Finally, a news story with some personal meaning for me! Not to downgrade the importance of geopolitics and warfare, but the struggles I see are much more attuned to this theater: Toward a Better Head Start, Under Bush, "Head Start" Focuses on Early Literacy, and Bush Education Plan Faces Criticism. The last article includes links to Head Start studies and both the Bush and Kennedy education proposals.

I believe that Bush and Kennedy are dancing together on this one. Kennedy is proposing an enormous sum to counter Bush's initial bid, so that both sides can eventually "compromise" on a figure that will do some good with an approach that will have a more salutory effect for more children and more poor families.

Unless he really truly believes the world is this simple, Mr. Bush's approach ("Leave no child behind") has the potential to start a national discussion about where "behind" is and whether it's possible to give every child an equal place in the gate without raising family income among the poorest Americans.

Our local Head Start organization brings the children to my library on a monthly basis. If only teaching letters, numbers, and phonics were all there is to it... Mr. Bush's goal of exposing children to parental modelling of reading behavior makes the assumption that parents of poor children know how to read. Often, this is the root of many problems: they don't know how, or they can read the words but have lived in an atmosphere so unenriched that many of the social and cultural references are a mystery to them, or they don't read well and so avoid it the way I avoid writing with my left hand.

Would you believe that the families of the Head Start kids are surprised to learn that they don't have to pay to use the public library? Now multiply that surprise by the number of families that don't have any contact with Head Start.

So much of the information poor families need is in written formats that marginally-literate people can't read! The Head Start families have the benefit of meeting with people who can tell and show them about agencies that can help them at little or no cost. But as the articles all show, less than 50% of the children eligible (and by extension, their families) are reached. (One might assume, though I have no statistical evidence, that those who take advantage of the program are already a couple of social steps ahead of other people in their same economic bracket.) I work in a cash-poor business, and Head Start's budget isn't much better; we haven't the money for TV ads during programs that this demographic group is likely to watch. (Heck, we don't have the money for a demographic study to target the programs!) So, though the facilities are available, the client base is being reached at a level that any for-profit business would find unacceptable.

Also, the observation about the rate of pay and the rate of retention for preschool teachers is on the button. My sister-in-law originally trained to be a preschool teacher. She was good at it, and loved the work, but couldn't maintain herself as a single woman with a car and an inexpensive townhouse and two cats, so she got a job working for a bank. (This later led to a career as an information systems specialist, and she trains people in the use of information and communication systems now. She says she uses many of the same instructional techniques that worked with the preschoolers, except they serve coffee instead of milk at the cookie break. ;) )

The long-time preschool teachers I know in my area are all -- all -- married women whose husbands are the main breadwinners. They work in buildings owned by churches and so have minimal overhead. The head of our Head Start program has several regional programs going and bounces among them. She's a single, older woman -- past 60, I'd guess -- who lives in a kind of social workers' boarding house. I've been tempted to ask her if she's a low-profile nun. I think she may be. Such an important program needs to have a more reliable supply of talent. The occasional saint and the women with a guaranteed (barring death or divorce) source of support are a strong but thin barrier between the poorest children and ignorance.

One other little side issue about family need affecting early childhood education: In Head Start Children's Entry into Public School: A Report on the National Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study, three clicks from the USA Today article, far down into the body of the text, I came across this:

MATERNAL DEPRESSION IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR MANY FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY



Despite the overall well-being of the children, somewhat more than 40% of the primary caregivers (mostly mothers) were screened positive for depressive symptomatology when their children enter kindergarten. About 19% of the mothers reported continued, chronic problems with depression when their children were completing third grade.
In addition, a subgroup of approximately 3% of these former Head Start families reported that the primary caregiver suffered major health problems sufficient to interfere with their ability to provide routine support for their children's learning and participation in school-related activities. The need to consider the well-being of the child's primary caregiver, particularly mental health services, is important, especially during this transition to school period.



The problems run a lot deeper than lack of exposure to "The ABC Song". I hope Mr. Bush is only beginning with the basic skills approach as an opening bid.

My opinions and experiences on this issue are far from exhausted, but I'll shut up now and let someone else talk.

Regards--
Mary Anne