Final Critique

Pit) ®

Should the Federal Government Early Learning

"The Federal

Government supports

a variety of programs

to support early

education . . .

however, those

investments fall

well short of what

is needed."

Honorable Tom Harkin United States Senator, Iowa, Democrat

Senator Harkin was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984. He was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives ß-om 1974 to 1984. He chairs the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and also sits on the following committees: Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Appropriations, where he chairs the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies; and Small Business and Entrepreneur ship. The following is from the February 6, 2014, hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on "Supporting Children and Families through High-quality Early Education. "

There truly is nothing more important than what we as a society do to support our young- est children, and I look forward to a robust discussion on that topic today. I would also like to say, at the outset, that I do not believe there is disagreement about ensuring that children who benefit from Federal programs should be in high-quality settings that nurture their healthy development and growth. In fact, I know that Senator [Lamar] Alexander [TN-R] has a great deal of knowledge and passion on these issues because he so ably led the Subcommittee on Children and Families for many years alongside [former] Senator [Christopher] Dodd [CT-D].

Today's hearing will serve as the first in a series focusing on early learning. Next, I plan to hold a field hearing in Des Moines to explore how early learning programs have benefited the people of Iowa, and what issues Congress should give priority to as we consider new early learning legislation.

In the second week of April, this committee will again convene to discuss early learning, with a particular focus on strengthening the Strong Start for America's Children Act — legislation that is currently supported by more than a quarter of the Senate. We will hold a mark-up of that legislation before the Memorial Day recess.

In the coming months, the committee will devote a great deal of time and attention to the subject of early learning. I strongly encourage the members of this Committee to hold roundtables and have discussions on early learning in their local communities be- cause there is no issue of greater importance than ensuring that our youngest children are provided the support that they need to live healthy, happy, and productive lives. I believe access to high-quality early education increases the likelihood that children will have those positive outcomes — a view that, I'm sure, is shared by my fellow committee members and the panelists who are with us today. I note that 63 percent of respondents to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, released two weeks ago, placed an absolute priority on ensuring access to preschool this year.

The Federal Covernment supports a variety of programs to support early education and care, such as the Child Care Subsidy program and Head Start; however, those in- vestments fall well short of what is needed. According to the most recent data from the Continued on page 16

14 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Increase its Investment in Programs?

Pro ÔCon

Honorable Lámar Alexander United States Senator, Tennessee, Republican

Senator Alexander was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002. He served as Tennessee Gover- nor fi-om 1978 to 1986. He is the ranking minority member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and also serves on the Appropriations Committee and the Rules and Administration Committee. The fiollowing isfiom a February 6, 2014, hearing befiore the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on "Supporting Children and Families through High-quality Early Education. "

I was an early learner when it comes to the value of early childhood education. For 35 years, my mother operated a preschool program in a converted garage in our backyard in Maryville, Tennessee. She had nowhere else to put me when I was a child, so I must be the only United States senator who spent five years in kindergarten.

In rhe 1960s, she persuaded my father, a former school principal who was on the school board, to build kindergarten classrooms in new schools before the State kinder- garten program began.

In the early 1970s, Tennessee's governor announced the beginning of a statewide kindergarten program at my mother's preschool.

In 1987, with Bob Keeshan, better known as Captain Kangaroo, my wife and I founded a company that merged with another company and became the largest pro- vider of worksite day care in the country.

So, for me, the question is not whether but how best to make early childhood edu- cation available to the largest possible number of children in order to give them more of an equal opportunity.

In doing this, I have four suggestions. First, preschool education does not produce miracles. As Mark Lipsey, a psycholo-

gist at Vanderbilt University, said, "Advocates sometimes make preschool sound like you pur rhem in the pre-K washing machines and scrub them clean. And they come our after that. But effects of poverty and disadvantaged environments don't work that way. It's a cumulative process, and it's going to take cumulative efforts to make a big differ- ence. There's potential here, but we also have to be realistic.

Second, good parenting is the most important factor, and good preschool education doesn't always have to be expensive. For example, one of the most effective programs in Tennessee was my wife's "Healthy Children" initiative, which matched expectant moth- ers with pediatricians' giving every new child a medical home. Helping those mothers become better parents provided those babies with a real head start.

Third, Washington can help, but a national effort to expand effective early edu- cation will be almost all State and local effort and money. Remember rhat approxi- mately 90 percent of elementary and secondary education is paid for by State and local governments.

Continued on page 17

". . . Washington

can help, but a

national effort to

expand effective

early education will

be almost all State

and local effort

and money."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Pro

", . . states reduced

their preschool

investments by more

than half a billion

dollars between

2011 and 2012."

Harkitiy continued from page 14

Department of Health and Human Services, only one in six children eligible for child care assistance received such assistance. Of the preschool-aged children eligible for Head Start, fewer than half are served. Among infants and toddlers eligible for Early Head Start, less than 5 percent are served.

State governments have done much in recent years to expand preschool offerings to young children. However, according to the National Institute for Early Education Re- search, States reduced their preschool investments by more than half a billion dollars between 2011 and 2012.

All of this works against a growing awareness that investing in early education for children in their earliest years can yield lifelong benefits. Widely cited research by Pro- fessor James Heckman, a Nobel laureate, suggests that investment in early education can help reduce the need for special education in the elementary and secondary school years, lower crime rates, increase the likelihood of healthier lifestyles, and prepare chil- dren to be ready for kindergarten once they enter the schoolhouse door.

Aside from those long-term benefits, there is an immediate economic benefit in sup- porting high-quality, public, early education because it gives parents the ability to be productive members of the workforce while having the peace of mind that their child is being cared for in settings that encourage their healthy development and growth. Op- ponents of increased investment in early learning argue that the Federal Government already spends more than $14 billion on early learning, and supports dozens of duplica- tive and redundant programs.

However, what this criticism fails to recognize is that many of those supposedly re- dundant programs are not designed to provide full-day early education and care to chil- dren. For example, IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] Part C provides critical services to infants and toddlers with disabilities or developmental delays, but it cannot accurately be described as a preschool program. IDEA Part C provides targeted interventions based on the needs of the child, and the frequency and intensity of those Interventions rightfully vary from child to child.

Opponents also focus their criticisms on Head Start. Detractors of the Head Start program often point to a longitudinal study released by the Department of Health and Human Services showing that the academic achievement of children who ben- efited from Head Start eventually converges with the achievement of children who did not attend Head Start. This is often described as "fade-out." However, these critics fail to point out that the study was conducted prior to the 2007 reauthorization of Head Start, which made a number of improvements to strengthen the quality of the pro- gram, including a heightened emphasis on the education and training of Head Start teachers.

Furthermore, while the reason for "fade-out" has not been clearly identified by re- search, there are several possibilities. For instance, children from Head Start enter el- ementary schools with much higher percentages of children living in poverty than is the case with schools nationwide. We know that schools that have high concentrations of poverty tend to be under-resourced and are often staffed by personnel with lower quali- fications than those who work in low-poverty schools. Further, longitudinal research suggests that, despite evidence of convergence, children who attended Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college; they are less likely to expe- rience child mortality; and they are less likely to be out of a job or out of school as an adult. Continued on page 18

16 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Alexander, continuedß-om page 15

Fourth, the best next step for Washington to take would be to spend more effec- tively the Federal dollars already being spent on early education.

A 2012 GAO [Government Accountability Office] report found 45 Federal programs providing some early learning and child care. Twelve of these 45 programs spend about $15 billion solely on early learning and child care for children under the age of five:

• $8.6 billion on Head Start

• $5.3 billion on Child Care Development Block Grant and Fund

• $250 million on Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Fund

• $790 million in grants for two programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- cation Act

In addition, through the Federal tax code, we spend roughly $3 billion a year on early child care and education credits and exclusions for employer-provided care. In addition to those 18 billion Federal dollars. States spend about $5 billion on preschool annually, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research. Add to that local and private spending.

According to GAO, these numerous initiatives have created a "fragmentation of ef- forts, some overlap of goals or activities, and potential confusion among families and other program users." So, let me suggest one way I believe we could greatly expand effective access to preschool education and one way we should not.

We should fully implement the 200 Head Start Centers of Excellence program Con- gress authorized in 2007, encouraging and putting the spotlight on those cities and com- munities doing the best job of coordinating the 18 billion Federal dollars already being spent with the billions of other dollars being spent by State, local, and private entities.

I first proposed creating Head Start Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood in 2003, and the idea was eventually included in the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act.

In 2009, Congress appropriated $2 million to fund 10 of these centers for a period of up to five years, ending this year. One of those is represented here today. Full funding would cost another $90 milhon.

At the end of five years, when it is time for the next reauthorization of Head Start, we can take what we have learned and decide how best to continue the expansion.

Here is what we should not do: Fall back into the familiar Washington pattern of noble intentions, a grand promise, lots of Federal mandates, and sending the bill to the States with disappointing results. That describes the President's proposal for "preschool for all." To former governors like me, it sounds like the Medicaid program of Federal promises and mandates that have become a costly burden for States.

Here there is another grand promise: $75 billion over 10 years to expand preschool for four year-olds who live at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty definition.

Then many expensive Washington requirements for States to follow concerning: teacher qualifications; class size and child-to-instructor ratios; teacher salaries; and early- learning standards. A nearly identical plan has been introduced here in the Senate.

Just like Medicaid, both proposals send huge bills for all this to the States. States would only pay only about 10 percent of the cost in the first year. But that would rise

Continued on page 19

ôCon

"Here is what we

should not do: Fall

back into the familiar

Washington pattern

of noble intentions,

a grand promise,

lots of Federal

mandates . . ."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 17

Pro

"More than half

of dual- income

households have

to send their

child to some

form of child

care . . ."

Harkin, contintiedfrom page 16

Tbe trutb is tbat tbe preponderance of researcb points to tbe powerful benefits of early learning. That's wby 40 States and tbe District of Columbia bave acted on tbeir own to expand access to preschool for young kids.

Let me also note that tbe needs of working families today are different tban tbey once were. More tban balf of dual-income housebolds have to send tbeir cbild to some form of cbild care arrangement, and families are spending band-over-fist for private care. Families at tbe poverty line are spending as mucb as 30 percent of tbeir income on care for tbeir cbildren, and tbat's not even considering wbetber tbe care is of bigb quality. I've proposed legislation to accelerate the work currently being done in States to support bigb-quality pre-K and to dramatically increase access to high-quality care for infants and toddlers.

As I mentioned earlier, tbis legislation enjoys broad Democratic support in the Sen- ate. And I am confident tbat, over the next few montbs, we can continue to bave con- structive conversations in tbis committee so tbat we can find bipartisan agreement on bow best to move forward on early learning. It is not uncommon for tbis committee to find common ground on issues tbat affect young cbildren — as evidenced by tbe recent committee passage of a comprebensive reauthorization for tbe Cbild Care and Develop- ment Block Crant — wbicb will see action in tbe full Senate in tbe next few weeks. My bope is tbat over tbe coming montbs we can acbieve tbe same kind of bipartisan agree- ment on early learning tbat made it possible for Congress to provide significant invest- ments for Head Start, cbild care, and preschool in tbe omnibus 2014 appropriations bill tbat we passed last montb.

I do not believe tbat I, or tbe majority party in tbe Senate, have a monopoly on good intentions or good ideas. So, in tbe montbs leading up to tbe mark-up of my bill, I look forward to exploring a wbole range of alternative approacbes to meeting tbe same goal of providing bigh-quality early education to young children.

Honorable George Miller United States Representative, California, Democrat

Representative Miller, of the Eleventh District of California, was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974. He served as a legislative aide to the California Senate Majority Leader from 1969 to 1974 and as a practicing attorney from 1972 to 1974. He is the Rank- ing Minority Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The following is from Representative Miller's closing statement at the February 5, 2014, hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on "The Foundation for Success: Discussing Early Childhood Education and Care in America. "

Thank you to all tbe witnesses for tbis morning. I think your testimony was very im- portant because what you're doing in your State is exactly what we would like to see tbe States do — to take the responsibility, knit tbe programs togetber, bave a con- tinuum of care and learning for tbese cbildren, recognizing tbe sociological differences and economic differences. But the goal is tbe same for all of the cbildren — in Rhode Island or California. Continued on page 20

18 Congressiona1 Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Alexander, continued from page 17

over 10 years to 50 percent in one proposal and 75 percent of the total cost in the other proposal. This is the Medicaid model that is burdening States today, soaking up dollars that States would otherwise spend on education, including preschool education.

When I was governor of Tennessee in the 1980s, Medicaid was 8 percent of our State budget. Today, it is nearly 30 percent.

So, my recommendation for the best next step toward the goal of giving access to preschool education for the largest number of children is to fully implement the 200 Head Start Centers of Excellence program, enabling States to pool existing funds, try different approaches, and figure out what works for their populations and children, rather than force upon States from Washington another set of grand promises, expensive man- dates, and disappointing results.

ÔCon

Honorable John Kline United States Representative, Minnesota, Republican

Representative Kline, of the Second District of Minnesota, was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps fiom 1969 to 1994. He chairs the Committee on Education and the Workforce and sits on the Armed Services Committee. The following is fiom Representative Miller's closing statement at the Eebruary 5, 2014, hear- ing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on "The Foundation for Success: Discussing Early Childhood Education and Care in America. "

The debate on early childhood education has taken center stage in recent months. In his State of the Union address last week. President Obama called early education "one of the best investments we can make in a child's life."

He's right. Early childhood education and development programs can have a lasting influence on a child, laying the foundation for future success and achievement in school, the workplace, and life.

Since the 1960s, the Federal Government has played an active role in helping chil- dren — especially those in low-income families — gain access to critical early care and development services. The first program, established under the Social Security Act of 1962, helped disadvantaged families afford child care. Since then, dozens of additional Federal programs have been established to provide a range of development services for children from birth through age five.

According to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office [GAO], there are now 45 Federal programs linked to early childhood education and care operated by several different Federal agencies. These programs are in addition to dozens of programs operated at the State level.

The GAO report also found taxpayers dedicate more than $13 billion annually to support education or related services for children under the age of five — a hefty price tag that is getting even bigger thanks to new funding included in the Fiscal Year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill. Despite this considerable investment, serious questions remain as to whether these Federal programs are producing the positive results our kids deserve.

Continued on page 21

". . . there are now

45 Federal programs

linked to early

childhood education

and care operated

by several different

Federal agencies."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 19

Pro

"I think we're on a

track here that's

supported by both

parties, but one party

just can't quite step

up to provide the

resources to do it."

Miller, continued from page 18

I happen to have much more confidence in my governor and others who are try- ing to knit this together, from kindergarten to transitional kindergarten to early learn- ing and all of those opportunities. And why are we doing it? Because we know it makes a difference. Every family that takes the time to read to their children, to describe colors to their children, even families where they don't know English or they can't read to their children — if they show that the action is important, the children are different.

And the largest pay raise that most middle-income families will get is the day their child leaves child care and goes to the public schools. It's a big payday. But it's impor- tant they make the sacrifice. Other families don't have the wherewithal to do that, so we're trying to provide that. But I almost think that because President Obama suggests this program, we're developing a class of child care deniers, early learning deniers.

The evidence is compelling. It's validated by families who will do anything to get their child into the best early learning atmosphere in all of Manhattan. They will cheat, they will lie, they will do whatever it takes. Yet we're going to have a denial here. I don't know quite why we're denying it. When we shut down the Federal Government, they immediately ran to the floor and said open up the Head Start centers. We're hearing from Head Start parents. It's important that they don't miss a lot of days of Head Start for these children.

Title I [of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) [providing assis- tance to localities with high percentages of disadvantaged children] sequestration — cut it across the board. They immediately restored it, first chance they had, with the appro- priations, and they put in new money for Head Start and for the expansion programs. They want States to control but they don't want the States to have the resources to do it. It's a little schizophrenic here.

They understand — America has come to understand, families have come to un- derstand — the importance. And the brain science is compelling. We're all aware of the very toxic trauma the children can live in, and we know the impact. We also know the impact of the opposite of that — an enriched environment, a sustained environ- ment — even in low-income families, even in the poorest families, even in homeless families — that can be transmitted. And we have to meet these children and these families in these various settings.

I remember the struggle we went through when Ed Meese [attorney general under President Ronald Reagan] decided they were homeless because they wanted to be, and then we had to find out what school they could go to, what their address was, and all of that. But we try to provide services because we don't want to lose those children. And the fact is, we can keep denying, you can say the Perry study [a long-term study of the effects of high-quality early care and education] is 50 years old; it's been updated all the time, all these generations, and it's been supplemented by others and the evidence of parents, the evidence of schoolteachers.

And the fact is, if you take kids out of a really good early learning situation and you dump them, as you do in my congressional district, in some of the worst-performing schools in the State — yeah, they're going to start losing ground. So you you've got to build that tradition, and we're in the effort of trying to do that with the rewrite of the ESEA, and we're giving that to the governors with more authority.

I think we're on a track here that's supported by both parties, but one party just can't quite step up to provide the resources to do it. And yet every day, the validity of the impact and importance to students is good. And here we're sitting here with a public Continued on page 22

20 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Kliney continuedjrom page 19

The Head Start program, for example, has been the subject of concern since the re- lease of the 2010 Head Start Impact Study and the 2012 Third Grade FoUow-Up to the Head Start Impact Study. Head Start receives approximately $8 billion dollars a year — more than half of the total investment in early care and development. Yet the studies found little difference between the achievement levels of children who had participated in the program and those who had not.

During a visit to the Harlem Children's Zone last summer, I saw first-hand that amazing things can happen in Head Start classrooms. But these troubling studies high- light the need to assess the challenges facing Head Start and consider smart reforms to strengthen the program. In fact, many Federal early care and education programs are in need of serious review. This should be our first priority, not rubber-stamping a forty- sixth Federal program.

As we examine the current Federal early childhood education and care system this morning, my Republican colleagues and I believe we should discuss opportunities to streamline the mountain of existing Federal programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and improve transparency to make it easier for providers and parents to understand their options. And above all, we must work together to ensure these programs are serving dis- advantaged families first, consistent with the original intent of the Federal investment in early childhood programs.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee recently took steps toward these fundamental goals with legislation to reauthorize the Child Care and De- velopment Block Grant [CCDBG]. As you know, CCDBG provides funds to States to help low-income families access quality child care, and has been due for reauthorization for over a decade. The Senate bill, approved by the committee late last year, includes several commonsense provisions that will help empower parents and enhance coordina- tion between CCDBG and other Federal early care and development programs.

. . . many

Federal early care

and education

programs are in

need of serious

review. This

should be our

first priority . . ."

Brookings Institution, Brown Center on Education Policy Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, Director

Founded in 1916, the nonpartisan Brookings Institution conducts research and education in the social sciences, primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, governance, foreign policy, and global economy and development. The Brown Genter on Fducation Policy examines the chal- lenges facing the American education system and helps identify practical policy solutions. Russ Whitehurst, the former Director of the Institute of Fducation Sciences within the U.S. Depart- ment of Fducation, is an expert on reading, teacher quality, student assessment, learning and instruction, education technology, and preschool programs. The following is from a February 5, 2014, hearing before the House Gommittee on Fducation and the Workforce on "The Foun- dation for Success: Discussing Farly Ghildhood Education and Gare in America. "

The Federal Government has for nearly 100 years recognized a responsibility for sup- porting the education of the disadvantaged, with that role strengthened and clarified in the last 50 years. Children learn in, and are affected by, child care settings as surely as

Continued on page 23

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 21

ÔCon

". . . what's that last

kernel of evidence

that going to make you

understand that

this is important? The

government should

be doing it."

Miller, continued from page 20

and a private effort — in many cases a public-private partnership in a number of States, and that's true in my State, in California.

And so what's that last kernel of evidence that is going to make you understand that this is important? The government should be doing it. You can keep fooling around with there's duplication or what have you. Yes, we have programs for homeless kids and pro- grams for kids with disabilities and programs for people with kids with autism and for special populations, and we sometimes have to feed kids in the summer playground as opposed to the school, so we have a summer recreational feeding program, and we have an early morning program, we have an afternoon program because that attracts mentors to work with the kids after school.

Yes, these are special settings where people find themselves, where the children can take advantage of the best this country has to offer with respect to its educational sys- tems and its child development systems. But I guess the debate will continue to rage. It's a tragedy, because every moment we fail to empower you with the resources in Rhode Island or California or anywhere else to form these partnerships, to develop this data — which is so critical in this day and age in terms of real-time information about children — we will just postpone the future for these children, day in and day out.

Delaware Office of Early Learning Harriett Dichter, Executive Director

The Delaware Office of Early Learning seeks to build a system for early learning and child development services that will serve children with high needs, including those who are low- income, children with disabilities, and dual language learners. Harriett Dichter led the na- tional policy team for the Ounce of Prevention Fund and established the Washington, D. C, office for its Federal policy and advocacy affiiliate, the First Five Years Fund. She was previously Pennsylvania's founding Deputy Secretary, Offitce of Child Development and Farly Learning. The following is from the February 5, 2014, hearing before the House Committee on Educa- tion and the Workforce on "The Foundation for Success: Discussing Early Childhood Educa- tion and Care in America. "

Recently, Congress recognized the economic and educational payoff of early education and care and restored resources and helped expand the Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head Start and Early Head Start, as well as established another oppor- tunity for States to expand preschool. I thank you for these advances, as well as for dedi- cating a hearing to early childhood development as you plan for the next phase of Federal leadership and investment.

The importance of the first years of life is critical — the experiences children have during this unique time set the stage for all aspects of development and learning. Be- cause of the developmental significance of this time, the quality of early childhood pro- grams for both children and famihes is essential to good outcomes.

The Delaware Office of Early Learning was created by Governor [Jack] Markell [D] to assure a strong, integrated. State-community effort for young children and their families, and to create an early learning system. Our priorities include a focus on four essential Continued on page 24

11 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Brookings, contintied from page 21

they learn in, and are affected by, public scbools. Many young cbildren wbo are vulner- able and at risk of later difficulties in scbool and life need tbe boost that they can derive from higb-quality care outside tbe home. Their parents need safe and supportive cbild care for tbeir cbildren in order to find and bold work, and in order to increase tbeir own skills and employability. Wben tbe Nation does not attend to tbese needs, society as a wbole suffers tbe consequences.

The question for me is not whether the Federal Covernment should support tbe learn- ing and care of young cbildren from economically disadvantaged homes and otberwise vulnerable status, but bow it should do so. Tbe current system, a misbmash of 45 sepa- rate, incoherent, and largely ineffective programs, fails to serve tbe broader public and certainly is less tban optimal for tbe children and families to wbicb it is directed.

Things We Know (or Should Know)

The Federal Covernment spends disproportionately on early cbildbood programs rela- tive to its expenditures at otber levels of learning. According to tbe CAO, there are 12 Federal programs tbat are explicitly focused on early learning and cbild care for cbildren under five years of age, accounting for annual Federal expenditures of around $14 bil- lion. Head Start and tbe Cbild Care Development Block Crant program are tbe largest. My colleague at Brookings, Ron Haskins, who for many years was a staff member of tbe Committee on Ways and Means, uses a broader definition of Federal early childhood programs tban tbe CAO and pegs annual Federal expenditure at over $22 billion.

By way of comparison, tbe Federal Covernment's entire expenditure on tbe educa- tion of the disadvantaged in grades K-12 under Tide I of tbe Elementary and Secondary Education Act, wbicb serves cbildren from ages five through 18, is roughly $15 billion.

My point is tbis: I'm not sure bow mucb the U.S. taxpayer ougbt to be spending on early learning and child care, but relative to otber Federal expenditures on education, we're spending a healthy amount.

My back-of-the envelope calculation, using $20 billion as a rough-and-ready esti- mate of Federal expenditure and tbe National Center for Cbildren in Poverty estimates of cbildren living in poverty, is tbat we are spending $5,000 a year in Federal dollars for early cbildhood programs for every cbild in poverty in tbe United States under five years of age. And since tbe uptake of cbild care services is not universal and skews beavily to- wards older prescboolers, the expenditure level per cbild actually served is mucb bigber.

If we take present uptake rates into account, and again assume $20 billion in annual Federal expenditure, we are spending rougbly $10,000 per cbild per year on early learning and cbild care for every cbild in poverty below scbool age in America. This doesn't take into account State spending, wbicb, according to the same Haskins analysis, adds another $8 billion or so in annual expenditure. To this, the Obama Administration proposes add- ing another $15 billion a year in Federal and State expenditures for Preschool for All.

I don't think the problems we bave witb early childhood programs in tbis country are about underfunding, at least not at tbe Federal level.

We are not getting our money's worth from present Federal expenditures on early childhood services. If tbe point of Federal expenditures is that vulnerable children will learn transformative skills and dispositions from early center-based care that will elimi- nate tbe gaps in scbool readiness between tbem and more advantaged children, and enable tbem to get more out of every additional investment in their education, we are almost

Continued on page 25

"We are not getting

our money's worth

from present Federal

expenditures on early

childhood services."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 23

Pro

"To meet children's

and family needs, we

need a continuum of

quality services. One

size does not fit all."

Delaware, continued from page 22

areas: a healthy start for our young children; quality early learning; linkages and part- nerships between learning, K-12, and higher education; and sustaining a thriving early childhood system.

Our office works to unify and integrate the early learning programs of all of Dela- ware — we work with school and community-based programs for children from birth through full-day kindergarten. We count over 100 partners, which is a lot for our small State, and those partners include a big array — school districts superintendents, princi- pals, and teachers; child care and Head Start programs; foundations, universities, and business leaders; health and behavioral health providers; museums and libraries; and our families.

To quote Fred Rogers, "When I was very young, most of my childhood heroes wore capes, new through the air, or picked up buildings with one arm. They were spectacular and got a lot of attention. But as I grew, my heroes changed, so that now I can honestly say that anyone who does anything to help a child is a hero to me." We have a lot of heroes.

Delaware's young children and their families are fortunate to be supported by the commitment of Governor Markell and our State legislators. Delaware's State invest- ment in early learning increased by one-third in the 2011 legislative session and has been further improved through our participation in the Federal Early Learning Chal- lenge. Our State effort included new resources to add to the payments (rates) for our child care providers and to fund a statewide framework for early learning, known as Delaware Stars, that allows us to work with all of the programs to focus on quality improvement.

Improving the national track record for investments and outcomes for young chil- dren is essential. I have two points:

1. There is no one silver bullet, not just one investment or program that works. What matters, regardless the program, is quality. Quality is what is needed to produce positive outcomes. This means a common framework of high standards, account- ability, continuous improvement, and sufficient investment in the workforce and the programs to make a difference.

2. The Federal Government has not been sufficiently proactive in this area, leaving too much to the States to do, notably on funding and financing.

To meet children's and family needs, we need a continuum of quality services. One size does not fit all. We can and should expect to make investments in pro- grams such as child care, pre-kindergarten and Head Start, and we should expect to invest in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in each and every year until they enter school.

To meet the needs of our diverse families, we must provide a range of options (for example, full-time versus part-time education and care, night and weekend hour care and education, speech and language development, special needs care). We must build confidence in the responsiveness and quality of early education services and ensure that public investments are made efficiently and are well-leveraged.

In Delaware, we take advantage of the existing array of early childhood programs and providers to create our system and to respond to the diverse needs of young children Continued on page 26

24 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

Brookings, continued from page 23

surely not getting our money's worth from current programs, much less the rich returns on investment that are touted by advocates for universal pre-K.

The largest single Federal investment in the early education of disadvantaged chil- dren. Head Start, produces no lasting educational gains for participants. It doesn't even produce gains that last until the end of kindergarten. We know this from the Head Start Impact Study, a recent Federal evaluation involving a nationally representative sample of oversubscribed Head Start centers.

Children winning and losing lotteries for admission to these centers have been fol- lowed through third grade. In the words of the authors of the most recent report, "By the end of third grade there were very few impacts ... in any of the four domains of cog- nitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children."

Those are the results of the evaluation of Head Start that Congress authorized and funded — children who have the opportunity to attend Head Start do no better in school than equivalent children who do not have that opportunity. The budget for Head Start was increased to $8.6 billion under the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act, $612 mil- lion more than the 2013 enacted level.

Expenditures for child care under the Child Care Development Block Grant Pro- gram and the Child Care Development Fund may actually do harm to some children because various aspects of how the CCDBG programs are administered at the State level lead families to place their children in low-quality facilities that provide a less secure and stimulating environment than the children could receive at home.

Examples of design flaws include low reimbursement rates, co-pays for families based on a percentage of tuition that encourage shopping for the cheapest provider, brief and uncertain periods of eligibility for parents that lead to instabihty in children's placements, and pervasive lack of information to families to support choice of high quahty providers.

Other recent Federal programs intended to enhance early learning are no more eflective than Head Start. The Even Start program, a Head Start-like program that was designed to improve the literacy and work skills of parents along with the development of their preschoolers was finally deflinded a few years ago after three national evaluations found no impact of pro- gram participation on either children or parents.

The Early Reading First program is no longer with us. Its national evaluation found only a small impact on one outcome at the end of the pre-K year. The Federal Preschool Curricu- lum Evaluation Project examined the impact of 14 pre-K curricula in separate randomized trials. Only one had impacts in the pre-K year that lasted through the end of kindergarten. Ten had no eflects at either the end of pre-K or kindergarten on any of 12 student outcomes that were measured.

State Programs May Be No More Effective than Head Start. Do we find more evidence of program success when we look to State pre-K programs, the kind of programs the Obama Administration wishes to expand dramatically under Preschool for All? Not really

The research on these programs that is touted by advocates of universal pre-K has serious flaws. Important among them is that the research design that has been used in studies in Tulsa, New Jersey, and Boston is only capable of detecting differences between participants and nonparticipants at the end of the pre-K year. No long-term follow-up is possible. That is because the studies compare children who are just starting pre-K with those who have just finished pre-K, a delayed-treatment research design in which the

Continued on page 27

Pro C

"The largest single

Federal investment in

the early education

of disadvantaged

children. Head Start,

produces no lasting

educational gains

for participants."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 25

Pro

"A quality program

works in partnership

with our families and

helps to develop our

children's skills and

abilities . . ."

Delaware, continued from page 24

and families. We are systematically and voluntarily improving quality through Delaware Stars, which integrates research-based standards and ratings, improvement supports, and financial resources. Delaware Stars is pivotal to our efforts, and it is available to all of our early learning programs on a voluntary basis. It has become an integrated framev̂ ôrk for improving quality across sectors in our State. Our child care. Head Start, and preschool programs all participate in this effort.

Delaware Stars program is reaching children and their families through a large net- work of school district, child care. Head Start, and Early Intervention programs. We are particularly interested in how we are doing in serving our at-risk children, i.e. low-in- come children, children with developmental delays and disabilities, etc. In 2013, seven in 10 of our at-risk children participated in an early childhood program in Delaware Stars. And four in 10 of these children are in a Delaware Stars program with a higher quality rating. These numbers are up from the previous year, and we have more assertive targets for 2014.

At the same time, we set specific goals for working with programs on quality im- provement, and we met those goals in 2013. Over 75 percent of our child care centers, which deliver services to the greatest number of our children, including our low-income children, participate in this program. And one last number, 70 percent of our programs have made enough progress on quality improvement to have a Delaware Stars quality rating, and about one-third are now at our two highest levels. But you can see even with our focus and our progress, we have a long way to go to help our children meet their promise.

A quality program works in partnership with our families and helps to develop our children's skills and abilities not just in key areas of language, literacy, and general cog- nition, but also works with our children to develop their social and emotional needs. This is the fuel for our children's success — their initiative, grit, persistence, resilience — that together with these traditional academic areas help pave the way to productive adulthood. A safe environment is necessary but not sufficient. A safe, learning environ- ment with enough books and materials is necessary but not sufficient. A quality pro- gram provides this in the context of the teachers and families who work together to embed our children's learning in these relationships.

And this becomes even more meaningful for our low-income families who may be juggling two or more jobs, may not have time or the skill to read to their children, and may have difficulty providing their children with enough healthy, nutritious food. Quality early learning is part of our equation for our children's school and life success. That's why we have so many partners and stakeholders in our efforts in Delaware.

We have a family-oriented website, available to them through their smart phones, that focuses on early learning from a family point of view and gets a lot of traffic. Here is what our families have to say about Delaware Stars:

"I would recommend a Delaware Stars program based on the remarkable change we have noticed in our daughter's confidence, her ability to challenge herself more often, and an overall improvement in her social behavior and development skills." — Precious White

"Since my son has been in a Delaware Stars program he continues to develop emo- tionally and has improved skills. It has really helped him grow." — Khaluah Mumin

"My child is learning so much in a Delaware Stars program. It is a wonderful pro- gram." — Jannette Torres Rodriguez Continued on page 28

26 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

BrookingSy continued from page 25

control group also gets pre-K services, just a year later than the treatment group. At that point there is no longer a control group.

But research shows clearly that some pre-K programs, including Head Start, can impact children's learning when measured when children are just finishing the pre-K year. The whole issue is about whether the pre-K experience produces a lasting advan- tage. If a research design can't answer that question, and the Tulsa-type research studies cannot, the findings aren't relevant to decisions that pivot on estimates of the return on investment in early learning and child care.

The strongest piece of research on the impact of State pre-K programs is the recently reported findings from an evaluation of Tennessee's Voluntary Pre-K Program (TN-VPK). TN-VPK is a full-day pre-K program for four year-olds from low-income families. It has quality standards that are high and in keeping with those proposed by the Obama Ad- ministration under Preschool for All, including the requirement of a licensed teacher in each classroom, no more than 10 children per adult, and an approved and appropriate curriculum.

The study was conducted as a randomized trial (the gold standard for evaluating program impacts) using a lottery to select participants from those who were seeking admission to oversubscribed programs. Only about a quarter of children in the control group found their way into other center-based programs, such as Head Start or private pre-K, so the study compares groups that are very different in their levels of access to early childhood education.

Seven of the outcomes favor the control group, with one (quantitative concepts) being statistically significant. In other words, the group that experienced the TN-VPK performed less well on cognitive tasks at the end of first grade than the control -group, even though three-fourths of the children in the control group had no experience as four year olds in a center-based early childhood program of any sort.

Similar results were obtained on measures of social/emotional skills. Further, chil- dren in the pre-K treatment group were receiving special education services at higher rates than children in the control group.

The Results from Perry and Ahecedarian Cannot Be Generalized to Present-day Pro- grams. Who among us has not heard the claim that a dollar invested in quality pre- school returns $7 in public benefits (or perhaps $13 or $18, depending on the source)?

These estimates are derived from two studies of small pre-K programs in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the Abecedarian program) and Ypsilanti, Michigan (the Perry program). The studies were conducted as randomized trials, and the participants and control group members have been followed into adulthood. The findings as reported favor the participants.

But while the research design of these studies was a gold-standard, randomized trial and the results are favorable for participants, these programs were implemented many decades ago, and the nature of what they delivered is very different from current State and Federal programs. In particular, they were small hothouse programs with only about 50 program participants each. They were multi-year intensive interventions involving family components, as well as center-based child care. Costs per participant were mul- tiples of the levels of investment in present-day programs, e.g., $90,000 per child for Abecedarian. They were run by very experienced, committed teams.

The circumstances of the very poor families of the black children who were served by these model programs were very different from those faced by the families that are

Continued on page 29

"The whole issue is

about whether the pre-

K experience produces

a lasting advantage."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 27

Pro

"We must respect

our families and

provide them with

options that effectively

meet the needs for

their children in early

childhood programs."

Delawarey continuedß'om page 26

"I would recommend tbe Delaware Stars program because it's an assurance that tbe program will nurture and engage your cbild as well as develops independence and self- reliance." — Rebecca Kruer

And our providers sbare in tbat positive view: "DE Stars establisbes a standard and defines quality from a child's perspective." "DE Stars is an accountability system — and that is good." "It is fun to watcb a teacber have an 'ab ba' moment wben tbey realize wbat type of

influence tbey have on the cbildren. Tbey all of a sudden see tbemselves as professionals." "Tbis process bas been really belpful with getting front line teachers and assistants

to understand and embrace quality improvement. "All programs in tbe State can be a part of it." "A large number of programs are improving." "We are reacbing out to belp tbe most needy cbildren." We cannot serve our families with young children well using a silver-bullet approach

that focuses on one program, one age group, or one financing stream. Our goal is to serve the diverse needs of families while building confidence from business and otber community leaders. Our framework includes:

• High standards and expectations for program quality, based on researcb and experi- ence, and focused on tbe best outcomes for cbildren, so all children enter scbool ready to learn.

• Assistance to belp teachers and programs acbieve the necessary standards. It is not enougb to set bigh standards; assistance is needed to acbieve and maintain tbem. We must invest in early learning teachers if we are to acbieve our desired outcomes for cbildren and families. For example, in Delaware, one-fifi;b of our early educators have a bigb scbool diploma or less; just over balf have a college degree. Tbeir average pay is just over $23,000, wbicb is the poverty line for a family of four compared to $40,000 for tbe average starting salary for tbose teaching in tbe early elementary grades.

• Accountability for results — ensuring tbat public funds go to effective programs tbat support young cbildren and tbeir families; provide continuous improvement for all programs, including tbose tbat are not doing well; and communicate re- sults to families and the broader community, including why they matter for our entire society.

• Financial supports tbat are linked directly and clearly to tbe standards at sufficient levels to get tbe job done by programs and ensure tbat families bave tbe means to afford bigb-quality options for tbeir cbildren.

While tbe work is multi-faceted and dynamic — as it sbould be — it can be orga- nized and coordinated into a realistic, acbievable strategy through wbich we better serve our cbildren and families and work collaboratively witb tbe programs we count upon to deliver tbe services. (Tbe quality goal is achievable witbin our varying State contexts.) We must respect our families and provide them with options tbat effectively meet tbe needs for tbeir cbildren in early cbildbood programs. We need to make sure we are fo- Continued on page 30

28 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

BrookingSy continued from page 27

presently served by publicly fiinded preschool programs. For example, nearly half of the four-year-olds in Head Start today are Hispanics, whereas there were no Hispanic chil- dren in Abecedarian or Perry. And 40 years ago, other government supports for low-in- come families were at much lower levels, pre-K was not widely available for anyone, much less the poor, and even kindergarten was rare.

Thus, even without the recent findings from Head Start and the TN-VPK, there would be reason to be skeptical that widely deployed State and Federal preschool pro- grams could produce the return of investment that has been attributed to Perry and Abecedarian.

But even the findings from the studies of Perry and Abecedarian are in doubt be- cause the researchers collected data on several hundred outcomes and did not adjust for the likelihood that 5 percent of those outcomes would appear to be statistically signifi- cant simply on the basis of chance.

Only Some Children Need Pre-K Services To Be Ready for School and Life. The nor- mal development of children is well-buffered against a reasonably wide range of environ- mental circumstances.

Most young children do not need to experience organized, center-based care in or- der to develop normally, profit from later educational opportunities, and live happy and productive lives. Somehow we've gotten to the point as a society of thinking that pre-K is essential to normal child development and should be universal. That's bunk.

Some children are reared in circumstances that are pathogenic, i.e., they cause last- ing damage to the child — think of a two-year-old being raised by a drug-addicted, single mother. The child spends most of her waking hours in a crib, is malnourished, and hears no more than a few utterances from her mother in a week, all of which are short directives such as "Be quiet" and "Don't spill your food." Such children will profit enormously from spending their waking hours in good out-of-home care.

Some child care settings are also pathogenic. Think of a child care center that is dirty, serves 20 children per adult, has such high staff turnover that there is no continuity in adult-child relationships (except for the children who are in the care of the adults who yell, abuse, and tend to stick around), and has no curriculum other than custody. Chil- dren in such centers will profit enormously from not being there.

Many children, particularly those from low-income and immigrant backgrounds, are reared in environments that don't adequately support the development of the skills and dispositions the children are expected to have when they start formal schooling.

Think of a child whose parents don't speak English, have low literacy levels in their native language, and don't know that their child would profit from opportunities to learn such as those that are provided by shared picture book reading at home. These children will benefit from effective interventions to help their parents provide them a more supportive environment at home and from good pre-K programs in which they can acquire English, broader knowledge of the world, and simple skills such as alpha- bet knowledge.

In contrast, some children are reared in families in which they have lots of opportu- nities to interact with the loving adults in their lives in ways that support cognitive and socio-emotional growth. Many such children will be better off at home than in a pre- school classroom in which they are one of 18 children and the adults feel overworked and underpaid.

Continued on page 31

ro ÔCon

"Somehow we've

gotten to the point as

a society of thinking

that pre-K is essential

to normal child

development and

should be universal.

That's bunk."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 29

Pro

"Meaningful Federal

partnership and

leadership is needed.

This will help those of

us in the States fill

gaps and strengthen

our efforts . . ."

Delaware, continued from page 28

cused on continuous improvement in what we do and to continue to engage our research partners to help us develop and improve our efforts.

We know good-quality early learning programs work. We know from decades of sci- entific studies that children, and our communities, benefit from them in many ways — better education, higher earnings, lower crime, resulting in greater public savings in the short and long terms. We have a large assortment of rigorous evaluations and studies to confirm this, conducted by well-respected institutions and researchers in our country. The question is not whether we know enough to proceed. We need to consider the many children and their families who would benefit if we do more, particularly those most at risk, and continue to move ourselves forward, always looking for ways to improve our work and our outcomes.

My second point is the importance of shared, responsible, and sufficient pubhc in- vestment in these programs. The funding streams we have, the Child Care and Develop- ment Block Grant and Head Start, are certainly insufficient. We have children at risk in every county, city, and State in the United States. New funding is needed to help close the staggering gap between those children, particularly those at-risk of school failure, who are in our quality early learning programs and those who are not. We need to assure a sustained public funding base for early education, just as we work to assure a public- fianding commitment to K-12 education.

First, we should substantially increase investment in the established Federal programs and funding streams, and again, I thank Congress for the work to support Head Start and Child Care in the recent budget and spending agreement. Second, we should com- mit to new Federal funding, as suggested by the Strong Start legislation. States across the country are committing to an increased focus on quality early learning opportuni- ties. Meaningful Federal partnership and leadership is needed. This will help those of us in the States fill gaps and strengthen our efforts towards building a high-quality early childhood system with a strong framework and new resources.

There is not just one program that works. Children need a continuum of early learn- ing services and a commitment to infants, toddlers, their families, and preschoolers alike. One size does not fit all. It is fine to have a range of key programs and different hours of service because children and their families have different needs. It is in all of our best interests to be responsive and to focus on providing quality, expectations and support for high performance, and sufficient financing so that will get our children off to the best start possible. Parents expect that a program that opens its doors to them will serve them and their children well. From these simple precepts, there are several lessons that should inform the next phase of Federal investment and policy.

Thank you for providing me with this time today. I am honored and humbled each day when I go to work to play a role in trying to make our office tagline, "great tomor- rows begin today," a reality for Delaware's children, families, and communities.

30 Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014

BrookingSy continued from page 29

The Impact on Children of Differences in Quality of the Child Care Staff and Teachers with Whom They Interact Will Be Much Larger Than the Impact of Differences in the Quality of the Centers They Attend. Neither formal credentials nor the extent of profes- sional development are meaningfully associated with these differences in teacher quality.

Many of the policy proposals bouncing around that are intended to improve the quality of early childhood center-based services through law and regulation are based on models that have been thoroughly discredited in research on K-12 education. These discredited models place an emphasis on inputs such as the credentials of teachers, their pay, expenditures on professional development, and regulatory systems that focus on the center as unit of evaluation and accountability. But we know primarily from research in K-12, with some supporting research in pre-K settings, that teacher credentials and teacher professional development bear scant, if any relationship to teacher effectiveness, that levels of expenditure beyond a certain point are only weakly related to student learning, and that the teacher to which a child is assigned is far more important that the aggregate quality of the school the child attends.

K-12 teacher policy at the Federal level has transitioned from a focus on teacher quality, as measured by credentials, to teacher quality as measured by on-the-job perfor- mance in the classroom, with a growing realization that the most powerful management tools that affect student outcomes of which educators and policymakers can avail them- selves are in the area of teacher retention. In short, policies that have the effect of keeping good teachers in the classroom and encouraging bad ones to leave are one of the few sure ways of improving student outcomes. None of this seems to have penetrated policy think- ing in early childhood.

Conclusion

Congress has a choice. It can continue to tinker with current programs and create new programs under Preschool for All, for which States have to jump through hoops that are designed in Washington and that will change in ways that have little to do with pro- gram effectiveness as the political winds blow from other directions. Or it can place the fmancial resources to purchase early learning and care direcdy in the hands of families it is intended to serve, as it does with expenditures to support college attendance.

I'm confident that a system in which Federal dollars follow children to the child care service of their family's choice will trump current top-down Federal programs if Con- gress will also forge a partnership with States to ensure that parents have the information to shop wisely for child care, that child care providers that can do harm to children are removed from the marketplace, and that center-based providers have incentives to evalu- ate their child care staff and encourage the retention of the best.

D

ÔCon

"I'm confident that a

system in which

Federal dollars follow

children to the child

care service of their

family's choice will

trump current top-

down Federal

programs . . ."

Congressional Digest • www.CongressionalDigest.com • April 2014 31

J

Copyright of Congressional Digest is the property of Congressional Digest and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.