<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Preschool Picture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://educationnext.org/the-preschool-picture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://educationnext.org/the-preschool-picture/</link>
	<description>Education Next is a journal of opinion and research about education policy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:19:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bridgetokindergarten</title>
		<link>http://educationnext.org/the-preschool-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-5495</link>
		<dc:creator>bridgetokindergarten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://content.hks.harvard.edu/educationnext/?p=49626458#comment-5495</guid>
		<description>Head Start will continue to fail as long as this organization chooses to staff their classrooms with underqualified teaching staff.  Many Head Start lead teachers and teaching assistants have only high school diplomas.  Many of these teachers and their assistants are full time employees and  are summer school and night school students.  Head Start is paying them to go to college and to work towards an associate degree in Child Development Technology or Early Childhood Education Technology.  The problem is that many of the degree programs are dumbed down to such a level that a 6th grader could pass the courses.  Many of the available associate degree programs and one year diploma CDA programs have been rumored to be nothing more than diploma mills.  No wonder Head Start is failing.  There are quite a few Head Start teachers who are not qualified to teach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Head Start will continue to fail as long as this organization chooses to staff their classrooms with underqualified teaching staff.  Many Head Start lead teachers and teaching assistants have only high school diplomas.  Many of these teachers and their assistants are full time employees and  are summer school and night school students.  Head Start is paying them to go to college and to work towards an associate degree in Child Development Technology or Early Childhood Education Technology.  The problem is that many of the degree programs are dumbed down to such a level that a 6th grader could pass the courses.  Many of the available associate degree programs and one year diploma CDA programs have been rumored to be nothing more than diploma mills.  No wonder Head Start is failing.  There are quite a few Head Start teachers who are not qualified to teach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Education Next</title>
		<link>http://educationnext.org/the-preschool-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-946</link>
		<dc:creator>Education Next</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://content.hks.harvard.edu/educationnext/?p=49626458#comment-946</guid>
		<description>The following was submitted as a letter to the editor:

Chester Finn presents a misleading portrait of the campaign for voluntary, quality pre-kindergarten (“The Preschool Picture,” features, Fall 2009) and excludes the vast body of evidence driving the movement.

Pre-K-for-all programs with research-based quality standards have led to larger enrollments of low-income children than targeted efforts and produced impressive outcomes regardless of family background. Oklahoma’s program has narrowed the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income children while elevating early math and literacy skills for all participants. The advances made by middle-class students are vital; one in three does not know the alphabet at kindergarten entry. Data suggest that low-income children have benefited more by learning alongside upper-income classmates instead of in the isolation of targeted programs.

Higher graduation rates and other lasting effects have been documented in large pre-K programs like Chicago’s Child-Parent Centers—conspicuously ignored by Finn. Though in relatively early stages, ongoing longitudinal studies in Michigan, South Carolina, and West Virginia are finding similar outcomes. Among New Jersey 2nd graders, those with two years of state pre-K were half as likely to have been held back.

Public pre-K regularly enhances and coordinates efforts to help the most disadvantaged. Enrollment policies typically prioritize children at greater risk of failing school. Many states combine pre-K dollars with funding from other sources, such as Head Start, to provide more comprehensive programs to high-need children. In Illinois, a portion of each appropriation toward its “pre-K for all” goal is dedicated to services for at-risk infants and toddlers.

Most important, parents’ quality pre-K options have expanded. Private and charter schools, for-profit and nonprofit centers, and faith-based groups are delivering state-funded early education, gaining the means for crucial quality improvements in the process. In Wisconsin, more than 80 school districts collaborate with businesses and organizations to give families a wider choice of pre-K settings.

States’ pre-K budgets rose 37 percent from FY06 to FY09, to $5.2 billion, because policymakers know that this investment is the first step in K–12 reform and offers a great return, a return that is maximized when all children are eligible.

Libby Doggett
Deputy Director
Pew Center on the States</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following was submitted as a letter to the editor:</p>
<p>Chester Finn presents a misleading portrait of the campaign for voluntary, quality pre-kindergarten (“The Preschool Picture,” features, Fall 2009) and excludes the vast body of evidence driving the movement.</p>
<p>Pre-K-for-all programs with research-based quality standards have led to larger enrollments of low-income children than targeted efforts and produced impressive outcomes regardless of family background. Oklahoma’s program has narrowed the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income children while elevating early math and literacy skills for all participants. The advances made by middle-class students are vital; one in three does not know the alphabet at kindergarten entry. Data suggest that low-income children have benefited more by learning alongside upper-income classmates instead of in the isolation of targeted programs.</p>
<p>Higher graduation rates and other lasting effects have been documented in large pre-K programs like Chicago’s Child-Parent Centers—conspicuously ignored by Finn. Though in relatively early stages, ongoing longitudinal studies in Michigan, South Carolina, and West Virginia are finding similar outcomes. Among New Jersey 2nd graders, those with two years of state pre-K were half as likely to have been held back.</p>
<p>Public pre-K regularly enhances and coordinates efforts to help the most disadvantaged. Enrollment policies typically prioritize children at greater risk of failing school. Many states combine pre-K dollars with funding from other sources, such as Head Start, to provide more comprehensive programs to high-need children. In Illinois, a portion of each appropriation toward its “pre-K for all” goal is dedicated to services for at-risk infants and toddlers.</p>
<p>Most important, parents’ quality pre-K options have expanded. Private and charter schools, for-profit and nonprofit centers, and faith-based groups are delivering state-funded early education, gaining the means for crucial quality improvements in the process. In Wisconsin, more than 80 school districts collaborate with businesses and organizations to give families a wider choice of pre-K settings.</p>
<p>States’ pre-K budgets rose 37 percent from FY06 to FY09, to $5.2 billion, because policymakers know that this investment is the first step in K–12 reform and offers a great return, a return that is maximized when all children are eligible.</p>
<p>Libby Doggett<br />
Deputy Director<br />
Pew Center on the States</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: State Policy Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is Preschool for All a Good Idea?</title>
		<link>http://educationnext.org/the-preschool-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-354</link>
		<dc:creator>State Policy Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is Preschool for All a Good Idea?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://content.hks.harvard.edu/educationnext/?p=49626458#comment-354</guid>
		<description>[...] Finn of the Fordham Foundation has a good article in the latest Education Next on the movement for &quot;preschool for all.&quot; Finn is generally supportive of government programs for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Finn of the Fordham Foundation has a good article in the latest Education Next on the movement for &quot;preschool for all.&quot; Finn is generally supportive of government programs for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

