter schools, starting in pre-kindergarten if at all possible, to let the public know how these schools are different. Are they changing lives for children? How so?

The best pre-kindergarten classrooms are teeming with books -- books in baskets, on shelves, on the floor and most importantly, in little hands. During the highly commercial Christmas season, it's nice to remember that books make excellent gifts for some of the little people in your life as well, and EarlyStories was inspired to find a few lists after reading a Washington Post column filled with recommendations.

Education columnist Jay Mathews is a big fan of an excellent list compiled by Renaissance Learning but that list is geared more toward books for older readers in grades 1-12.

So what about the pre-school set? EarlyStories set out looking for good lists, and came up with a few, including one from TeachersFirst, of course Amazon, and the Brooklyn Public Library. Most local libraries will have their own list -- and very likely, classics like Caps for Sale and anything by Eric Carle will be on them. There's a terrific selection of books for toddlers through three at BankStreetBooks.com; a good list at PreKinders and a great read
aloud list at the Children' Literacy Initiative, which also isolates the best books for kindergarten students.

EarlyStories also wants to offer a few suggestions for books journalists -- or anyone else -- who is interested in learning more about pre-kindergarten might like to read, courtesy of Pre-k now.

The list doesn't include personal favorites, like Carle's "The Very Quiet Cricket,'' and "Just One More Story,' by Jennifer Brutschy' -- oh wait, and of course, the much read and beloved "Ghost Train,'' by Stephen Wyllie.

But there comes a time to pass those books down and move on to more scholarly pursuits like "The Sandbox Investment,'' by David L. Kirp..

Happy reading!

Just how much math are little children capable of learning? For years, it seemed educators and scientists did not believe little brains could handle much math at all before the age of five. But now new research is showing they can, according to an interesting piece in the New York Times. EarlyStories immediately wondered what kind of impact the research might have on the way math is taught in pre-schools across the U.S.

The story pointed to new studies from the world of neuroscience showing that preschoolers can perform far more complicated math problems than initially thought. It noted that about a dozen states are using a program that helps the youngsters develop their frontal lobes, and that the new findings are fusing the fields of brain science and education for the first time, The story also described how a program in Buffalo already has a track record for teaching early math.

Herbert Ginsburg at Teachers College has also done some groundbreaking work on teaching math to young children, another terrific resource for journalists trying to figure out what -- if any -- math is being taught in pre-kindergarten and even kindergarten classrooms. The article also pointed to the interesting work that Sharon Griffin is doing with Number Worlds, a research-based math program for young children.

Journalists don't usually venture deep into the world of education research when covering pre-school issues, but there is clearly a rich world to tap and ask about when visiting classrooms. What sort of math, if any, is being taught, and why? Do the teachers have any sense of what the children could be capable of learning? How do school officials explain the math curriculum, or the lack of one?

Every now and then, EarlyStories runs into a piece of journalism that attempts to answer what could be perhaps the most important -- and mysterious -- question about the U.S. education system: What makes an effective teacher? It's a question with implications for students of all ages and sizes, and it matters from the minute they enter a classroom.

At a time when journalists who cover education are focused intently on Race to the Top applications and impending deadlines, it's critically important to stop and think about how children are being taught and what they learn. And that's exactly what Amanda Ripley's illuminating story in the The Atlantic this month does.

In clear prose, Ripley explains why the question of what makes good teaching is so important at this point in time.

"Parents have always worried about where to send their children to school; but the school, statistically speaking, does not matter as much as which adult stands in front of their children,'' Ripley notes. As states are competing for money, they must also "try to identify great teachers, figure out how they got that way, and then create more of them."

Along with the politics of covering the Race to the Top grant program, it's important to really think about how teaching might be improved and examine the most recent rsearch and data. Reporters covering early childhood education rarely focus on the topic of teachers and teaching, and indeed the credentials and qualifications required are often different.

Regardless, the questions Ripley raises and examines thoroughly are the right ones. Properly trained, effective teachers are key to improving the quality of education in the U.S. How are we going to get there?

Thanks to our colleagues over at Early Education Watch for raising iquestions about the important new study that may not bode well for Head Start, the national school readiness program that is integral to President Barack Obama's early childhood strategy.The study made its way to Congress on Wednesday.

The study found that while Head Start had a positive influence on school readiness after one year, the gains were minimal by the end of first grade. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services immediately announced plans to strengthen Head Start programs, and it will be important for journalists to follow up.

Early Ed Watch concluded that the study points to the need for giving disadvantaged children more than a a year of high quality education, and that improvements in teacher training for Head Start and all pre-kindergarten programs are needed. W. Steve Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, offered another perpective: he noted that the findings "are based on comparing children who went to Head Start with other children who likely also received some kind of preschool experience – sometimes Head Start in another place or a state-funded pre-K program. It is especially significant because that kind of comparison will not likely show big differences."

He also pointed out in a press release released by NIEER that "the promises of Head Start can only be fulfilled if the program is funded and staffed at the levels that have proven to make a real difference in the lives of children, something that has not happened in the entire 40-year history of the program.''

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted in a press release that Head Start must be improved. “The program provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition and social services to low income children and families,'' she noted. “Still, for Head Start to achieve its full potential, we must improve its quality and promote high standards across all early childhood programs.”

How will questions and concerns about the future of Head Start be addressed? EarlyStories has noted repeatedly that this is an issue worth paying attention and too often ignored by the press.

Teachers College professor Herbert Ginsburg recalled a story on Tuesday about a very young child who walked into a day care center and gave the teacher an urgent command:

"Teach me something."

The teacher asked the child what it was they hoped to learn, and got the reply: "You are the teacher, tell me!"

Ginsburg described the incident before a packed audience at Teachers College during a discussion about a new National Academy of Sciences report that calls for a major national initiative to improve early childhood mathematics education.

The story underscored a major point in the report: Young children are capable of learning and often want to learn a lot more math than they are offered. Low income children in particular have few opportunities to learn math and teachers aren't adequately trained or prepared to teach them, Ginsburg said as he walked through the reports findings. He also showed several videos of low-income chidren using a calendar to count by two, even without any direction.

"We need to think about how we teach and what we teach,'' Ginsburg said. The report notes that the amount of time and attention devoted to math needs to be increased in all preschools, and suggested that training of teachers must be dramatically improved so they have the confidence and the background to teach early math.

One reality check in the discussion came from Sharon Lynn Kagan , the co-director of the National Center for Children and Families at Teachers College who also served on the National Academy of Science panel that produced the report.

Kagan pointed out that nearly half of young children in the U.S. are in family day care settings where there is even less of a chance they will be exposed to early math concepts.In addition, early math plays a low priority in any standards that do exist for early learning in the U.S. and little is known about the teaching of math at the pre-school level.

There is hope that some states will revamp and revise their early childhood standards and curriculum, she noted. "It may be limited to a given number of states but it will be a great opportunity for them."

A full copy of the report -- which is a terrific roadmap for story ideas -- can be found here.

For the first time, Chicago public schools will formally measure just how ready little learners are for kindergarten, by piloting a new readiness measurement, according to a story in Catalyst.

Unlike a standardized test, the tool will gauge how children are ready through a series of observations over time, and by measuring their understanding of concepts such as which words rhyme, the story notes. The tool will help educators gain a better understanding of the quality of the pre-school education a child received.

It would be interesting to see what other school districts do to formally evaluate kindergarten readiness, especially in states where there is no publicly funded pre-kindergarten. There are checklists and exams and quite a few resources that are aimed at helping parents and educators answer the question.

The new assessment tool in Chicago comes as important questions are being raised about the quality of U.S. preschool programs, especially Head Start, which serves more than a million students and is under scrutiny after a major study found gains students make fade by third grade. Experts hope the new readiness tool the Chicago Public schools plans to use will help gauge just how effective half-day programs like Head Start are.

EarlyStories was both horrified and heartened by an expose in the Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee that looked at ways thousands of children from low-income families in Wisconsin are being kept out of kindergarten.

The horrifying part were the facts laid out in the story, which found that the $350 million Wisconsin Shares program lets parents keep their 4-, 5- and even some 6-year-olds in day care centers all day - at taxpayer expense - rather than enroll them in accredited kindergarten programs.

"In some cases, unscrupulous parents are participating in an easy scam,'' the story noted. "They sign up their children with friends or relatives who provide child care. The state then pays the providers roughly $200 a week, and providers give parents a kickback."

The story found that the state's neediest children "often wind up in loosely regulated environments where little learning takes place. Day care providers aren't required to meet the standards of teachers, nor are they accountable for what children learn."

Naturally, by the time they do start school, they are lagging way behind.

The heartening part? That newspapers are still able to produce the kind of journalism that brings situations like this to public attention.

Can how well a baby crawl yield information about how well they learn once they reach kindergarten? A recent story from the BBC about new research on the topic in England found that babies who did not reach expected milestones in areas like crawling and holding objects were more likely to have learning and behavior problems once they started school.

The research from London University's Institute of Education looked at 15,000 children in the United Kingdom and concluded that delays in the first year of their lives had a significant impact on their behavior and cognitive development. The researchers also found a gap in ability "between children growing up in persistent poverty and those in families that had never received means-tested benefits."

The researchers noted that similar conclusions had been reached in previous research, but said their new work showed for the first time that development delays -- along with the "psychological characteristics of the mother and the quality of her relationship with the child,'' are tied into both cognitive and behavioral development, even in poor families.

Some of the research is included in a new book by The Policy Press, Children of the 21st century, available here: