I missed the New America Foundation's release of its new policy brief, 10 Things I Hate About NCLB, nah, just fooling, 10 New Ideas for Early Education in the NCLB Reauthorizaton, but I got a flavor for the discussion from David Hoff's blog post. The ideas presented by New America's Sara Mead were variously criticized for being "at the margins" and providing an "unstable funding funding source," but I found them quite intriguing. Mead rightly points out that while additional pre-k funds are needed, there is potential within existing NCLB policy and programs to get more bang for the buck out of early childhood.

Among Mead's proposals is one that would allow schools to use funds currently set aside for supplemental services and public school choice for "high-quality pre-k for 3- and 4-year olds living in communities with schools in need of improvement." I would go one step further and say, get rid of the set aside for SES and choice, but of course, that's just me.  (I am guessing her proposal could have more legs politically-speaking).

Posted by Michele at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been reading the Magic Treehouse books with my 4-year-old son.  For the uninitiated, the books feature Jack and Annie who, travel through time, witnessing historical events and meeting important historical figures.  Through these books, he now knows a little about the Titanic, Clara Barton and ancient Rome. 

My first impulse as a parent was to avoid anything that smacks of forcing academic content on kids who are too young.  I'd hate to squash his love of reading by forcing him to read books that I choose rather than the ones he chooses.  But he loves these Magic Treehouse books.

All this is my roundabout way of getting to E.D. Hirsch Jr.'s Core Knowledge curriculum.  The Magic Treehouse books helped break down a doubt I had about Core Knowledge, expressed in the lead of this American Educator article: "Can all this content really be taught to kids? Would it be a bore for them, drudgery for teachers?" (And what about parents?)

Left to his own devices, my son might just as easily have fallen in love with Little Bunny Foo Foo* and The Adventures of SpongeBob (thanks, Uncle Mike, you corrupter of young minds, for that gift) rather than these Magic Treehouse books.  But he isn't left to his own devices. 

I'm not saying they're going to turn him into a genius, but something may stick and he loves reading them. And I'm not saying Core Knowledge is the answer.  Maybe there's a better content-rich curriculum out there. 

But being a parent (or a teacher) means making choices.  I can teach my to enjoy reading and instill in him the love of learning, or I can teach him to enjoy reading and instill in him the love of cartoon characters.  The choice is easy.  Read the good books and hide SpongeBob at the back of the bookcase.

*Actually, he has an irrational fear of Little Bunny Foo Foo, so that one, fortunately, isn't in the mix.

Posted by John at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 1 is Worthy Wage Day, a day dedicated to recognizing the dismal wages, benefits, and working conditions faced by many early childhood educators, and to working to change them.

Here are some facts to contemplate today, given that 63 percent of U.S. children under the age of five are in some form of non-parental care during the day:

• The mean hourly wage for preschool teachers in 2004 was $11.81.
• The mean hourly wage for child care workers in 2004 was $8.68.
• Of 820 job descriptions surveyed by the U.S. Department of Labor, only 22 and 121 pay less than child care workers and preschool teachers, respectively.
  

To mark Worthy Wage Day, a bipartisan resolution in support of the day was introduced in both houses of Congress.

Posted by Beth at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Those who argue against the expansion of tuition-free prekindergarten programs based on the belief that poor and/or minority families prefer not to send their children to prekindergarten should check out the findings from this study out of the University of Albany, SUNY.

The researchers show that children in newcomer families (defined as having at least one immigrant among them) are less likely to attend prekindergarten than children in which all members of the family are born in the U.S. That’s not news—it was in the 2000 Census. What’s news is that children in Mexico (the country of origin of 40 percent of children in newcomer families) attend preschool at a rate of 85 percent, while children in newcomer families in the U.S. attend preschool at a rate of 55 percent, and children in all-U.S.-born families attend preschool at a rate of 71 percent.  The difference? Preschool is free in Mexico; for the most part, it is not in the U.S.

What to do to level the playing field? The researchers recommend:

• Ensure availability and access to tuition-free preschool for newcomer families;
• Examine the effectiveness of language development programs in preschool;
• Facilitate parental involvement of immigrant parents; and
• Provide literacy programs that target parents as well as their preschool students.
  

Posted by Beth at 07:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a new discussion paper released by the Hamilton Project at The Brookings Institution, Jens Ludwig and Isabel Sawhill argue for making more explicit links between Early Head Start, Head Start and Title I.  Ludwig and Sawhill call for expanding the two early childhood programs to accommodate more eligible children, but also changing them to become more like the highly-successful Abecedarian Program or "Head Start on steroids."  The authors also make a case for requiring high-poverty elementary schools to use their Title I funds for Success for All, a research-based reading program. Linking these early childhood programs and Success for All would address the "fade out" of the benefits of early childhood programs when children subsequently enter elementary schools without high-quality reading programs.

To work, the proposed "Success by Ten" program requires that high-poverty elementary schools partner with a Head Start program to form the necessary linkages, something that, in my understanding, doesn't happen often enough.  The catch?  Success for Ten would require about $40 billion in additional federal funds per year, not exactly chump change.  And, while I would certainly rather see high-poverty schools spend their Title I funds on a research-based reading program like Success for All than, say, an unproven supplemental educational services program, I would hesitate to require that all schools spend all of their Title I funds on such  programs.  What if the problem in your school is lagging math performance? Being too prescriptive in how schools spend their Title I funds has its disadvantages.  That said, IMHO, Success by Ten is a serious and interesting proposal that deserves serious consideration by policymakers.

* It's unclear to me why the authors talk only about Title I Part A funds and not Reading First funds (Title I Part B).

Posted by Michele at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Beth 

The National Association for the Education of Young Children is the latest group to put out recommendations related to the reauthorization of NCLB. I’ll start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree that quality early childhood education is vital to a child’s success in school and life, and NAEYC’s recommendations seem more than reasonable: more professional development for early childhood educators and more alignment of standards and curricula earlier in a child’s education, among other things.

NAPSO is another group looking to get further under the NCLB tent rather looking for a way to crawl out of it. And sure there are 100 groups listed here, but many have very little to do with education.

Given the fact that the average Joe can’t stand this law, and the vast majority of educators find it burdensome at best, I don’t really understand why an education organization, especially a membership organization like NAEYC would want to be subject to its provisions.

Yes, it is the biggest pie and everyone wants a piece of it, and it sure does get a lot of attention, but have they talked to a teacher in a school not making AYP recently? Do early childhood educators really want the supersize federal accountability--think AYP for kindergarten--that accompanies the NCLB attention?

Posted by Guest at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by Beth

Virginia is piloting a universal preschool program, and Indiana is moving to full-day kindergarten. Kudos to both states for allocating resources to this research-based intervention and smart investment in future student success. “Boo hiss” to states like California that recently rejected a plan similar to Virginia's (that would have been paid for by taxing those poor individuals making over $400,000, no less).

Posted by Guest at 03:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This Richmond-Times Dispatch article about the recommendation that Virginia establish a voluntary quality-rating system for preschools got me thinking about the "market" for day care and preschool.  Or, maybe it was the death of Milton Friedman that got me thinking. 

In any event, I was reminded of a conversation that I had with my neighbor over brunch this past weekend.  Her daughter is almost two, the same age as my son, and has been with a nanny on the days the mom works.  The mom would like to start her daughter at a neighborhood day care--I'll call it Presto.  Her daughter is currently on the wait list. I mentioned to her that my son is happy at his day care where he started in September, one that is a couple of miles further away.  I suggested that she take a tour of St. Michael's (again, I am changing the name).  The mom told me that she had already taken the tour, but didn't like St. Michael's because the tour was given by a teacher, not the center director.  The funny thing was that I had taken a tour of Presto, and I didn't like it because I thought it had a funny layout and the rooms seemed cramped to me (of course I didn't say that--seemed impolite).

I suppose advocates of school choice would argue that it was a wonderful thing that we could both pursue our "preferences" and therefore maximize our "happiness" with day care for our children.  But, in truth, I don't either of us really had substantive reasons for not liking Presto or St. Michael's.  And, both centers are NAEYC-accredited, which means that on the really important criteria (e.g., staffing, safety and programs) they are very similar.

And what does choice get you in the day care market in my community?  Not much without access.  That is, when I was looking for a day care center for my son, I visited eleven centers and decided to put him on the list at seven of them.  I wanted to enroll him when he turned one, but at that time, none of the seven centers had openings.  We finally got called by a center when he was close to two. 

My feeling is that if my son was "assigned" to one of the neighborhood day care centers, and it met NAEYC standards, he would be well-taken care of, and I could have been spared a lot of hassle and been more able to plan my work life, knowing when a slot would be available.  I'm guessing that some other bloggers might disagree.

Posted by Michele at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Dori at AFT/CCW*

I think it’s interesting that the St. Petersburg Times article says "these days" advocates are complaining. We knew all along this was a train wreck waiting to happen--and we were vocal about it. While I would commend Florida for its efforts to provide Pre-K to the state’s 4-year olds, advocates warned state officials from the very beginning about moving forward with a plan that included no real standards for quality.

In the Center for the Child Care Workforce's (CCW's) Summer 2004 and January 2005 newsletters, we discussed how the provisions fall short, specifically on teacher qualifications and compensation. One of our major concerns was--and continues to be--that the program only calls for teachers to "meet higher credentialing goals by 2010-11" (whatever that means), when the current debate centers on linking program quality to levels of education and requiring lead teachers to have a BA degree.

*The Center for the Child Care Workforce is a project of the American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation.

Posted by Guest at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Was Florida's universal preschool program ever "hailed as a national model"?  For providing access--perhaps.  For providing quality--no. Though the St. Petersburg Times may think that advocates are just now beginning to criticize Florida's program, they have actually been raising concerns about the program since its inception. (Hat tip: This Week in Education)

Posted by Michele at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Drum Major Institute is hosting a panel discussion on preschool access next week featuring Senator Penny Williams, author of the 1998 law to fund universal preschool for all four-year olds in Oklahoma. The discussion will focus on how the Oklahoma experience might apply to New York.  Other panelists include:

Hon. Christine Quinn, Speaker of the New York City Council

Nancy Kolben, Co-director, Winning Beginning NY Campaign, Executive Director of Child Care, Inc., the leading child care policy and advocacy organization in New York City.

Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs, Cablevision Systems Corporation. Member of the New York State Board of Regents.

Details: Monday October 30, 8:00-10:00 am at the Harvard Club, West 44th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenues)

RSVP to: dmi@drummajorinstitute.org

Posted by Michele at 02:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)