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