The mid-term election results put the proponents of universal pre-kindergarten around the country in a very good mood. Newly elected governors in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, as well as the mayor-elect of the District of Columbia, all campaigned on the promise to support pre-K. In addition, ballot measures in Arizona and Nebraska won. (The local ballot measure in Denver remains undecided.) Pre-K Now, the Washington advocacy group underwritten by The Pew Charitable Trusts to help push universal pre-kindergarten in the states and nationally, says it will keep the pressure on to make sure the governors follow through on their promises. (Full-disclosure: the Pew Trusts underwrite this blog but do not determine the content.)

Journalists can play a role in this. They should be asking governors not only when they'll be following through but also how. A high-quality pre-kindergarten program costs money, real money. About the same per-pupil as kindergarten. Plus there are other questions: Where will the teachers come from? How will they be trained? Will they be required to have a four-year degree and a certification in early childhood? How will state programs incorporate the many, diverse providers of pre-kindergarten and child care already in existence. Lots of questions. Lots of stories.

The Post ran a bizarre pre-election column saying the city had bigger needs, like an irrigation system and saving a “vulnerable tree canopy.” The columnist argued for expanding preschools already in the public schools, asserted that only the poor should get help, and questioned allowing private individuals to oversee the spending of the tax money. Of course, some might say voters had their say, that those who will be appointed to oversee the program are part of the community too, and that lots of middle class folks struggle to pay for high-quality pre-kindergarten. In fact, pre-kindergarten participation is actually lowest among the middle class.

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

The schools in Fort Smith, Arkansas are facing an enrollment boom, which has led officials to put together an ambitious building program. At the same time, Supt. Benny Gooden wants to expand the district's pre-kindergarten program. The coverage in the Fort Smith paper notes that "while a pre-K program is not mandated, various studies have shown that children entering kindergarten benefit from a pre-K program especially if they are behind developmentally and socially." I was glad to see the story report the need for pre-K as well as the space crunch more classes creates. I would have liked to ask Mr. Gooden whether the district might not be able to find a way to make use of existing high-quality pre-k programs, already up and running.

By the way, Amy Sherrill, who wrote the article, was a recent attendee at a seminar the Hechinger Institute and the Education Writers Assn. put on in Atlanta for journalists in the south. Pre-K was one of the topics. Benny Gooden was a speaker.

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.

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.

The Pew Charitable Trusts, which since 2001 has invested more than $50 million in its "Advancing Quality Pre-K For All" initiative, has put out a five-year status report on its progress. (Full disclosure: the Hechinger Institute, which I direct, has received two grants from the Pew Trusts to raise journalists' awareness and knowledge of pre-kindergarten and this blog is part of that work.) The report is notable for its frankness and offers a good sense of where the issue stands. The authors, Susan Urahn and Sara Watson, say the Trusts will continue to focus on increasing public investment in pre-kindergarten. But they also note that the Trusts and 11 other funders are pursuing research to "assess the contribution that different supports for young children make to the nation's economy." In other words, what other services do children need, and how can their impact on the economic well-being of the U.S. and its people be monitored and measured. That project is known as the "Partnership for America's Economic Success" and bears watching.

One other part of this memo that should be of particular interest to journalists is the list of criteria it offers for pre-k programs and for state pre-k policies. The list offers a good template for questions journalists should ask about efforts in the states they cover.

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

Well, here we are, the first working day of 2007. My resolution is to become more insightful into analyzing journalism about early learning, to work hard to find new brilliant voices out there on the web telling us about early learning, and to be more creative and forward-looking in suggesting ways for early learning to be covered. Oh, and lose 15 pounds and read more.

I really think that 2007 will be a banner year for stories involving early learning. The New York Times reported Dec. 29 that Democrats had picked up more than 350 seats and gained control of 10 state legislatures. That should bode well for increased investment in pre-kindergarten. Moreover, Republicans have been supporters of public funds for pre-kindergarten in many states and devoting public dollars to pre-kindergarten may be a popular issue for Republicans to support, in order to make gains in the 2008 election. This is an emerging story that bears watching.

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.

The "father" of Head Start, Yale University professor emeritus Edward Zigler, predicted yesterday that the reauthorization bill "will pass this time" now that Democrats hold the majority of seats in both houses. The first time the Bush Administration tried to get Head Start reauthorized the bill would have given experimental "block grants" to eight states to run it. That bill eked through the House with a one-vote majority but didn't stand a chance in the Senate. Even Republicans were reluctant to undermine the federal program. Zigler, now in his 70s, fought to block it.

"I spent a lot of my time trying to defeat that plan. The key reason is quality. I'm convinced that Head Start is superior in quality to most state programs. As soon as the states demonstrate they can do it as well as the Feds have done it, I'll switch."

He now is advising Congress on the reauthorization bill but, he said, "the problem is money again. They want to raise the eligibility up to 130% of poverty to serve the working poor. But they've never served all the kids eligible at 100% of poverty. What makes them think they'll make 130%? I don't see the money for it. They will also recommend that a third of the Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees. But I'm opposed to unfunded mandates."

Stay tuned. This came from a Q&A I did with Zigler and as soon as I'm done editing it I'll post it here and possibly elsewhere.

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.]

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.

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

She said early childhood education is a case in point.

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

What’s changed? she asked

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

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

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

Down in Tennessee, on a blog called TennesseeTicket, there is this nice description of children and learning and the role of society:

Children at this young age do not see learning as a “required” activity. They just do it. All one needs to do is provide access to the materials and information, and they set about having fun soaking up the knowledge. It is for this reason that pre-K learning should be seriously considered as a common goal. Yes, there is a strong argument that the primary responsibility of a child’s education lies with the child’s parent(s), but that stance could be (and is) used to argue against public education in general. If we accept that the society, through its state, has an interest in a well-educated populace, then our provisions wisely include measures to address this motherlode of time-sensitive learning capacity.

Bill Roberts of the Idaho Statesman fills in some more information about the strangely anachronistic "debate" over even "allowing" Idaho schools to spend money on preschool for four year olds. Turns out that the schools would be given permission to seek private or federal funds to pay for the services. The bill being discussed strictly prohibits the use of state funds. Backing the bill is, as is the case across the country, business leaders and a coalition of pre-kindergarten advocates. Opponents, in addition to worrying about some malevalent Orwellian "nanny state," also said that the preschools would be financed "on the backs of Title I children." That's a strange way of thinking about it. The state is unwilling to spend any money on young kids so to serve their interests harms older kids. Bravo to Bill Roberts for laying out these perspectives.

The Charleston Gazette of Charleston, West Virginia had a perceptive editorial the other day, urging the state to accelerate and formalize efforts to fulfill a commitment to having universal pre-kindergarten available to all 4 year olds by 2012. The editorial took note of a political dynamic that I've rarely seen mentioned but is something journalists need to keep in mind. The editorial said:

The payoff from investing in early childhood education requires patience, because it takes 20 years to measure. Who will still be in office to take credit or to feel the satisfaction of the effort? That’s all the more reason why West Virginia should waste no time in boosting the potential of every new mind born here...

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry's plan to expand his state's highly regarded pre-k program for 4 year olds to serve 3 year olds has stalled in the state Legislature. Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee all voted against it, with their leader saying they had successfully blocked an expansion of government. Henry called it "pure politics."

Earlier this month, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a $100 million investment in early learning--$75 million for pre-k starting with 3 year olds and $25 million for full day kindergarten. Were the proposal to pass, it would mean that 11,000 more children from the Quaker state would have access to high quality pre-kindergarten. In addition, 65% of all eligible children would be able to attend a full day kindergarten class. (Preference would be given to communities with more than 30% of the children living in poverty.) Rendell added significant amounts to the state’s spending on pre-k since becoming governor four years ago. But still, only 31% of the state’s 3 and 4 year olds are receiving high quality early childhood education.

So, where’s the coverage? My Google search turned up a few stories that mentioned this new initiative in passing as part of a story about the governor’s budget announcement. It also turned up a commentary by far right columnist Robert Holland who offered up the usual complaint that expanded public spending on pre-k amounts to a raid on parental rights. Where’s the Inquirer? Post-Dispatch? Daily News?

Rendell himself said that legislators elected on anti-government spending platforms could prove to be an obstacle. Four years ago, a Rendell proposal for expanding public spending was turned into a tax credit for private companies that offered money up to start pre-k programs. So, there’s likely to be some political back and forth. Shouldn’t the media be out there explaining that before it happens?

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

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

Folks at Goldwater Institute in Phoenix have long been opponents of publicly financed pre-kindergarten. They're out with a new analysis that says the investment in early childhood education the state is making is a waste of money. It says that the small positive effects of full-day kindergarten fade by fifth grade. The study is odd, though. It seems to treat pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten interchangeably. It also does not use individual data and it is silent on the quality of the half-day pre-kindergarten programs in the state. In short, only a researcher who set out to find no effect from pre-kindergarten would rely on the study's methodology. Oh and, no surprise here, school choice is a big winner!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

A committee of the Missouri legislature decided it would be unfair to rate private preschools and child care centers based on education quality and to provide those rated higher with more state funding. But the committee said it would be just fine to subject the sliver of programs operated by the public schools to those rules it rejected for the privately operated programs. The legislature also loaded up the bill with a raft of controversial provisions unrelated to preschool: a measure making it easier to fire teachers who go on strike, one making it easier to start charter schools; and one allowing professionals to become teachers without a degree. Matt Franck has the story in the Post-Dispatch.

Be interesting to see what oversight or regulation, if any, that your state performs over private child care and preschool programs. Usually, the only regulations deal with health and safety rather than educational or developmental quality.

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.

Andy Rotherham of Eduwonk and Education Sector fame and Richard Whitmire, the highly respected USA Today editorialist on education (currently on leave), give presidential candidates a 10-point plan on education on the new The Politico website. Point Eight:

8. Open the door to pre-kindergarten education. Academically focused pre-kindergarten programs help close the racial and economic achievement gap. Such programs are expensive, but taxpayers actually recoup the money in savings down the road because these programs help keep kids out of special education and out of trouble.

One purpose of the annual "Leadership Matters" survey by the advocacy group Pre-K Now is to praise governors going along with the plan of adding more public dollars for preschool and to spank governors who are wavering, have jumped off the bandwagon, or who haven't yet climbed aboard. The report released this week praised Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana who has announced she won't run for reelection, and The Daily Advertiser of Lafayette, Louisiana took note. On the other hand, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina was taken to task for his "evaporating" support for universal pre-kindergarten and the Post and Courier of Charleston took note. (Full disclosure: Pre-K Now, like this blog, is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which advocates for public spending for universal pre-kindergarten.) In each of these stories, the reporters quoted people in the states unaffiliated with the national report and used it as a hook for a status report on pre-k in the state. What I didn't see in either story, however, was any attempt to connect the Pre-K Now report to the earlier report by the National Institute for Early Education Research on the quality of state programs. I also didn't see any mention of how much the states are spending per pupil. Quantity has to be matched by quality, otherwise these programs will have little if any effect.

Suzanne Perez Tobias of the Wichita Eagle Beacon reports that the Kansas Health Foundation is spending $400,000 to develop an assessment of how ready five-year-olds in the state are to start school.The Kansas Health Institute will develop the assessment. "Until now, we haven't really had a systematic way of understanding how 'school-ready' children are," Robert St. Peter, a pediatrician and president of the Institute, told the paper. "This will give us some look at how we're doing, but even more importantly, the ability to track it over time."

Tobias did what many reporters writing such stories do not: she included some specific details of what it means to be "ready" for school. " 'Ready to learn' means using the bathroom by yourself, sharing a toy, listening to a story, being curious. It means holding a pencil correctly, treating books gently, asking questions and taking turns."

She also, however, reports that researchers contend that at least a third of American children are not ready to learn. And she implies that children's brains are virtually complete by the age of five, meaning that their capacity to keep learning is established and set by that age. I'd like to see journalists temper such statements: all children, regardless of their circumstances, are "ready to learn." They simply can't help it. Humans are learning machines.And they keep learning until they die. At least I hope they do.

She also noted that the results of the asssessment would be ready prior to the 2008 legislative session in the state. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius made investing in pre-k a centerpiece of her re-election campaign but offered only modest programs in her legislative agenda. Tobias reports that even these timid efforts are unlikely to be approved. The results of the assessments will no doubt be used to justify more spending. Journalists need to make sure they don't get caught up in campaigns, no matter how worthy.

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.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to add $50 million on top of the $50 million added a year earlier for publicly funded preschool. The advocacy organization Preschool California is quite happy about it. Their reaction ishere.

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.

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

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

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

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

Poor Paris Hilton. It was heartbreaking seeing her sobbing through the window of the police car as she was taken to jail in Los Angeles County again. Maybe she didn't go to preschool...(Photo from New York Times)

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.

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

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

Despite lots and lots of early ed news I've been offline, running the Hechinger Institute after the departure of several staffers....also have been very busy with seminars for journalists, which is our main activity. I blogged a bit earlier on the talk Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredeson gave at the Hechinger seminar end of June, discussing the political challenges he faced in expanding his state's investments in early childhood education. The governor also explained that he thought it was better for states to emphasize quality and expand slowly rather than go big but cheap all at once. Tennessee's program meets 9 out of the 10 quality indicators that the National Institute on Early Education Research uses to analyze state programs. Look for more from EarlyStories and, as always, let me know if you see good stories in early ed being covered well, not being covered well-enough, or not being covered at all.....

The Hechinger Institute, in collaboration with the National Conference of Editorial Writers, gathered 30 or so editorial writers from around the country June 29-30 to discuss early education issues, emphasizing, in particular, the effects of poverty on children. Three of those who attended have already written commentaries, spinning off in different directions. The latest came from Kay Semion of the Daytona Beach News-Journal, who Download file">chided her state's leaders for cynically offering up a sub-standard pre-k program in response to the plea of voters for a high quality, universal program.

Earlier, Mary Ellen Schoonmaker wrote a lovely column in the Bergen (New Jersey) Record that drew on comments from a wonderful young pre-school teacher we had at the seminar as a speaker. And Linda Valdez in the Arizona Republic focused on the comments of New York developer and philanthropist Daniel Rose, who exhorted the writers to refer to high-quality pre-kindergarten as an investment, not an expense. Valdez referred to Rose as a "triple shot of espresso" for his rousing talk.

Nicole Christian wrote a compelling editorial in the Detroit Free Press this past weekend, arguing that even though strong evidence for the effectiveness of high quality pre-kindergarten eminated from the state, the state's political leaders have not built on that legacy. She acknowledges that the state is struggling economically, as the auto industry tries to avoid complete collapse. But she says state political leaders could set what she calls a "committed, consistent political tone" in favor of expanding pre-kindergarten. Such a tone would inspire corporate and foundation leaders to get on board and create momentum. That's the strategy used in a number of other states that are now ahead of Michigan, which has sacrificed its early lead in the area.

Out in Spokane, Gary Crooks wrote an editorial in the Spokesman Review making the case that Idaho, one of 11 states that do not invest in pre-kindergarten programs, ought to learn a lesson from other states. He cites the case of Oklahoma, another conservative, relatively poor state that has made a commitment to preschool and the results it is getting, The editorial concludes by saying "let's hope the legislature can close their own learning gap."

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.

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.

A blog called BlueNC that says it is "community-driven website that promotes progressive values and policies in North Carolina" has what appears to be a comprehensive analysis of the positions of the Democratic presidential candidates on issues of child care and preschool. Hillary Clinton's position has been talked about a lot but this breakdown looks at all the candidates.

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.

State pre-kindergarten news:

Virginia's Democratic governor, Timothy Kaine, gained a majority in the state Senate but the Republicans still hold an edge in the House. Makes his work to expand spending on pre-k, despite state budget troubles, more difficult.

Michigan's budget woes may slow growth of pre-k enrollments there.

California's staring at a $10 billion budget deficit, causing Gov. Schwarzenegger to order agencies to cut 10% from their budgets. Los Angeles Times story doesn't say it but obviously everything will be on the table, including the pledge to increase spending on pre-k.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley last week told the Huntsville Times that he'd ask the state legislature to expand state-funded preschool. The state's department of education estimated the cost at $120 million. Although Alabama is a right to work state with no collective bargaining law, the Alabama Education Association represents the interests of teachers in the capital. The AEA rep says Riley has to talk with the AEA about how he plans to fund the proposal. As is often the case, the teachers' union is dubious of proposals that might take money off the table. In a case of curious bed fellows, the AEA raises the same concerns as "A 'Bama Blog," which asks whether the state should be paying for "free baby sitting for four-year-olds." "A 'Bama Blog" presents news from the "right side" of Alabama. I guess advocates of investments in high quality early childhood education still need to get across the message that pre-k is not babysitting.

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.

Thanks to Russo's This Week in Education just read a Q&A with David Kirp, the author of "The Sandbox Investment." Newsweek also touched down on the growing state investment in preschool here. Kirp made similar points here and here.">here and here.

Kirp's political analysis is compelling but he sometimes loses his footing and overpromises. Perhaps it was the editing of the Q&A (the media does this!) but he seemed to be saying that a dose of high-quality pre-kindergarten would solve all ills for all children. Journalists (and their editors) love quick fix, silver bullet, utopian policies but they ought to be a little more skeptical. (Not so skeptical that they assume a presidential candidate's emotions are a campaign trick, like the Queen of Nasty Maureen Dowd, but just a little more.)

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.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley picked up a couple of important endorsements for his plan to triple state spending on pre-kindergarten. Riley, a Republican, is meeting resistance from his own party in the state and Republicans are dragging their heels in South Carolina and Tennessee as well. The Head Start association and the organization of private providers in Alabama are both on board with Riley now. Why is this signficant? The reason is that Head Start is often wary of pre-k proposals, because they tend to be better funded. And the private providers usually balk because they fear losing their paying clients to a free service. For example, Gov. Phil Bredeson in Tennessee told the Hechinger Institute last spring that one of the biggest hurdles he faced in expanding pre-k there was the private providers group.

The tension between these groups can be found in just about all the states that are expanding their pre-k spending so it's worthwhile for journalists to pay attention to the compromises that result. In some states, such as Massachusetts, these groups have found common ground. That's interesting too.

Editorial writers in Mississippi in recent weeks have been pushing for increased spending on statewide early childhood education, noting that while Mississippi has the highest percentage of working mothers with children, it’s the only Southern state that doesn’t provide state money for pre-kindergarten.

A Jan. 5 editorial in the Clarion-Ledger noted that many pre-K programs in the state are “purely custodial, not educational,’’ and complained that too many children in the state are already behind when they start.

The Clarion-Ledger editorial urged lawmakers to approve the Quality Education Act of 2008, which doesn’t ask for statewide pre-k but calls for a continuation of a pilot program they consider “a modest step toward quality.’’

Like the Clarion Ledger, The Daily Journal of Northeast Mississippi also noted its support for a statewide advocacy organization of 36,000 known as The Parents Campaign which supports a $5 million increase to develop effective learning programs in child care settings and help improve the educational content.

The smaller steps are being considered a year after Mississippi’s Republican Gov. Haley Barbour told the Associated Press that he did not see Mississippi having a statewide, 4-year-old, state-funded pre-kindergarten program in the near future. The Southern Education Foundation, headed up by Lynn Huntley , an ES (EarlyStories) education hero, last year came out strongly in favor of universal pre-kindergarten in Mississippi last year as well.

Mississippi is ranked 48th in the nation in per pupil spending and 48th in student achievement; over 60 percent of Mississippi children are at risk of failing or dropping out of school due to poverty, The Parents Campaign notes on its website.

The editorial writers don’t have to look far to notice other ways Mississippi is falling behind in its approach to early childhood education. Neighboring Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican, has announced a plan to triple state spending on pre-kindergarten, and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, invested $80 million for the state’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program during the 2007-08 school year.

(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.

As governors continue to push expanded pre-kindergarten programs, journalists are right to do some reporting and find out what may stand in their way.
That’s what Josh Bean of the Press Register in Alabama did earlier this week, noting that Republican Governor Bob Riley’s plan to expand the state’s highly praised but small pre-kindergarten program may be hampered by a lack of qualified teachers.
Bean’s story noted that the majority of teachers who attend education schools earn degrees that certify them to teach kindergarten through sixth grade instead of the separate early childhood designation they need to become pre-kindergarten teachers.
He also pointed out that Riley’s expansion plan comes at a time when eighteen percent fewer people are graduating from the state’s teacher-training programs than a decade ago. Only 13 percent of the state’s 3,700 annual education graduates earn the early childhood certification they need to teach pre-kindergarten, his story says.
Reporters covering the big push in their states for pre-kindergarten can’t simply report on the big speeches and promises their governors make. They should find out what it will really take to make such expansions work and whenever possible spend time in pre-kindergarten classes to help educate the public about what takes place in them.
Bean’s story notes another obstacle Riley’s plan faces – the public’s lack of understanding. He quotes Marquita Davis, Alabama’s director of the Office of School Readiness. "Many people still think it's baby-sitting.’’

Strange things happening in politics these days: Rush Limbaugh hammering away hatefully at the soon to be crowned Republican presidential candidate John McCain; Ann Coulter, who has made a career out of childishly calling anyone not a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society stupid, saying she'll vote for Hillary Clinton rather than support McCain. And now, circumlocuting radio host Garrison Keillor, who over the past eight years has been one of the harshest critics of President Bush, is condemning Democrats (via Andy R. at Eduwonk) for failing to back one of the president's signature education programs.

I've always said that reporters often misunderstand the differences between Republicans and Democrats on education issues. On many issues, the usual alignments don't hold. Take the Reading First program, for example. Eight years ago Bush set aside $1 billion to help the lowest-achieving districts in each state use well-researched approaches to reading instruction. The program generated lots of controversy. Not because of the methods it supported but rather because advisors to the program seemed to benefit from it financially. Democrats in Congress saw it as a chance to hit Bush, even though independent evaluations said the program was achieving good results. So, they cut the budget by 70%, hurting not Bush but hundreds of thousands of children who were reading better because of it.

On Monday, Bush introduced his budget, which proposes to restore full funding for the program. It will be interesting to see this play out. Will Democrats really insist on cutting an effective reading program rather than address the real issues? Meanwhile, reporters will find a good story if they look into the Reading First program in their own state. What do the parents of children served by it, most of whom will be low-income and more likely to be Democrats, say? What about their teachers? (Also likely to be Democrats.) Here's one from the Birmingham (AL) News that identifies the state angle, although the reporter doesn't go out into the schools. Sometimes the usual political assumptions just don't hold.

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.

Editorial writers at the Rapid City Journal are pushing for voluntary pre-kindergarten school standards in South Dakota, one of only nine states that doesn’t provide state funding for pre-k.
Pre-kindergarten standards have been a tricky topic for journalists in the state, even though, as the Feb. 13 editorial pointed out, a poll by the advocacy group Voices for Children found that 73 percent of likely South Dakota voters support them.
The editorial favors a measure that would allow the State Department of Education to establish standards for preschool accreditation and staff training. It came out a few weeks after the South Dakota Senate voted 23-11 for the measure known as SB26, which now goes to the House for a vote.
. On the news side, the paper has covered heated sessions on the topic including comments from opponents like Senator Bill Napoli, a Rapid City Republican,
who said pre-school owners should decide how pre-schools are run and that it is “flat out wrong for the state to get involved in people’s private lives yet again.’’
The editorial disagreed, noting the law “keeps participation in pre-kindergarten programs voluntary and does not intrude on private providers who don’t access public funds,’’ while bringing public accountability to programs that do utilize them.
“Not everyone, including some private daycare businesses, think government should be involved in regulating pre-schools,’’ the editorial notes.
As the debate continues, it will be interesting to see more coverage of pre-classrooms in the state and how the approach to education differs – along with an explanation of what the standards might change.

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.

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen keeps stumbling into opposition as he pushes voluntary, full-day pre-kindergarten program for all county school systems in the state. On the surface, it would seem to be a natural extension of the state’s high quality program and Bredesen's already acclaimed efforts to expand pre-K.
But not so fast, the Tennessean reports. Bredesen, who invested $80 million for the state’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program during the 2007-08 school year, is facing opposition from Republican legislators who say the program’s success is untested and are making their voices be heard as well.
Bredesen wants to earmark another $25 million to pay for 250 new pre-kindergarten classrooms before opening it up to all 4-year-olds in Tennessee. The Tennessean last month reported that Bredesen has been surprised by the opposition of Republican lawmakers and their remarks likening pre-kindergarten to glorified day-care, an argument that has come up in several states. Bredesen is fighting back; last month he met with editors of the Times-News in Northeast Tennesse to defend his education program and budget requests.

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

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

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.

While heading out of Chicago Saturday I saw that the early Sunday edition (at the L.A. Times we called this the "bulldog" edition) had a big front page spread delving into scientific, political, and economic issues related to how best to invest in early childhood education. It was an excellent piece that focused on how early some form of early education outside the home should begin. Brain research was cited but the piece also explored the competing interests and tradeoffs involved in early education policy. It was comprehensive, nuanced, authoritative, and balanced. Readers would come away knowing the parameters of key debates on early ed. Journalists should look to it as a model.

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.

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.”

(Montana excells in beauty, lags in pre-kindergarten programs)

Sara Mead of New America Foundation did a great job of highlighting two states in the news politically, but way behind in early childhood education. Both South Dakota and Montana, which held primaries this week, do not have any state pre-kindergarten program, nor do they have full-day kindergarten, she notes in her blog: Early Education Watch.

South Dakota's efforts bear watching as well; in February, a Zogby poll released by South Dakota Voices for Children found that 73 percent of voters in the state support a stalled plan to create standards and accountability for pre-kindergarten programs. The program Fight Crime: Invest in Kids is also pushing South Dakota to fund pre-kindergarten.

One reason these western and largely rural states are so interesting to keep an eye on is the attitudes of residents -- and politicians -- who oppose pre-kindergarten. And it is precisely why continued journalism -- and education -- about what pre-kindergarten can do matters so much.

No one should doubt the power of a picture of cute young children – especially when they are dressing up like adults. The Washington Post took up most of the space above the fold on its front page Thursday, June 12, with this photograph of two Head Start children "graduating" from a program at a Washington, D.C. school that Chancellor Michelle Rhee is shutting down due to low enrollment. It is also a good reminder that Head Start programs can be offered by public schools as well as non profit agencies and others.

(Poll shows public favors public pre-kindergarten investment)

Candidates take note: Americans want publicly funded pre-kindergarten and believe in a federal role for it, according to a bipartisan poll from Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc. and American Viewpoint. Nearly 7 in 10 voters said they wanted more federal support for state-funded pre-kindergarten. Highlights of the poll can be viewed here:

The poll released on Tuesday surveyed 800 registered voters and another 200 “swing voters,’’ and found strong support for federal investment in pre-kindergarten – particularly among such voters in the South, where governors like Phil Bredesen of Tennessee have been struggling to finance ambitious pre-kindergarten agendas.

The findings were hailed as good news by Pre-K Now, the Washington D.C. based group leading the movement for high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten for all three and four-year-olds in the U.S.

The results should serve as a reminder to journalists that pre-kindergarten is well worth covering as both an education and a political story. Simply reporting the results, however, is not enough. The findings should be a starting point for visiting high quality pre-kindergartens to see what is working, and for asking follow up questions about how graduates fare.

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.

(If presential hopeful Barack Obama had his way, schools would teach two languages in kindergarten)

Last week, an Associated Press story widely picked up about a Virginia school teaching Chinese in kindergarten caught my eye, and piqued my interest in President George Bush's National Security Language initiative aimed at teaching the youngest students foreign languages he deemed critical to U.S. security.

Spanish was not among those languages. But Presidential candidate Barack Obama believes it should be, and he's ignited something of a debate on blogs and other media after suggesting last week that every U.S. child should be bilingual.

Obama noted the importance of teaching languages earlier in school, and pointed out that being bilingual can be "a powerful tool to get a job.'' He noted that young children learn foreign languages far easier and acknowledged his own shame that he doesn't speak a language. Almost instantly, he found himself under attack by conservative media and right-leaning blogs along with groups advocating English as the official U.S. language.

Obama defended himself against the criticism earlier this week, but the debate over what languages should be taught when and who should decide has ignited further discussion and debate all week that is instructive -- and reveals how controversial the teaching of languages can be in the U.S.

Education Week has an interesting forum, asking how vital is it for schools and districts to provide opportunities to study another language?

(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.

The pressure is on to draw attention to pre-kindergarten issues at upcoming conventions

Looks like early childhood education -- something advocates fear has not been on the radar for presidential candidates -- may get some attention at the upcoming conventions after all.

Congressional Quarterly is hosting an event on the topic at the Democratic convention in Denver on August 28. Known as a bruncheon, the event will allow convention attendees to hear more about an issue some feel has been left out of the campaign debate, or at the very least obscured by other issues.
.
Democrat Barack Obama has called for an expansion of Early Head Start and Head Start; while Republican John McCain has said little about where he stands on pre-kindergarten issues, although he has vowed to "place parents and children at the center of the education process by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children.''

Sara Mead of Early Education Watch has kept a close eye on both, and said she's encouraged by a draft of the Democratic platform that has a section focused entirely on early childhood issues. She's also weighed in with several suggestions for McCain's education agenda.

Pre-K Now, meanwhile, is pushing to remind presidential candidates "of their responsibilities to our kids,'' by asking anyone on their list to sign their message -- or send one of their own in advance of the Democratic and Republican conventions

On the closing night of the convention last night, Senator Obama gave an inspired speech filled with specific policy proposals, something his critics, and even his supporters, had been looking for. As Keith Olbermann said on MSNBC over and over, he offered 29 specific policy proposals. Here are six related to education: 1. "invest in early childhood education" 2. "recruit an army of new teachers. 3. "pay them higher salaries." 4. "give them more support." 5. "ask for higher standards and more accountability." 6. "If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."

"Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy.You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance."

Now it's John McCain's turn....

While you were away on vacation last week Andy Rotherham put Virginia Walden Ford, founder of D.C. Parents for School Choice, to work to blog on Eduwonk about John McCain's positions on education. Ford is a policy advisor to McCain and she notes in this entry that McCain supports "providing access to high quality care and education in all programs serving our youngest children with particular emphasis on high quality preschool for low-income students." This was the first time I'd heard of McCain's support for high quality preschool so I went to his Web site to find more details. I didn't find any mention of early education. In particular, Ford's entry says McCain supports creating a database of information about programs.

This week Obama advisors Jon Schnur, of New Leaders for New Schools, and Mike Johnston, a Denver principal, are blogging on Eduwonk about Barack Obama's education plans. At the top of the list is early childhood education. Going to Obama's Web site we find that he supports 1. A comprehensive approach to serving the needs of children from birth to age 5. 2. Expansion of Early Head Start and Head Start. 3. Affordable high-quality child care.

The response to the 10-point opening salvo from Schnur and Johnston was not very positive.

With the National Enquirer pushing reporting on Sarah Palin's private life to the limit, we here at EarlyStories prefer to stick to the issues. Thanks to the archives of Education Week, the paper of record in education, we can tell you that when Ms. Palin ran for governor against Tony Knowles she opposed any public spending on preschool. She said she thought private preschools were doing a good job. Alaska still does not have a program; it is one of 12 states that do not.

Coming up on Wednesday: Pre-K Now's annual "Votes Count" report, which monitors changes in states' budgets for pre-kindergarten. Conference call on Wednesday with Libby Doggett of Pre-K Now, a representative from Oklahoma ("one of the best") and a representative from Kansas ("one of the worst"). Information for the call available from Holly Higgins at Pre-K Now. contact info: 202.834.6846, hhiggins@preknow.org

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced a lot of grand education plans when he was elected in 2006, including free community college for all and an ambitious agenda to expand pre-kindergarten. This week, as the Boston Globe noted, his education secretary Paul Reville acknowledged the state's $1.4 billion budget gap means the governor will have to pull back on many of these initiatives, including his planned expansion of universal preschool and full-day kindergarten.

Further complicating his agenda is a ballot initiative before Massachusetts voters next week that would eliminate the state income tax and mean further cuts, according to USA Today

The budget crisis prompted op-ed piece by Jamie Gass, director of the Center for School Reform at the Pioneer Institute. The center "seeks more school choice for parents and an accountable system of public education for all students,'' and the piece pushes other alternatives it believes would be less costly.

As the economic crisis continues to unfold, reporters should take a closer look at other educational initiatives their states may be trying to see if they are truly less costly. Is interest in such initiatives growing as a result? What is the educational value? What are the obstacles?

Education reforms may be limited by tough economic times, but several state officials are putting their weight behind recommendations contained in The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce and its “Tough Times, Tough Choices,’’ report.

Journalists from anywhere in the U.S. can call in between 10 and 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, Oct. 30 at 800-954-1051 to take part in a conversation that will include governors, state education commissioners and other policy leaders from a range of states. The press conference comes at a time when many states, including New Yorkand New Jersey, are seeking federal help to prevent devastating budget cuts.

The report, first released in December 2006, urged drastic changes to the U.S. education system and warned that it is way behind other countries. The report also recommended that states put in place a system of high quality early childhood education for all four-year-olds and for all low-income three-year-olds.

The call will provide journalists with an opportunity to ask about states and their commitment to pre-kindergarten programs in tough economic times. With many governors already scaling back planned expansion, what comes next? The report initially recommended a system of high quality early childhood education for all four-year olds and for all low-income three year olds.

The press conference itself takes place at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. at 529 14th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy and co-chair of implemention, says states who take the recommendations seriously can build “internationally competitive education systems…their students will be competing with the best anywhere in the world.’’

It’s not clear yet which aspects of the report will be adopted, but so far, Utah, Massachusetts and New Hampshire are committed to building support for the new agenda, Tucker says.

As U.S. voters go to the polls and anxiously await the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election, Learning Matters , the production company covering education issues, is offering some expert advice to the next leader.

While education has not been top of the agenda in this historic campaign, Learning Matters posed a question to expert educators, parents, students and policy makers: What must the next president do to fix our country's education system?

There are some fascinating answer available at a click, ranging from Teachers College early childhood professor Sharon Lynn Kagan to author and scholar Mike Rose of the UCLA Graduate School of Education.

For more clarification on where Senators John McCain and Barack Obama stand on education you can also listen to the Oct. 21 debate between his education advisors or read the transcript..

As President-elect Barack Obama gets ready to visit the White House today, he's getting no shortage of advice. some of it on an Education Week blog about fulfilling the promise of his early education proposals. Bruce Fuller, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, weighs in as well, reminding Obama that increasing access to quality pre-schools for poor families is a strategic long-term investment.

Of course, when it comes to the education of their own two elementary-school aged daughters, the Obama family is also getting lots advice. Jay Mathews of the Washington Post took a look at some of the options and found a compelling public elementary school near the White House where the principal noted she would be more than willing to make room for two mid-year transfers from the Midwest. While choosing a public school would be a powerfully symbolic gesture, the Obamas are also said to be considering the private Georgetown Day, where tuition tops $25,000 annually for elementary school students.

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.

Protests and a police presence at a kindergarten Thanksgiving celebration?

While recent research is shining a spotlight on the value of role play in early childhood education, a California community found itself so divided over a time honored tradition of having kindergarten students dress up as Pilgrims and Native Americans this week that the students got a different kind of lesson entirely.

The costumes first came under attack in the college community of Claremont, after a parent complained they "demeaning and dehumanizing,'' according to an article in the Los Angeles Times.

Seems even play has political and racial implications, and the school decided to take the objections of a parent seriously and ban the costumes. Parents who disagreed protested and sent their children to school in Pilgrim hats and other garb nonetheless.

All of it led to a spirited protest and the presence of police at the school.

The clash left the superintendent claiming he was threatened and other parents angered at school officials for bowing, as they put it, to political correctness.

Lessons learned, anyone?

Kelly Smith of the Forum in North Dakota did an excellent job of setting the stage for what could be an unprecedented push for pre-kindergarten in North Dakota. The issue is important in this rural state because it comes at a time when 90 percent of the students are now enrolled in full-day kindergarten, and educators are expressing worries they will be at a disadvantage if they haven't had some form of schooling before. It's not clear if that argument will sway lawmakers, but it certainly sets up an interesting story idea.

What are kindergarten teachers seeing in the students who arrive with no classroom experience? How can they see and measure a lack of preparation and does it impede student progress on other important early learning skills?

North Dakota is one of only eight in the U.S. that does not fund any pre-kindergarten and lawmakers and others in the state are once again pushing for change. North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven recommended in his budget a plan to spend $3.5 million reimbursing school districts for half-day, two-day-a-week preschool programs, which would help about 7,000 of the state's 4-year-olds. As the state weighs other priorities, it will be interesting to watch what happens to the governor's pre-kindergarten plans.

The presidential pre-school watch can officially begin.

The eyes of advocates, educators and many others are now upon President-elect Barack Obama's choice for education secretary as he initiates an early childhood agenda.

Chicago Schools Chief Arne Duncan made it clear that preschool expansion is among his priorities at a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

Duncan said he wants to build on the successes of Head Start and Early Head Start and that he believes investment in early childhood is needed because "too many children show up at kindergarten already behind."

Before Duncan faced the Senate, the New America Foundation posed some excellent policy questions that will be useful for journalists to watch closely in the coming months.

The Senate hearing was hardly a grilling; Duncan received a warm reception and lots of applause throughout the hearing -- where his own pre-schooler read and drew.

Columnists can freely give their opinions without explanation, but Early Stories would have liked to hear the thinking behind David Brooks' op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he "fervently hope[s]'' that a Head Start expansion is dropped from the stimulus package.

Brooks clearly articulated what he believes is wrong with the $819 billion tax-and-spending bill, but he didn't say why he wants to jettison the $2.1 billion proposed for Head Start, the national program to promote school readiness. The package calls for giving $2.1 billion to allow the longest-running anti-poverty program in the U.S. to serve an additional 110,000 children. The National Head Start Association had hoped for a $4.3 billion boost for both Head Start and Early Head Start.

The NHSA noted that the $2.1 billion "would create new jobs and provide safe, high quality services for children as parents go back to work,'' and would provide help to children and families who most need it.

Early Stories decided to find out what David Brooks' objections to Head Start are, since he omitted them from his piece, and discovered a column from 2005 where he declared "there is little evidence that it actually transforms lives.''

The piece had links to a 2005 study that Brooks used as the basis for his dislike of Head Start.

If Brooks wants Head Start money out of the bill now, he owes us a cogent explanation of why Head Start should not get help in this bill. Others have expressed skepticism of the bill's education spending, but few have addressed Head Start. Sara Mead over at Early Education Watch, meanwhile, has done a good job of analyzing what the provisions could mean for early childhood education.

Early Stories did find some more objections -- not surprisingly -- from Chester Finn Jr. at the Fordham Foundation, whose conservative views may have influenced Brooks: "Forty years of evaluations have demonstrated that Head Start does next to nothing to prepare its young charges....to succeed in kindergarten and beyond,'' Finn noted.

Finn went on to describe what he dislikes about the program, which Brooks now has an obligation to do. The view may not be a popular one during this economic crisis, but it should be explained.

The possibility and promise of a new administration and new spending requires reporters to shine a light on which early childhood programs are effective, rather than to simply report the amount of money earmarked for new initiatives. Yale University psychology professor Edward Zigler offers some concrete suggestions that are worth a close read in a thoughtful Education Week piece published on Feb. 5 that looks at spending on Title 1.

The foundation of the government's commitment to closing the achievement gap is now known to all as No Child Left Behind, a cornerstone of the George W. Bush administration.

Zigler, widely regarded as one of the founding “fathers” of Head Start ,has always been a staunch advocate for children and families and a leading researcher of program and policies designed to support children and families. He calls on President Barack Obama and Congress to support a plan that "would enable Title I to evolve from a hodgepodge of efforts into a single program that had performance standards to guide quality and made Title I more accountable. ''

Zigler makes the case that spending on early childhood education is beneficial; "the younger the better,'' he says. He also says spending more federal money on it without a hard look at the results is not the answer.

Zigler wants money set aside to evaluate Title 1, nothing that the program launched in 1965 as part of then-president Lyndon B. Johnson's "war on poverty,'' has turned into a stream of money that allows school administrators to "mount any type of initiative they feel will be beneficial to the academic progress of poor children.''

Zigler raises important questions for journalists to think about as they keep a close eye on new education spending, along with what kinds of questions to ask about how existing programs have -- or have not --worked.

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly did she mean by that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 keeping a close eye on coverage of the stimulus package these days. There's no shortage of news to follow; for example, Head Start and Early Head Start centers will soon get some of the $2.2 billion in promised funding to expand their services.

Yet in Alaska, one of just 11 states with no publicly funded pre-kindergarten, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin is poised to reject almost half of the federal stimulus money available. And this week, the once vice-presidential candidate got some unwanted attention about an early story of a different kind when Palin's teenage daughter's ex-boyfriend boasted that the governor likely knew the teenage couple -- who have a baby -- were sleeping together. The interview -- to be aired on Monday -- came during an appearance on the Tyra Banks Show, not usually a source for EarlyStories.

Just last month, Bristol Palin told Fox News the abstinence preached by her mother "is not realistic at all,'' and said she wished she had waited 10 years before having a child.

So why bring all this up, when the presidential election is long over? For this reason: Alaska's educators and advocacy community are pushing hard at the moment for the state to improve its early childhood offerings, and some were hoping that stimulus money might be used.

Alaska superintendents are lobbying legislators to reverse her decision to reject $172 million for Alaska's schools. Much of the money was designated for poor schools and children with special needs. Some educators had also hoped it would be used to expand pre-kindergarten offerings for low-income children in Anchorage, along with those with special needs.

Palin -- who called education "near and dear to my heart,'' while on the stump with Sen. John McCain - did not attend a summit meeting in Alaska last November on early childhood education, and her budget proposal this year called for only a state-funded pilot program to serve some 500 pre-kindergarten children, nothing more. Alaska has also fared poorly in the way it pays teachers.

Palin also exposed a bit of hypocrisy when did not hold back her criticism of President Barack Obama for his gaffe in "Tonight with Jay Leno,'. Palin, the mother of a special needs baby who once pledged to look out for special needs children, let it be know that was "shocked,'' by what she termed his "...degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people.''

For the record, Obama compared his bowling score of 120 with being "like Special Olympics,'' and quickly apologized.

Both Democrats and Republicans have disagreed with her decision to turn down stimulus money in tough economic times, as have many Alaskans.

Some supporters have said they admire Palin's courage in turning down money they fear could expand government. It will be interesting to keep an eye on what happens to Alaska's education budget and to any of its limited pre-kindergarten programs as the stimulus story continues to unfold. Journalists should pay close attention, even as the more sensational story of Palin's unmarried daughter, ex-boyfriend and illegitimate grandchild grab the spotlight.

It's worth taking a look at what is happening to promises of pre-k expansion in states beset by economic woes, like hard-hit Michigan. Governor Jennifer Granholm, who has been a champion of education, may now be cutting a program that helped fund early literacy efforts and provided free books to poor families, the Muskegon News reports. The state has a budget gap that may be growing by $100 million a month.

Granholm has been a longtime advocate for early childhood education, proposing $31 million in her 2009 school aid bill to expand early education for children. With the state facing an unprecedented economic crisis, it's not clear what will survive.

The Great Parents/Great Start program brought nearly $90,000 to Muskegon County and is part of a project Grahom started to coordinate public and private efforts, the Muskegon News reports. But funding for the project comes at a time when auto industry woes and growing unemployement are creating a dire situation for the Midwestern state.

It is uncertain how much the federal stimulus package will ease cuts and smooth the way for long sought after education improvements.

The dichotomy between a governor's promises and expansion plans vs. economic reality is one all education journalists should be following, as governors everywhere are forced to roll back lots of earlier promises made during better times. Journalists should look up what these governors said at the time and closely scrutinize some of the programs, promises and priorities, which are now constantly shifting. Are they worth the investment? Would the money better be spent elsewhere?

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.

President Barack Obama, who has been pushing a major investment in early childhood education, provides some more details in an interview with Fortune Magazine about why corporate leaders -- who have been something of a target in the sinking economy -- will advocate for investing in education.

"We cannot ignore the fact that our education system is not adequately preparing our workers for a 21st-century economy," Obama said in an interview with Fortune's Washington editor Nina Easton. "Our businesses cannot compete and win in the global economy without a more effectively trained workforce - especially in areas like math and science. That is why so many corporate leaders are advocating for more effective investments in education - from early-childhood education to cultivating more homegrown engineering talent."

Obama's remarks come at a time when businesses have been active in promoting preschool and early childhood education; some examples include Billionaire oilman George Kaiser, who has put up funds in Tulsa Oklahoma. while rallying other business leaders, to Robert H. Dugger, managing editor of Tudor Investment Corp. in Washington, D.C.

Obama has said early childhood initiatives will help reduce welfare, healthcare costs and crime rates, but how real and substantial will the business community's involvement in education be? It's a question that is well worth asking and following as the Obama administration is poised to push for the largest new federal initiative for young children since 1965. Will corporate leaders follow through -- how large will there investment be, and will they retain an interest in the quality of new programs and initiatives?

EarlyStories keeps a close watch on the way journalists cover -- or ignore -- early childhood issues. The majority of stories we see tend to focus on funding battles, so it comes as a nice surprise when we come across stories that take us into classrooms. It's especially critical at a time when federal stimulus dollars will funnel $100 billion into early childhood education, public schools and colleges -- the largest one-time amount earmarked for education in U.S. history.

Ryan Blackburn of the Athens Banner Herald in Georgia this week wrote the kind of story that allows the public to get a sense of what is happening inside a pre-kindergarten program and why it might be important. The story included an interview with the teacher describing exactly what students should know by this time of year -- for example, they should be able to recognize small from large and be able to name the things they see in at least 30 pictures.

The small, but nonetheless important detail gives the public a sense of what students should be learning in pre-k, and it describes how the teacher is tracking the progress of each student to decide if they need extra help in a summer program before they start kindergarten.

"In kindergarten, there's less self-directed play, called center time, than pre-K students are accustomed to,'' Carolyn Wolpert, an Early Reading First coordinator, told Blackburn. "There's also more math and science concepts they must learn, so the more chances they get to prepare for the first day of class in the fall the better off they'll be.''

So now the reader can understand what children need to be ready for kindergarten. For another illustration of how critical the early years are, check out Maria Glod's Washington Post story about student performance on on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, showing that nine-year-olds posted the highest scores ever in reading and math in 2008.

But as Sara Mead over at Early Education Watch notes,"the real test is whether the today's 9-year-olds will sustain their pre-k and elementary school learning gains into middle and high school. It's too early to say with any confidence that they will (our middle and high schools do need to improve their performance) but it's also much to early to assume they won't. Educators and policymakers must work to continue to build on the improvements we have made in the preK-3rd years, by expanding access to quality pre-k, full-day kindergarten, and implementing aligned, high-quality curriculum and instructional programs across the preK-3rd continuum..."

That gives journalists a charge: visit these classrooms and find out what the teachers are trying to accomplish. Follow up, and see how the children who attended the programs do when they get to kindergarten, and ask teachers if they have noticed a difference. Ask for studies, and try to find out if school districts are tracking progress -- and if so how. All this will go a long way toward helping the public understand what happens during these critical early years.

Education journalist Emily Alpert of the Voice of San Diego expertly questioned the elements of a new and changing landscape for early childhood funding in a story this week, aimed at helping the public wade through some confusing new developments. It's a story that differs from state to state, but is well worth pursuing.

Alpert wondered how and why early childhood centers are being forced to make major spending cutbacks in a worsening economy, just as they are receiving a new influx of federal stimulus money. As the Obama administration prepares to make a major investment in early childhood education, early childhood providers are experiencing an unprecedented push and pull.

As a result, Alpert wrote, many centers are "in the paradoxical position of juggling expected cuts with investments in better programs and training, benefiting some families and not others. The fates of different preschools and their different programs will vary dramatically depending on where they get their money, and whether they can find ways to tap the stimulus."

In California, pre-school funding is complicated ; other states are in the process of trying to expand their offerings while facing resistance from politicians and taxpayers and deep budget gaps. It can be confusing for journalists and the public to explain cutbacks that are happening just as new money comes in to boost Head Start and other early childhood programs; see Early Ed Watch for a good explanation.

States vary widely when it comes to offering pre-k programs and spending, and the landscape is shifting quickly in the worsening economy. The National Institute for Early Education Research offers excellent profiles of each state, but there's no substitute for visiting centers and speaking to directors the way Alpert did.

From Alpert's story:

"Scott Moore, senior policy adviser for the nonprofit advocacy group Preschool California, summed up the feeling among preschool providers in a word. "Schizophrenic," he said.

Moore told Alpert, in a quote that truly summarizes the conflict and confusion over funding: "It is the strangest time. On the one hand, it is so thrilling to have a president who is passionate about early childhood education. On the other hand you have our state budget crisis, which is real and must be faced. People are scared. It is very difficult to predict how things will end up."

The public should be kept informed of these dueling trends, and that means journalists must keep asking.

As parents in New York City prepare to protest overcrowded schools on the steps of City Hall today, many are grappling with an unpleasant new reality: coveted spots in next year's public pre-kindergarten classes may disappear to make room for more kindergartners, according to the New York Times and Insideschools.org.

Scores of parents are on waiting lists to get into their locally zoned kindergartens, "a product of a kindergarten admissions procedure held earlier in the year, and according to parents and politicians, they also result from an increase in children in neighborhoods flush with new condominiums at a time when the construction of new schools has not kept pace,'' according to the New York Times story.

There is plenty of anger and blame to go around, but EarlyStories can't help but examine the origins of this mess by looking at New York State's committment to pre-kindergarten education. A great way to do that is via the "Leadership Matters,'' report available now on the Pre-K Now website. The report notes that New York Governor David Paterson has decreased the amount of money proposed for universial pre-kindergarten by $49.6 million, and has pushed back a plan to phase in pre-k for all children by 2011 to 2014.

The study found 27 governors had either increased or maintained funding for pre-k, while five -- including Paterson -- proposed cuts; criticism for his position can be found here.

In the meantime, New York City parents are furious at having to choose between fitting pre-kindergarten or kindergarten programs in their neighborhood schools; according to the New York Post, , it's "The Wait of the World,'' to find out if there will be room for their children.

Patrick Riccards at Eduflak, who aims to improve education "through effective communications,'' makes some helpful points that journalists covering the push and pull of pre-kindergarten expansion in a tight economy might consider -- including the very real prospect of cuts to existing programs. "We all know,'' Riccards wrote, "that once cuts come, it gets harder and harder to restore them.''

Journalists likely will be reporting on the cuts, but Riccards raises some important questions to ask in states that are pushing to expand existing programs and initiate new ones, in some cases with the help of federal stimulus money.

"How do we deliver return on investment on early childhood education? How do we make sure we have moved beyond glorified babysitting and are really focusing on instruction and academic and social preparation? How do we ensure that quality preK is measured and assessed for having true quality?" Riccards asks.

A forum held by Early Ed Watch blogger Sara Mead at the New America Foundation last week also attempted to draw conclusions from data available on early learning: it's available on their site.

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

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

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

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

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.

Every now and then a high quality editorial appears that helps fully explain the many components of pre-school education and why it is important. At best, editorials take a strong position, provide some background and back up the opinions with lots of background and context. Early Stories came across an excellent editorial in the Star Tribune that described the battle to expand and improve early childhood education in the state of Minnesota.

The editorial noted that the state's children are not doing as well as they should by the time they enter kindergarten, according to a recent report card. "Fewer than half of the 6,310 kindergartners surveyed -- 10 percent of the state total -- were deemed "proficient" and fully ready for school. About two out of five were rated "in process" toward readiness. On two key measures, language/literacy and mathematical thinking, one child in eight was judged "not yet" prepared,'' the editorial noted.

It also pointed to progress -- a preschool voucher pilot project, a law the 2009 Legislature approved and Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed that provides a quality rating system for preschool and child care providers, the promise of $26 million for child care-related services in this state. The editorial concluded that recognizing the importance of early childhood education and finding ways to fund it is key. "Minneapolis and St. Paul schools have recognized something important: Their own success, and that of many of their students, is vitally connected to the quality and availability of preschools. They're backing their resolve with resources."

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.

Stephanie Banchero of the Chicago Tribune is staying right on top of an important political and financial battle in Illinois that could shut some 30,000 children out of preschools. Like many financially strapped states, Illinois is facing difficult budget choices, resulting in an $180 million cut in the State Board of Education budget earlier this week. The state's popular and highly regarded early childhood programs took a huge hit, Banchero noted -- losing a third of its $380 million budget.

What will that mean?

"Without high-quality early-childhood programs, low-income children will arrive at kindergarten unprepared and will struggle throughout their school years to catch up," Diane Rauner, executive director of the Ounce of Prevention Fund, told Banchero.

Reporters throughout the U.S. are doing story after story about painful budget cuts that are causing wholesale elimination of programs and forcing educators and lawmakers to make difficult choices. The situation in in Illinois is far from settled, as Banchero pointed out, with education advocates pressing lawmakers to restore the cuts.

In these tough times, it's a good idea for journalists to closely examine some of the programs that may be eliminated and try to help explain their value to the public, who will be clamoring to preserve everything from arts programs to foreign languages -- and of course, early childhood education. Each has some value, and many will be unsustainable. Advocates are likely clamoring to let the public and lawmakers know how important the programs they support are and journalists will have to document, explain or illustrate value with the help of anecdotes, examples, research, interviews and visits whenever possible.

Rhode Island, the smallest state in the U.S. is about to launch a small pre-kindergarten program for low-income children. It will be the first of its kind in a state that is one of just 12 in the U.S. that don't offer public programs. A story in the Providence Journal of Rhode Island notes that the tiny state is starting small: just four to six classrooms taught by qualified teachers.

The Journal included an interesting quote that goes to the heart of pre-kindergarten education: Quality counts. Larger states with free programs have run into questions and concerns about the quality of their offerings for years.

“Quality is everything,” Robert G. Flanders Jr., chairman of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education, told The Journal.. “We are not just talking about daycare, but a quality preschool environment where learning takes place according to certain standards. So it’s terribly important that any program we initiate has quality factors built in and has certified instructors who have the appropriate skills to deal with early learning, and not just people who are good babysitters.”

It will be interesting to watch efforts in Rhode Island, a hard-hit state economically that managed to find $700,000 in the state budget for the program.

Jennifer Jordan of The Journal raised all the right questions in her solidly reported story. But it would be interesting to see stories and hear from journalists who have uncovered quality issues in their state programs. How is success measured? What works and doesn't, and how will the state keep track of progress and problems?

EarlyStories would love to see (and post) some examples.

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.

Typically, stories about pre-kindergarten focus on one school district or the cuts and issues facing one state. That's why EarlyStories is a big advocate of seeing the big picture, something that is particularly difficult for journalists who cover early childhood education as part of a larger K-12 system to do. Education Week had a story this week that does a good job of describing some of the new and major trends in early education that provide a context for what is happening locally.

The story noted that "the worst recession in decades has certainly taken a toll on state budgets,'' citing figures from The National Conference of State Legislatures showing that states faced revenue shortfalls of $143 billion collectively -- a figure that won't come as a surprise to those who have been covering statehouse budget battles. At the same time, though, President Barack Obama is attempting to push an ambitious early childhood agenda that will include many new sources of funding.

Education journalists should be looking for local angles and ways to follow the money within the Early Learning Challenge Fund bill which is expected to provide $8 billion over the next eight years to improve early learning programs.

A Washington Post story noted that bill will "help states improve a hodgepodge of early education programs from birth to kindergarten,'' via a state grant competition akin that will push reforms and aim "to raise the quality of child-care and preschool programs that often provide highly uneven educational results.''

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

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

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

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

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

From one of the new websites aimed at covering education came a comprehensive and well reported piece that put together the many challenges facing early childhood education in Pennsylvania, specifically Philadelphia. The Notebook describes itself as "an independent voice for parents, educators, students and friends of the Philadelphia public school system."

The story by Dale Mezzacappa, a former longtime education reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, described the many obstacles to getting more young children into pre-kindergarten classes in the city and the state, along with providing a progress report that detailed many state developments.

Despite an increase in quality and access, Mezzacappa wrote, "early education options in the city remain a confusing hodgepodge. While spending for child care subsidies has gone up, less than half the eligible low-income families actually get them, and thousands are on waiting lists."

The lengthy, well reported piece reminded EarlyStories of what is missing in education coverage, as beat reporters struggle in many cases to cover both multiple school districts and higher education at the same time. Too often, important developments and stories about what happens even before children enter a classroom are neglected.

Mezzacappa's piece contained important information about an array of programs and services, described lengthy waiting lists for slots and detailed confusion and uncertainty that exists around early childhood education. She performed an important public service -- one that is more needed than ever as newspapers cut back on education coverage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the U.S. is pushing early childhood education and an expansion of publicly funded pre-kindergarten, some in Britain are politely saying no thanks. A BBC report this week shed light on a review panel's recommendation that children should continue to learn by playing, and not start a formal education until they are six.

The review found no evidence 'that an early introduction to formal learning has any benefit,'' and noted that "it can do some harm."

The BBC has asked for, and is posting, responses from around the world on the question of what the right age is for children to begin formal learning. The responses should provide a fascinating glimpse at how this issue is viewed around the world.

Tiny Rhode Island is a struggling state economically. The unemployment rate of some 13 percent in September is among the highest in the U.S. The state's economic woes are outsized. That is one reason EarlyStories found it so refreshing to see the excellent story the Providence Journal ran this week describing life inside the state's first publicly funded pre-kindergarten program. Education perhaps cannot save the economy immediately, but it's important to continue reporting on education developments in the toughest of times.

The story did everything a well reported piece on pre-kindergarten education should do. The reporter spent time in the classroom, observing children and talking with teachers. The story included the perspective of researchers and state officials. It described how students were admitted and included interviews with parents on the difference pre-kindergarten is making in the lives of their children.

Readers came away with a much better understanding of how and why such programs matter, a story even a state in the grips of an an economic crisis can embrace.

"In Providence, research suggests that as recently as three years ago, almost a third of children arrived in kindergarten ill-prepared to learn their letters,'' Gina Marcris wrote. She added later on that the program "is designed to build bridges between home and school by regularly reporting progress and educating parents about the purpose of their children’s play.''

It hasn't been easy to get such a program off the ground in the tiny state, which was previously one of only 12 in the U.S. without a public program. Previous stories have noted the difficult fight the state had to get the pilot program started.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EarlyStories welcomes new websites, collaborations and any efforts by journalists to understand the complicated landscape of early childhood education in the U.S. The area gets little media attention, so it was nice to see the brand new Texas Tribune taking on the issue in Texas, with this promising start:

"The battles over Pre-Kindergarten are no place for children. Scarce resources and passionate people make for the political equivalent of street fights.''

The opening line by Abby Rapoport sets the reader up nicely for a look at the many divisive arguments and issues that have characterized pre-k education in Texas , which has the largest enrollment of any U.S. state. Rapoport poses some good questions about what works throughout, along with describing some unsuccessful attempts to evaluate programs in the state.

A person outside of Texas might be confused about how pre-school concerns in Texas relate to overall battles and issues pre-kindergarten faces nationally; little context is provided. And while the story attempts to provide a view of what happens inside some pre-kindergarten classrooms, there isn't much evidence of an actual visit that describes what children and teachers are doing, or what teaching and learning is -- or isn't -- taking place.

Still, it's a promising start, and terrific to see new education journalism in any form, with hard questions being asked about both the public policy issues surrounding pre-kindergarten and the quality of taxpayer financed programs. EarlyStories hopes this issue will stay on the radar for the Texas Tribune.

A potentially fascinating fight could be underway in Tennessee, where Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, who has pushed to expand pre-kindergarten in the state, is finding himself at odds with the state's teachers union.

At issue, according to several accounts, is Bredesen's plan to have student test scores account for at least 50 percent of how teachers are evaluated. The Memphis Commercial Appeal noted that he called for a week-long special session of the legislature in hopes of getting the law that bars use of student data in teacher evaluations changed. He's also asking for the support of business leaders to try and change the law.

Bredesen's goal is one governors and educators in cash-strapped states across the U.S. can relate to -- the deadline is looming for states that hope to get a piece of the $4.35 billion in stimulus dollars outlined as part of President Barack Obama's Race to the Top plan that could give Tennessee as much as $400 to $500 million. States must meet criteria for reforming their education system to get the money, though, and that's why Bredesen is pushing to take advantage of the state's vast collection of student performance data that measures academic gains.Under state law, that data cannot be used to evaluate teachers for either licensure or tenure.

Bredesen has had to scale back some of his plans to expand state-funded pre-kindergarten in the state, which has been hailed as a national leader. Bredesen wants to expand the program, but first he is calling for changes in state education law, including requiring student performance data to be used in evaluating teachers and requiring annual performance assessment of teachers.

States that win the competitive grants will get much needed cash to improve their education system. But can Bredesen meet his goals without support from the teachers union?

EarlyStories will be keeping a close eye on what happens in Tennessee.

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.

With the release of President Barack Obama's budget this week, much of the media attention has been focused on what the president hopes to do with the No Child Left Behind Law as well as his Race to the Top program. Few journalists have the luxury these days to focus exclusively on early childhood education, but those who do might want to spend some time on the website of the New America Foundation and click on the Early Ed Watch blog.

Early Ed Watch points out that Obama's priorities offer a stark contrast to budget cuts that are part of life in tough economic times, with significant boosts to an array of programs, including $989 million for Head Start. The president has also proposed another $1.6 billion for federally funded child care programs.

So what will a potential new infusion of cash mean in local communities and cash-strapped states that have cut back on pre-kindergarten and other early childhood programs? And what will other proposed changes and consolidations of early learning programs mean? The New America Foundation has come up with a list of key questions that should be a useful jumping off point as the budget battles begin to unfold.

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.

Consider the way Betsy Hammond of The Oregonian told the story of how one state is attempting to help young children with developmental delays. Hammond visited a center that operates seven preschool classes for students and described how teachers encourage a 3-year-old named Luca to use his words: They place items he loves both out of reach and out of sight until he asks for them.

Here is an excerpt from the story:

"Bubbles," he [Luca] requests of speech pathologist Nancy Turner, who retrieves a jar of bubble soap she had set at the end of his table. "Blow," he says, then reacts with delight as she does, sending tiny bubbles flying all around him.

This description allowed readers to truly understand the strategies Oregon is developing in a state where the number of children with developmental delays has gone up. If problems aren't dealt with early, these children will have far more academic difficulty once they arrive in kindergarten.

Oregon, Hammond notes, has lagged in identifying and helping the number of children under the age of three who get special education services. Her story did an excellent job of focusing one state's efforts to solve this, with the help of the Oregon Pediatric Society. The group, according to the story, trained doctors and nurses in how to screen for developmental delays and how to refer them to get the kind of help that is turning around Luca's life and getting him ready for school.

EarlyStories finds it refreshing to see education journalism that goes beyond simply telling a story. This story also shows readers what kinds of solutions work.