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.