Discussion 4
Early Childhood Education
a. Introduction
In a recent survey, 73% of Americans said that early childhood education
(generally including children from birth to kindergarten) is extremely or very
important to a person’s ability to succeed in life. While this percentage seems
relatively high, it is less than those who believe high school (95%) and college (77%)
are extremely or very important to success (Jones, 2014). However, it appears that
calls for high-quality early childhood education are increasing from local, state, and
federal governments; Democrats and Republicans; think tanks; and the public.
Since the early 2000s, there has been a remarkable surge in the prioritization
of preschool education across the United States. Beginning in 2003, states embarked
on a transformative journey, significantly amplifying their commitment to early
childhood education. This steadfast dedication is exemplified by the staggering
statistic that states have augmented their investment in preschool by over 200 percent.
The year 2014 marked a pivotal moment in this trajectory, as 28 states
intensified their investments in early education. This concerted effort led to the
injection of more than $1 billion in new state resources, specifically earmarked for the
advancement of preschool initiatives. This substantial financial allocation underscored
a collective recognition of the profound impact that quality early childhood education
can have on the future trajectory of individuals and communities alike.
The significance of this monumental investment extends far beyond mere
numbers. It signifies a fundamental shift in societal values, wherein education is
increasingly viewed as the cornerstone of progress and prosperity. By prioritizing
preschool education, states are not merely allocating funds; they are investing in the
cognitive, social, and emotional development of their youngest citizens.
Furthermore, this surge in investment reflects a broader acknowledgment of
the interconnectedness of educational attainment and societal well-being. Research
consistently demonstrates that quality early childhood education not only fosters
academic readiness but also serves as a potent tool in mitigating disparities and
fostering social cohesion.
Moreover, the ripple effects of increased investment in preschool education
are felt across multiple domains. From bolstering workforce productivity to reducing
the burden on social services, the benefits are manifold and far-reaching. By nurturing
a generation of children who are equipped with the foundational skills necessary for
success, states are laying the groundwork for a more equitable and prosperous future.
However, it's essential to recognize that sustained progress in early childhood
education requires more than just financial investment. It necessitates a
comprehensive approach that encompasses curriculum development, teacher training,
parental involvement, and access to quality childcare services.
As we reflect on the remarkable strides made since 2003, it becomes evident
that the journey towards equitable access to early childhood education is far from
over. It requires continued vigilance, advocacy, and collaboration across all sectors of
society. Yet, the trajectory is promising, fueled by a collective commitment to
ensuring that every child, regardless of background or circumstance, has the
opportunity to thrive from the very outset of their educational journey.
Early childhood education is probably one of the most dynamic sectors of
public education at this point in time; education for the youngest U.S. citizens, aged
birth to five, has grown to be a very popular policy agenda item over the past five
decades, particularly given emerging research on child development and
neuroscience.
Early childhood education became part of the nation’s education agenda
through President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty and the creation of Head Start,
a federal program for low-income preschoolers. Prior to this program, government-
funded childcare briefly appeared during World War II, when the government had a
need for women to enter the workforce. After the war, it again was thought of as
something only poor working women needed and public efforts died down somewhat.
Until President Johnson made the needs of the poor a national priority, early
childhood education was not a strong policy concern (Lowenstein, 2011). Over the
subsequent decades, the policy impetus for early childhood education extended, and
perhaps shifted, from the benefits to working women to the benefits conferred upon
students who participated in early learning opportunities.
This became stronger as the K–12 standards movement appeared and early
childhood education was seen as a way to ensure children were ready for kindergarten
and further academic work (Lowenstein, 2011). As of 2013, 41.8% of three-year-olds
and 67.7% of four-year-olds were enrolled in preschool, and 51% of three- and four-
year-olds enrolled in preschool attend a full-day program (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). Altogether, 12.5 million children under age five are in
some type of regular childcare arrangement (Laughlin, 2013). Preschool enrollment
differs by income and race. While 64% of three- and fouryear-olds in families earning
$100,000 or more participate in preschool, only 40% of children in households
earning $20,000 or below do (Education Week Research Center, 2015). Just over half
of Asian, Black, and White three- and four-year-olds participate in preschool, whereas
just under 40% of Hispanic children do (Education Week Research Center, 2015).
The expanding recognition of early childhood education as a fundamental
pillar of the educational pipeline underscores the critical importance of
comprehensively understanding its myriad components. As society increasingly
acknowledges the profound impact of the formative years on lifelong learning and
development, there arises a pressing need to delve deeply into the multifaceted
aspects that constitute early childhood education.
At its core, early childhood education encompasses a broad spectrum of
experiences and interventions aimed at nurturing the holistic development of young
children. From infancy through the early years of formal schooling, this period
represents a critical window of opportunity during which foundational skills, attitudes,
and behaviors are established. As such, understanding the various components of
early childhood education entails examining not only traditional classroom-based
learning but also the myriad factors that influence a child's growth and development
within the context of family, community, and society.
One of the central components of early childhood education is curriculum
development, which involves the design and implementation of age-appropriate
learning experiences tailored to the unique needs and interests of young children.
Effective curriculum development integrates research-based pedagogical practices,
cultural responsiveness, and developmental principles to create engaging and
meaningful learning opportunities that promote cognitive, social, emotional, and
physical growth.
Equally essential is the role of qualified and well-trained early childhood
educators who serve as facilitators of learning and champions of children's rights.
Investing in professional development, mentorship, and ongoing support for early
childhood educators is crucial for ensuring high-quality instructional practices and
fostering positive relationships with children and families.
Furthermore, family engagement and support are integral components of early
childhood education, as parents and caregivers play a central role in shaping children's
learning experiences and developmental trajectories. Building strong partnerships
between families and early childhood programs enhances communication, promotes
mutual trust and respect, and empowers parents to become active participants in their
child's education.
In addition to these foundational components, early childhood education
encompasses a range of support services aimed at addressing the diverse needs of
children and families. This includes access to comprehensive health and wellness
resources, nutritional support, social-emotional interventions, and community-based
initiatives designed to promote equity and inclusion.
As early childhood education continues to evolve and expand, it is essential to
adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach that recognizes the interconnectedness
of its many components. This entails fostering collaboration and coordination across
sectors, leveraging interdisciplinary research and practice, and prioritizing equity,
diversity, and inclusion in all aspects of policy and programming.
By embracing a nuanced understanding of early childhood education and
investing in its multifaceted components, we can create a more inclusive, equitable,
and effective system that lays the foundation for lifelong learning and success.
First, there are several different programs and goals that collectively make up
the early childhood education sphere. Pre-kindergarten usually refers specifically to
state-funded educational programs for four- and sometimes three-year-olds. Head
Start is a federal program that provides comprehensive (health, emotional, family,
education) services for three- and four-year olds. Childcare often refers to the
placement of a child from birth to school age in some type of care arrangement
(home, day care, preschool) on a fee basis; childcare may have an educational
component, but it is primarily used as a safe, social environment for children whose
parents work outside of the home. In many cases, a single facility or school will house
one or more of these programs both for the convenience of parents looking for options
and for facility operators to generate enough income to stay afloat.
Coordinating funding streams and implementing quality assessments for
facilities that integrate multiple early childhood education programs pose multifaceted
challenges that demand careful consideration and strategic planning. This intricate
task necessitates a holistic approach that takes into account the diverse needs of
children, families, educators, and communities while navigating the complexities of
funding mechanisms and evaluation frameworks.
One of the primary challenges in coordinating funding streams lies in the
fragmented nature of early childhood education financing. With funding often
originating from federal, state, and local sources, each with its own set of regulations
and priorities, achieving seamless integration can be arduous. Furthermore, the
allocation of resources must align with the specific requirements and objectives of
each program, adding another layer of complexity to the process.
Moreover, ensuring equitable access to high-quality early childhood education
remains a paramount concern. Disparities in funding distribution and resource
allocation can exacerbate existing inequalities, perpetuating systemic barriers to
educational opportunity. Addressing these disparities requires a nuanced
understanding of the unique needs and challenges faced by different communities,
coupled with targeted interventions aimed at leveling the playing field.
Quality assessment presents another significant challenge, as ensuring
consistency and rigor across diverse early childhood education settings is inherently
complex. While standardized assessment tools can provide valuable insights into
program effectiveness, they must be carefully tailored to account for the varied
approaches and philosophies that characterize different educational models.
Moreover, assessment practices must be culturally responsive and developmentally
appropriate, recognizing the diverse backgrounds and experiences of young learners.
In addition to these challenges, facilities that braid together multiple early
childhood education programs must navigate regulatory requirements and licensing
standards imposed by various governing bodies. Ensuring compliance while fostering
innovation and flexibility requires a delicate balance, one that hinges on clear
communication, collaboration, and a shared commitment to serving the best interests
of children and families.
Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated and collaborative approach
that engages stakeholders at every level of the early childhood education ecosystem.
From policymakers and funders to educators and families, everyone has a role to play
in building a more inclusive and equitable system that prioritizes the needs of children
and lays the foundation for lifelong success.
Moving forward, it is imperative to continue exploring innovative strategies
for funding coordination, quality assessment, and program integration. By leveraging
technology, data-driven decision-making, and best practices from across the field, we
can create more efficient and effective systems that maximize resources and improve
outcomes for all children. Ultimately, the goal is to create a seamless and
comprehensive early childhood education infrastructure that empowers every child to
reach their full potential, regardless of circumstance or background.
b. Governance
Governance of early childhood education is complex and fragmented. What
initially started as primarily a private market sector has seen the continued expansion
of public participation—first with the federal government and now with recent
explosion of state government efforts. The fragmentation has spawned efforts to
coordinate the variety of federal, state, and local programs affecting the nation’s
youngest children.
The complexity of early childhood education becomes even more apparent
when considering the diverse array of services that a single child might access
throughout their early years. This journey, which can encompass a multitude of
federally funded, state-supported, and privately financed programs, underscores the
intricate web of resources and interventions available to support children's
development from infancy through the transition into formal schooling.
For instance, a child's early experiences may begin with participation in a
federally funded home-visiting program during infancy, where trained professionals
provide personalized support and guidance to parents in nurturing their child's
cognitive, social, and emotional development within the familiar environment of their
own home. This early intervention can lay the groundwork for healthy attachment,
language acquisition, and school readiness.
As the child progresses into toddlerhood, they may transition to day-care
services funded by a different federal funding stream, such as the Child Care and
Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which subsidizes childcare for low-income
families and promotes access to high-quality early learning environments. These
programs offer opportunities for peer socialization, structured play, and early
exposure to foundational skills and concepts.
At age four, the child may then enroll in a state, federal, or privately financed
preschool program, which provides a structured educational experience designed to
prepare children for kindergarten and beyond. These programs often emphasize
school readiness skills, such as early literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional
development, while also promoting creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving
through play-based learning activities.
Upon entering kindergarten, the child may transition to state-funded public
education, where they continue to build upon the foundational skills and knowledge
acquired in preschool while also navigating the transition to a more formalized
learning environment. Here, they engage in a comprehensive curriculum aligned with
state standards, receive instruction from certified teachers, and participate in a range
of enrichment activities designed to foster academic achievement and holistic
development.
Throughout this continuum of early childhood education, the child and their
family may also access a variety of supplementary services and supports, including
early intervention programs for children with developmental delays or disabilities,
nutritional assistance programs, mental health services, and parent education and
support initiatives.
Navigating this complex landscape of early childhood education requires
coordination and collaboration across multiple stakeholders, including federal, state,
and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, community-based providers, and families
themselves. By leveraging the strengths of each component and ensuring alignment
with best practices and evidence-based interventions, we can create a seamless
continuum of care that promotes optimal outcomes for all children, regardless of their
background or circumstances.
In 1965, early childhood education appeared on the national policy agenda
through President Johnson’s Head Start program. The program’s original purpose was
to break the cycle of poverty through interventions with low-income families and
children. The 1965 report recommending Head Start and authored by a committee of
education experts, noted that “during these years the creation of learning patterns,
emotional development and the formation of individual expectations and aspirations
take place at a very rapid pace” (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1965, p. 1). The committee met over six weeks during the summer of 1965 and
initially recommended that Head Start begin as a summer program. Sargent Shriver,
President Johnson’s chief adviser on the war on poverty, feared that Head Start would
become merely an experiment, and he successfully pushed for full implementation
rather than just a summer program (C. Samuels, 2014).
Although education was one of the key components of the program, Head
Start was originally housed in the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity before
moving briefly to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and finally to
the Department of Health and Human Services, where it remains today. The formal
reason for not placing Head Start with other education programs was that the program
included services in addition to education, such as health care and social services. The
other, and perhaps more influential, reason was a general loss of confidence at the
time in the efficacy of public education programs (Rose, 2007). The consternation
over effective governance of K–12 education also led to the creation of separate
governance structures for higher education. In 1995, the Head Start program was
further expanded with the addition of Early Head Start, which serves children less
than three years of age and pregnant women.
To date, Head Start has served more than 31 million infants, toddlers, and
young children (C. Samuels, 2014). Forty-seven percent of these children are four
years old, 35% are three years old, and the remainder are between birth and two years
old (C. Samuels, 2014). Students participating in the Head Start program are diverse:
42% of students are White, 29% are Black, 9% are biracial, 4% are American
Indian/Alaska Native, 2% are Asian, and 13% identified as “other.” Sixty-three
percent of Head Start students are non-Hispanic and 37% are of Hispanic or Latino
origin (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Eligibility criteria
continue to include the age of the child and family income. To be eligible for services,
a family must meet federal poverty guidelines. Children in all states and territories are
offered Head Start programs through local providers vetted by the federal Head Start
office. The program currently serves 1 million children through 1,700 local grantees
at a federal cost of $8 billion per year (C. Samuels, 2014). States do not have any
responsibility for administering Head Start programs except to ensure coordination
with other state early childhood programs. Head Start programs are center based, and
Early Head Start programs are center or home based. Students may attend four or five
days per week, depending on the program structure. Nearly half of Head Start
preschoolers go to a center five days per week for over six hours per day (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). In fiscal year 2013, Head Start
provided services related to job training and adult education to 24% of students’
families. The program employs about a quarter million individuals (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 2014).
Since the inception of the Head Start program, many policymakers have asked
whether the program “works”: Does it increase academic, emotional, and social
outcomes for students during the program and over time? Evaluations have taken
place throughout Head Start’s 50-year history. Studies on early childhood education as
a whole will be explored, but a few Head Start–specific studies are noted here. In
1969, the Office of Economic Opportunity, Head Start’s first governmental
administering agency, commissioned a study that showed overall poor results. “In
sum, the Head Start children can not be said to be appreciably different from their
peers in the elementary grades who did not attend Head Start in most aspects of
cognitive and affective development measured in this study, with the exception of the
slight but nonetheless significant superiority of full-year Head Start children on
certain measures of cognitive development”. The study also found that Head Start
summer-only programs had no impact.
An Early Head Start research and evaluation project started in the late 1990s
used a randomized control trial in 17 program sites with 3,001 family participants.
Authors found that at the end of the program (when children were three years old),
benefits were evident, but modest. Two years later, positive effects continued
regarding children’s social-emotional outcomes, parenting, and parent well-being.
Children who took part in the Early Head Start program followed by another formal
early childhood program such as Head Start, pre-K, or center-based childcare had the
best outcomes. When children were studied again in fifth grade, positive impacts on
their social-emotional development had continued and were higher for African-
American children (Vogel et al., 2010).
The findings of the national Head Start Impact Study offer valuable insights
into the short and long-term effects of early childhood education programs,
particularly for three- and four-year-olds enrolled in Head Start programs across the
United States. This comprehensive study, which involved the random selection of
5,000 children from 84 Head Start programs and commenced data collection in 2002,
shed light on the nuanced dynamics of program efficacy and sustainability.
During the initial phase of the study, researchers observed modest to moderate
positive impacts of the Head Start program after one year of participation across a
range of child outcome areas. These impacts were particularly pronounced in domains
such as language development, early pre-reading skills, and overall health. The
findings underscored the significant benefits that early intervention can yield in
fostering children's cognitive, social, and physical well-being during the critical early
years of development.
However, the study also revealed a noteworthy trend: while the positive effects
of Head Start were evident at the conclusion of the program year, they began to
diminish over time, with many of the gains observed at the end of the Head Start year
dissipating by the end of first grade. This phenomenon, often referred to as "fade-out,"
has been a subject of considerable debate and scrutiny within the field of early
childhood education.
It's essential to recognize that the fade-out effect is not unique to Head Start
but rather a complex and multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various factors,
including the quality and intensity of the program, the home and school environments,
and individual differences among children. While the reasons for fade-out are not
entirely clear, researchers have proposed several hypotheses, ranging from differences
in instructional approaches between Head Start and elementary school settings to the
potential influence of socioeconomic and environmental factors on long-term
outcomes.
Despite the challenges posed by fade-out, it's important to note that the Head
Start program continues to yield significant benefits for children and families,
particularly in terms of providing access to high-quality early education,
comprehensive health services, and family support programs. Moreover, research
suggests that even if the initial cognitive gains diminish over time, the social and
emotional skills fostered by early childhood programs like Head Start can have
enduring effects on children's well-being and success later in life.
Moving forward, efforts to address the fade-out phenomenon require a
multifaceted approach that encompasses ongoing program evaluation, research into
effective instructional practices, enhanced collaboration between early childhood and
elementary education systems, and targeted interventions aimed at supporting
children's continued growth and development beyond the preschool years. By
leveraging the insights gained from studies like the Head Start Impact Study, we can
work towards creating more equitable, sustainable, and impactful early childhood
education programs that empower all children to thrive.
So, while there are some demonstrated impacts on kindergarten readiness and
other socioemotional factors, long-term academic impacts are not conclusive. Rather
than scale back the program based on less-than-optimal performance, federal officials
have instead worked to improve the program by frequently strengthening program
standards and placing more focus on the academic portion of the program. In 2011,
the Department of Health and Human Services adopted new rules requiring Head
Start programs not meeting quality benchmarks to reapply for their grants. In 2014, 86
programs had to reapply (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Most recently,
President Obama called for higher early learning program standards in order to
improve achievement results (C. Samuels, 2014). The call was timed just as the Head
Start office released new research showing mediocre student impacts and the
president was preparing to expand his investment in early learning through the Race
to the Top Early Learning Challenge (C. Samuels, 2014). With any type of large
policy program, there is always a tension between providing sufficient guidelines to
ensure fidelity of implementation for optimal outcomes and overburdening fund
recipients with too many regulations. Since the inception of Head Start, it seems that
most policymakers err on the side of increasing program criteria in the hopes of
increasing program effectiveness.
The most recent presidential administration has been very vocal and active
regarding the importance of early childhood education. President Obama has couched
his support for these policies as assistance for the middle class (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013) and as important for regaining the U.S.’s international position
regarding education. Among other nations, the U.S. ranks 25th in enrollment of four-
year-olds in early learning programs; “fewer than 3 in 10 four-year-olds are enrolled
in high-quality preschool programs” (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). In the
first years of his administration, President Obama dedicated funding to increase U.S.
rates of attendance in high-quality preschool programs. From 2011 to 2013, he
awarded between $30 million and $75 million each to 20 states through the Race to
the Top Early Learning Challenge, which incentivizes improvement in state early
childhood education systems.
Grantees are measured on performance metrics related to quality rating and
improvement systems President Obama’s 2013 state of the union address focused on
creating “a continuum of high-quality early learning for a child—beginning at birth
and continuing to age 5” (The White House, 2013) and incentivizing full-day
kindergarten for all students. He also started the Invest in US program in December
2014, aimed at creating a coalition of corporate and philanthropic support for early
childhood education. Most recently, President Obama initiated two programs to
increase quality of and access to state early childhood education programs. The first
was the Early Learning Challenge grants noted above awarded to 20 states (half of the
applicant pool) in December 2014. States eligible for funding had to have high
program standards, the ability to link preschool data with K–12 data, and early
learning standards.
The findings from the U.S. Department of Education underscore the
multifaceted ways in which states have utilized funds to enhance early childhood
education initiatives, reflecting a comprehensive approach aimed at addressing the
diverse needs of young children and their families. These investments have been
instrumental in bolstering various aspects of the early childhood education landscape,
ranging from workforce preparation and training to health services, family
engagement, data systems integration, and parental empowerment.
One significant area of focus has been the improvement of early childhood
workforce preparation and training. Recognizing the pivotal role that educators play
in shaping children's early learning experiences, states have allocated resources to
support professional development programs, expand access to higher education and
credentialing opportunities, and promote the adoption of evidence-based instructional
practices. By investing in the knowledge and skills of early childhood professionals,
states aim to enhance the quality of educational experiences and outcomes for young
children.
Furthermore, states have prioritized efforts to strengthen health services and
family engagement within early childhood education settings. This includes initiatives
to increase access to comprehensive health screenings, immunizations, and
developmental assessments for young children, as well as programs that facilitate
meaningful partnerships between educators and families to promote positive child
development and school readiness. By addressing both the physical and socio-
emotional needs of children and families, states seek to create supportive and
nurturing environments conducive to learning and growth.
Another key focus area has been the integration of early childhood and K–12
data systems, enabling stakeholders to gain deeper insights into how children's early
learning experiences impact their long-term academic success. By linking data across
different stages of the educational continuum, states can identify trends, track
progress, and inform decision-making processes aimed at improving outcomes for all
children. This data-driven approach facilitates targeted interventions, promotes
accountability, and fosters collaboration among various stakeholders invested in the
early childhood education system.
Moreover, states have made strides in ensuring that parents have access to
information about high-quality early learning programs in their communities. This
includes efforts to disseminate resources, provide guidance on selecting appropriate
programs, and promote transparency and accountability in program quality through
initiatives such as quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS). By empowering
parents to make informed choices about their children's education, states aim to foster
greater engagement, participation, and investment in early childhood education
initiatives.
Overall, the investments made by states in early childhood education reflect a
holistic and forward-thinking approach to addressing the needs of young children and
families. By prioritizing workforce development, health and wellness, family
engagement, data-driven decision-making, and parental empowerment, states are
laying the foundation for a more equitable, inclusive, and effective early childhood
education system that maximizes opportunities for all children to succeed.
The second program, Preschool Development Grants, awarded grants to 18
states to expand the number of children in high-quality preschool programs in high-
need communities over four years (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). President
Obama’s FY2016 budget proposal requests increases in funding for Head Start and
Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships. These programs are part of the president’s
goal to enroll an additional six million children in high-quality preschool programs
(Mongeau, 2014). Ostensibly, the programs noted above are geared to incentivize
states to help the nation reach that goal. So, even though the federal government
operates an extensive early childhood education program for low-income students
(through funding to local providers), it still incentivizes states to expand their own
preschool programs.
Recent publications from the U.S. Department of Education urge preschool for
all and seek for it to be included in the upcoming federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act reauthorization. This would certainly change the status of preschool
from an “add-on” to K–12 education to more of an expectation. This seems to be the
direction the current presidential administration is going; the U.S. Department of
Education cites an “unmet need” in that 60% of four-year-olds do not have access to
publicly funded preschool programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), signaling
a shift to policy prioritization for formal, center-based programs over home-based or
parental care for young children.
Early childhood education has become an increasingly popular state policy
and political topic. In 2014, 23 out of 43 gubernatorial state of the state speeches
noted the importance of early childhood education (National Women’s Law Center,
2014). Traditionally, state of the state speeches are prime real estate for publicizing
policy priorities across a gamut of areas such as health, safety, economic
development, and education. Therefore, it is quite striking that over half of these
speeches contained exhortations about early childhood education. Further, it appears
to be a bipartisan issue, as 13 of the 23 speeches were from Democrats and 10 were
from Republicans. The partisan divide was evident, however, in advocacy for targeted
versus universal pre-K. Democrats referenced universal pre-K (enrollment without
regard to need) and Republicans referenced targeted pre-K (traditionally targeted to
need). Five governors boasted of their federal Race to the Top Early Learning
Challenge awards, 16 governors advocated for expanding state pre-K programs, and 2
governors called for raising pre-K standards (National Women’s Law Center, 2014). A
recent study of 37 state of the state speeches in 2015 (those that occurred at the time
of the study) found that 11 governors called for funding to develop or expand
preschool and kindergarten programs, especially for low-income families (Aragon &
Rowland, 2015).
State policy and monetary support for early learning gained traction in the
1980s, when research touting its long-term positive effects was published and
intersected with the public’s growing demand for education reform (Rose, 2007).
Today, seven states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, West
Virginia) have committed to serving all four-year-olds in pre-K. Illinois is the only
state that has committed to serving all three- and four-year-olds (Hustedt & Barnett,
2011). Only eight states have no state-funded preschool program (Samuels, 2015). In
2014, 40 states and the District of Columbia allocated $5.6 billion to fund pre-K spots
for 1.3 million three-and four-year-olds (Daily, 2014). When combined with various
other funding sources for state pre-K programs (e.g., federal and local contributions),
states spend, on average, $4,629 per child enrolled in pre-K (Barnett, Carolan,
Squires, & Clarke Brown, 2013). Some experts believe this is woefully below the
amount needed to meet prog ram qualit y benchmarks (Barnett et al., 2013). Spending
per child varies widely among states. The top funder is the District of Columbia at
$16,853 per child, second is Connecticut at $12,184 per child, and the lowest state is
South Carolina at $1,300 per child (Barnett et al., 2013).
States administer and govern their early childhood education programs in a
variety of ways. As noted previously, there are several programs that touch on the
health, safety, and educational needs of the state’s youngest citizens, and sometimes
the programs overlap services. Not until the 1980s did states begin to focus on
coordinating the work of the various programs. Since the mid-2000s, states have taken
more strategic actions to align administrative authority for major programs
(Regenstein & Lipper, 2013). Regenstein and Lipper (2013) outline three current
types of state early childhood services governance. The first is coordination among
relevant state agencies, “where administrative authority is vested in multiple agencies
that are expected to collaborate with each other” (p. 2). Most states use this manner of
governance. In some states the governor’s office carries out the coordinating role
among agencies, while in others, agencies establish a memorandum of understanding
between them. At the very least, almost all states have an early childhood advisory
council as required by the Head Start Act. The second manner of governance is
consolidation, “in which multiple programs are administered by the same agency,
particularly state education agencies” (Regenstein & Lipper, 2013, p. 2). Finally,
states may create a new agency to focus on early education and care. Three states
(Georgia, Massachusetts, and Washington) utilize this model.
In other words, universal pre-K unjustly enriches those who can already pay
for quality early learning experiences. Finn also argues that the resources spent on all
children through universal pre-K would be better spent on providing extremely high-
quality learning opportunities to those students who really need them. He claims
universal pre-K is a political tactic—politicians promote it to garner more voters—
saying, “the bona fide interests of disadvantaged children are being subordinated to
the politics of getting something enacted” (p. 13). The argument of enacting education
policy to pander to voters also arises when examining state postsecondary merit aid
scholarship programs, as we will see later in this book. On the flip side, researchers
Jason Hustedt and W. Steven Barnett (2011) detail the advantages of universal pre-K.
They note that it is difficult to target disadvantaged students because family financial
status may frequently change, thereby causing a “revolving door” in and out of pre-K
programs.
Hustedt and Barnett also cite research demonstrating greater positive impacts
on disadvantaged students when more advantaged students are included in pre-K
classrooms. They believe these advantages accrue to the higher income students as
well. This argument is similar to the one made in postsecondary education related to
the benefits of a diverse student body for all students. Finally, Hustedt and Barnett
acknowledge the practical and political reality that Finn (2010) cautions against—
universal pre-K is more palatable to voters. There are myriad other policy issues
related to state pre-K programs, but these will be addressed later, as they cross both
federal and state programs.
c. Finance
Funding streams for early childhood education, like K–12 and higher
education programs, are complex. A mixture of federal, state, local, and private
funding supports early childhood programs. And within each of the public “buckets”
of funding are several smaller sources of funding, each with its own attached
regulations, creating a tangled web.
The observation made by Hustedt and Barnett (2011) regarding the lack of
coordination among different funding streams for public preschool programs
highlights a significant challenge within the early childhood education landscape. This
fragmentation of funding not only creates administrative burdens for preschool
providers but also poses barriers to achieving seamless integration and optimal
outcomes for children and families.
The existence of separate funding silos at the federal, state, and local levels
means that each funding stream comes with its own set of requirements, priorities,
and regulations. These disparate funding sources may have different eligibility
criteria, reporting mechanisms, and accountability standards, further complicating the
process of program administration and delivery.
Moreover, the need to blend or braid funds from multiple sources to create a
single classroom or program adds another layer of complexity, as providers must
navigate the often-conflicting regulations associated with each funding silo. This may
involve reconciling differences in programmatic goals, staffing requirements,
curriculum guidelines, and assessment protocols, all while ensuring compliance with
legal and financial regulations.
The challenge of coordinating across funding silos is particularly pronounced
in communities with diverse funding sources and service providers, where the need
for collaboration and alignment is paramount. In such contexts, preschool providers
must navigate a complex web of partnerships, agreements, and funding arrangements,
often requiring extensive communication, negotiation, and problem-solving skills.
Despite these challenges, there are also opportunities inherent in the blending
and braiding of funds from different sources. By leveraging resources from multiple
funding streams, preschool providers can enhance program quality, expand access to
services, and meet the diverse needs of children and families more effectively. For
example, blending funds from federal, state, and local sources may allow providers to
offer additional enrichment activities, hire specialized staff, or provide wraparound
services such as health screenings or family support programs.
However, realizing the full potential of blended and braided funding requires a
concerted effort to overcome barriers and promote collaboration among stakeholders.
This may involve streamlining administrative processes, aligning programmatic goals
and objectives, and fostering a shared understanding of best practices and evidence-
based interventions. Additionally, policymakers and funders play a crucial role in
facilitating coordination across funding streams by providing flexibility, guidance,
and technical assistance to preschool providers.
In conclusion, while the fragmentation of funding streams presents challenges
for public preschool programs, it also presents opportunities for innovation,
collaboration, and improvement. By addressing the barriers to coordination and
leveraging the strengths of multiple funding sources, stakeholders can work together
to build a more cohesive and responsive early childhood education system that meets
the needs of all children and families.
It is important to highlight the smaller federal programs included in the table
because has not covered them in depth. First, direct federal child subsidies are an
annual $8 billion expenditure—$5 billion from the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) and $3 billion from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
Federal childcare tax credits—which allow eligible families who partake in the
program to deduct costs against their taxes—have recently amounted to $3.5 billion
annually, benefiting 6.7 million families. Title I federal funds (primarily a K–12
program) provides $400 million for preschool programs in high-need elementary
schools. Finally, the Early Childhood Special Education program provides about $374
million in federal funding annually. This particular funding stream requires matching
state funds, which have recently totaled $5 billion.
The allocation of funds for early childhood education programs at both the
federal and state levels represents a multifaceted endeavor aimed at bolstering the
quality, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for young children and their
families. The figures presented, which highlight requested new funding for federal
programs and rising state expenditures on public early childhood education initiatives,
underscore a growing recognition of the critical importance of investing in the early
years as a strategic imperative for long-term societal well-being and economic
prosperity.
At the federal level, policymakers have proposed additional funding for early
childhood education programs to address persistent gaps in access, quality, and
affordability. These investments reflect a commitment to expanding access to high-
quality preschool programs, improving early learning outcomes, and reducing
disparities among children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. By earmarking
resources for initiatives such as the Preschool Development Grants program, Head
Start, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), federal
policymakers aim to create a more equitable and inclusive early childhood education
system that supports the needs of all children and families.
Similarly, states have ramped up their expenditures on public early childhood
education programs in response to growing demand and evolving priorities.
Recognizing the substantial returns on investment associated with early childhood
education, states have increasingly prioritized funding for initiatives such as state-
funded preschool, pre-kindergarten, and childcare subsidy programs. These
investments are driven by a commitment to expanding access to high-quality early
learning opportunities, promoting school readiness, and narrowing achievement gaps
from the earliest ages.
Moreover, the proposed increases in federal and state funding for early
childhood education programs are not occurring in isolation but rather in tandem with
ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline existing services. This may involve
initiatives to improve program quality, enhance professional development for early
childhood educators, expand access to comprehensive health and family support
services, and foster greater collaboration among stakeholders across sectors.
Furthermore, the synergistic relationship between federal and state
investments in early childhood education underscores the importance of coordinated
action and shared responsibility in advancing the goals of the early childhood
education agenda. By aligning funding priorities, leveraging resources, and fostering
partnerships between federal, state, and local entities, policymakers can maximize the
impact of investments and ensure that every child has the opportunity to thrive from
the earliest years of life.
In conclusion, the figures presented represent a snapshot of the ongoing
commitment to strengthening early childhood education in the United States through
increased funding at both the federal and state levels. By investing in the well-being
and development of young children today, policymakers are laying the foundation for
a brighter, more equitable future for generations to come.
For parents with children younger than four years and/or in a state without
universal pre-K, quality early childhood care options can be costly. In New York, one
of the most expensive childcare states, the cost of infant care as a percentage of
median income for a single mother is 56%; for a married couple, it is 16%. The cost
of care for a four-year-old is 47% of median income for a single mother and 13% for a
married couple. In most cases, the cost of center-based care for two children is more
than college tuition (ChildCare Aware of America, 2014).
d. Major Stakeholders
Early childhood education as a policy field is relatively new compared with
K–12 and higher education. On one hand, stakeholders mirror or parallel those found
in the other sectors. There are foundations, think tanks, and accreditors that all have
some stake in this policy sector and often advocate on behalf of these issues. On the
other hand, there are also the parents who not only see early childhood education as
an educational and social/ emotional benefit for their child, but also see it as a work
support (for those parents who work outside of the home). It could be argued that K–
12 is also a work support, but culture (and the courts) have long seen K–12 education
as a requirement while early childhood education has long been thought of as
optional.
The recognition of the interconnectedness between early childhood education
and later academic success has prompted a shift in perspective, expanding the circle
of stakeholders beyond traditional early childhood education providers to include K–
12 and potentially higher education sectors. As research continues to illuminate the
profound impact of early learning experiences on cognitive, social, and emotional
development, stakeholders across the educational continuum are increasingly
recognizing the importance of collaboration and coordination in promoting positive
outcomes for children and families.
The involvement of K–12 and higher education sectors as stakeholders in
early childhood education reflects a growing understanding of the continuity and
coherence of the educational journey from birth through adulthood. By viewing early
childhood education as a foundational stage in the educational pipeline, stakeholders
in K–12 and higher education sectors recognize the need for alignment and integration
of practices, policies, and resources to support children's seamless transition and
progression through the educational system.
One area where collaboration between early childhood education and K–12
sectors is particularly crucial is in curriculum alignment and instructional continuity.
By ensuring that early learning experiences are scaffolded and integrated with
subsequent educational experiences, stakeholders can promote continuity of learning
and build upon children's prior knowledge and skills as they progress through the
educational continuum. This may involve aligning curriculum standards, instructional
strategies, assessment practices, and professional development initiatives across early
childhood and K–12 settings to promote coherence and consistency in educational
experiences.
Moreover, collaboration between early childhood education and K–12 sectors
can facilitate early identification and intervention for children with unique learning
needs or developmental challenges. By establishing effective communication channels
and sharing relevant data and information, stakeholders can identify children who
may benefit from additional support services or specialized interventions and ensure
that appropriate resources are provided in a timely manner.
In addition to promoting academic continuity, collaboration between early
childhood education and K–12 sectors can also enhance social-emotional
development and holistic well-being. By fostering partnerships between educators,
families, and community stakeholders, stakeholders can create supportive learning
environments that nurture children's social skills, emotional resilience, and sense of
belonging from the earliest ages. This may involve implementing evidence-based
practices for promoting positive behavior, fostering strong relationships, and
addressing the social-emotional needs of children and families.
Furthermore, collaboration between early childhood education and higher
education sectors can contribute to the professionalization and advancement of the
early childhood education workforce. By fostering partnerships between institutions
of higher education and early childhood education providers, stakeholders can
promote the recruitment, preparation, and ongoing professional development of early
childhood educators, ensuring that they are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and
competencies needed to support children's learning and development effectively.
In conclusion, collaboration between early childhood education, K–12, and
higher education sectors holds tremendous potential for advancing the goals of
promoting positive outcomes for children and families. By working together to align
practices, policies, and resources, stakeholders can create a seamless and coherent
educational system that supports children's success from the earliest years through
adulthood. As research continues to underscore the importance of early learning
opportunities, collaboration between sectors becomes increasingly essential in
ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential.
This will focus on two groups, advocacy organizations and research
organizations, because they are very active in this sector and contribute a good deal of
information to the ongoing debate around early childhood public policy. Perhaps the
largest advocacy organization is the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC). NAEYC focuses on children from birth through age eight
(roughly third grade) by connecting practice, policy, and research. The organization’s
website provides updates on federal policy; resources for local, state, and national
advocates; and news items. NAEYC hosts conferences and takes positions on early
childhood policy topics. NAEYC is perhaps most well-known for its accreditation
functions for preschools and day cares as well as early childhood degree programs.
Another prominent advocacy organization is the Ounce of Prevention Fund,
which has worked since 1982 to ensure quality early childhood experiences are
available to children from birth through age five. Children born in poverty are a
particular focus of the organization. The Ounce of Prevention Fund carries out its
mission through research, professional development training to early childhood
professionals, lobbying at state and federal levels, and publications. In 2007, the
Ounce of Prevention Fund initiated the First Five Years Fund, which focuses solely on
advocacy at the federal level. An overarching organization focused on leveraging the
collective impact of the funding and advocacy organization in this field is the Alliance
for Early Success. The Alliance has a roster of state, national, and funding partners
working to advance state policies supporting the health, education, and welfare of
children from birth to age eight.
The establishment of the National Head Start Association (NHSA) in 1973
marked a significant milestone in the advocacy and research efforts aimed at
advancing the Head Start program and promoting the well-being of children and
families across the United States. Since its inception, NHSA has served as a leading
voice for Head Start program grantees, providing a platform for collaboration,
communication, and collective action to address the needs and priorities of the Head
Start community.
As the designated membership organization for Head Start programs, NHSA
plays a pivotal role in representing the interests of grantees at the national level,
advocating for policies and funding initiatives that support the continued success and
sustainability of the Head Start program. Through its advocacy efforts, NHSA works
to ensure that policymakers and stakeholders understand the value and impact of Head
Start in addressing the comprehensive needs of children and families, particularly
those from low-income and underserved communities.
In addition to advocacy, NHSA is actively engaged in research and knowledge
dissemination activities aimed at advancing evidence-based practices, promoting
innovation, and informing policy and practice within the Head Start field. Through
partnerships with researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, NHSA conducts and
supports research initiatives that seek to improve program quality, enhance outcomes
for children and families, and address emerging challenges and opportunities facing
the Head Start community.
Moreover, NHSA serves as a hub for professional development and capacity-
building activities, offering training, resources, and networking opportunities to Head
Start administrators, staff, and stakeholders. Through conferences, workshops,
webinars, and publications, NHSA provides valuable support and guidance to grantees
as they navigate the complexities of program administration, compliance, and quality
improvement.
Beyond its role as an advocacy and research organization, NHSA fosters a
sense of community and collaboration among Head Start programs nationwide,
facilitating peer learning, exchange of best practices, and collective problem-solving.
By fostering a culture of collaboration and shared learning, NHSA empowers Head
Start grantees to leverage their collective expertise and experiences in addressing
common challenges, driving innovation, and maximizing the impact of their efforts to
support children and families.
In conclusion, the National Head Start Association plays a vital role in
advocating for, supporting, and strengthening the Head Start program and its impact
on the lives of children and families. Through its advocacy, research, and capacity-
building efforts, NHSA contributes to the ongoing success and sustainability of Head
Start programs nationwide, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to thrive
and reach their full potential.
Research in all areas of education is important and ongoing. However,
advances in science have allowed for groundbreaking research on the brain and
childhood development, which directly affects early childhood education policy. For
50 years, the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been a leader in early childhood research. The
center undertakes research and evaluation projects at state and national levels.
Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child was started much more recently, in 2006,
but it already has a reputation for innovative scientific research and communication of
that research to policymakers.
e. Major Policy Issues
As with the K–12 and higher education, there are several policy issues within
early childhood learning that deserve attention. The few chosen for discussion here
are critical to the core policies surrounding early childhood education, and they
receive vast amounts of attention. Program efficacy (e.g., “does it work”?), quality
standards, and alignment between programs and with other grade levels.
The billion-dollar question is whether early childhood programs confer
sufficient and meaningful benefits to children—and perhaps by extension, to the
economy—to justify the expenditure of public funds. Academic researchers, policy
analysts, and policymakers continue to hotly debate this issue. Benefits are usually
measured in academic, social, and/or economic terms and are assessed in the short
and long term. Policymakers and other early childhood advocates often rely on a core
set of rigorous studies that show modest to significant benefits from high-quality early
learning experiences. Three of the most often cited studies are detailed here.
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study was started in 1962 with a small
sample of African-American threeand four-year-olds who were randomly assigned to
a high-quality early learning program or no program at all. Those in the program
received daily two and a half hour classes and a weekly one and a half hour home
visit from October through May. Child/staff ratios were at or below six to one
(Lowenstein, 2011). The Carolina Abecedarian Project began in 1972 with random
assignment of high-risk infants to full-day, year-round preschool. The control group of
infants was in home care or another early childhood education setting. Both groups
received social services as needed (Lowenstein, 2011). Finally, the Chicago Child-
Parent Center study was conducted in the mid-1980s and provided half-day preschool
to three- and four-year-olds in a setting with a child/teacher ratio of 17 to 2, parent
involvement, home visits, and health services (Lowen-stein, 2011). Researcher Amy
Lowenstein worked to assess the results of these studies against the rhetoric
surrounding early learning benefits. She found that together these studies “suggest
that high-quality early education programs can have remarkably long-lasting, positive
effects on low-income children’s cognitive, academic, and socioemotional
functioning”.
The statement regarding the developmental effects of early childhood
education programs, including child care, Head Start/Early Head Start, and state-
funded preschool, underscores the complexity of assessing the long-term impact of
these initiatives on children's outcomes. While research suggests that early childhood
education programs can indeed yield positive effects for children from both low- and
higher-income families, the phenomenon of fade-out over time presents a nuanced
challenge that warrants further exploration and consideration.
At the outset, it's important to acknowledge the substantial body of evidence
supporting the positive effects of early childhood education programs on children's
developmental outcomes. Research has consistently shown that participation in high-
quality early childhood education programs is associated with improvements in
cognitive skills, language development, social-emotional competence, and school
readiness, among other domains. These benefits are particularly pronounced for
children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may experience greater gains in
academic and socio-emotional outcomes as a result of early intervention.
However, the notion of fade-out, wherein the initial gains achieved through
early childhood education programs diminish over time, adds a layer of complexity to
our understanding of program effectiveness. While the reasons for fade-out are
multifaceted and may vary depending on contextual factors, several hypotheses have
been proposed to explain this phenomenon.
One possibility is that the effects of early childhood education programs may
diminish as children transition into elementary school and encounter new instructional
environments, teaching practices, and peer influences. This transition period may
disrupt the continuity of learning and support provided by early childhood programs,
leading to a gradual attenuation of the initial gains observed during the preschool
years.
Additionally, fade-out may be influenced by individual differences in
children's experiences, backgrounds, and trajectories of development. Factors such as
family environment, socioeconomic status, access to resources, and ongoing
educational experiences outside of early childhood programs may shape children's
long-term outcomes and contribute to the variability observed in fade-out patterns
across different populations.
Moreover, methodological considerations, such as the timing and duration of
follow-up assessments, the selection of outcome measures, and the control for
confounding variables, can impact the detection and interpretation of fade-out effects
in research studies. It's essential to employ rigorous research designs and analytical
techniques to accurately assess the persistence and magnitude of program effects over
time.
Despite the challenges posed by fade-out, it's crucial to recognize that the
benefits of early childhood education programs extend beyond academic achievement
to encompass broader outcomes related to social-emotional development, health and
well-being, and long-term success in adulthood. Even if the initial gains diminish over
time, the foundational skills, attitudes, and behaviors instilled during the early years
can have enduring effects on children's trajectories of learning and life outcomes.
In conclusion, while fade-out presents a complex and multifaceted challenge
to the field of early childhood education, it should not overshadow the significant
positive effects that these programs can have on children's development, particularly
for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. By continuing to invest in high-quality
early childhood education initiatives, addressing the factors contributing to fade-out,
and adopting a holistic approach that considers the diverse needs and experiences of
children and families, we can maximize the potential of early childhood education to
promote lifelong learning and well-being for all children.
However, Lowenstein cautions that most early childhood education programs
are not of the high quality found in the study programs. The small staff to child ratios
and other provided services, along with small research sample populations, make it
difficult to extend these results to the many early childhood programs dotting our
national landscape today.
There are two important aspects regarding the effects fading over time. First,
while the effects may fade in later school years, adult outcomes such as high school
graduation, teen pregnancy, and criminality were positively affected by quality early
childhood education, according to a meta-analysis of experimental early childhood
education studies (Duncan & Magnuson, 2013). Second, it is difficult to assess later
effects of early childhood education given the intervening school years. What happens
in first or fifth grade affects a child’s learning as well. The “jump start” students
receive through early childhood education is something that needs to be built upon
year after year.
The other way some researchers assess efficacy is through analyzing the rate
of return or return on investment. A study conducted by Harvard scientists found that
“ensuring children have positive experiences prior to entering school is likely to lead
to better outcomes than remediation programs at a later age, and significant up-front
costs can generate a strong return on investment”. James Heckman, professor of
economics at the University of Chicago and Nobel Laureate in Economics, is perhaps
one of the best known experts in the economics of human development. He argues,
“the rate of return for investments in quality early childhood development for
disadvantaged children is 7–10% per annum through better outcomes in education,
health, sociability, economic productivity and reduced crime” (Heckman, n.d.). He
finds that the investment in early childhood education is more cost effective than
investment in later grades and should occur as early in a child’s life as possible. A
recent study adds additional support for these assertions. North Carolina’s early
childhood initiatives were found to have an effect in reducing special education
placement in later school years. The Smart Start Initiative, which provided
comprehensive services for babies up to five years old, reduced special education
placement by 10%, while the More at Four program that funds preschool for four-
year-olds reduced placement by 32%. Since special education services are more
expensive than early childhood education, at least in North Carolina, this provided a
cost savings to the state.
Advocates and increasingly more policymakers are calling for greater
investments in early childhood education. Emerging research on the importance of
early learning activities indicates that the achievement gap may start soon after birth.
The environment in which babies and children are cared for has effects on later
functioning. For example, extreme household stress caused by poverty or violence can
impede the brain’s regulation of emotions and other functioning in later years. On the
flip side, parents who provide cognitive stimulation for their baby, including talking
with their baby and mirroring or responding to the baby’s emotions, support the
baby’s brain development and, consequently, the growing child develops more
advanced language skills (Putnam, 2015). Many advocates of early childhood
education would like to see high-quality early learning experiences to ensure that all
babies and young children receive the kinds of emotional and cognitive support that
are so important in the early years and that have later effects on children as students.
Acknowledgment that only high-quality programs produce significant results
spurs the strong policy emphasis on higher standards for program quality. At a
minimum, most states have licensing systems for childcare centers (including home
day cares), which provide a threshold bar for quality and compliance standards that
entities must meet to legally operate (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2011). However, licensing exemptions are common and are frequently provided to
family day care facilities with three or fewer children, facilities in public schools, and
part-day programs. States vary widely on content of licensing requirements and
fidelity of enforcement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).
Thirty-nine states have adopted Quality Rating and Improvement Systems
(QRISs) to supplement their licensing systems. The remaining 11 states are in various
stages of QRIS planning. These systems provide information about center/program
quality to parents and the public and are designed to encourage educational
experiences (rather than just care) in early learning programs. According to the QRIS
Network, “[a] well designed QRIS provides the following: Quality assurances by
creating and aligning program and professional standards and assessing and
monitoring how well programs meet those standards.” QRISs often assign star ratings
to programs and assess the “classroom learning environment, staff training and
education, parent involvement, classroom ratios, director leadership and business
practices, use of child assessments and developmentally appropriate curricula”.
Beyond transparency, QRISs can also be used to direct financial and technical
assistance to programs (Schaack et al., 2012). While all states are now headed toward
implementation of a QRIS, some states were initially hesitant to imprint a government
rating on private programs, citing the huge responsibility (and attendant potential
liability) for ensuring the ratings were accurate as well as entangling government and
market functions.
The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) quality
standards represent a crucial framework for guiding the development and
implementation of high-quality preschool programs across the United States. These
standards, comprising 10 program policies and related benchmarks, are informed by
extensive research on best practices and evidence-based strategies for promoting
positive outcomes for young children.
Among the 10 recommended policies and benchmarks outlined by NIEER,
four specifically focus on teacher quality, underscoring the central role that educators
play in shaping the quality and effectiveness of preschool programs. These policies
and benchmarks address various aspects of teacher preparation, qualifications,
ongoing professional development, and instructional practices, all of which are critical
determinants of program quality and children's learning experiences.
The first policy related to teacher quality emphasizes the importance of
requiring lead teachers to have a bachelor's degree, preferably in early childhood
education or a related field. Research consistently demonstrates that teachers with
higher levels of education are better equipped to facilitate children's learning, promote
positive social-emotional development, and effectively address the diverse needs of
children in their care. By establishing minimum educational qualifications for lead
teachers, preschool programs can ensure that children receive instruction from
knowledgeable and well-prepared educators who are capable of delivering high-
quality early learning experiences.
The second policy focuses on supporting ongoing professional development
for preschool teachers, recognizing that continuous learning and growth are essential
for maintaining instructional effectiveness and staying abreast of emerging research
and best practices in the field. Preschool programs are encouraged to provide
opportunities for teachers to participate in professional development activities such as
workshops, trainings, conferences, and peer learning communities, thereby enhancing
their knowledge, skills, and pedagogical expertise. By investing in the professional
growth of teachers, programs can foster a culture of excellence and innovation that
benefits both educators and children.
The third policy highlights the importance of ensuring that preschool teachers
receive competitive compensation and benefits commensurate with their
qualifications, expertise, and responsibilities. Competitive salaries and benefits are
critical for attracting and retaining talented educators, reducing turnover rates, and
promoting stability and continuity in the teaching workforce. By valuing and
compensating teachers appropriately, preschool programs can enhance morale, job
satisfaction, and overall program quality, ultimately benefiting children's learning and
development.
Finally, the fourth policy underscores the significance of providing teachers
with opportunities for collaboration, mentoring, and peer support within professional
learning communities. Collaborative learning environments foster a culture of shared
inquiry, reflection, and continuous improvement, allowing teachers to exchange ideas,
resources, and strategies, and learn from one another's experiences. By fostering a
supportive and collaborative culture among educators, preschool programs can
enhance the quality of teaching and learning, promote innovation, and cultivate a
sense of collective responsibility for children's success.
In conclusion, the NIEER quality standards represent a comprehensive and
research-based framework for promoting high-quality preschool education, with a
particular emphasis on teacher quality. By adhering to these standards and prioritizing
policies and practices that support the recruitment, preparation, professional
development, compensation, and collaboration of preschool teachers, programs can
create optimal learning environments that nurture children's growth, development, and
school readiness.
