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

My ranting yesterday about "unschooling" and the coverage of it (see below) led me to snoop around on the web a bit and I learned that the homeschool/unschool crowd is adamantly opposed to publicly funded pre-kindergarten. It shouldn't have been a surprise, I suppose, that the folks who oppose "government" schools would be opponents of public spending on education. (They still pay taxes for schools, even if they don't send their kids there.) But the rhetoric is still stunning. An article in the homeschoolers magazine on the California universal pre-kindergarten initiative that fell short last spring decries what it calls the "war on toddlers." The article claims the national campaign to expand pre-kindergarten is driven by callous parents who feel they're entitled to "free daycare," that its goal is to "manage" Latinos, or to fix the problem of paying for social security by producing workers. The author, a vocal opponent of the California measure, says the government wants to "intern" and "institutionalize" kids to serve the interests of the state.

Sometimes journalists can't see a story in the campaign to increase public spending on pre-kindergarten. "Everyone's for it," they say, and so there's none of the tension and conflict that can give a story juice. I highlight this point of view to show that, indeed, there are opponents and they don't mind playing hardball. But though this language may seem extreme, it's not that different from what you'll hear from the Heritage Foundation or even from some liberals who worry that public spending on preschool has to mean a "one-size-fits-all", "standardized" education. Journalists ought to familiarize themselves with this complex political landscape.

Veteran Hartford Courant education writer Bob Frahm reports on the recommendation of a state-level study group to spend $100 million to expand children's services, including preschool classes, to make the state "a national model for early childhood education." The goal is to more than double the number of low-income children in preschool classes, train more preschool teachers and aides, and bolster the quality of preschool programs statewide, according to Frahm. The story notes the proposal will, as always, compete with other needs. "It really becomes a question of whether the people of the state of Connecticut are ready to pony up for this issue and raise taxes," state Sen. Toni Harp of New Haven notes.

What I missed in this story, though, was the sense that: 1. this is an issue very much on the frontburner in numerous states. A paragraph or so is all that would have been needed. and 2. any reference to the research on the effects of high-quality pre-k on poor kids. In other words, why is anyone suggesting spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

It did, however, include a legislator saying pre-kindergarten is important for preparing the workforce of tomorrow.

Washington Post uses the report of a committee on pre-kindergarten appointed by Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine to provide a good regional and national roundup of activity on the issue. When elected a year ago Kaine vowed to bring universal, voluntary pre-kindergarten to all four-year-olds in the state. But other issues, including highways, got in the way. The story notes that opposition is growing to what some legislators see as a subsidy for the middle class and one legislator even claimed that "frankly, there's no proof it works." Oddly enough, the legislator offering that confident, and misinformed, assertion was Majority Whip M. Kirkland Cox, a Republican who is a government teacher in Chesterfield County. If Mr. Cox didn't want to accept research widely available from places such as the National Institute on Early Education Research, he might consult this position statement from the American Federation of Teachers.

I don't think it would be advocacy for a story such as this to note that a number of studies have shown that high-quality pre-kindergarten does make a difference in kids' lives and that such programs provide a good return on investment, in terms of lowered social costs. Journalists shouldn't let legislators deny evidence, even if the implications of that evidence involve spending some dough.

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

Now comes a Wisconsin task force to say that the state is not doing enough to assess the outcomes of its state pre-school program for four-year olds. "There's no study or determination of whether we are getting for our dollars' worth and...whether or not four-year-old kindergarten is a cost-effective means by which we can educate our children," said the incoming Speaker of the Wisconsin House, Republican Representative Mike Huebsch. According to a report on WKBT television La Crosse, the task force wants monitoring of whether children are learning English, test scores, and whether state spending on special education is dropping. The broadcast quoted a pre-k center director who says, "I think the standards are important as guidelines but, it is very difficult in early childhood to say, 'You have to have a "C" or above average in whether you can tie your shoe or not."

Good way to show the limits of "assessing" four-year-olds. It would also be good for the story to have noted that Wisconsin spends about $4,200 a year on a half-day program, according to the National Institute of Early Education Research. (state profiles available here). That's not even half the amount the state spends per pupil on K-12 education and, though it seems paradoxical, high quality pre-k costs more, not less.

The new report from the New Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force is nothing if not bold. It paints a grim scenario of a drastically reduced standard of living for many Americans if the nation doesn't get better at building a skilled workforce. Essentially, the report says the U.S. needs to move in the direction of successful education systems around the world: more investment in pre-kindergarten, and getting most young people well-prepared for college or trade schools by the 10th grade. Lots of recommendations and well worth journalists' attention. The commission report says the recommended changes in the system would save about $67 billion a year it says about a third of that money should be spent on a system of high quality pre-kindergarten for all 3- and 4-year-olds. Time magazine, Tom Friedman in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune
all covered it. (Update: NYTs coverage is here and Christian Science Monitor is here.)

Remember the three-part series on kindergarten the San Antonio Express-News did a few weeks back? I can envision a similar, and similarly provocative, series that could be done on pre-kindergarten. Given that expanding Pre-K seems to be very much at the top of the agenda for many policy makers, and given the expansion that's already occurred, it'd be useful and timely for journalists to see what's really going on out there in these programs as they expand.

Latest federal data on participation of three-to-five-year-olds in child-care or pre-school or Head Start is available here. Data shows that the percentage of that age group enrolled in centers increased from 53 percent in 1991 to 60 percent in 1999, before decreasing to 57 percent in 2005. Despite the increase in state spending on pre-kindergarten, it's not keeping up with the population.

Who knew? I thought those flatearther, conspiracy theorists went out of the scaremongering business in the 1970s. But no. The report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce got the JBS all riled up because it didn't call for enough privatization and also asserted a societal interest in education. Here's what the JBS had to say about the recommendation to spend $20 billion or so a year on high quality, universal pre-kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds.

...the plan calls for kids not yet old enough for kindergarten to be gobbled up by universal pre-kindergarten programs. Because the state would hold the purse strings, the state would have full control. And with the enrollment of children who are only three and four years old, the state would gain more control over more children.

"Gobbled" up by free, voluntary, high-quality pre-school....interesting concept

From the Beijing News comes word that inequality starts early, even in a Communist country. Here's an excerpt of a story from Xinhua news service. At an education "expo" in Guangzhou...

Zhu Jiaxiong, vice-chairman of the China National Society of Early Childhood Education, showed two photographs when talking about fairness in preschool education. One of the photos shows a well-decorated kindergarten [kindergarten is preschool in China--rlc] that cost 200 million yuan (US$25.3 million), while the other features a rural child playing in a muddy field. Professor Zhu said there are insufficient fair-priced kindergartens in the country. The vast rural areas are especially facing shortages of preschool educational institutions. The key factors that decide educational quality are good teachers and a fine teaching mode, rather than big buildings. Thus the extravagant construction of many kindergartens are used to justify high fees. Some kindergartens now charge even more than universities.

The transcript of last week's online Education Week chat with Sara Watson of the Pew Trusts (full disclosure: underwriter of this blog) and two economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is a good resource for anyone wanting an overview of pre-kindergarten issues. Chat covered financing, access, quality, accountability, and much more. Lots of helpful links to organizations doing good work.

The Fed has come up with a specific proposal regarding how to invest in expanding pre-kindergarten.Here's how economist Art Rolnick of the Fed summed it up: "We propose to provide every at-risk child with a parent mentor and scholarships to attend a high quality early childhood development program. The scholarships will be funded at a level to encourage quality programs, including high quality teachers." Rolnick says such a program would cost about $90 million in Minnesota annually. The idea of "parent mentors" starting prenatally was explored in a brilliant piece last year by the New Yorker's Katherine Boo.

Edweek's ace pre-k reporter Linda Jacobsen has a roundup of current action to expand state spending on preschool. (I'm having trouble logging in but the story is at www.edweek.org, under pre-k). New Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick favors a $100 million downpayment on what advocates say they hope will eventually be a $500 million statewide program. Arkansas, Connecticut, and New York look like they'll be boosting pre-k spending this year too. Jacobsen says the national debate over whether such programs should be universal or targeted to poor kids continues. Margaret Blood of Strategies for Children in Boston "agrees that the research is still mixed on the benefits of public preschools for middle-class children." Steffanie Clothier of the National Conference of State Legislatures says sliding scale fees might be the way to go, financially as well as politically.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in D.C. at the National Press Club this week to talk about a package of anti-poverty measures. The package includes the creation of education savings accounts, in which the government would match private investments. Another piece of the package involves a big federal investment in pre-school. Governors have heretofore taken the lead on the pre-k issue. Mayor Bloomberg's on board. Maybe mayors will be taking the lead. Also interesting that pre-k is being framed as part of an anti-poverty program.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe wants to spend $40 million more on state pre-school programs and he's looking to a study from the National Institute for Early Education Research to bolster his case. NIEER, which judges the Arkansas Better Chance pre-school program to be a good one, concluded that the program had helped the poor children it serves to make significant gains in vocabulary, math, and what's called "print awareness." In the past, the Arkansas program was funded largely with a 3 cent tax on beer. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee had said that tax had to continue to keep the program going or expand it. Beebe hasn't yet said whether he'll continue to tap the wallets of beer drinkers to give more kids a good start on their educations. By the way, the Committee for Economic Development has a helpful overview of how programs are financed here.

Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma announced a plan to increase education spending in the state by about 10%, or $360 million. He's also said to be on the verge of announcing an increase in spending on the state's pre-kindergarten program, which is highly regarded for quality. That program reaches 70% of the four-year-olds in the state, tops in the nation.

New NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's first budget proposal includes phasing in full funding of the state's universal pre-k program, with a price tag of $645 million, by 2010-2011. OK, so it's three years away, and out of a budget of $120 million, maybe it's not a big deal, dollarwise. But, still, wouldn't it at least merit a mention? It is new, after all. I read most of the 63 stories about the budget announcement that a Google search turned up and I could find only one that devoted even a line to it. Lots of speculation about the politics, about the cut in property taxes, about the increase in education spending. But nary a word about a proposed major increase to a program that would benefit many poor, middle, and working class families. Now, if we were talking about $20,000 per year preschools for rich kids...then we'd see some ink on it. [OK, my bad, an editorial in the Buffalo News had these words as part of a list of Spitzer's proposals: "universal pre-kindergarten." So, it WAS mentioned after all.]

I keep coming back to my conversation this week with Yale emeritus professor extraordinaire Edward Zigler, one of the father's of Head Start. One of the things Ed said really bothered him was the idea that a good preschool program only had to serve four-year-olds. He said preschool, in his mind, should mean from birth to kindergarten. But, at the very least, he said, preschool should serve 3 and 4 year olds. Now comes Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry who this week proposed to spend a modest $15 million to run a pilot pre-k program for 3 year olds in the public schools and another $15 million to add programs for 3 year olds in private settings. Oklahoma high quality program reaches nearly 70% of its 4 year olds, mostly in public school settings. This would expand it. The Norman, Oklahoma paper has the story here.

Here's an excerpt:

"It's an investment that will pay huge dividends not tomorrow, not by the next election cycle, but in five years, 10 years, 15 years down the line -- a generation down the line," Henry said at a news conference Monday. "It will make a tremendous difference for the state of Oklahoma."

South Dakota is one of only 10 states without any statewide pre-kindergarten program. Sioux Falls business man Ron Moquist, who describes himself as politically conservative, wants to change that. Moquist headed up a three-year Chamber of Commerce research effort that looked at the potential of pre-kindergarten programs to offset the often-debilitating effects of child poverty. He tells Minnesota Public Radio in this story that:

"If you start from a poverty background you will have a difficult time in school. So what we said is that we've got to get to these kids sooner because so many of them are starting kindergarten 18 months behind their peers and most of them never catch up."

Kudos to MPR for picking up on this story. Business leaders and Republicans nationally are among those who support investing in education early, because the pay off is greater. Story also reaches out to a pre-k expert, who talks about what makes for a quality preschool.

Up in Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed increasing spending on preschool by $29 million. But members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party say that's "just a down payment.". They want to give families a voucher, based on their income, to use to pay for programs that get kids ready for kindergarten.

And in Massachusetts, legislators and advocates with the Early Education for All Campaign are hopeful that the universal preschool bill passed last year and vetoed by former Gov. Mitt Romney will pass again. New governor Deval L. Patrick supports it. His wife Dianne Patrick, a former preschool teacher, told the Worcester Telegram that her husband:

is determined to make sure every child in this commonwealth is able to have the same opportunity that he had.

Editorial in the Akron Beacon-Journal called on new Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland to invest more money in the state's Early Learning Initiative. The editorial said "Preschool is a 20-year workforce development plan."

Report by Leslie Postal in the Orlando Sentinel says entering Florida kindergartners are more ready than they were in the past to begin to learn to read. That's according to results on the school readiness test used by the state. Florida uses those results to judge the performance of preschools from the state's program for 4 year olds.

Advocates of high quality pre-kindergarten often say Florida's program falls far short of the mark. The Sentinel story also illustrates that when such evaluation data is available, it will be reported. The data does allow a conversation to take place about quality. But it's important for journalists and policy makers to keep in mind that the outcome measures are, to a large extent, determined by the characteristics of the children who attend

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.

Missed this coverage of a report identifying a space shortage in California that would leave one in five 4 year olds without a space on the rug if all tried to enroll in pre-kindergarten.

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

New Mexico Lieutenant Gov. Diane Denish, one of the strongest forces behind the start-up of the pre-k program in her state in 2005, now wants the number of children served to be doubled.. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagovich wants to increase the state's spending on preschool by $70 million, opening up 12,000 slots. Some legislators in Missouri will be proposing expansion of state-funded preschool to all disadvantaged children. Finally, a consortium of colleges, the city of Tuscaloosa, the Mayor's office, and the Tuscaloosa school system are working on a citywide pre-k program. Editorial in the Tuscaloosa News says that, "In the long term, Tuscaloosa will be a better community thanks to this program."

According to the National Institute of Early Education Research, Alabama in 2005 ranked 37th in the percentage of its 4 year olds served. The state also cut its per-pupil spending on pre-k every year from 2000 tto 2005 and the elimination of federal child care funds available to poor working women were cut. Whenever journalists report on a new program or purported expansion of state spending on pre-k, it's important to say what the state is already doing. A doubling of 2% of the 4 year olds served may look better than it is, especially if the funds aren't doubled as well.

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

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

You can read the entire interview here Download file

My earlier post on coverage of the new National Institute on Early Education Research report noted that journalists hadn't picked up the "mo' money, even mo' kids'"angle. Should have checked USA Today's coverage before I said that. Greg Toppo was all over it. See how he handled it here.

Toppo also noted the existence of a new website called savvysource.com, which offers parents a way to judge the quality of preschools in their communities. Toppo quotes the site's founder as saying it is "kind of a combination of Zagat's and Craigslist" for parents of young kids.

Follow-up: Look for letters in newspapers around the country from pre-k supporters. The advocacy group Pre-K Now which, like this blog, gets support from The Pew Charitable Trusts sees the AP story on the NIEER report as a hook for supporters to write to newspapers and demand more money to be spent to raise program quality.

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

Rena Havner's story in the Mobile (AL) Press-Register has been getting lots of traction on blogs and websites. The story, which was a follow-up to the NIEER report on the quality of state preschool programs, noted that while Alabama was one of two states to get a perfect score according to the NIEER scale, the state's program doesn't serve very many kids: only 1,080 statewide.
"We've got this great quality program, but we were dead last," said Criss Hopson with the Montgomery-based Alabama School Readiness Alliance, which is lobbying the state to expand its preschool program. "For the children that are receiving the instruction, that's great, but it's not going to be enough to make a huge societal impact."

Over the past few years University of California Prof. Bruce Fuller has become the "bete noir" of the national movement pushing universally available, voluntary, publicly funded preschool. (Full disclosure: One of the major forces behind the movement is the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is an underwriter of this blog, although my ideas are my own. Full-full disclosure: Bruce is a friend from my California days.) Fuller was the go-to guy for reporters in California looking for someone to criticize the California Preschool for All initiative, which voters defeated last June. His op-eds were near-ubiquitous as well and many in the UPK movement heap a good part of the blame for the measure's defeat on Fuller, as well as on the press, which spilled a lot more words covering an alleged scandal with initiative-backer and actor Rob Reiner than they did on the substance of the measure.

Fuller is just coming out with a book from Stanford University Press called "Standardized Childhood" in which he develops more fully his arguments against universal pre-kindergarten. He says public money is better spent on services for the poor, preschool teachers don't need to have college degrees, universal pre-school advocates are in bed with the teachers unions and that state-funded preschools "corral" toddlers into "standardized preschools" and subject them to "stultifying drill-and-kill" lessons that destroy their childhoods. On the one hand, he says that preschool won't close race-and-class-based achievement gaps. On the other, he says preschools don't benefit the middle-class. I'm confused.

What's so curious to me is that the rhetoric of Fuller, who is himself politically progressive, is almost indistinguishable from that of such far-right voices as the John Birch Society, which says here that pre-k will "gobble" up children; the "free-market" oriented Heartland Institute, the Pacific Research Institute, the Goldwater Institute, the Cato Institute and others. Fuller is worried about what he calls the "brave new world" of child-rearing, conjuring up an image of government bureaucrats marching kids into school not long after they're out of diapers to drill them on the ABCs. That's not much different from the Connecticut blog called "Red Notes from a Blue State" that referred to pre-schools as "pedagogical holding pens." Or the anti-preschool crowd in Idaho that fears some government “nanny state.” Oddly, Fuller also sounds a lot like the "unschooling" crowd, that says children should be allowed to develop at their own pace and time, freed from annoying school work.

The other part of Fuller's argument that mystifies me is his apparent antipathy toward placing pre-kindergartens in the public schools. Fuller's always been a skeptic about school choice and charter schools, saying that the marketplace doesn't always serve the needs of poor families who do not have sufficient information to make good choices. Here, though, he argues that families make good informed judgments when they put their children in the preschool in the local community center or the church down the street or even to leave the children with an aunt or grandmother.

I confess I haven't read the book. But I've heard Fuller speak about these issues a number of times. And, from the publicity materials, it seems that he's repeating his views here.

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.

Looks like Iowa will be investing millions over the next four years to ensure that every Iowa four year old has a chance to attend preschool. The AP reports that a Senate measure looks like it will pass, the House is on board and so is the governor. The story reports that the $15 million plan will make "quality" preschool available for 28,000 children. Do the math and that's $535 per child. I know there's something I'm missing here. But so are readers and listeners in Iowa.

Pre-K Now's annual legislative roundup reports that 29 governors made it a priority this year to increase their state's spending on pre-kindergarten education. The report also said, however, that 12 states either kept the funding the same as last year or cut spending below the cost of living. The National Institute on Early Education Research reported a few weeks back that while
total state spending for prekindergarten had increased to nearly $3.3 billion, spending was not keeping up with enrollment growth and inflation. Funding per child fell to its lowest level since NIEER began collecting data five years ago.

The respected liberal Economic Policy Institute is holding an online press conference for journalists on May 2nd to release a new book that makes the case that investments in high-quality pre-kindergarten would improve educational outcomes and reap billions of dollars in savings in state and federal budgets over the next few decades. According to the announcement of the event, the book, "Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation" by Robert G. Lynch, will argue that either targeted programs aimed at the poor or universal programs available without regard to family income will produce big gains. That's interesting because most of the economists and activisits in the field of early childhood education argue either "universal" or "targeted," not both. Journalists need to sign up for the news conference and they'll get access to embargoed state-by-state material.

Maureen Downey in the Atlanta Journal Constitution uses a study by the Economic Policy Institute to argue that the state should abandon two tax cuts--for homeowners and the elderly with incomes of $150,000 or more--to pay to double spending on the state's pre-k program. The money would increase enrollment and increase quality, by raising per pupil spending from $4,000 to $6,300.

The Economic Policy Institute's report "Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation" got lots of ink in papers around the country. Every story I read expressed no skepticism about the state-by-state number crunching, which reported enormous returns from public spending on preschool. Andrew Leonard in a piece on Salon acknowledged up front that he supports public spending to provide high quality preschool to disadvantaged three-to-five year olds. But he bristles a bit at analysis by University of Chicago Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman that spending on pre-kindergarten will create a stronger, more talented, more effective work force. Leonard says public spending on preschool is a good thing, whether it produces economic gains or not." Investing in young kids would be good for them, even if it didn't make society more productive. And that should be reason enough to do it."

Heckman's 98-page report is here. Unlike the EPI analysis, Heckman argues that providing preschool to the disadvantaged produces the greatest returns and poses no tradeoff. But investing public money on programs for higher income kids makes less sense.

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

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

Any takers?

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is in a tight spot. She's caught between a here-and-now plunge in current tax revenues and the need to prepare children of today as best she can to function the world of the future. She wants a $1.5 billon tax increase to offset a deficit over two years of $2 billion. To get the additional revenues, she's threatening to force massive cuts in health care and education starting June 1. State Supe Mike Flanagan has told school districts to start cutting preschool immediately. Actually, that's a shrewd move. Cut those preschool classes and send Michigan parents who depend on them into an instant frenzy, which could pressure the Michigan Legislature to go along with the tax hike Granholm wants. "We can invest in order to pull this state out of this economic slump or we can disinvest and further the spiral downward," Granholm said in seeking to get the Legislature to act.

The National Institute on Early Education Research has weighed in, with an op-ed arguing that cutting preschool is like a farmer "eating his seed corn."

Easy quick-hit story would be for a journalist to go out to one of the school district preschools and talked to a dozen or so parents dropping off their children about what they'd do if, starting June 1st, their kids had nowhere to go.

The Southern Education Foundation today will release a report that will say that the region is ahead of other parts of the country in terms of its pre-kindergarten programs. The report "pulls together and synthesizes the findings of every major independent study of state-supported Pre-K across the South in the last ten years. These reports measure the current and future impact that Pre-K can have in improving Southern education and the region's quality of life." This comes from the Dawson County Times in Dawsonville, Dawson County, Georgia.

Journalists in the South who write on this report should also check other sources of information, such as the National Institute for Early Education Research on quality questions, and reports turned out by the advocacy group Pre-K Now, especially those analyzing the political leadership of governors and others in the states. Also keep in mind that 3-5 year olds can be found in many settings--Head Start, family care, child care centers, preschools in churches, preschools in public schools, for profit preschools and so on.

Southern Education Foundation reports that the South is leading other regions in the quality of pre-k programs and the number of children enrolled. The press release to the report says that "The report also analyzes the uneven development of Pre-K within the South and identifies common challenges that Southern states will face in taking Pre-K to scale across the region." The Foundation previously had done a number of studies of state programs in the region. The report received a lot of attention from both publications and television outlets.

Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced in a New York Times' story widely carried that part of the education agenda in her campaign would be a $5 billion federal committment to promote state investments in pre-kindergarten programs. The federal government's role in early childhood education has been primarily in supporting Head Start. (And funding for Head Start has never been sufficient to serve all children eligible.) But pre-k is seen differently--it's not just for poor kids, it's perceived to be more explicitly educational, and designed to get kids ready for school. Clinton's proposal doesn't offer up a federal program but instead offers to match dollar-for-dollar the state commitment to pre-k, and states would not be allowed to reduce their spending if they wanted federal money.

States are upping their spending, adding $1.2 billion on new dollars over the past three years. So far this year, 29 governors have proposed increases--20 Democratic governors and nine Republicans. Biggest state to sign on this year is Iowa.

It will be interesting to see how the coverage of this goes. If only political reporters cover it, the stories are likely to focus on political strategy and positioning. That's not unimportant, because the politics of an expanded federal role in a program serving young children are tricky, even more so than other federal efforts, such as the No Child Left Behind act. But the outline of the Clinton program--requiring all teachers to have bachelor's degrees and special training, standards, use of certain curricula and so forth--have educational implications. (Just one: where will all the well-trained teachers come from? There isn't much a of a pipeline to produce such teachers.) So, one hopes that education writers will jump in as well.

Clinton isn't out there on her own. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding a forum on pre-kindergarten and early childhood education this week; the New America Foundation is holding a symposium; and many prescriptions from think tanks and others for improving education are calling for more attention to younger kids. Lots of work for journalists!

Hilary Clinton's proposed federal investment in pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds comes the week after David Brooks argued in his New York Times' column that Republicans needed a set of big ideas on how to develop "human capital" if they were to have a chance of halting the party's "death spiral." Brooks called for a program of tax breaks for low-income workers, child tax deductions, encouragement of marriage, school choice and...wait for it...investment in preschool.

Here's Brooks' take on the politics: ...

politically, a human capital agenda exploits the divisions between liberal populists and independents. Liberal populists, about 26 percent of the country, believe in redistribution policies. Conservatives and independents do not. Liberal populists believe the global economy is so broken all the benefits of it go to the top 0.01 percent. Independents and conservatives observe that hard work still leads to success. Liberals emphasize inequality. Moderates and conservatives believe inequality is acceptable so long as there is opportunity.

Clinton's proposal is for "universal" preschool--free for the poor, sliding scale for the rest. Brooks was talking about free preschool for what he called the most "disorganized" poor families.

Clearly, the politics of preschool are interesting and worth exploring by journalists. It's not as simple as liberals wanting a social program and conservatives opposing it. The details of the proposals matter--a lot.

All Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, did was post on his blog the headline "Preschool Pays" and link to the Joel Waldfogel Slate entry mentioned just above. That touched off a flurry of comments, pro and con. Many of the comments wrestle with the economic analyses themselves, especially what can be concluded from the Perry Preschool study of the effects of high quality preschool designed to serve the most disadvantaged. But some reflect the fears referenced by Waldfogel, that good quality voluntary preschool undermines the family and replaces parents with "government agents." (One has to think that if preschool teachers really were government agents they'd be earning a lot more money!).

In any case, I urge economists or journalists who are examining the economic returns of investing in preschool to start with the superb "Dollars and Sense" report to gain perspective. Although put out by a group that advocates for universal preschool, the report examines the strengths and weaknesses and generalizability of various analyses of economic returns from preschool. It also acknowledges the bias of Pre-K Now, which issued the report.

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

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

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

Advocates for universal pre-school have to be careful about overselling. And media skepticism should help the advocates avoid that. Police chiefs seem particularly prone to this behavior. In Pennsylvania, where there's $75 million in new preschool monies being debated by the Legislature, the state's police chiefs have been among those leading the charge. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story the other day quoted Pittsburgh Asst. Chief Paul Donaldson saying, "Quality pre-kindergarten programs are our most effective weapons in fighting crime." Really? More so than community policing?
The story also said the $75 million would generate a 17-to-1 return on investment, which is a figure that's tossed around far too easily.

Such statements have to be qualified and journalists have to do it--if the advocates are unwilling to do so. The 17-1 figure is based on the return over more than three decades from a program called the Perry Preschool Project that lasted for five years back in the 1960s. So, for Legislatures worried about balancing a budget today, the returns will accrue long after they've left public service. Also the program that would be expanded in Pennsylvania is not like the Perry Preschool, which was of much, much higher in terms of quality and cost. [See Update below] Plus, the Perry Preschool was aimed at very disadvantaged kids. It wasn't a universal program available to all. A universal program would not get rates of return anywhere close to these. Finally, it's true the Perry Preschool reduced crime but it didn't eliminate it. Those who went through Perry Preschool were, on average, likely to be arrested fewer times, not that they were not likely to have been arrested.

UPDATES: I checked out the Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts website. The state program looks to set quite high programmatic standards, relative to other states. Also, the new money that Gov. Rendell is pushing IS targeted to disadvantaged children. Still, the program wouldn't measure up to the Perry Preschool, which cost in 2007 dollars about $15,000 per child and had one teacher (trained in special education and early childhood development) for every seven children. (Pennsylvania requires one certified teacher and an aide for every 17 children.) It's true that most of the cost-benefits from the Perry experiment came from a reduction in crime: in fact, about $13 of the $17 return came from that source alone. A good, clear, dispassionate analysis of the economic returns of preschool programs can be found here. It's something every journalist who covers these issues should keep close as a resource.

A story in the Philadelphia Tribune, which targets the city's African American community, illustrates the dangers of overselling the crimefighting powers of pre-k. House Republican leader Sam Smith and Democratic state Rep. Dwight Evans are sparring over just that. Smith has been saying Philadelphia has had Head Start and pre-k and still had more than 400 homicides last year. Evans and the city's police commissioner are saying spend more money on pre-k to cut crime. The story did a decent job of catching the back and forth. But the murders are happening now. An investment in pre-k will pay off but not next year or even for the next 10 years. Five year olds don't commit murders.

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

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

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

Over the past three years Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has steadily increased his state's spending on high-quality pre-kindergarten classes. Last week the governor addressed a group of editorial writers who gathered at Teachers College in New York City for a two-day seminar sponsored by the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media that dealt with early education issues. Pre-k advocates talk a lot about the studies that tout the long-term returns for investing in pre-kindergarten. But Bredesen, who has a degree in physics from Harvard, said those studies were not what persuaded him to push pre-k. What did the trick, he told the editorialists, was conversations with teachers around his state.

I went around the state and I talked to teachers and I asked them, "If you had one more dollar to spend on education, how would you spend it." When you forced people to pick one thing, it's amazing how many pick pre-kindergarten. It seems like there's a broad consensus.

Rather than plunge into a universal pre-k program all at once and launch poor quality programs with the intent to improve them later, Bredesen decided to establish high-quality programs and roll them out slowly. The Tennessee program employs only certified teachers, keeps class sizes small, and uses only approved curricula. Surprisingly, Bredesen said, the biggest political fight had to be fought over quality. Day care centers and private pre-k programs did not employ certified teachers or pay decent salaries and so they saw the state program as a "threat to their livelihood."

Bredesen said that he hopes that any parent in Tennessee who wants to send their child to a state-funded pre-kindergarten will be able to do so. Right now, he said, the state is about 40% of the way there. But he said it was a "realistic goal" that can be reached in about three and a half years.

More about the seminar over the next few days.

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.

The Washington Post's Maria Glod used Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's decision to downsize his "universal" pre-k program to a targeted one as a news hook for a solid roundup of what's going on with the expansion of publicly funded preschool nationally. The article, which ran on A-1, had a glimpse of a good classroom, regional specifics, national sweep, details of Kaine's new approach, research, and quoted the strongest voices on both sides of the "universal" vs. "targeted" debate.

All in all, a fine example of going beyond a news development to provide readers with a useful context in which to understand that event. It wasn't necessary to go into it in this story, but one aspect of it made me think about what the next story on this might be for the Post.

Kaine says he decided to scale back on his idea because he was advised to "take the existing network and focus on the goals of increasing access and increasing quality" rather than start a new program from scratch. That's inevitable when a state expands its spending on preschool. It's not as if three and four year olds are not already going somewhere. But Kaine also may have been responding to pressure, because it is often existing private providers that lobby the hardest against expanding public spending, for fear that they'll be forced out of business by the competition. But Kaine's public-private approach creates another challenge. The state has to figure out how to push existing low-quality programs to improve. That's a hard job. Money helps but, as in New Jersey, public money poured into private centers sometimes leads to more money in the pockets of operators without any improvement in quality. Kaine suggests a rating system that parents will be able to use in choosing a preschool, in effect trying to tap market forces to maintain quality. The fact is, though, parents usually want their young children as close by as possible so the market forces are going to be weaker than they would be if true competition were unleashed. Kaine's right that it's the quality of programs not necessarily who provides them that's most important. But it's harder to ensure that quality in the private sector.

Here's a couple letters in response to the frontpager in the WashPost last week on the dilemma of targeted vs. universal pre-k. Both letters argue the universal side. The second letter, from a parent who applied for Head Start but was put on a waiting list, is particularly poignant and illustrates the argument universal advocates make all the time, that the income cutoffs for eligibility in targeted programs are sloppy proxies for need.

The annual political action report from the universal preschool advocacy group Pre-K Now shows spending continuing to rise. The group reports that 36 states have committed an additional $528 million annually to expanding UPK. That brings state spending to $4.8 billion nationally for FY 2008. Only one state plans to cut spending. Which one? Florida. The state was already known for having the stingiest per-pupil spending in the country and for the low-quality of its program. Perhaps because of the low-quality, enrollment in the program was less than expected. So, the state Legislature can brag about raising per pupil spending by $117 while cutting overall spending by $14 million. (That's actually something to be proud of. Some of the states that have gotten credit for increasing pre-k spending in recent years have seen enrollment increases that diluted the effects of the increase and actually reduced per-pupil spending.) If the state keeps quality low enough, no children will participate and the state can really save some dough. By the way, the Agency for Workforce Innovation is the state agency that operates public preschool in Florida. The news release can be found here.

Education Week's Oct. 3 edition had a good roundup of legislative proposals that would expand the federal role in pre-kindergarten. (Article here. Subscription required.) The lobbyist for Pre-K Now, the advocates for universal pre-kindergarten set up by the Pew Charitable Trusts, is quoted throughout. (full disclosure: this site is underwritten by Pew as well). One of the proposals discussed is the $10 billion "Ready to Learn" plan put forth by Sen. Hillary Clinton that would help states expand their existing programs. On the stump, Clinton has talked about a universal program, which is what Pre-K Now advocates. But, according to the Ed Week article, her actual proposal is a targeted program that would expand services to working class families. Bruce Fuller of the University of California Berkeley, who favors targeted programs, said Clinton is proposing "a Head Start program for blue-collar families."

Two of the articles should be of particular interest to journalists interested in how education can help address issues of poverty. One, by economist Greg J. Duncan of Northwestern, Jens Ludwig an economist at the University of Chicago , and Katherine J. Magnuson of the School of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, proposes an intensive two-year, education-focused intervention for all three- and four-year-olds that would charge fees on a sliding scale. The article is unusually specific. One key part of the idea is that the feds would offer incentives to states to participate rather than funding the program directly. The authors are more cautious than some advocates and researchers in that they don’t put a ratio on the return on investment. But they do say that the program’s $20 billion cost would be more than matched by the benefits—in the $2 or $3 per $1 spent range rather than the $7 to $14 that economists have calculated for other comprehensive programs in the past. They do, however, say such a program aimed at poor kids would reduce poverty by 5% to 15%, a very healthy gain.

I didn't know it and you may not have either but, in the blogosphere, yesterday was "attack John Edwards Day." At least, that's what I'm surmising from the deepening pond of bile and name-calling in right-wing blogs fed by an article in the Concord Monitor.

Here's the lede of the article:

John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone.

In reaction, cries of socialism and all manner of other sins suddenly appeared here, here, here, here, and here. The entries were rife with name-calling of Edwards, the most progressive of the three leading Democratic contenders for the presidency who is, according to media pundits and polls, running third behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Apparently they all got the memo that said Edwards' plans to address poverty would drive away investment capital, undermine the family, coddle those who are lazy or stupid or just plain unlucky, and result in brainwashing of the children. Note to the memo-writers, two red states--Oklahoma and Georgia--have universal pre-school programs that others are trying to emulate and Republican legislatures and governors support expanded investments in pre-k.

Speaking of presidential candidates and publicly funded pre-kindergarten, Hillary Clinton was in a Miami Beach preschool yesterday touting her plan for the federal government to spend up to $10 billion a year to match state spending on pre-kindergarten. This is the AP article in the Washington Post. According to the article, Clinton praised Florida for its preschool program even though most experts and advocates consider it to be a low-quality, on-the-cheap effort that will accomplish little. According to the advocacy group Pre-K Now, Florida actually cut spending this year because fewer that expected students enrolled.

Douglas Besharov, a well-known scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, came out last week with a new study that found that the true cost of early education--when the cost of increasing the quality of current programs, providing others services, and administering the programs is added in--are much more expensive than the figures usually used by policy makers and advocates. Here are the amounts he and his co-authors calculated:

* For center-based child care, about $8,908--not the widely cited $4,388 to $6,582.
* For pre-kindergarten/preschool programs, about $14,026--not the widely cited $3,551.
* For Head Start, about $21,305--not the widely cited $7,467.

Two reports within days about the South that, in a way, show two sides of the same coin. A report from the Southern Regional Education Board notes that the 15-state region leads the nation in offering publicly funded preschool and then quantifies that claim. Mississippi's Jackson Sun editorialized about the report. The Southern Education Fund this week issued a report saying that a majority of students in the region are poor. Seems like one is related to the other.

I was invited by the producers of the show On Point at WBUR in Boston to "set the table" as it were, for a discussion of pre-kindergarten, universal pre-kindergarten, politics, child care and other topics with Doug Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn of Teachers College and "> David L. Kirp, author of the new book "Sandbox Investment." You can listen in here.

David L. Kirp, author of "The Sandbox Investment," a new book about the pre-school movement and what he calls "kids-first politics," gave the Virginia and Leonard Marx lecture last night at Teachers College. David is a UC Berkeley public policy professor but also has been a newspaper editorial writer. So, while he backs up what he says with research, he's also an engaging raconteur who gets his point across with stories and clever turns of phrase and is not afraid to be blunt. (Just the kind of source journalists need!)

He talked about the bipartisan politics behind the growth of state spending on pre-kindergarten over the past five years or so but he also noted, as others have, that the billions in additional dollars are being spread over far more kids so in many states the per-pupil spending has gone down. "The challenge," he said,"is to make sure the early education children get is not just a slogan." That's where journalists can help, of course. Just because a state or district has a program doesn't mean it's achieving what officials say it is and we can ask questions that get at the heart of the matter.

Kirp said he feared that "we'll do preschool on the cheap and researchers will come along in 10 years and find no effect. Then, conservatives will say, 'See, we told you so. The Nanny State can do anything.' " He said his nightmare is that conservatives will then "say quietly, see, those kids really can't learn," referring to poor and non-white children.

New American Media, the California non-profit collaboration that provides news and commentary to ethnic-focused media and offers various services to help those outlets make money, has a Q&A with David Kirp, author of the pro-Universal Pre-Kindergarten book "The Sandbox Investment." The questioner mostly asks good questions but the premise of one is questionable. The questioner can't understand why the U.S. doesn't invest more in preschool because, as she says, "so many people in America go to college, so many more than in other countries, and education is stressed so much in this culture." It's true that Americans overall are more likely to have completed post-secondary education. But the trend on this is downward. Among 25-34 year-olds the U.S. is 17th among the countries that are part of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. Other nations are improving on this measure while the U.S. has been stagnant for many years.

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

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

Dems and Reeps in Tennessee are fighting over whether to expand the state's pre-k program beyond poor kids to all kids. Alas, the plea for bipartisanship from the political leaders from both parties who gathered in Norman, OK this week is yet to be heard in TN. Gov. Phil Bredesen, a strong advocate for pre-k, said the national campaign for president is making politics in his state more partisan. Bredesen spoke last year to editorial writers at a conference organized by the Hechinger Institute in collaboration with the National Conference of Editorial Writers. He said then he wanted to roll out universally available high-quality pre-kindergarten over the next three and a half years. He started small with the pre-k program and expanded it over time to maintain high quality. The Reeps in TN apparently haven't heard that message either. They say they don't want to spend more than the $80 million the program costs now to subsidize "glorified day care." Now, were I reporter in Tennessee, I'd test Bredesen's statement as well as those of Republicans. Is the current program glorified day care or is high quality pre-kindergarten?

As the attention of those wanting to run for president shifts to South Carolina, it's worthwhile to review their positions on early childhood education and preschool. Here's a link to an earlier post that will help.

South Carolina, like Tennessee, is seeing a partisan fight over whether to expand the $17.1 million pilot program serving 37 low-income school districts to higher income students throughout the state. Story from the Post and Courier gives the rundown here.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's support of universal pre-kindergarten has gained the support of the Republican mayor of Knox County, which includes Knoxville, the News Sentinel reports. The mayor, Mike Ragsdale, wants pre-k to be offered at all of the elementary schools in the county. "It's working very well in our community, and I'd like to see it expanded to be available to anyone who wants it," he told the newspaper.

(Virginia Governor Tim Kaine during State of the Commonwealth address Jan. 9)

David Harrison of The Roanoke Times did a good job Sunday pointing out the obstacles to expanding pre-kindergarten programs in Virginia.

These are issues well worth exploration by reporters. Harrison found problems filling slots and finding space for pre-kindergarten classes in two areas of Roanoke and Roanoke County, and noted that it meant state money had to be left on the table. The issue is particularly important in Virginia because it comes at a time when Democratic Governor Tim Kaine is pushing to make preschool available to an additional 7,000 children over the next two years, at a cost of $56 million.

In his state of the state address on Jan. 9, Kaine noted that children who attend high quality preschool “are more likely to finish school, find good jobs and are less likely to commit a crime.’’ Kaine has already taken a step back from campaign promises to provide pre-kindergarten for all, after facing skepticism among Republicans in the General Assembly and state budget problems.

Kaine instead said he would focus on the neediest children in the state. Virginia now provides preschool for almost 19,000 Virginia low-income children. But Harrison found that some school districts can’t afford to pay for their share of the costs, or don’t have enough room for all the children who are eligible. Another district has problems getting parents of high-risk 4-year-olds to fill out the paperwork and come to the sites for screening.

Harrison went beyond making a few phone calls and told his readers why pre-kindergarten matters by visiting a classroom, watching what took place and interviewing parents. One father delighted in the fact that his son came home from pre-school and asked to be read to. It’s an example that gives readers a clearer sense of why early childhood education matters to parents rather than simply covering what the politicians have to say.

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 Associated Press coverage of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's budget announcement highlighted two of his ideas related to early education--a tripling of the state's investment in pre-kindergarten and expanded support for the Alabama Reading Initiative. (You will recall that the reading initiative in Alabama, as in many states, has gotten support from the federal Reading First program, which the Democrats in Congress cut by more than two-thirds.) But Riley is no big government, budget busting Republican. He also wants to cut income taxes to spur the state's economy.

PreKnow, the advocacy group for universal pre-kindergarten, this week launched a letter-writing campaign aimed a pressuring Congress to increase what the organization says is a paltry Bush Administration budget request for Head Start. The Head Start program was reauthorized at the end of November, nearly five years late, and the compromise bill was hailed by all sides. The bill is designed to improve quality, increase accountability, and expand the population eligible to participate. But advocates contend the additional $150 million in funding requested by Bush is not enough to keep up with inflation.

It's interesting that the pre-k crowd is getting so involved in this fight. Normally, they don't see Head Start as their issue. Head Start and advocates for pre-k have even squared off in some states, leading to closed door discussions to find a way that everyone can play nicely in the same sandbox. Wonder what deals may have been struck to get everyone on the same side.

The annual “State of Preschool” yearbook from the National Institute of Early Education Research is out today and, as usual, there’s good as well as disappointing news for those who favor universal access to high quality preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds.

First the good….

Enrollment was up by 80,000 nationally in the 2006-2007 school year and, reversing a four-year-trend, inflation-adjusted per pupil spending was up too: by $32. The gain is small but it’s better than the decline in per-pupil spending that occurred in each of the past four years as enrollments grew quickly. Despite the slight uptick, per pupil spending still remains below what it was in 2002, according to NIEER’s Steve Barnett.

Biggest percentage gain in enrollment—52 percent—was tallied in Tennessee, where Gov. Phil Bredesen is fighting Republican opposition to continue to expand the program. More here. Even as enrollment grows in Tennessee, the state is maintaining high standards. Tennessee’s program meets nine out of 10 NIEER quality benchmarks. Only two states—North Carolina and Alabama—meet all 10 benchmarks. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is battling his own party as he tries to expand enrollment in the relatively tiny program.

Now the bad….

Kansas met only three of the 10 quality standards. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is trying to expand and improve that program. (Again, fighting Republican resistance.) Even more worrisome to Barnett is that the state programs of California, Texas and Florida, which collectively serve nearly 40% of the American four-year-olds in state-funded preschools, met only four of the 10 quality standards.“Those states could really result in such a dismal picture for so many of America’s kids,” he said.

So many questions surround newly sworn-in New York Governor David Paterson that reporters have yet to examine his ability to carry out disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer's universal pre-kindergarten promises.

As recently as September, Spitzer visited schools in Yonkers to tout an additional $79 million his executive budget invested in pre-kindergarten, along with his promise to expand pre-kindergaten access for every child in New York State within four years.

Spitzer resigned last week after being caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a prostitute. On Tuesday, just 24-hours after being sworn into office, Paterson held a press conference to acknowledge infidelity in his own marriage.

When and if the storm surrounding Paterson's admissions subside, attention must focus on New York's $4.7 billion budget deficit and the April 1st budget deadline. Paterson has already proposed to cut $800 million in agency spending in the upcoming fiscal year.

One of the first reporters to notice possible dire consequences for education is Diana Costello of the Journal News in White Plains, who notes that a change in governors comes at a rough time and may derail promises Spitzer made.

Karen Schimke, president and CEO of the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy, hopes the press will scrutinize problems that have dogged pre-k expansion in New York, from lack of space to access for working parents and the inability of school districts to plan and implement pre-k programs.

"Bring on the questions," says Schimke, who is a great resource for journalists on early childhood education in New York. "Sixty to seventy parents of kids in New York State have mothers who work. What about full day programs? The research is very clear – a half day is better than none, but full day is best of all."

Like many education advocates in New York, Schimke is patiently waiting for the next round of questions -- and hopes they will focus on issues that really matter to New Yorkers.

Charles B. Reed, who oversees 46,000 faculty and staff and 450,000 students on 23 California campuses, weighed in on the future of the littlest Californians in an op-ed piece that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News.

Reed has his hands full managing young adults at the country's largest senior system of public higher education. His plea, though, was aimed on giving a better beginning to those he hopes will become future students. Reed noted that solid pre-kindergarten programs can pay long term dividends in the years to come -- and that only about half of eligible, low-income, preschool-age children in California receive a publicly subsidized pre-K start.

Reed noted two recent reports on this issue worthing taking a look at: the first from the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence and a second was convened by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

The report found that the achievement gap in the K-12 years begins when kids first enter kindergarten class -- and that those who start behind, stay behind. "Without a strong beginning, these children can only grasp at an elusive dream,'' Reed writes.

...to promote the long-term value of high-quality kindergarten, Roy Miller, the affable president of advocacy group known as The Children's Campaign in Florida is trying to turn the video of a violent 30-minute beating of an ostracized Lakeland cheerleader into a lobbying opportunity. The video, taken by one of the attackers, briefly popped up on YouTube, which led to the involvement of the local sheriff and the video's removal. It also led to national coverage. "This horrific evidence makes it clear: we must do more for our children" Miller writes in a letter to supporters this week, urging them to write their state representatives. It goes on:

Should Florida make a $2-million subsidy to honor golfers while cutting infant mortality prevention? Can’t Florida close a $63.5-million recreational fishing tax loophole instead of eliminating child protection workers? Does Florida choose a $41-million tax exemption for advertising inserts over quality pre-k and before and after school programs? Now with the eyes of America on Florida, do we truly believe that a $72-million tax exemption for boats and planes is more important than prevention, intervention and rehabilitative services to Florida’s troubled girls?

It's been interesting watching the coverage of the fight for pre-kindergarten funding emerge in two very different states, where advocates -- and taxpayers -- are keeping a close eye on the outcomes.

An editorial in The Tuscaloosa News noted Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's push for an additional $20 million for the Alabama's voluntary pre-kindergarten program, which would allow the state to triple the number of 4-year-olds in the program by 2001.

Earlier this month Riley asked 1,000 pre-kindergarten advocates in the state to walk up to the State House, find their representatives and senartors "and tell them to vote for this budget because pre-K is so crucial to the future of our state.''

Up in Massachusetts, where Gov. Deval Patrick came to office full of promises for an ambitious pre-kindergarten program, economic realities have hit home and derailed much of his education agenda. The Boston Globe pointed out last week that the House is likely to scale back some of Patrick's spending initiatives, including an additional 892 pre-kindergarten classrooms. Patrick no longer is making a big push.

Patrick told reporters the economy has hampered his ability to expand spending, and that there is "no point getting frustrated about the economic times.''

Governors who push for pre-kindergarten funding in the face of budget woes won't always get public applause, but they certainly will get adulation from pre-kindergarten advocates. That's what happened last week to Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, who recently told reporters the economy his hampered his ability to expand spending.

But Patrick managed to propose triple funding for prekindergarten education, asking for $22.1 million in next year's budget, earning him accolades from PreK Now. His proposal would boost access for 14,320 3-and 4-year-olds if approved by the Legislature.

In Tennessee, however, it's a different story for Governor Phil Bredesen who has also been something of a darling among pre-kindergarten advocates for expanding programs and extolling the virtues of early education. This week, Bredesen acknowledged how difficult funding for pre-kindergarten will be at a time when the state is faced with a $500 million budget shortfall.

Bredesen told parents, teachers and others that the program is resented by opponents as "publicly funded babysitting,'' and added that there are real difficulties getting General Assembly approval.

At Early Ed Watch, Sara Mead notes statements Sens. Clinton and Obama made over the weekend before Tuesday's primary regarding investing in high quality early education. Clinton repeated her support for universal prekindergarten. (She favors providing states with incentives to invest their own money in high quality programs.) Obama linked high quality early education to improving the global competitiveness of the American workforce. Mead notes that North Carolina and Indiana have two very different approaches to prekindergarten. North Carolina is one of the nation's leaders and Indiana doesn't spend a dime on prekindergarten.

Ezra Klein, who blogs for the American Prospect, chides liberals for not getting behind universal prekindergarten. He says research shows universal prekindergarten is "tremendously cost effective" and produces "massive educational benefits." He bolsters his case with a link to the well-known William Gormley study of the universal program in Oklahoma. Gormley's study does, indeed, show positive results from the program but the biggest gains were made by Latino children learning English. To quote Gormley: "Preliminary results from a growing body of research on the
effects of pre-K programs are encouraging, but not entirely con-
vincing." He also cites Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman as supporting universal prekindergarten. Heckman, however, is something of a thorn in the side of supporters of universal programs because he actually says the higher payoff comes from targeted programs: "There are many reasons why investing in disadvantaged young children has a high economic return. Early interventions for disadvantaged children promote schooling, raise the quality of the work force, enhance the productivity of schools, and reduce crime, teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. They raise earnings and promote social attachment. Focusing solely on earnings gains, returns to dollars invested are as high as 15% to 17%.”

Klein knows this but has ignored the distinction in the past as well.

In reaction to the Ezra Klein post (see next entry), Bennett Gordon comments on the education blog of Utne.com that universal prekindergarten "reinforces existing inequalities" in the public schools and should be denied to middle-class children. That's an argument that Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley makes as well.

Given limited resources, I understand why Fuller argues that services should be targeted. But I find it hard to accept that it's a good idea to deny some children education to provide it for others. By that logic, one could ask whether the $550 billion or so spent on public education shouldnl't be targeted mostly to poor children? Certainly, more affluent families can send their children to private schools, can't they? Why should they be subsidized?

The City Paper in Nashville produced an insightful analysis of the Tennessee budget realities that forced Gov. Bredesen to give up on his plans to keep expanding the state's pre-k program. The move shows shows the seriousness of the state's financial problems, said Rep. Les Winningham (D-Huntsville), the chairman of the House Education Committee. “Obviously, he had a goal of continual expansion of pre-K,” Winningham said. “And we have to know and recognize that when he actually pulls back on an investment in that, that the situation financially is pretty serious.”

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.

National survey by the advocacy organization Pre-K Now shows strong voter support for a greater federal investment in state pre-kindergarten programs.

(presidential candidates views on public funding for pre-kindergarten disappointingly vague)

While Presidential candidate Barack Obama offered his perspective on learning more than one language at an early age last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain was readying his speech before the NAACP convention, which he delivered on Thursday.

Not one mention of his views on pre-kindergarten, a disappointment to advocates and duly noted and commented upon by Sara Mead in Early Education Watch. Mainly, McCain used his speech to make clear his support for school vouchers in largely minority and underperforming school systems -- an idea Obama is adamantly against.

"For all the best efforts of teachers and administrators, the worst problems of our public school system are often found in black communities," he told nearly 3,000 members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People gathered at its 99th annual convention, according to the Baltimore Sun.

Both candidates have yet to full flesh out their views on early childhood education; Obama has said he'd put billions of dollars into early childhood education to make sure minorities and poor youth "are getting the help they need,'' and wants to increase Head Start funding, but specifics are yet to come.

Mead has her own ideas about some early childhood proposals should believes McCain might support; she's also taken a good look at Obama's.

Winnie Hu's story in the New York Times over the weekend highlighted a barrier to universal pre-kindergarten that's not often discussed: reluctance of local school districts to participate. The front-page story reported that a third of the states nearly 700 school districts do not have programs and that only 38% of the state's 4-year-olds are being served.

School district leaders quoted said state funding, which according to the National Institute on Early Education Research yearbook amounts to only about $3,500 per pupil, is inadequate. Space is a problem. Contracting with private providers to offer the services requires administrators to oversee the programs---a cost that would come out of the district budget.

But the piece also highlighted another issue that's gotten little attention from journalists: many affluent parents think school district pre-k programs are remedial and will do little to help their kids. As the superintendent in the affluent Bronxville district in Westchester County said, parents there prefer to send their kids to private programs. A map
of the counties around New York City showed that about half the district's on Long Island applied, about a third in Westchester, and only a few in Dutchess County (a horsey county to the north) and none in Putnam County (just north of Westchester.)

Journalists in other states where district's apply for state pre-k funds, such as Wisconsin, Tennessee, Illinois and New Jersey, might well find similar patterns.

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 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.

A new era is about to begin, and as usual, Sara Mead at Early Education Watch is keeping on eye on the post-election developments in early childhood education. While it will be months before newly elected President Barack Obama details how he will carry out his early childhood pledges, it's important for journalists to be reminded of what he said -- all the better to watch what he does.

Mead points out where Obama has stood on education issues in her post today. Education Week also took note of the education agenda ahead, while Alexander Russo of This Week in Education weighed in with a round-up of commentary on what the new president faces.

Closer to home, New York Times writer Lisa Belkin, who writes a new blog called "The Mother Lode,'' for the New York Times, focused on the dilema parents faced this week -- whether or not to allow their kids to stay awake and witness history.

It remains to be seen how educators coped with all the nodding heads and blinking eyes post-election day. I keep picturing a classroom filled with sleeping children.

High quality pre-kindergarten has become something of an elusive luxury for middle class parents, caught between rising prices, the housing crisis and stagnating wages, according to report released by Pre-K Now during a Hechinger Institute Webinar on Wednesday.

The report provides a great starting point for rich and worthwhile stories journalists should be telling about the hard choices middle class American families are making as they struggle to pay mortgages and credit card debt and worry about holding onto their jobs.

Families earning too much to qualify for state-funded programs but not enough for higher quality private schools in some cases are choosing substandard care or keeping their children out of pre-kindergarten altogether, said the report’s author Albert Wat, a policy analyst for Pre-K Now.

Middle-class families and their children need and would benefit from voluntary, high-quality pre-k indergarten programs funded by their states but they often don't have access to them, notes the report, which calls for states and the federal government to expand such programs. Wat found that the average middle class family of four, living in a state with a public pre-k program, spent about 29% of their income on pre-kindergarten for their two children.

"Middle class families are feeling increasingly pessimistic about their financial situationn,'' Wat noted during the webinar, which will be available on the Hechinger Institute's website.

The webinar also offered views from William Gormley of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, the author of a study on the benefits of Oklahoma's early childhood programs. Gormley's study found students experienced substantial gains and that the negative effects of family and environmental risk factors can be lessened by a strong preschool program.

Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, , pointed out that emphasizing the needs of the middle class can divert attention from the most needy children in the U.S. He said the federal government help poor children by strengthening federal Head Start programs.

The report comes at a time when 80 percent of Americans believe it is more difficult to maintain their standard of living than it was five years ago, and some twenty percent think their children will have a lower standard of living than they do.

Rising expenses and declining incomes are leaving more Americans in debt, although many still earn too much to qualify for state-funded pre-k programs.

The report's recommendations include a phase-in plan to expand pre-k to all children, using factors other than family income to define eligibility, creating full-day programs to meet the needs of working families and extending eligibility for voluntary pre-k to three year-olds.

An editorial in the Anchorage Daily News took Governor Sarah Palin to task for missing a statewide conference on the future of Alaska's educational system last week. Palin, the former Republican candidate for Vice President, skipped the conference to speak in Miami about the future of the Republican Party. The editorial urged her to come home and start focusing on the needs of the state.

While Palin gave her talk about national issues, her home state was in the midst of charting the future of its educational system. For the record, Alaska is one of only 12 states that has no state-funded education system for pre-kindergarten students. One of the goals that came out of last week's education summit included a committment to offer state-funded preschool to every three, four and five-year-old in Alaska. A plan to evaluate pre-school programs to make sure they are adequately preparing children for school also emerged as a goal during the conference Palin missed.

The goals are just a starting point and still need to be adopted, possibly refined and publicized. Some will also require funding that may not be available. It isn't clear where Palin stands on any of them.

On the stump as a vice-presidential candidate, Palin, the mother of an infant with Down syndrome, made some proposals about the education of children with special needs. Without giving specifics, she also noted that education "is near and dear to my heart.''

As the economic crisis deepened in late December, Obama indicated that early education would be part of the recovery package, along with school construction, and tuition assistance. Details to come in January, perhaps before the inauguration. Congress will get involved. Look for strong support. But, as everyone knows, the child care-early learning-preschool landscape is a complex and crowded one. Don't expect that the federal money will all go to public entities. Several of the federal revenue sources, such as Child Development Block Grants, now support public as well as private service providers. Looking at Obama's platform, he'd like to devote some of the money to helping states coordinate all of these various services. All of which is an overly bureaucratic way of saying that tracking where that federal money goes and how it is used and whether it supports high quality learning environments.

By the way, another good source on these issues is the Ounce of Prevention Fund. Contact there is Jelene Britten.

Will long promised public preschool expansions survive the recession? That's one of the questions John Mooney of the New York Times posed and attempted to answer in an excellent piece that ran in the regional section. The story is a model for journalists who should be looking closely at planned expansions to see if they are in peril.

At a time when President Barack Obama is pushing preschool and early childhood education as part of his $787 billion stimulus plan, cash-strapped state officials are waiting to see how much money they will get and how they can use it. New Jersey is among the 38 states that provide public programs and already serves more than a quarter of all its eligible students. Under an ambitious expansion, the state had planned to provide all day-programs for low-income 3-and 4-year-olds by the fall, but it's unclear if they can proceed.

Other states planning pre-kindergarten expansions may also be scaling back, and are unlikely to ask for more taxpayer funding. The National Institute for Early Education Research has been keeping track, as has Pre-K Now . In addition to closely watching and examing state budgets when they are released, there is no substitute for visiting pre-kindergarten classes, like Mooney did. Visits will help journalists explain any progress teachers and parents see in the children, and provide a chance to observe what kinds of learning activities are taking place.

It's also worth noting, courtesy of the excellent Early Education Watch blog, that even programs that offer big gains for young children have been cut out of school budgets. Chicago's Child Parent Centers, for example, are now serving fewer than half of the original numbers of children, notes Lisa Guernsey of Early Education Watch.

As President Barack Obama was getting ready to deliver a speech this week that called for a renewed committment to early childhood education, citizens of South Dakota were gathering in their state capital to fight a bill that might have been the first step toward creating a state funded preschool program to serve low-income families.

Those opposing the bill argued that it would "give incentive to alternatives to parenting,'' and noted on their website that "documented studies show... Moms are the #1 educator for early-childhood.'' The site did not point to any specific research to back-up this claim.

South Dakota is one of 12 states that offer no state-funded pre-kindergarten. Bills to change that have faced fierce opposition from groups that compare state-funded programs to "government intrusion on the family.''

It has been interesting watching the steadfast opposition to funding pre-kindergarten in this rural state, even as other are coming around toward viewing early childhood education as a necessary and worthwhile investment.

On Tuesday, a House Committee in Pierre voted 9-6 to kill a measure that proposed a community planning process simply to gauge statewide interest in preschool for children from low-income families.

The opposition in South Dakota comes at a time when Obama is pushing for greater investment in early childhood education, as noted in the Early Ed Watch blog. Lawmakers in the past have tried to lay the groundwork for state funded programs in South Dakota, but have had no luck.

As President Barack Obama pledges to invest in early childhood education, it's important for journalists to keep the focus on the thousands of children across the U.S. who could truly benefit from public pre-kindergarten programs but are not being served.

That's what WYPR radio reporter Joel McCord did this week by spending some time with four-year-old Wyatt Fowler and his mother in Prince George's County, Maryland. You can listen to the program here:

Wyatt's parents don't earn enough to send him to private preschool, but they earn too much to qualify for state or federal subsidies. So his mother is trying to get him ready for kindergarten on her own.

"He's not getting that interaction with other children his age to know how to act in a group of peers, to know how to sit and take direction from another adult besides myself, to be able to know a consistent routine and follow it,'' Donna Flowler told McCord. She also told him that the two years one of her older sons spent in pre-k greatly improved his academic performance.

The stories of individual kids and families really bring home how and why such programs are important. There's lots of coverage of the push for universal pre-k from advocates and lobbyists in Maryland, which offers a state-funded program for at-risk four-year-olds.

There's a big expansion push now, a universal pre-k bill in the General Assembly that comes at a time when the state -- like many others in the U.S, -- is experiencing a budget crisis.

There's plenty of coverage about the state's finances, but not enough stories about children like Wyatt, who was playing at his mom's knee instead of learning to identify letters, sing songs and play early math games with children his own age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Anchorage Daily News published an interesting editorial this week criticizing the state's lagging response to providing publicly funded pre-kindergarten. Alaska is one of only 12 states in the U.S. that does not provide programs for its youngest residents.

The editorial follow a statewide summit on pre-kindergarten in November where educators and advocates pushed for improving Alaska's offerings, and comes as President Barack Obama is touting the importance of early childhood education. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who while stumping as a vice-presidential candidate called education "near and dear to my heart,'' -- did not attend that summit meeting.

Palin's budget proposal did not go as far as advocates had hoped, calling only for a state-funded pilot that would serve about 500 pre-kindergarten children. The state's superintendent has called for federal stimulus funds to be used for new preschools for low-income students, while other educators want Palin to push harder for expansion.

"The state should take advantage of opportunities to fund preschools -- proven to give kids a stronger start,'' the editorial noted. It also pointed out that "well-run preschools can improve the odds children will succeed in school.''

Palin, for her part, has criticized the stimulus package as too large and said it would not be fair to Alaskans "to create expectations about programs that wouldn't be sustainable.''

Education journalists who are busy juggling the many K-12 stories on their beat don't always recognize the importance of what does -- or does not -- come before. That's why it is an excellent idea to listen in next week to the 2008 State of Preschool report from the National Institute for Early Education Research that ranks all 50 states on quality standards, funding and access to state funded programs. This year the report will also look at how state budgets have been effected by the recession, and will consider the likelihood of cuts. Take a look at the yearbook from 2007 for comparison.

Journalists can tune in for a phone briefing about the 2008 report at 2 p.m. on April 6 or attend a news conference on April 8 at 10 a.m. at the Oyster Adams Bilingual School, 2801 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC. To participate in the conference, contact Jen Fitzgerald at jfitzgerald@nieer.org or Mary Meagher at mmeagher@nieer.org. Registration for the conference call constitutes agreement to honor the embargo of the report until April 8; call-in information will be available upon registering for the call and an embargoed copy of the report will be made available.

Listening to the report is no substitute for something EarlyStories has long advocated -- visiting pre-schools and early childhood centers to see what is -- or is not -- happening. The report may provide an excellent starting point for an overview of some of the key issues at a time when planned expansions may be stalled by the weak economy, and will likely provide some excellent questions to ask as well as some stories well worth pursuing.

EarlyStories has been urging reporters to think hard about dueling trends in pre-kindergarten education as long planned expansions run into hard fiscal realities. The National Institute for Early Education Research has explored the issue in depth. Their annual survey of state-funded programs, released in Washington D.C. on Tuesday is a must read for journalists, especially because it provides state-by-state snapshots. NIEER, based at Rutgers University In New Jersey, has produced an annual report on state preschool programs since 2002.

NIEER found ample evidence of the growth of pre-kindergarten programs, as follows:
• Enrollment increased by more than 108,000 children. More than 1.1 million children attended state-funded preschool education, 973,178 at age 4 alone.
• Thirty-three of the 38 states with state-funded programs increased enrollment.
• Eleven states improved the quality of their preschool programs, based on quality standards developed by NIEER. One fell back.
• State funding for pre-k rose to almost $4.6 billion. Funding for state pre-k from all reported sources exceeded $5.2 billion, an increase of nearly $1 billion (23 percent) over the previous year.

But the report also noted that the economy has taken a toll on expansion, as Sam Dillon of the New York Times noted. Nine states have announced cuts to state-run pre-kindergarten programs while legislatures continue to debate cutting others.

As the debate over the value of spending money on pre-k programs continues, Congress is raising federal funding for preschool while President Barack Obama continues to promise new investment in early childhood education. That means reporters will be monitoring state budget cuts, use of stimulus money to boost early childhood education and long-planned state expansions all at the same time. In this confusing and quickly changing landscape, the NIEER report is an especially helpful tool.

Universal Pre-K for all? Not so fast, says Chester E Finn Jr., a former assistant secretary of education and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

At a time when politicians from President Barack Obama to governments are pushing the concept that all American children should receive at least a year of government funded pre-school and being applauded for their position, Finn is urging skepticism in a new book, entitled: "Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut."

"For all its surface appeal, universal preschool is an unwise use of tax dollars,'' Finn writes this week in the Washington Post. "In a time of ballooning deficits, expansion of preschool programs would use large sums on behalf of families that don't need this subsidy while not providing nearly enough help to the smaller number of children who need it most. It fails to overhaul expensive but woefully ineffectual efforts such as Head Start.''

Finn's views are likely to be challenged and questioned in the coming weeks -- as they almost always are. Yet it's important for journalists covering pre-kindergarten to be aware of arguments against universal pre-kindergarten when reporting on both the new federal and state push for early childhood education expansion. The story of pre-k should not be told entirely from the viewpoint of advocates and politicians.

As EarlyStories often points out, there is no substitute for visiting existing programs and looking for research on their impact. If none is available, journalists can ask kindergarten and educators in early grades what they've noticed about students who have been enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs vs. those who have not. Also, what are the costs associated with universal pre-k and who is monitoring the quality? Who benefits the most? And given the financial bind many states are in, what will other education programs have to be sacrificed to expand pre-K?

As EarlyStories anticipated, it didn't take long for opposition to Chester Finn's opinions on universal pre-kindergarten to emerge. Finn's op-ed, "Slow the Preschool Bandwagon,'' appeared on May 15 in the Washington Post, introducing some of the arguments against universal pre-k that appear in his new book, "Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut.''

Finn, a former assistant secretary of education who is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation,has already generated two letters of objection, and Sara Mead of Early Ed Watch questioned some of his assertions this week as "just plain wrong.''

Finn responded here.

Finn's views are not expected to be popular at a time when politicians and President Barack Obama are pushing government to fund pre-school, but they must be considered by journalists who are exploring pre-k issues and need to understand the arguments against expansion.

Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said Finn had "inaccurately assessed the effort to secure high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten education,'' noting that it would be wrong to focus such programs only on low-income students.

And W. Steven Barnett of the National Institute for Early Education Research weighed in, noting that Finn's approach is not one the U.S. can afford at a time when 1 in 10 children are dropping out of high school. "....good state pre-K programs improve the readiness of all students,'' Barnett wrote.

Without even a nod to his new book, an editorial in the The Examiner of San Francisco managed to pick up on many of the arguments Chester E. Finn Jr. has been making in his new book "Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut." (Hoover Press, 2009)

The editorial noted that "there is no evidence that expanding the time American children spend in state-run schools will produce any educational benefits at all,'' an assumption that many educators, researchers and pre-kindergarten advocates vehemently disagree with. Journalists who are covering this issue have to challenge such views by finding an array of research and visiting programs and classrooms to see what is -- or is not -- happening.

The editorial notes that President Barack Obama's top domestic goal is government-financed preschool for all 3-and 4-year-olds and concludes that his "Zero to Five'' initiative would most likley "drive small, privately owned preschools out of business in order to create more jobs for NEA members, who will be the real beneficiaries of this latest educational scam.''

The editorial has already produced some nasty disagreement; one comment on the Examiner site complained about misinformation and suggested that all the writer can do "is pound your highchair."

EarlyStories can't help applauding when a daily newspaper like the Washington Post give prominent play and space to pre-school stories. The public needs the information more than ever, at a time when the Obama administration is poised to make a large federal investment and as states are being forced to scale back expansion plans. It's important for the public to get a glimpse of what happens inside such classrooms, and the Washington Post story this week did a good job of describing the enthusiasm of young learners.

The story noted that state and local governments now spend about $4,600 for every student enrolled in state pre-K, compared with about $12,000 for K-12 programs, and it described how the percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in state-funded pre-k nationally jumped from 14 percent in
2002 to 24 percent in 2008. It also took a look at trends in Virgina and in Maryland, and attempted to provide context by touring schools and a Head Start program describing what the children were doing.

EarlyStories spends a lot of time observing and commenting on the way journalists cover early childhood education. It's a tough area for many who are consumed with the demands of the K-12 beat and may not realize how much the early childhood landscape is changing. That's one reason the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media is hosting a webinar on June 24th. We will explain the main federal programs in early childhood education and describe how the Obama administration hopes to expand and fund them.

We'll ask and try to answer:

· What will an infusion of money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) mean for states and districts, and how will it influence what early education programs and policies look like?
· What sorts of new and developing partnerships between K-12 systems and early childhood care providers are on the horizon as superintendents and school officials clamor for programs they believe will assist their test scores later on? How can journalists assess the quality of such programs?
· How will investing in Early Head Start and Head Start expand access to quality child care for children from working families?
· What kind of training will be offered to early childhood workers and how can journalists assess if it is any good? What kinds of credentials must they attain?
· Is the federal investment sufficient to stave off cuts to existing pre-k programs and to reinvigorate plans for pre-k expansion?

This webinar is scheduled for one hour and is completely free. Apply online

Journalists are about to start hearing a lot more of the phrase "The Race to the Top.'' It's important to start examining what this phrase means, because it could start taking on a life of its own the way "No Child Left Behind,'' did and creep into the lexicon of education reporting without explanation.

The term has been used by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to describe $5 billion in the stimulus bill aimed at backing new approaches to improve schools and push states to raise their standards and reward top teachers. According to the Democrats for Education Reform, it represents "a historic opportunity to establish clear reform priorities and to back them up with significant resources to bring change to America's schools.''

So what would it mean for pre-k programs? DFER posted an issue brief this week that is a helpful guide for journalists trying to understand the new federal investment in early childhood education (which is also the subject of a webinar the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media will hold on June 24; sign-up here.)

The brief, written by Sara Mead, who writes the excellent Early Ed Watch blog, calls for states "to enact policities to encourage the creation of pre-k charter schools to deliver high-quality early education to 3-and 4-year-olds,'' and gives several good examples of how such programs would work and what states can do.

This is a relatively new idea and one worth watching and asking about. The brief provides examples of existing programs that get little coverage, including The Accelerated School in Los Angeles, KIPP McDonough 15 in New Orleans, and dozens of charter schools in Washington, D.C. that she believes provide high-quality learning and help improve outcomes for disadvantaged children later on.

Mead also notes an important trend that many journalists who are covering pre-k battles in their states are familiar with. Even though states have more than doubled spending on pre-k since 2002, "the current economic downturn and state budget shortfalls threaten this progress; nine states have already announced cuts to their state pre-k programs and more are likely to do so in the coming weeks,'' the brief notes.

Journalists who are covering early childhood education these days find themselves watching two distinct trends that often diverge: cutbacks in long-planned pre-kindergarten expansion due to state's economic woes, and a new federal involvement in the lives of children from birth to five. Understanding and covering these dual trends will require some explanation, and that is one reason the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media is hosting a webinar on early childhood education on Wednesday.

President Barack Obama has proposed spending $10 billion annually to support early childhood investments. How will his agenda change the early education landscape from birth to age five, and how does it connect to the larger K-12 world?

Journalists must keep an eye on the unprecedented new federal funding coming to states and districts through stimulus funds, which could drastically re-shape early education programs and policies. What will this mean for communities and at risk children across the U.S.?

Speakers include former Chicago Tribune editorial writer Cornelia Grumman of the First Five Years Fund and Scott Palmer, a partner and co-founder of EducationCounsel LLC, an affiliate of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.

Sign-up on the Hechinger website.

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.

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

At a time when many states are having to scale back on long-planned pre-kindergarten expansions, Oklahoma is taking advantage of $15 million in stimulus funds to help support three new early childhood centers, according to published accounts.

Oklahoma is is indeed facing tough fiscal times. Gov. Brad Henry has noted that state revenues are declining, but has pushed for the early childhood programs with the help of the Kaiser Family Foundation and matching funds from the Tulsa Public Schools.

Oklahoma has long been thought of as a leader in early childhood education, especially the state's emphasis on enrolling disadvantaged children. It will be interesting to see what kind of impact the early childhood education centers will have on education in the state in the years to come.

Henry is making some pretty big promises, and the press -- along with researchers -- are going to have to do a lot of follow-up work to get a sense of both the quality and the impact the new centers will have in Tulsa and beyond.

"They will be the first of their kind in the nation," Henry said during his annual state-of-the-state speech to the Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce this week, according to the Tulsa World. "Tulsa will continue to be a leader in early childhood education."

What kind of a leader remains to be seen.

EarlyStories will be keeping a close eye on coverage of the new education agendas in New Jersey and in Virginia, two states where tightly fought governors elections went to Republicans. The New Jersey race between Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine and Chris Christie was particularly notable because of remarks Christie made during the campaign, attacking Corzine's record on early education spending and likening preschool to "babysitting.''

Christie has said he is in favor of authorizing more charter schools and establishing a private school voucher system; Corzine at one point hoped to bring all day pre-school to every district in the state, although budget realities interfered. New Jersey has become a national leader in providing high quality pre-kindergarten; what will happen now?

EarlyEd watch blog also did a good job of explaining the education landscape in Virginia, where transportation, taxes, and social issue took center stage, and where Democratic former state senator Creigh Deeds lost to Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

In the next few months, journalists covering both education and politics in the two states will have their hands full covering the transition to a new administration. With campaign rhetoric dying down, it will be time to truly listen and cover how the two new governors will approach publicly funded pre-kindergarten. Their agenda will likely be different from the one President Barack Obama has laid out; and is pushing for. What will it mean for children?

Sometimes it takes a jolt from a rural state to remind EarlyStories of the struggle it can be to help the public understand the benefits of high quality early childhood education, and how it fits into the bigger picture. Reading about what happens in other states is also a reminder of how old-fashioned notions about parents and the workplace can still impact public policy.

An editorial in the Lewiston Tribune that also ran in the Spokesman Review noted that the state has repeatedly declined to fund early pre-kindergarten programs and called it "outside the mainstream,'' with some of the country's weakest day care regulations as well.

"Some of its legislators openly pine for the days of Ozzie and Harriet when mothers stayed at home,'' the editorial noted. "Such longing puts Idaho out of touch with the way children are raised at a time when mothers work outside of the home and many of them are single parents."

The context for the editorial is Idaho's status as one of only 12 states in the U.S. that does not provide state funding for pre-kindergarten.

The editorial also comes as a group known as the Education Alliance of Idaho is pushing to improve education in the state without mentioning or pushing for a better early childhood education system.

An interesting report today from the recession battered state of Michigan: It found that pre-school attendance saves taxpayers money and can be a sound investment by giving youngsters a foundation they need to become productive members of society.

The report comes at a time when Michigan, struggling with reduced tax revenues and high unemployment, has cut many of its publicly supported early childhood programs back drastically.

The report, entitled "Cost Savings, Analysis of School Readiness in Michigan,'' found that investments the state has made in fully preparing young children for school has saved an estimated $1.15 billion over 25 years because the boost children got in pre-school programs decreased their need to repeat grades. The solid foundation also saved the state money by identifying disabilities in children early and cutting down on juvenile delinquency.

Wilder Research completed the study, commissioned by the state's Early Childhood Investment Corporation., a state-wide initiative aimed at fostering school readiness.

A story on the report in the Grand Rapids Press noted that the state-funded programs that began in Michigan some 25 years ago are geared largely for poor children who don't come to kindergarten with the same level of vocabulary and school experiences of their peers.

"Based on past participation and success rates of early education programs in Michigan, an estimated 80,000 adults, age 18 to 29, in the Michigan labor force today are high school graduates who likely would have dropped out of school if not for Michigan's past investment in their school readiness,'' the report found.

Michigan was among 10 states that lowered funding for pre-kindergarten for 2010, despite early promises from Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

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.

At the end of a lengthy Associated Press story on a battle for pre-kindergarten funding in Virginia, a quote stood out that begs for an answer and a response.

Republican Kirk Cox of Colonial Heights, who is a member of the legislative panel working to finalize the state's budget, said that Virgina has more than doubled funding for its pre-K program in recent years.

“It’s not a core function of education,” Cox is quoted as saying. “Every dollar you put into pre-K is a dollar you take out of the classroom.”

The quote came at the end of a story similar to one being written by statehouse reporters all over the U.S., as states are under pressure in a weakened economy to slash budgets and make painful choices.

The story detailed how teachers and advocates for a program that puts low-income children in Virginia testified before lawmakers and urged them not to cut the Virgina Preschool Initiative.

They described how the program helps get children ready for kindergarten and helps level the playing field with those from more advantaged homes. There were plenty of clear arguments quoted about the value and benefits of of pre-kindergarten, an issue the state continues to debate even as the new Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has urged that pre-k programs not be cut.

So what about the "core function,'' quote? It's important to hear from both sides in any debate about education spending, but EarlyStories still would like an explanation of what is a core function. How exactly would funding pre-k take other dollars out of the classroom? What specifically would have to be cut?

Those making arguments on the other side have to be ready to answer and defend the role of pre-k as "a core function,'' at a time when every dollar spent on every program is coming into question. Rhetoric isn't helpful. Facts and explanations are.