State-funded programs | Preschool Matters... Today!

State-Funded Preschool in America in a “State of Emergency”

April 29, 2013

Today NIEER released its most recent edition of The State of Preschool 2012: State Preschool Yearbook at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. This Yearbook marks a decade of data collection, from the 2001-2002 to 2011-2012 school years, tracking the changes in state-funded pre-K policies during some difficult financial times. Joining NIEER at the release were U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius; President of the American Federation of Teachers Randi Weingarten; Chairman Emeritus of the Vanguard Group Jack Brennan; and Celia Ayala, CEO of Los Angeles Universal Preschool.

This year’s findings were the most sobering since NIEER started collecting data. Total state-funding fell by nearly half a billion dollars from the previous year, an unprecedented drop. This translated to a $442 decrease in per-child funding, down to $3,841. Enrollment growth basically stagnated – while 10,000 more kids were enrolled in the 2011-2012 school year, population also grew. This translates to only 28 percent of 4-year-olds and 4 percent of 3-year-olds, the same as in the previous year.

As NIEER’s Director Steve Barnett noted in his remarks, “the 2012 cutbacks in quality standards were directly related to shortfalls in state funding.” Quality supports were particularly hard hit by the dramatic cuts. While three programs met a new quality standards benchmark – California for early learning standards, Ohio for site visits, and Pennsylvania’s Pre-K Counts for lead teacher degree – seven programs lost a total of nine benchmarks. We were particularly concerned that five of these losses were related to site visits for monitoring program quality – evidence indicates that only high-quality pre-K programs significantly benefit children’s learning and development, and visiting sites to gauge quality helps ensure programs are serving children’s needs. Quality is of the utmost importance in early education programs, as noted by LAUP CEO Celia Ayala whose experience as a former practitioner informs her work in the field.

The panel conversation at the National Press Club covered not only this new data on state pre-K in recent years but also what the field looks like going forward, including the implications of President Obama’s plan for Preschool for All in his Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal. The diversity of today’s panel members makes clear that the importance of high-quality pre-K and its lasting benefits are well-understood in our nation’s capital, in the classroom, and in the boardroom. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius noted that as a former governor, she would have welcomed federal investment in early education, while Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stressed the importance of collaboration among agencies and levels of government to best serve kids. He called for a “preschool movement” in America to support the president’s plan

Ensuring children have access to high-quality pre-K isn’t just an issue for the short-term. A significant body of research finds that the benefits of pre-K far outweigh the cost. Good preschool education provides children with a stronger foundation for lifelong success–reducing school failure, raising test scores, and increasing educational attainment. Jack Brennan of the Vanguard Group presented the business case for early childhood education, noting that businesses are the future beneficiaries of the skills that children gain in pre-K. State budgets are only now recovering from the Great Recession and, as Randi Weingarten of AFT noted, now is the time to make sure high-quality pre-K is a top priority of legislators.

Video of the full release event is available on C-SPAN’s web site and the conversation is ongoing on Twitter. NIEER will also be continuing to spread the word of this report at a Capitol Hill Briefing tomorrow, co-sponsored with First Focus.

– Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Access, Economics, Preschool, State-funded programs | 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

Fulfilling the Promise of Universal Pre-K

March 7, 2013

Few government investments pay the dividends of high-quality pre-kindergarten education, which has been found to return as much as $10 for every dollar invested, from higher earnings, lower crime, and reduced government costs later in life. Yet, despite powerful evidence that it works, states have a checkered history of implementing quality pre-K. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has now wisely recommended increasing the state’s investment in preschool education and has proposed new support for full-day pre-K. His challenge will be to avoid the pitfalls of other states and learn from their checkered past.

Across the nation, pre-K for all, or even most, has been achieved sporadically. Only eight states – Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin – provide pre-K to more than half of their 4-year-olds. New York trails these states, enrolling only 45 percent at age 4. New York lags behind such states as Florida and Texas not just on pre-K but on achievement at fourth grade, the first point at which we can compare achievement across the states.

New York has professed to offer universal pre-K since 1997, originally with a timetable to serve all children by 2002; follow-through has been the state’s downfall. As the governor fills in the details of his plan, he will have an opportunity to put New York back on track to fulfilling that promise. Success will require strong leadership and an actionable plan. In designing that plan, he should heed three important lessons from other states’ experiences.

First, New York must set a realistic but firm deadline for achieving the goal of pre-K for all with a series of milestones along the way. The state should consider following the example of West Virginia, which specified a number of “soft” mid-course deadlines for rolling out access and quality standards over a decade and is now confidently approaching the finish line of universal access in the fall of 2013. As generations of preschoolers have learned from the tortoise and the hare, slow and steady wins the race.

Second, quality must not be sacrificed in pursuit of quantity. Deadlines should be set based on the state’s capacity to build and maintain pre-K at a high standard. It has proven far easier to build quality from the start than to raise quality after a program has been brought to scale. Across the Hudson, New Jersey provides pre-K to fewer children, but it has transformed preschools in its poorest urban communities into a high-quality system of pre-K that attracts visitors from around the globe to see world-class early education. New York should put into place a continuous quality improvement system to ensure that the quality of teaching and learning increases – not just the numbers enrolled.

Third, to improve quality and access slowly but surely, an uncapped stable statewide funding formula is needed that enables every local community to move forward as fast as local conditions permit. States like New York that annually set a fixed expenditure for pre-K waste funds in years when few are prepared to move forward, and limit growth when many are prepared to advance. The simplest and most effective approach is to add pre-K into the school funding formula for K-12. States that have done this are the only ones to significantly increase access to pre-K during the Great Recession.

New York has come a long way from a decade ago when it offered preschool education to only about a quarter of its 4-year-olds, but it is nowhere near its goal of quality pre-K for all. It can achieve that goal by heeding these lessons. Without learning from them, New York will continue to shut thousands of deserving children out of pre-K and continue to pay the price of this unkept promise in higher rates of school failure and crime – and lower incomes – for years to come.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Access, Economics, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, State-funded programs, Universal | 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

Not Just Wishful Thinking

January 10, 2013

Ensuring that all our children are ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten is a tremendous task, made much more difficult in the United States by high levels of poverty and low levels of parental education. One in four preschoolers lives in poverty, nearly half in low-income families. Twenty-seven percent are born to mothers without a high school diploma or GED. Assessments at kindergarten entry show that surprisingly many children from middle-income families are poorly prepared to succeed. There are many public policies that could contribute to reducing this problem, and there is no single solution, but let us consider one that seems obvious and for which there is considerable evidence, public preschool programs.

Public preschool education could be an important part of the solution, but currently it is not given a chance. Ensuring school readiness through preschool education is precluded by low levels of investment and high levels of wishful thinking. Far too many children lack access to preschool education, and it is least available to those who could benefit most. The majority of 3-year-olds in homes where Spanish is the primary language don’t attend any preschool program. Some don’t qualify for publicly funded programs because their parents work long hours to keep them out of poverty. Others live in states that don’t fund any preschool program at all or in neighborhoods that aren’t served. As a nation we spend far more public money on prisons than on preschools. Federal and state governments together spend less on preschool education than Americans spend on pet food.

The latest research on preschool program outcomes to cross my desk is the third grade follow-up of the national randomized trial of Head Start. It is now clear: Head Start produces no perceptible lasting gains in any domain of child development. This does not rule out very small persistent gains, but Head Start is not meeting its goals. Yet, much of the field seems to be in denial, responding that bad public schools erode the effects of Head Start. Somehow they fail to see that even initial gains are quite small and that children in the study made much larger gains in kindergarten and the early grades than they did in Head Start. Other studies confirm that learning gains in kindergarten are much larger than in Head Start. The root of the problem is that Head Start is locked into a program model that fails to focus on intensive education and pays teaching staff abysmally. This model has failed every true experimental test (Early Head Start, the Comprehensive Child Development Program, the Child and Family Resource Centers).

State pre-K programs often are little better than Head Start since they too usually lack the funding and standards of public education for kindergarten. State subsidized child care (as opposed to preschool education) is so poor that it may actually harm child development on average. Clearly, just shifting Head Start to the states is not enough to solve the problem. However, for all the faults of public education, one only has to look at growth curves for learning over time to conclude that if preschool were supported like kindergarten, children would be much better prepared. And, looking at the programs found to produce substantive lasting gains for children in well-controlled studies, the common theme is that they are much more educationally intensive than our current preschool programs. It is time to face facts and change directions.

If the United States is to effectively address the school readiness problem, public preschool programs must provide much more intensive education to many more children. Only public preschool education for all children is likely to achieve this goal. Means-tested programs exclude too many children who need help. The federal government should incentivize states to offer preschool programs that meet a small number of well-defined criteria for quality and set a goal to serve all children by a certain date. Then let states innovate as they have a track record of creating flexible public-private preschool partnerships. The focus of accountability should be on strong teaching and truly substantive gains in broad child development. Head Start should be integrated into public education as a funding stream to enhance the education of young children in poverty so that they start early and receive the best teachers and smallest classes. Once we stop thinking of preschool as charity and start thinking of it as an investment in everyone’s future we might actually do what is necessary to meaningfully improve the education of young children.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

This entry is cross-posted to The National Journal and is in response to the post “Pre-K for Everyone?” by Fawn Johnson.

3 Comments | Access, Child Care, Head Start programs, Outcomes, Preschool, Research, State-funded programs, Targeted, 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

Preschool for Y’All: The Rise of Early Education in the South

November 1, 2012

(PART 1 OF 2-PART SERIES)

As our State of Preschool 2011 report made clear, state-funded pre-K nationwide has fallen victim to tight budgets. As rises in enrollment outstripped funding increases, per-child spending was dragged down. We’ve also seen that disparities in quality, access, and resources have been exacerbated over the last decade, as some states prioritized early education during budget crises while others cut spending. A quick look at regional trends finds one important point: early childhood education is a priority down South.

The South, as defined by the Census Bureau, comprises 16 states* — Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. (These states are further subdivided into three smaller regions, as grouped here.) A quick look at our Access map below, demonstrating the percent of 4-year-olds enrolled in each state’s state-funded pre-K program, shows that some of the highest access states are in the South. In fact, 10 of the top 15 states for 4-year-olds are in this region.

Mississippi is the only state in the South without a state-funded pre-K program. Otherwise, the South has prioritized access to state-funded pre-K, as evidenced by data such as:

All-age pre-K enrollment in this region is more than 700,000 children. This is 54 percent of children enrolled nationwide, though these states account for only one-third of the total U.S. population.
Most states in this region maintain impressively high enrollment levels, including Florida with the highest enrollment percent in the nation for 4-year-olds at 76 percent.
Since the 2001-2002 school year, the percent of 4-year-olds in the Southern region has consistently, and significantly, outpaced the 4-year-old enrollment rate across all 50 states, as can be seen below.

A large proportion of both Southern and national enrollment growth was the implementation of Florida’s Universal Prekindergarten Program in the 2005-2006 year, which enrolled more than 100,000 4-year-olds in its first year alone and has continued growing. Enrollment of 4-year-olds has increased nationwide in the last decade due in part to increased advocacy efforts at the state and national levels as well as a growing body of research proving the effectiveness of pre-K. However, the impact of these efforts can be seen even more clearly in the South, where enrollment has increased by a staggering 23 percentage points during the past decade, compared to only 14 percentage points nationwide.

Most Southern states also excel in terms of our Quality Standards Benchmarks.

Only five states nationwide meet all 10 of these, and three of them are in the South—Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina. (One of Louisiana’s three state programs also meets all 10).
Another nine Southern states meet eight or nine benchmarks, an exceptional track record for one region.
However, the South also has two of the states with the lowest quality standards—Florida meets three and Texas meets four, which is particularly problematic considering their extremely high enrollment levels.

(Click on the Google Motion Chart image below to explore longitudinal changes in access, enrollment, and quality standards in the Southern region.)

Funding per child in the South declined in eight states since the 2001-2002 school year, though both Arkansas and Louisiana posted impressive increases in per-child funding in that time. Only six of these states (Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, and West Virginia) met NIEER’s estimate for the per-child spending needed to meet all quality standards benchmarks as well as pay pre-K teachers a salary on par with kindergarten teachers.

Preschool has come a long way in the South, even serving as a national model in many ways, and advocates for children must be vigilant to ensure it serves those children who need it. In our national press release for the Yearbook, we expressed concern than political and financial conditions in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas could threaten program progress. (Individual state releases with more information can be found here). Given these threats to programs, it is important to remember this question posted by the Southern Education Foundation in 2010: “This is the South’s challenge and its moment of truth: Do we sustain the one area of public education needed by little children that is successful? Or shall we take steps to reduce or eliminate the best way we have to help little children become ready for success in education for years to come?”

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

- Jim Squires, Senior Research Fellow, NIEER

* The District of Columbia is also included in the Census definition of the South, though their enrollment figures are not included here as it would be inconsistent to compare a city among states. However, the District of Columbia has also shown a substantial commitment to early childhood education and provides publicly-funded pre-K to the majority of its 3- and 4-year-olds in a variety of settings.

3 Comments | Access, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Research, State-funded programs, Targeted, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

These Hours Were Made For Learning: State Pre-K Operating Schedules

September 21, 2012

Last week we wrote about changes in schedules for kindergarten classes, noting that some states and school districts are scaling back from full-day to half-day programs to stretch tight budgets further. This week we’re taking a look at pre-K programs and their operating schedules, using longitudinal data from our State Preschool Yearbook report series.

Like their counterparts in kindergarten, preschoolers may be in full- or half-day programs, depending on the state or school district in which they live. Indeed, most state-funded preschool programs (55 percent in the 2010-2011 school year, as seen in Figure 1) do not have a state policy on the length of the program day, leaving this decision up to local school districts. Of the remaining state programs, 24 percent have a state policy dictating a part-day program while another 22 percent require full-day programs.

Figure 1. Operating schedule policy by program

Program Year	Part-day	Full-day*	Determined Locally
2010-2011	24%	22%	55%
2009-2010	23%	21%	56%
2008-2009	20%	20%	61%
* Programs that report “school day” are included in “full-day” in these figures, resulting in some rounding errors.

Since the 2008-2009 school year, the percent of state programs requiring full-day pre-K programs has increased steadily. Still, an increase in the percentage of states with full-day pre-K policies isn’t the full story. As we’ve noted before, state pre-K programs are far from uniform, with some enrolling only 1 percent of the state’s 3- and 4-year-olds and others enrolling upwards of 70 percent of the preschool-age population. As a result, when we look at the percent of children enrolled in state-funded pre-K, as we do in Figure 2, we see a very different story.

Figure 2. Operating schedule by student*

Program Year	Part-day	Full-day**	Determined Locally
2010-2011	52%	41%	6%
2009-2010	50%	42%	8%
2008-2009	50%	43%	7%
* Out of those children whose schedules can be reported. In the 2010-2011, 75% of state-funded pre-K students can be reported by schedule (995,707 of the 1,323,128 served); in the 2009-2010 year, 62% (or 797,235 out 1,292,310). In 2008-2009, this was 63% (763,560 out of 1,216,077). Notably, California was unable to report its large enrollment by schedule during the 2008-2009 year.** Programs that report “school day” are included in “full-day” in these figures, resulting in some rounding errors.

More than half of the children enrolled in state-funded pre-K during the 2010-2011 school year can be found in part-day classrooms, up two points from the both of the previous program years. While this may sound like a small difference, in reality it means a difference of tens of thousands of children.

And, looking at media reports for the current school year, we fear that some states and school districts may be tilting the scale further toward increased numbers of children enrolled in part-day, rather than full-day, programs. For instance, Texas school districts in the past funded full-day pre-K classes by supplementing the state-funded part-day program, but the grants many districts used to do so were removed from the state’s 2012-2013 budget. Some districts are working to maintain full-day programs but will require parents to pay tuition as a result.

We are still collecting data on the 2011-2012 school year for The State of Preschool 2012, and we’ve worked to modify our questions regarding operating schedules to get even more precise data. Stay tuned for more when that report is published this spring. In addition, look out for the findings to be released from our colleagues on a study of half-day vs. full-day programs in Chicago preschools.

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

2 Comments | Access, Preschool, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Hats Off to the “B-Team” of Early Education

June 4, 2012

Early education has advanced tremendously over the past decade in terms of research, policy, and practice. The State of Preschool 2011: State Preschool Yearbook highlighted progress and setbacks in access, quality and resources across states during the decade, and media chronicle its condition on a daily basis in headlines. Enrollment in state pre-K programs has doubled to outpace the rate of expansion in Head Start and child care. Resources for pre-K have expanded too, though their ebb and flow creates unpredictable scenarios for states attempting to engage in long-term planning. And overall quality standards for pre-K have improved across most states as policies reflect emerging research on factors contributing to enhanced early learning outcomes.

As the saying goes, “Success has many parents; failure is an orphan.” In the case of early education, many “parents” can take credit for this progress in early education – educators, advocates, policymakers, parents, and researchers. There’s an often over-looked group that has been instrumental throughout much of this change, however, a group sometimes referred to as the “B-team.”

The B-team is comprised of state administrators, often in state Departments of Education or related departments, who day-in and day-out tackle the thorny issues of informing and implementing policy, translating research into practice, and being held accountable to a myriad of constituent-bosses for producing results effectively and efficiently.

In many states, the B-team consists of only one or two people charged with attending to compliance issues, data management and analysis, professional development, public relations, intra- and inter-departmental collaboration, and policy development. Their capes are well-disguised though the bags under their eyes are not.

One organization has been instrumental for many “unaligned” department of education B-teamers to stay on the leading edge of early education administration. The National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS-SDE) has provided a forum for state leaders to gather, share lessons, formulate strategies, and advance quality early education across the states. As Head Start, child care, and early childhood special education provide federal support to convene state administrators regularly as learning communities, many state-level early education B-teamers would remain isolated without NAECS-SDE providing the opportunity to connect. NAECS-SDE also provided guidance and practitioner-leadership to the field of early education, producing prescient position statements such as The Role of State Departments of Education in Early Childhood Program Services Coordination that appeared as early as 1978.

How did they earn the name B-team? As someone told me during the appointment of yet another state Education Commissioner in a relatively brief time span, the B-team consists of those workers who will be there when elected or appointed officials come and they will be there when they go. The B-team provides the necessary continuity and consistency for programs to operate and improve, remaining abreast of developments in the field and establishing working relationships across the spectrum to get things done.

Our recent report shows that state-funded pre-K has changed considerably in the last decade. Despite many positive trends, the one major negative has been the failure of funding to keep up with enrollment, especially during the recession. No aspect of the preschool system has been hurt more than state administrator capacity to support the provision of quality programs. As states recover from the recession, we hope this situation will be reversed to rebuild the capacity of state specialists to help ensure young learners get the start they need. Hats off to the B-team and NAECS-SDE. Your work has contributed greatly to the rise of pre-K across the country. We’re glad you’re still around!

- Jim Squires, Senior Research Fellow, NIEER

Jim served previously as the Early Childhood Education Program Specialist for the Vermont Department of Education and is a past president of NAECS-SDE.

1 Comment | Early Education, Preschool, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

New England’s Pre-K Patchwork

May 29, 2012

A common pastime in colonial America was the quilting bee when neighbors gathered with scraps of fabric, needles and thread to create something functional. The product of these gatherings, in combination with lengthy discussion about local affairs and gossip, was a uniquely designed quilt that provided comfort to those who would huddle underneath on chilly nights.

While quilting bees may have fallen out of favor, their spirit lives on in the early educations systems of the six New England states. Yesteryear’s seamstresses today might be called “stakeholders” or “policymakers,” but all have the common task of utilizing a hodge-podge of available resources to fashion a distinct, tangible product based on an envisioned concept.

We need look no further than The State of Preschool 2011: State Preschool Yearbook to see the common and distinct features of pre-K programs across the six states. In many ways, New England is a microcosm of the nation’s pre-K system.

Five New England states currently support state-funded pre-K programs. New Hampshire is the sole outlier, joining 10 other states across the country without state-funded pre-K. Rhode Island is the most recent entrant, starting a high-quality pilot program in 2009-2010. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont each support pre-K, some for three decades, with Vermont and Massachusetts operating multiple programs simultaneously.

Two states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have promised to undertake ambitious early education system reform initiatives bolstered by their winning coveted Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grants in 2011. Each New England state submitted an application with the exception of New Hampshire.

Access for children varies widely across New England. Vermont is ranked first nationally for percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled, while Rhode Island’s pilot program ranks 39^th in enrollment of 4-year-olds. Having no program, New Hampshire doesn’t make the chart while Maine (19^th), Massachusetts (26^th) and Connecticut (24^th) huddle around the middle of the pack. Over the past decade, Vermont’s movement toward voluntary universal access has taken root while enrollment efforts in Connecticut and Massachusetts slid backwards.

When it comes to quality pre-K, New England looks like the rest of the nation. Only newcomer Rhode Island joins the select five states meeting all 10 research-based quality standards benchmarks. Vermont continues to meet only four quality standards while each of the other three New England state pre-K programs improved over the decade to now meet six. Only Maine and Rhode Island require all lead teachers to possess at least a BA, though nearly 100 percent of Vermont teachers have a BA or higher. For the sake of comparison, 27 states nationwide meet more than six benchmarks.

The same disparate scenario holds true for resources. As 2010-2011 figures below shows, Connecticut is second in the nation in dedicating state and total resources for pre-K, trailing only New Jersey. Rhode Island isn’t far behind. Massachusetts remains in the middle of the national pack, down sharply from 8^th a decade before. Maine dramatically improves its near-bottom national standing for state support when total resources are considered. Providing only $3,272 per child, Vermont finds itself at the bottom of New England resource rankings and among the nation’s lowest funded programs. That’s still $3,272 more than New Hampshire offers, though, and is temporarily low due as the funding formula lags enrollment growth because it is based on a multi-year average.

Vermont is the only New England pre-K state to rely exclusively on state funding (though some districts choose to supplement with Title I or in-kind support), while the others combine state funding with federal and/or local resources. Half of the New England states – Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island – spend enough money per child to meet all 10 of NIEER’s quality standards benchmarks.

It is a shame that the best practices of each state could not be combined in a quilt that would provide every New England child with access to a very high-quality pre-K program. Depending on where a 4-year-old lives in New England, he or she could travel 100 miles and have a very different opportunity to grow and learn.

If the quilting bee participants of colonial times were to look at early education today in these states, they might be proud that their successors continue to honor the tradition of rugged individualism and making do with whatever resources can be mustered. One thing is for certain about this approach, though: many children and families are likely to be disappointed that they are still left out in the cold.

- Jim Squires, Senior Research Fellow, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Access, Economics, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER