Federal policy | Preschool Matters... Today!

Pre-K and Tobacco, Perfect Together?

April 15, 2013

High-quality pre-K for all funded by a tobacco tax is a winning combination. It makes perfect sense from both economic and political perspectives. Let’s start with the economic perspective. Economics is primarily concerned with two issues, efficiency and equity (fairness). The primary economic argument against higher taxes is that they lead people to make less optimal choices, perhaps even discouraging socially beneficial activities that we otherwise want to encourage. Yet, smoking is an activity that we actually want to discourage. It imposes high social costs, and it is an addiction that most smokers acquired before adulthood, would prefer not to have acquired, and would like to quit. A tobacco tax will reduce the number of new smokers and the number of cigarettes consumed by those who already smoke.

Big tobacco (Altria, Reynolds American, Lorillard, and Imperial Tobacco have 95 percent of the U.S. market) can be expected to object that a tobacco tax is unfair because it hits low-income Americans hardest. Their concern for the plight of the poor would be touching if they evinced any concern that their products unfairly increase disease and death among low-income Americans and their children (from secondhand smoke). A tobacco tax will reduce smoking and improve health most for the lowest income Americans because their smoking behavior is more price sensitive than that of higher income smokers. To this we can add that high-quality pre-K produces its greatest benefits for children from lower-income families, though all children will benefit.

Another objection opponents have already raised to the tobacco tax is that because it will reduce smoking the revenue generated will decline over time. Thus, they say it is not suitable as a permanent funding source for pre-K. Apparently, they have not read the President’s plan or his budget. The President does not propose perpetual federal funding, and the funding formula decreases the federal match gradually over time. In this respect, a tobacco tax is a perfect match for the pre-K proposal.

Turning to the political perspective, one advantage of this proposal is that the financing mechanism makes no new enemies. Cigarette makers will oppose pre-K for all no matter how it is funded. Multiple studies find that quality pre-K reduces the likelihood that people take up smoking. From the industry perspective it is a tobacco control program, and big tobacco relentlessly works to erode public funding for such programs. At the same time, the proposal will enlist another set of allies–those committed to reducing tobacco addiction and the disease and death it causes. They will have two reasons to support the pre-K proposal because both quality pre-K and the tax will reduce smoking.

In the current political environment, some may oppose the proposal because they oppose any tax increase at all. For those truly committed to limited government and deficit reduction, I have a modest suggestion. Cut welfare for agribusiness, aka farm subsidies, which are inefficient and unfair. Farm subsidies cost taxpayers $10 to $15 billion annually, even though farm income reached all time highs in the last two years. Let the free market operate in agriculture, and split the savings 50-50 between deficit reduction and the President’s pre-K proposal (which, by the way, will eventually start contributing to deficit reduction on its own). Anyone who says they favor less government intrusion into the market and smaller deficits, but is unwilling to cut farm subsidies, doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Returning to the tobacco tax, it will, without a doubt, require a fight. Big tobacco will use direct lobbying, publicity campaigns, AstroTurf (artificial grassroots front groups), and alliances with think tanks and membership organizations. They can be expected to try to convince unions to oppose the tax because it is regressive and police organizations to oppose it because it will increase illegal sales (pay no attention to who would have to collude in supplying tobacco products to the underground economy).

Supporters of the proposal should be prepared to build a coalition with anti-tobacco groups as well as businesses that will benefit from lower health care costs and more productive future employees, unions with members who will benefit from better health and access to high-quality pre-K, advocates for lower income children and their families including minorities who have the least access to high-quality pre-K. They might even organize consumer and investor boycotts of tobacco companies who oppose the plan. Altria, which has by far the largest market share for cigarettes, also has economic stakes in beer and wine, allowing even nonsmokers to participate in an effective consumer boycott. Big tobacco has lost this battle before. California provides a battle plan that, when suitably tweaked for a national campaign, can produce another win for pre-K.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

This entry is cross-posted to The National Journal and is in response to the post “‘Sin Tax’ for Pre-Schoolers” by Fawn Johnson.

Leave a Comment » | Benefit-Cost analysis, Economics, Federal policy, Preschool | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

(Almost) Everything You Wanted to Know about Pre-K in the Federal Budget

April 12, 2013

Since President Obama announced his goal of quality early education for 4-year-olds in his State of the Union address, the education world has been buzzing for more information. Details provided earlier this month indicated that the president’s plan would call for funding the program through an increase in the tobacco tax from $1.01 per pack to $1.95. The release of the president’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 provides significantly more insight into the administration’s Preschool for All initiative.

The Department of Education budget clarifies that the proposal is for a federal-state partnership to provide all low- and moderate-income 4-year-old children with high-quality preschool with added incentives to expand these programs to reach children from all income levels. The plan is part of a larger approach to expanding and sustaining middle-class opportunity. Education Department documents laid out key elements of the Preschool for All proposal; many are similar from the bills introduced in both the House and Senate since the State of the Union, including:

high staff qualifications, including a BA degree for teachers;
professional development for teachers and staff;
low staff-child ratios and small class sizes;
a full-day program;
developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricula aligned with state early learning standards;
salaries comparable to those in K-12 education;
on-going program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement; and
on-site comprehensive services for children.

The Department of Education is requesting $75 billion over 10 years in budget authority for this plan with $1.3 billion requested for FY 2014. This is mandatory federal spending that is not dependent on an annual or periodic appropriation bill.

State funding allocations would be based on the number of 4-year-olds in families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Table 1, based on the Education Department’s School Readiness budget justification, shows how state and federal shares vary over time for both regular and reduced rate states. The “regular” rate applies to states not yet serving half of the children below 200 percent of poverty; the “reduced” rate incentivizes pre-K for all children when at least half the children above 200 percent FPL are served.

Table 1. State/Federal Share of Pre-K Program at Regular and Reduced Rates

Program Year	Regular Rate		Reduced Rate
Program Year	State Share	Federal Share	State Share	Federal Share
Year 1	9%	91%	5%	95%
Year 2	9%	91%	5%	95%
Year 3	17%	83%	9%	91%
Year 4	23%	77%	17%	83%
Year 5	29%	71%	23%	77%
Year 6	33%	67%	29%	71%
Year 7	43%	57%	33%	67%
Year 8	50%	50%	43%	57%
Year 9	60%	40%	50%	50%
Year 10	75%	25%	71%	29%

The budget also requested $750 million in discretionary funds for FY 2014 for Preschool Development Grants. These funds would provide competitive grants to states “most willing to commit to creating or expanding a high-quality preschool system that can serve all of their 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families.” At an Education Department press conference on Wednesday, these grants were characterized as helping states address systemic issues in preparation for expanding preschool, which would include building facilities and workforce development. Eligible states would include “low capacity” states with small or non-existent state-funded pre-K programs as well as states with “more robust” programs looking to support quality improvement and expand access.

How many 4-year-olds children stand to benefit from the president’s plan? Back of the envelope calculations based on data from the ECLS-B study indicate that as many as 1.67 million 4-year-olds who live below 200 percent FPL could benefit because they do not now have access to a quality pre-K program (based on the numbers who attend no program or a program that is not high quality). This includes 365,000 African-American children and 565,000 Hispanic children. Rather than a “federal takeover” of early education as feared by some, the president’s plan would build on state efforts that work and improve those that fall short. With its added incentives to offer quality preschool for all, this plan could increase the number of children attending high-quality pre-K programs at age 4 from less than 1 million to around 4 million nationally.

The federal budget also makes provision for younger children. The Department of Health and Human Services budget has $1.4 billion in new Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships; an additional $200 million to support high-quality child care; and $15 billion over 10 years to support home-visiting programs.

At the state level, a so-called “sin tax,” such as the proposed tobacco tax, is not an uncommon way to fund programs for children. NIEER has written before about the pros and cons of this approach as well as a more comprehensive look at various state funding structures for early education. In fact, tobacco taxes fund early education through First Five California and First Things First in Arizona while Kansas and Maine both report using tobacco settlement funds for various components of early childhood education.

Several other noteworthy initiatives were included in the Education Department’s budget, as noted by Education Week:

$300 million for Promise Neighborhoods;
$112 million to help schools develop emergency plans, collect school safety data, and improve school climate;
$1 billion for a Race to the Top competition focusing on improving student outcomes in college without increasing tuition; and
$215 million for competitive School Improvement Grant program focused on school turnarounds and district capacity.

It’s heartening to see early childhood education at the top of the agenda for new investments in education. The proposed federal investment in pre-K together with the other proposed measures can increase the number of children ready for the early elementary grades, expanding the opportunity for all children to achieve long-term academic, social and economic success.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

4 Comments | Access, Child Care, Early Education, Early Head Start, Economics, Federal policy, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, State-funded programs, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Yes, Public Preschool is a Smart Investment

March 22, 2013

Note: This blog post is in response to the question posed by The New York Times in its Room for Debate forum: “Is Public Preschool a Smart Investment?”.

Early education and care programs have two goals — child care so parents can work or go to school and education so children learn and grow optimally. Unfortunately, much of what is called child care in the United States is what others would call “child minding.” Ensuring that children are safe, warm, and fed is not enough to support their healthy development, which also requires well-trained, adequately paid teachers who receive coaching and supervision plus sufficiently teacher-child ratios. This helps ensure caregivers provide children with educational content and play experiences that include language, math and science as well as attending to their social, emotional, and physical development, which are equally important. In a high-quality early childhood education and care setting, children learn language, how letters and books work, and about numbers, shapes, and dimensions. But they also learn how to test a theory, concentrate, self-regulate, develop attention skills, get along with others, and more. The end result is they start kindergarten better prepared to learn and live full lives.

The evidence for pre-K is substantial and far beyond the few studies commonly mentioned, such as the Perry Preschool Program (which skeptics criticize for being old and small). To date, there are summaries of 123 studies in the U.S. and about a third more elsewhere in the world that demonstrate the effectiveness of high-quality pre-K programs. From all the studies out there one concludes that early educational intervention can have substantive short- and long-term effects on cognition and social-emotional development, as well as on school progress, antisocial behavior, earnings, welfare participation, and even crime. A multiplicity of programs across various social and economic contexts, including large public programs, have been shown to be effective. Among the recent evidence are long-term studies from Michigan and the Abbott preschool program in New Jersey. So how can we choose not invest in it when the evidence also shows that for every $1 spent we get far greater returns?

The President’s pre-K proposal would help states provide high-quality pre-K for low- and middle-income families, which is crucial considering that children of lower income groups start kindergarten more than a year behind in language and math than their upper income peers. And this gap is very resistant to later efforts to close it. Recognizing that parents want quality learning experiences for even the youngest children, the President also proposed partnerships between child care and Early Head Start, a program for at-risk children under age 3 with a track record of success. Improving quality in child care for younger children, particularly the most disadvantaged, while providing expanded pre-K to 4-year-olds is too important to be an either/or choice. We can do more for children of all ages and the President proposes to do that, but ensuring that every child has access to quality education at least by age 4 is an attainable goal right now while pursuing that broader agenda. State leaders have figured out that pre-K is a good choice for families and children in their states and politically viable as a bipartisan policy – last year, 39 states offered state-funded pre-K programs, and enrollment – all voluntary – has nearly doubled in a decade. Even cities have started to push for pre-K programs, such as the recent efforts in San Antonio by Mayor Julián Castro. Nevertheless, finances are difficult for many families, cities and states. A little federal help will go a long way toward ensuring that all families, especially low- and middle-income ones, can have access to high-quality education for their preschoolers.

- Milagros Nores, Associate Director of Research, NIEER

1 Comment | Access, Child Care, Early Education, Federal policy, Outcomes, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Research | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Pre-K Goes to Washington

March 22, 2013

President Obama launched early childhood education into the national spotlight in February when in his State of the Union address he proposed “working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.” Since then, the early education field has been debating best practices, funding models, and making sure the mainstream media accurately presents the compelling research case for pre-K. The White House has been largely mum on plan details, though its fact sheet, the President’s education speech in Georgia, and recent remarks from White House advisor Roberto Rodriguez have offered some clues. While the President’s plan is more of an outline than a detailed proposal, it does focus on a few key components:

A plan to implement comprehensive data and assessment systems,
Small class sizes and low staff to child ratios,
Qualified teachers for all preschool classrooms, and
Well-trained teachers who are paid comparably to K-12 staff.

The proposal has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill, where several early learning bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to improve the quality of and access to early childhood education for 4-year-olds. Funds would be channeled through state-designated agencies to subgrantees who would provide the actual services.

Three recently introduced bills call for a closer reading:

The Prepare All Kids Act (S. 502) introduced by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA);
The Ready to Learn Act (S.322) introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and co-sponsored by Al Franken (D-MN), Mark Begich (D-AK), Mazie Hirono (D-HI); and
The Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013, or PRE-K Act, introduced by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) (S.519) cosponsored by Mark Begich (D-AK), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Al Franken (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Companion legislation was introduced in the House (H.R. 1041) by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and cosponsored by Representative Allyson Schwartz (D-PA).

The plans agree on several points, such as requiring comprehensive early learning standards (defined by the National Education Goals Panel as physical well-being/motor development, social/emotional development, approaches toward learning, language development, and cognition/general knowledge) as well as requiring states to use these federal funds to “supplement, not supplant” existing state funds for early learning. Each plan also addresses those key aspects of the White House proposal in slightly different ways:

Title	Prepare All Kids (S. 502)	Ready to Learn Act (S. 322)	Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013 (PRE-K Act) (S.519/H.R. 1041)
Class Size	20	20	Nationally established “best practice”
Staff-Child Ratio	1:10 ratio	1:10 ratio	Nationally established “best practice”
Teacher Credentials	Defined as having a BA with specialization in ECE or early childhood development; or teacher is working toward degree within 6 years of beginning employment as teacher in a provider assisted under this program	Within 2 years of grant, each classroom must have teacher with BA in ECE or specialized training in early childhood development	Teacher holds AA or higher in early childhood or related field; Plan to require state-funded pre-K program teachers to hold a BA (in ECE or related) within 5 years of receiving funds
Early Learning Standards	Comprehensive	Comprehensive	Comprehensive
Provision for Private Provider Inclusions	35% of subgrantees must be CBOs	25% of subgrants to CBOs	Funds must be made available to range of programs, including LEAs and community-based providers
Fed/State Share	50/50	50/50	Non-federal matching funds at least 30% of federal grant funds for “Qualified States,” 50% for “Selected States”
Assessments	Cannot lead to rewards or sanctions for individual children, teachers, programs, or schools; Single assessment cannot be used as sole method for assessing effectiveness	Program’s curriculum must use “valid and reliable multiple assessments for the purpose of improving instruction”	Funds in act may not be used for assessments that provide rewards or sanctions for teachers or students (no high stakes)

The Prepare All Kids Act also calls for a 15 percent set aside of funding for programs for children ages 0 to 3, while the PRE-K Act calls for 10 percent set aside for quality improvement in programs for children these ages. While media attention of President Obama’s early childhood plan has largely centered on the components offering preschool to 4-year-olds, children ages 0 to 3 were addressed through Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership programs.

These requirements seem like good news for most programs with state-funded pre-K programs. As indicated in NIEER’s annual State Preschool Yearbook, from the 2001-2002 to 2010-2011 school year, state-funded pre-K programs made particular progress in meeting the NIEER quality standards in the areas of class size and ratio, lead teacher requirements, and early learning standards.

Clearly, the percent of programs requiring teachers to have a bachelor’s degree has lagged considerably with only 57 percent of programs meeting this standard. However, provisions in each of the three congressional bills give programs some time to raise teacher credentialing to this level. Twenty-four programs already meet all of the requirements of these proposals regarding program standards as indicated in NIEER’s latest State Preschool Yearbook. Though these would not be the sole qualifying factors for receiving federal funds, it appears that almost 50 percent of pre-K programs are already on the right track from Congress’ point of view.

Pre-K has also found itself a more modest place in the Continuum of Learning Act of 2013 (H.R.791) as introduced by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and Don Young (R-AK), with Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) joining as co-sponsors after the bill was introduced. While the bill was introduced shortly after the President’s State of the Union pre-K proposal, it does not outline a new pre-K program but rather builds early learning more explicitly into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Continuum of Learning Act focuses primarily on improving early learning guidelines; encouraging local education agencies (LEAs) to utilize school improvement funds to provide early education programs; and promote professional development, especially through providing joint training between early education and elementary teachers.

Introducing bills in committee still leaves early learning far from the President’s desk, but the number of plans focusing on high-quality early childhood education at the federal level represents a heartening commitment to the future of kids.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

8 Comments | Early Education, Federal policy, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Federal Proposal Would Build on State Efforts

February 26, 2013

President Obama’s call to action on early education is a watershed moment that has the potential to improve education for millions of American students. Ensuring all students have the opportunity to attend high-quality preschool, regardless of income and geography, is a key component of an effective education system that prepares students for success in school and society.

State-funded pre-K has grown substantially over the last decade to serve 28 percent of 4-year-olds, up from 14 percent in 2001. Yet, this is only part of the picture. As many as 40 percent are served by public programs when Head Start and preschool special education are counted, though the latter may consist of only a few hours of therapy a week. Over 80 percent are in some type of out of home arrangement including private programs and family home child care. Unfortunately, research now makes it clear that the quality of many of these arrangements as assessed by direct observation is far too low to promote educational opportunity. Some are so poor they may actually increase children’s risk of school failure. Head Start’s weaknesses have been noted by many as debate over this proposal has unfolded, but Head Start is far better than many of the private centers and day care homes children attend. NIEER has just released an in-depth look at what the research tells us about the outcomes of early education which can help clarify some confusion seen in media report.

That is why it is so important to understand that the President’s pre-K proposal will raise quality and educational effectiveness, not just increase the number of seats available. And, it will do this by lifting up the entire field. The models of successful pre-K for all already operate show the way. Oklahoma, New Jersey’s Abbott program, and West Virginia all integrate private providers and Head Start into state-funded pre-K. What does this mean? Head Start teachers nationally are paid barely more than pet sitters and dog walkers. This is Head Start’s Achilles heel. Teachers in private child care make even less. To use the New Jersey example, when integrated into state pre-K these teachers were given the opportunity to go back to school and get stronger preparation, they were assigned teacher coaches who worked with them as partners to improve their teaching, and their salaries were doubled. Of course, this came with accountability for results, but the vast majority delivered. Teaching quality in all classrooms, private and public, was raised from poor/mediocre to good/excellent.

Planning for this reform process has already begun in most states through their state early learning advisory councils. In addition, 35 states and the District of Columbia developed reform plans when they applied for funds to expand early education through the federal Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge in 2011. However, only nine states were awarded funds. These applications demonstrate a clear interest and capacity by state governments to partner with the federal government to start all children on the right path. States have never been better poised to prioritize early education and the federal government’s role is welcome support.

The White House preschool proposal has a few key words that are important in understanding how this would play out: “federal-state partnership” and “cost-sharing.” This isn’t the federal government signing a blank check to foot the entire bill for early education; it is limited support based on the number of low-income children in a state and tied to a small number of standards already adopted by many states. If other states do not want to raise quality, they do not have to participate. If they do participate, they will be in charge, not the federal government, which could list its requirements on a single page. The list of states that we believe might qualify with little or no change to state policy includes not just Oklahoma and Georgia, but also Alabama, Alaska, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. Mississippi is currently advancing legislation that would meet the test as well.

Once it is understood, the President’s pre-K plan should be endorsed by practically everyone. It supports equity and excellence in the pre-K policies advanced by governors of both parties. Both critics and supporters of Head Start should welcome it as Head Start reform that will strengthen that program and improve its effectiveness. Those who want to see more choice and competition should applaud federal support for state programs that incorporate private providers. To return to our New Jersey example, two-thirds of the children are served by private providers supported by local school districts responsible for ensuring quality through teacher coaching and supports to help children with special needs succeed in regular classes.

Given all of its advantages, the primary objection in Congress to the President’s proposal is likely to be that we can’t afford new spending when deficits loom so large. Yet, this is fundamentally a pro-growth, deficit reduction proposal. The biggest returns to this investment will kick in years down the road when the deficit is projected to become a more serious problem. And, it addresses root causes of the deficit–slow growth and rising costs of government including health care costs. Quality pre-K will enhance productivity to increase growth, decrease the costs of school failure and crime, and reduce smoking and other risky behaviors that harm health. Sure, it’s just one small contribution to deficit reduction, but a $50 billion investment over 10 years could contribute a few hundred million dollars to deficit reduction.

Rejecting the President’s pre-K plan is the far more costly alternative. We cannot afford to leave so many children behind with more than a third not ready to succeed at kindergarten entry. We cannot afford the lost growth and increased costs to government when they subsequently fail. We cannot afford failing to recognize that this is not just a problem for the 45 percent of our children who live below 200 percent of poverty, but for the vast majority of families. Deficit hawks, education reformers, and civil rights activists should unite to lead the charge for this proposal in Congress. States–red and blue–have already shown the way forward. Congress should follow.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

This entry is cross-posted to The National Journal and is in response to the post “Holy Preschool, Batman” by Fawn Johnson.

3 Comments | Access, Early Learning Challenge Fund, Economics, Federal policy, Head Start programs, Outcomes, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Special Education, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Reactions to the President’s Pre-K Speech and Proposal

February 15, 2013

The early childhood education (ECE) field is a-twitter with responses following President Obama’s announcement of federal investments in preschool for all during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Many have questions about how administration’s plan will approach preschool education. Will programs truly be of high quality? Will programs strike a balance between academics and play? What about programs for children younger than age 4? NIEER offered recommendations on the key components of a federal plan last week, but the White House plan is still surrounded by many more questions.

Answers to some of those questions may not be found for a while, but more details on the administration’s early education proposal were revealed this week. Early Thursday morning, the White House released a look at the preschool plan with this fact sheet. Later that day, President Obama made pre-K the focal point of a speech given in Decatur, Georgia. One thing that was apparent from the speech is that he has an impressive knowledge of the research and what high-quality really means for early care and education; video of that speech as well as a transcript are now available from the White House. Speaking on the return on investment of preschool education, President Obama said, “If you are looking for a good bang for your educational buck, this is it right here.” While in Decatur, the President also spent some time learning with students in a pre-K classroom.

Following the speech, Dr. Barnett released a statement, in which he noted that “early education can have substantive short- and long-term effects on cognitive and social-emotional development, as well as on school achievement, while reducing inequality, antisocial behavior, and even crime. So how can we choose not invest in it?” As the President did in his speech, it is important to attend to all of the research and not just studies that might support one view or another. This has not always been the case in responding to the proposed plan, particularly with some of the most negative responses.

For example, the Head Start Impact Study has been cited as evidence that pre-K doesn’t work. Yet, that study does not show that Head Start has no positive impacts, much less that high-quality preschool generally isn’t effective. The naysayers fail to acknowledge that Head Start teachers are paid about half what public school teachers earn, which is a serious impediment to hiring and retaining the best teachers. Nor do they mention the more positive research findings on Head Start from other studies or acknowledge that some Head Start centers are more effective than others.

Of course, the right way to address the question of what this proposal might accomplish is to ask what the research as a whole finds (and not just research here in the U.S.). This much is clear: on average there are substantial long-term effects; effects are larger if programs are well-designed to produce high-quality teaching; children from middle-income families benefit also if the programs are of high quality.

There are still plenty more details that will need to be revealed over the coming weeks as this proposal moves forward. For now, we at NIEER are pleased to see the conversation and debate on educating our youngest learners elevated to the national level.

- W. Steven Barnett, Director, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

4 Comments | Early Education, Federal policy, Outcomes, Preschool, Research | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Early Education in the State of the Union Spotlight

February 12, 2013

Rumors have been swirling that President Obama would address early childhood education in State of the Union speech, but there was still a thrill for early education advocates in hearing the President’s words rings out from the podium tonight. The full details of his early education plan will be revealed in coming days but inclusion in the State of the Union makes clear the White House has elevated early learning to a national priority. The emphasis on return on investment was particularly gratifying as NIEER’s Steven Barnett, working with Larry Schweinhart and others on David Weikart’s Perry Preschool study, noted the high returns to preschool with the $7 returned to $1 invested figure first reported 20 years ago.

In human terms, it is difficult to overstate the benefits of high-quality early education programs. Children who are enrolled in these programs are better prepared for school, which is particularly important at a time when 40 percent of kindergarteners are not ready to be in the classroom. Schools benefit from students coming into class academically and socially prepared to learn, resulting in reduction in grade retention and special education services. Families are better able to work when they know their children are in a safe and educational environment while benefiting from socializing with children their own age. Millions more Americans who may not even have preschool-age children benefit from long-term societal benefits — pre-K has been found to reduce participants’ future reliance on welfare and likeliness of being imprisoned, not to mention the fact that any of the 3-year-olds playing doctor in the dress-up corner today could be your surgeon twenty years from now. Opponents may argue that the proposal shared tonight could come with a considerable price tag. But $100 million invested in early education over the next decade could return as much as $1 trillion in benefits to the nation. And that is present value – or the equivalent value today – not a simple sum of benefits over time, which is much larger. That is an investment well worth making.

For too long, high-quality early education has been out of reach for most low- and middle-income Americans. As we noted last week, “Among children from low-income families, more than 1 in 3 attends no preschool program at age 4 and most do not attend at age 3. For those lucky enough to attend a state-funded program, real spending per child declined during the Great Recession, sapping quality. Children in higher income families have better access to programs, but those are not necessarily of high quality.” The President’s plan to seeks to ensure that all 4-year-olds can access quality programs, which will put children on an early path to success. Early childhood education can help all children at risk of school failure and close much of the achievement gap that plagues American education. This proposal improves opportunity for everyone, offering a hand up to lower and middle-income families that will help them reach the American dream.

Like all education programs, this new early education plan will work only with a strong commitment to quality. This means ensuring that all classrooms have highly qualified teachers, both through initial preparation and ongoing professional development. And, preschool educators must be paid on the same scale as K-12 teachers. Until all early educators are valued as highly as their higher grade counterparts, quality will be difficult to ensure. Some states have achieved more on this front than others, and it is hoped this new plan will flexibly help all states bring their current systems up to high quality, including teacher qualifications, while expanding access. States like Alabama, with high quality but little access, have very different assistance needs than states like Florida, with lots of children enrolled but low quality standards.

Moving this proposal from Capitol Hill into classrooms will require that Congress move beyond partisan politics in the interest of America’s children. This proposal is in line with the traditional role of the federal government in education: ensuring that the most disadvantaged students and states are given an equal opportunity. If there is any doubt that states are interested in pursuing these collaborative partnerships with the federal government, consider that thirty-five states and the District of Columbia applied for Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge funds in 2011. In the end, pre-K is not a “red” or “blue” issue, a fact highlighted by the Obama administration’s plan to visit an early learning center in Georgia, a red state with a historically strong, large-scale program that has been embraced by politicians and parents alike. Oklahoma is a another leader in state-funded early childhood education, and early educator Susan Bumgardner, a 2013 nominee for Oklahoma City Public Schools Teacher of the Year award, was a special guest of the first family this evening. Early education efforts in the United States present a bipartisan state commitment to doing what is best for the nation’s children. Federal leaders should follow in the footsteps of the folks back home.

We applaud President Obama for introducing a vision tonight of what early education can do for millions of the nation’s children and families. In the coming days and weeks, we will be eagerly following the details of this proposal, hoping to see a pre-K plan move through Congress that supports high-quality early education for families and states most in need of expanded opportunities. America’s children deserve nothing less.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

- W. Steven Barnett, Director, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

4 Comments | Access, Federal policy, Outcomes, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Principles for New Federal Early Education Policy Initiatives

February 8, 2013

Anticipation is building that President Obama will propose a significant new investment in early education in his State of the Union address. There are many big issues to be addressed, and young children always seem to be considered a small issue so it would make a real statement if the President chose to mention them. There are two good reasons to do so. First, new investments in young children make sense from a purely economic perspective—high-quality early education increases long-term productivity and economic growth and reduces inequality. Second, this is a political winner. The states leading the way on access to quality pre-K are a highly bi-partisan mix—New Jersey, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Maryland, Georgia, and West Virginia. Two of the newest high-quality start-ups are Rhode Island and Alaska. When Americans put their children’s future first, that stubborn partisan divide seems to disappear. And, as the cost is quite modest that offers hope a well-designed plan might actually make it through Congress.

Such a plan should address two significant shortcomings in our current situation. Many children still have no access at all to preschool education. Among children from low-income families, more than 1 in 3 attends no preschool program at age 4 and most do not attend at age 3. For those lucky enough to attend a state-funded program, real spending per child declined during the Great Recession, sapping quality. Children in higher income families have better access to programs, but those are not necessarily of high quality. In fact a Rand study of quality in California revealed that access to high-quality preschool is a big problem for middle- and upper-income families who do not qualify for income-tested public programs.

Having studied preschool education programs closely, we propose the following principles for new proposed federal investments in early learning:

Put child development first. America does not need more poor quality child care; it needs serious investment in high-quality education that also recognizes the child care needs of parents.
Offer quality preschool education to all children regardless of family income. Every child is important. Children from middle- and higher-income families are at lower risk of school failure and other problems, but they fail to succeed at a rate that is far too high. In the interests of equity, offer a higher match for children from low-income families.
Prepare and pay all teachers well, including those in Head Start. High-quality education requires excellent teachers, which in turn requires adequate pay and preparation. Teacher preparation does not end with college graduation, so federal matching funds should be contingent on states putting into place continuous improvement processes that focus on learning and teaching.
Make public preschool education free to all. Public education benefits everyone, and we should all pay for it through taxes. Better off families can be expected to pay for additional hours provided for child care purposes beyond the school day. Create sustainable early education finance systems. States should be encouraged to support early education through school funding formulas that guarantee steady funding equivalent to that provided to K-12 students.
Begin with age 4 as this is the low-hanging fruit, but don’t forget about younger children. Access to early education drops dramatically at age 3, and every age is important. Nevertheless, we must remember that most of 4-year-olds do not yet attend a high-quality pre-K.
Provide incentives to all states to move forward, from those that have no state-funded pre-K programs at all to others that serve all 4-year-olds.
Support research to design more effective approaches to early education. The federal government is ideally positioned to support research and development through Early Head Start and Head Start. Permitted the flexibility, these federal programs can be the nation’s engineers of early education excellence rather than Gullivers tied down by myriad strands of Lilliputian regulation.

If these principles guide a new federal plan, we believe they would lead to smart new investments in early learning that everyone can get behind.

- W. Steven Barnett, Director, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

3 Comments | Access, Early Education, Federal policy, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

The Importance of Having Data; Or What Would Sherlock Holmes Do?

January 8, 2013

“‘Data! Data! Data!’ he cried impatiently, ‘I cannot make bricks without clay!’”
— “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sherlock Holmes isn’t the only one relying on data. As anyone in the education world—researchers, parents, teacher, principals, and students—can tell you, decision-making in education is increasingly based on data that shows us what is and isn’t working. So what happens when we don’t have the data we need? Schools that receive federal and state education funds often have specific data reporting requirements, making centralized data collection and analysis relatively convenient. But early childhood education, fragmented across states, localities, programs, and sectors, presents a challenge to the data wonk.

Sherlock Holmes muses on some data points.

Lisa Guernsey and her team at the New America Foundation’s Early Education Initiative have been leading a recent charge to improve data collection. Last month, they released their updated Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP), an impressive database of federal data on education spending and enrollment at the district level. For the first time, FEBP sought to provide pre-K spending data at the state and district level, but noted that many state-funded pre-K programs are not necessarily governed by the same district borders as are K-12. Their policy brief accompanying FEBP’s release sums it up:

“Pre-K and kindergarten data at the local level are labyrinthine and disorganized, hampering any ability to craft policies for equitable access and funding. States must collect more complete and comparable data from school districts and CBOs if policymakers and the public are to understand the state of education for young children in their communities and states.”

So how do we improve early education data? Elementary, my dear Watson.

Improve Existing Information Collection

We don’t just need more data, we need more of the right data, presented in a clear and timely way. The U.S. Census Bureau asks about pre-K participation in its American Community Survey. However, this question suffers from several methodological short-comings: it relies on parent reporting of participation (rather than data from the schools) and includes children ages 3 to 4 enrolled in nursery school or preschool during the previous two months, which may then include children who do not remain enrolled for most of the year, while excluding children enrolled earlier or later. Ultimately, as acknowledged by Alex Holt at the New America Foundation, this question “is so convoluted that we consider the data from it to be effectively useless. Even at the federal level, the U.S. government has no idea how many children are enrolled in pre-K.” Likewise, the information collected on prekindergarten enrollment by the National Center for Education Statistics through its schools survey includes only those children served in programs operated in public elementary schools, without differentiating between 3- and 4-year-olds. Across all data sets there is considerable uncertainty regarding the extent to which we can accurately identify all classroom participation regardless of the name attached (child care, special education, state pre-K, local public school, Head Start, private preschool, etc.) and even more uncertainty regarding whether we can identify types of programs. Even separating public and private is difficult because of ambiguities. (For example, many state pre-K programs are operated by private providers, and even Head Start providers are mostly private non-profits.) So, information is widely available to researchers but it may not answer the questions they’re asking.

Develop Comprehensive Data Systems

The Early Childhood Data Collaborative advocates for coordinated longitudinal early childhood data systems, which are state efforts to collect data to track children’s progress from early childhood and beyond. Their 10 fundamentals of data systems seek to improve data collection and allow stakeholders to link information both longitudinally and to other key programs, while ensuring the system is well-managed, secure, and maintains privacy. Their recent brief on those states who addressed longitudinal data systems in their Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) applications highlighted important trends, including filling gaps in current data (including information on the workforce) and collaborating across early childhood education systems and agencies.

The very inclusion of data systems as an optional component of RTT-ELC indicates the need for data has been elevated to a place of important within the federal government and hopefully drives continued collaboration among states to improve their current systems.

Fund Quality Data Collection Efforts

Finally, as a field, we need to continue supporting high-quality research collecting data on policies within early childhood education programs. In a piece at The Huffington Post, Lisa Guernsey writes in support of NIEER’s State Preschool Yearbooks, noting:

“The idea behind the yearbooks, Barnett said, was ‘to create an archived data set that would be consistent across the states.’ By making the information available to all, he explained, reporters and policymakers who wanted data would not have to call all 50 states, ‘and state officials could provide information that was comparable to what was provided by the state next door.’ NIEER … sought to halt the spread of misinformation about which states were offering good pre-K programs and enrolling high numbers of children, and which ones weren’t.”

After the Pew Charitable Trusts ended their 10-year investment in the Yearbooks, NIEER has been seeking for a new funder for what’s become one of the most well-respected, well-cited data sources on American early education. Guernsey refers to the times before the Yearbook as “the dark ages,” and it’s hard to imagine going back to a time without it, without media coverage from CBS and NBC and the support of the U.S. Secretary of Education. We’ve seen tremendous growth in not only the media attention on pre-K, but in state-funded pre-K itself: by the 2010-2011 year, nine more pre-K programs were available than in the 2001-2002 year, and quality standards have increased overall even as the Great Recession has worn away at program funds.

Our annual Yearbook publication is a true labor of love, one we’re proud to produce each year, and we’re overwhelmed by the positive response of the early childhood community in supporting and sharing our work. Yet, even this work only covers one of the major segments of the field. We need good data to make the right decisions for early education and the future of America’s students. Only by supporting, collecting, analyzing, and sharing this information with the field will we be able to live up to this advice from the esteemed Detective Holmes: “No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, destructive to the logical faculty.”

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

2 Comments | Early Education, Federal policy, Head Start programs, Preschool, Race to the Top, Research, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Investing for Today and Tomorrow: Early Learning in the Federal FY 2013 Budget Proposal

February 15, 2012

Starting the week on an exciting note for elected officials, advocates, and policy wonks, President Obama released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 on Monday morning. Education was a clear priority throughout the press conference at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia, particularly on preparing students for 21^st century jobs by focusing on career and technical skills. As readers of this blog can attest, early education is an important building block in preparing students for a life of learning and earning.

Details of the budget are still being fleshed out, but there seems to be good news for early education in the White House’s proposal, as outlined below.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed budget:

Department-wide discretionary budget of $76.4 billion, a $0.3 billion increase over the FY2012 level.
Head Start and Early Head Start: Set to receive more than $8 billion to serve about 962,000 children and families, which would maintain the enrollment expansion seen in the 2009-2010 program year. The proposal acknowledges that it will support the implementation of the new Head Start re-competition regulations.
Child care subsidies: Additional $7 billion over 10 years to support child care subsidies for low-income children.
Child Care Development Block Grant: Additional $300 million to improve the quality of child care facilities.

Department of Education proposed budget:

Department-wide discretionary budget of $69.8 billion, a $1.7 billion increase over FY2012 level.
Race to the Top (RTT): $850 million for another round. According to a Department of Education press release, a “significant portion” of these funds would be allocated for an expansion for the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, which would continue under the joint tutelage of the Departments of Education and HHS.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): $472.7 million in Grants for Infants and Families, to provide early intervention services to children birth through age 2 with disabilities and $372.6 million for IDEA Preschool Grants for children ages 3 through 5 with disabilities.
Promise Neighborhoods: Proposed increase of $100 million for this competitive grant program that seeks to help high-need communities develop cooperative strategies to improve outcomes for children through both educational reforms and life outside the classroom. Past winners have focused energies specifically on early education as a tool.
Investing in Innovation Fund (i3): Requests $150 million for the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) to build on three previous i3 competitions. The Department’s budget summary only goes so far as to suggest that priority “could be given to projects proposing to improve early learning outcomes.”
Institute for Education Sciences (IES): $30 million in new research and development grants for early learning and elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.

In addition, the National Women’s Law Center has information on additional federal programs in the FY13 proposal that support families with young children, including the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. Of course, not all child care funding goes to children under 5 (though most does) and early education will only be a modest fraction of such high-profile initiatives such as i3, Promise Neighborhoods, and RTT.

Laura Bornfreund, Maggie Severns, and Clare McCann at Early Ed Watch compiled the helpful table below to track changes since FY2011 in some key programs used for early education.

As noted by the New America Foundation’s Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2013 Education Budget Request, there are still a number of questions surrounding the place of early education in this budget, including whether the portion of RTT funds earmarked for early learning would be distributed at the state level or district level. They also note that the budget proposal encourages districts to redesign school schedules to better serve students through the 21^st Century Community Learning program, though it is unclear so far whether states will be encouraged to apply this to the early grades, such as extending half-day kindergarten into full-day services.

It’s worth noting that a presidential budget proposal is, according to Birth to Thrive, just “the first move in a high-stakes game that will be complicated this year by presidential and congressional politics.” Considering the sharp partisan divisions seen in recent legislative battles, the pressure of the Budget Control Act to cut spending by $900 billion over 10 years, and the high-profile politics of an election year, it is hard to say exactly how much of this proposal will ever see funding. The great strength of the budget proposal, though, is to allow the president to lay out his priorities in greater detail than any speech or campaign ad could. Early education is clearly an administration priority, though perhaps not as high a priority as we would like. All of us concerned about the future of America’s youngest learners must ensure that elected officials remember that high-quality early education programs are a good economic investment both short-term and in the future.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

2 Comments | Child Care, Early Education, Early Head Start, Federal policy, Head Start programs, Race to the Top, Special Education | Permalink
Posted by NIEER