Here comes another guilt trip. According to a New York Times article published yesterday, public officials have determined that not breast-feeding may be hazardous to a baby’s health. I already knew that breastfeeding was best (It even says that on the cans of the formula I use!) but I didn’t know that feeding my daughter the powdery stuff could be harmful to her.

Like many mothers, I thought I was going to breastfeed. I planned on it. I wanted to be like the women I saw in magazine ads who had their babies nestled to their breast, looking lovingly at their child. But my plans were dashed when my daughter decided to fall asleep minutes after I gave her my breast. Repeatedly. Nothing was clinically wrong with her. Her doctor’s advice for me? To pinch her nose and/or feet. I did once. And she woke up suddenly, crying. Then I began to cry. And that was the end of the breast. Well, almost. I supplemented her feedings with formula, and then exclusively used formula a month later. Four months later, I continue to feel guilty. But I realize for me to continue breast feeding, I would’ve had to have my daughter permanently latched to my chest, and that wasn’t going to happen.

Is she a healthy four-month old? By her bright smiles, happy gurgling, and grabbing for my glasses, I’d say yes. But, the experts referenced in the NYT article say that my daughter has a higher risk of serious chronic diseases later in life, including asthma, diabetes, leukemia and some forms of lymphoma. And I shouldn’t forget that my daughter has a higher chance of becoming obese than a baby who has been breast-fed the first six months of his or her life. So what’s a formula-feeding mother to do?

I'd like someone to launch a well-funded public service campaign to take on one of the less-recognized threats to a healthy pregnancy and healthy infancy. "Pregnancy: More Joy, Less Guilt." "Guilt: Bad for Moms, Bad for Babies." Any deep-pocket volunteers?

The idea came to me after watching a video clip of a public service advertisement that ran this spring to "encourage" women to breastfeed their babies. Called "Ladies' Night," the ad shows a hugely pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull during a raucus ladies' night at a bar. She gets flipped off the bull backwards, a sight that left me gripping my abdomen in a protective reflex that dates back to my own pregnancies more than a decade ago. Words appear on a black screen: "You wouldn't take risks before your baby's born. Why start after? Breastfeed exclusively for six months." (This clip and another from the same campaign can be seen via links in a New York Times article on the current push to increase breast-feeding rates.)

I'm not questioning the goal. Research is pretty clear that breastfeeding has important benefits for moms and babies. It strengthens infants' immune systems and helps protect them from colds, flue, ear infections, and diarrhea. There's growing evidence it can ward off obesity, breast cancer incidence both in breast-feeding mothers and their daughters who are breast fed as infants, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, diabetes, leukemia, asthma. Some research indicates it may increase IQ.

(Sort of sounds like the unnamed miracle product in Tom Waits tune, "Step Right Up":

"That's right, it filets, it chops, it dices, slices,
Never stops, lasts a lifetime, mows your lawn
And it mows your lawn and it picks up the kids from school
It gets rid of unwanted facial hair, it gets rid of embarrassing age spots,
It delivers a pizza, and it lengthens, and it strengthens
And it finds that slipper that's been at large
under the chaise lounge for several weeks...")

My point is, why is the federal government spending money to guilt-trip women into breastfeeding instead of trying to guilt-trip employers into making it a practical possibility for working women? There's already plenty of guilt and anxiety heaped on the aching backs of pregnant women, who worry about sitting next to smokers, sipping a glass of wine, drinking coffee, eating too much, eating too little, listening to Metallica rather than Mozart, and the possiblity that all that worrying will harm their infants.

Breast-feeding is really, really hard for most working moms -- and that's some 60 percent of the mothers of very young infants -- to pull off. I managed it with my first child, but only because I was very lucky, very stubborn, and not particularly shy. I still remember sitting in a toilet stall in the grungy green ladies' room in the Boston Statehouse pumping breastmilk with a little plastic hand pump, then putting the results into the press gallery fridge, wedged in among the tuna sandwiches, wrapped in a plain paper bag labelled: "Do NOT Use This in Your Coffee!" By the time my second son was born, I was no longer working full-time, so it was easier. Though I was still loudly berated for discreetly nursing in a quiet corner of a nearly-empty museum and suffered three painful bouts of mastitis.

The fact is, guilt-tripping moms to do something about which we are not really comfortable as a society, and which we don't support in other, more substantive, ways, is just plain mean. Breast-feeding rates have been increasing modestly with public education efforts that rely on a less bullying, hectoring tone, but dramatic progress will require a real commitment and an honest effort to remove some of the real barriers. When it works, breast-feeding can be a great source of joy. And that tastes better than guilt.

The National PTA is urging Sen. Thad Cochran, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee to uphold the promise they made in March to direct $7.1 billion above the president's budget request to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Sen. Cochran is meeting with Appropriations subcommittee chairs this week to determine the allocation of discretionary funds to each subcommittee.

Our friends at Douglas Gould and Company, a pr firm for progressive causes, said we could share their case study of why the Prop 82 preschool for all initiative failed at the polls last week in California:

Case Study of Proposition 82: Preschool for All Act

The state of California recently failed to pass a measure which would establish a constitutional entitlement to statewide voluntary preschool services for all children one year prior to entering kindergarten, to be funded by revenues from a new personal income tax explicitly dedicated to this purpose. This would be phased in incrementally over a ten year period eventually consisting of: a minimum three-hour per day instructional program offered at least 180 days each year, a curriculum based on state preschool learning standards and guidelines, and aligned to the state’s academic standards for kindergarten through third grade, and classes of no more than 20 children taught by at least one credentialed teacher one instructional aide.

Director Rob Reiner spearheaded a statewide campaign to support the proposition which was openly opposed by Governor Schwarzenegger because it would raise taxes. Prop 82 would impose an additional 1.7 percent tax rate on individuals with taxable income $400,000, head of household filers with taxable income over $544,457, and married couples with taxable income over $800,000. Such taxes would raise an estimated 2.4 billion annually in limited state revenues at a time when California has so many pressing needs, like K-12 schools.

Why Proposition 82 Failed

Higher taxes seem to be the prevailing sentiment behind Prop. 82’s failure on the June ballot. Additional questions were also raised about the efficiency of the program and that eventually it would lead to massive red tape that would impede delivery for all the state’s children. A story in the San Luis Obispo Tribune stated that Prop. 82 would essentially highjack a preschool market that is largely serving California parents and children well, without doing much to increase preschool enrollment. Approximately, 65 percent of Californians 4-year olds already attend preschool. Prop. 82 supporters admit this measure will only increase enrollment to 70 percent. That equates to a mere 4 to 5 percent increase in preschool enrollment.

A very cursory review of news coverage throughout the state show that Prop. 82 had strong opposition, especially in the editorial letters section. Rather than put public dollars behind a state-run, one-size fits all preschool model, many residents felt that more attention and funding needs to be given to the state’s K-12 system to improve schools and reduce drop-out rates. A former analyst with the “Legislative Analysts Office” also charged that only 8.4 percent of funding from Prop. 82 will go to enroll “high risk kids” in preschool who otherwise wouldn’t have gone. This despite a wealth of research which shows that lower-income, minority children benefit most from preschool. The Rand Corporation published a study last year entitled “The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California” and found that universal preschool programs would generate an estimated $2 to $4 for every dollar spent. However, in much of the news coverage this point was not emphasized. Lastly, the measure did not enjoy overwhelming Democratic support, perhaps because of the tax issue.

The No Child Left Behind law is supposed to address "the soft bigotry of low expectations," by holding schools and teachers accountable for teaching all children, regardless of their race, home language, learning style, gender, economic status, etc.

So in these early years of NCLB implementation, the focus of everyone who cares about kids and their educational success needs to be on whether it is moving our educational systems in that direction.

For those many observers who suspect that the law's momentum is instead taking us to unexpected and unwanted destinations, research from Jennifer Booher-Jennings, a doctoral student at Columbia University in New York, provides grim support.

Booher-Jennings looked at how NCLB's focus on "data-driven decision making" is playing out in an urban elementary school in Texas. In an article in Phi Delta Kappa International, "Rationing Education in an Era of Accountability," Booher-Jennings explains in excruciating detail how teachers at the school are taught to sort students according to a cruel calculus: Kids who are in no danger of failing their achievement tests are labeled "green", which means teachers should not expend any extra energy or teaching effort on them. Kids who are so far behind that they cannot reasonably be expected to catch up in time to pass the test are labeled "red," which means teachers also should not expend any extra energy or attention on them. Also labeled "red": kids who enter school late enough in the year that they won't have to take the tests that year. Finally, kids who are lagging behind but close enough that, with help, they have a good shot at passing the test, are labelled "yellow." These are the children to whom teachers are urged to direct their attention.

And there's more: kids in "subgroups" too small to be counted in a school's testing results -- in the case of this particular school, that includes special education students -- also get dumped in the red bin.

The worst thing is that this perverse system, guaranteed to turn gifted students into bored under-achievers and struggling students into irredeemable failures by about third grade, works -- at least in the terms of NCLB measurements. It's a heartbreaking example of how dangerous it can be to let numbers alone drive policy -- especially when the numbers are stand-ins for real children.

Update: The dropout debate didn't air the week of June 12. Check local listings for time and topics.

We’ve gotten word that Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute and Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute will be talking about the dropout crisis tonight on the Lehrer News Hour.

Mishel and Greene disagree over the numbers, but there's no argument over the importance of making sure every student graduates from high school with the skills needed for the 21st century.

Dropout prevention and recovery programs are working to do just that in many communities around the country. Each state needs to put in place what it takes to track each student so we know where our children are, and what the graduation numbers really are. That's what the governors agreed to last year.

The New York Times reports that the Senate rejected attempts to move forward with a repeal or cut back to the estate tax in a 57-41 vote, 3 votes short of the needed 60 to end debate and start the vote. Congratulations to the advocates who took the time to understand this complicated issue and make their voices heard on Capitol Hill!

As spokespeople for and against the repeal of the estate tax argued last night on the Lehrer News Hour, much of the debate over the tax has been framed in terms of what's fair. I guess it's a contest between the Waltons and the Waltons -- between the heirs of Sam Walton of Walmart who are pouring their money into getting the estate tax eliminated and the Waltons of John-Boy fame, who would prefer to see their taxes go for better schools, health care or college aid instead.

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Frist has vowed to bring the repeal up for another vote before the end of this congressional term.

About a week ago, I listened to Rush Limbaugh complain about not having a peaceful dinner when one his friends brought up the Avian flu as the next catastrophe to worry about. I suppose Rush deserves a nice meal to contemplate nothing but the peas on his plate (Rush, do you like peas?), but what’s important to note about his comment is that many, many folks feel that way, especially about New Orleans. Their thoughts are this : “New Orleans? I thought things were fine” or “New Orleans! Enough already!” Yeah, well just because my hometown has curiously left the radar of the national news things are still not-so great there.

It’s not over folks. Not by a long shot. And if you’re tired of hearing about it like Rush, then I’d tell you to move to Siberia, but I’m guessing you’d still hear it there.

To this day, there are people buried under debris. There are houses sitting on the street. Piles and piles of uncollected trash sit on gray lawns. Families living on limited FEMA funds not sure what the next step is. The schools, oh, the schools. The New York Times recently reported that many displaced students living in the Renaissance Village in Baker, Louisiana haven’t been to school in months.

How do I know such things exist? Because I was there a month ago. Because I hear from die-hard New Orleanians of what’s not being reported, and because papers like the New York Times exist to unbury these hidden stories.

It’s not over—not until the fat lady sings—but until we, the local and federal government do something about it.

A high school math teacher in Florida has discovered that uncertainty is a great motivator for students.

According to a story in eSchool News online, teacher Paige Allison, who is also a University of Florida graduate student in educational anthropology (latest entry in my list of "majors I never knew existed"), came across this new technique for keeping students on their toes while researching another question: how to avoid calling on certain students, or types of students, more often than others.

Earlier research had shown that teachers tend to call on white male students more frequently than other types of students, and this tendency is considered a likely contributor to girls and minorities doing less well in math.

So Allison looked for a way to remove the possibility of teacher bias from the process of calling on students. She and a computer-savvy colleague created a program for a handheld computer. With the touch of a button, the computer randomly calls up the name of a student from the class roster. And that's the student who is asked to answer the question at hand.

Allison and other teachers she recruited to try the system found that not only did it eliminate the temptation to call on the "usual suspects" more often, but it lead to all students being more engaged in class.

With Allison's program, the name of a student who is picked to answer gets kicked right back into the system, eliminating the temptation to think "She's called on me once, no way she'll call on me again." My limited understanding of probability suggests that it is possible, though unlikely, that the same student could get called on repeatedly in a single class. Perhaps if I'd been a student in Allison's class, I would have paid enough attention to know if I was right about that.

I can't figure out why most people are happy to let Congress kill the estate tax. Maybe Diane Lim Rogers, Research Director for Budgeting for National Priorities, has the answer. She says many members of Congress have taken to referring to the estate tax as the "death tax," implying that, like death, it is a tax that looms for all Americans.

Instead of calling the estate tax a "death" tax, Rogers says we should call it a "birth" tax because it will impose a much greater financial burden on our children and grandchildren -- at least another $3000 to the inherited share of the public debt that is, to date, $28,000 per American.

She argues that repealing the estate tax would swap a "death tax," which affects hardly anyone, for a higher "birth tax," which would be universal and seriously detrimental to future economic growth.

The House has already passed a repeal of the estate tax. Senate Majority Leader Frist has vowed to bring the matter to a vote next week in the Senate.