Big announcement from HHS today on proposed new regulations that would significantly expand regulation of childcare providers receiving subsidies through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), a federal program that provides funds to states to help them provide childcare subsidies to low-income parents.

This is a big deal. I haven't had time to read the proposed regulations (all 199 pages of them) yet, so I'll hold off on commenting on the substance for now.

What I will say is that this looks a lot like the Obama administration is extending to child care an approach it's already taken with ESEA waivers: Aggressively interpreting the boundaries of its executive authority in an effort to fix problems in a major piece of underlying legislation that Congress is long overdue to reauthorize. In this case, that legislation is the CCDBG Act and Section 418 of the Social Security Act. CCDBG was last reauthorized as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996--aka welfare reform--and subsequent efforts to reauthorize the law have stalled. The proposed regulation is now open for a 75 day public comment period, which may result in revisions to the proposed rules. In any case, smart folks should keep an eye on this for both its early childhood implications and as a reflection of how the administration is dealing with the larger context in Washington today.

Posted by Sara Mead at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I have a post up at the Quick and the Ed today arguing that the District of Columbia, where I live and serve on the Board overseeing D.C. charter schools, is perhaps the best place in the country for 3- and 4-year-old pre-k. Astute readers of that post may be asking themselves, "If D.C. is doing such a good job on preschool, why did NIEER's State Preschool Yearbook rate D.C.'s charter preschool programs as meeting only 2 out of 10 NIEER standards? How can these programs be good if they meet only 20% of quality standards?"

Excellent question. The answer here is simple: NIEER's preschool quality standards do not actually assess the quality of a state's preschool offerings. Rather they are policy standards that assess the extent to which a state has regulatory requirements mandating that state-funded preschools have specific elements NIEER deems desirable. Charter schools, however, are typically exempt from most state regulatory requirements, and are instead held accountable to an authorizer under a charter contract. This increased autonomy for increased accountability bargain is at the heart of the charter school movement.

But that doesn't mean that D.C Charter Schools don't have the pre-k quality features highlighted in NIEER's report. D.C. Charter School preschool programs employ teachers with Bachelor's degrees, typically offer them far more than 15 hours a year of professional development, and typically have class sizes and adult:child ratios that meet or are better than NIEER's standards. They do this not because of a regulatory requirement to offer these specific features, but because they are committed to operating quality preschool programs--and are accountable to their authorizer to do so.

The District of Columbia Charter School Board (PCSB), on which I serve, is deeply committed to ensuring the quality of preschool programs in charters we oversee. We do this through our authorizing practice, however, and not by imposing specific requirements on schools. An applicant seeking to operate a charter school that includes pre-k must provide a clear and detailed explanation of how they will provide quality education programs for pre-k and the other grades they will serve, including curriculum, staffing, staff recruitment and professional development, and supports for children with disabilities and English language learners. Once charter schools are approved, PCSB conducts a Qualitative Site Review in the school's first year that, for preschool programs, includes CLASS observations that address quality of instruction and adult-child child interactions in preschool programs. (Established schools also receive regular Qualitative Site Reviews whose frequency depends, in part, on school performance.) All charter schools serving children in grades pre-k through 2 must also develop accountability plans that specify how the school will measure its impact on children's learning and developmental outcomes, as well as the level of performance the school's students will achieve on such measures. PCSB is also in the process of developing an early childhood performance Performance Management Framework that will establish a more consistent approach to assessing the quality of schools serving children in grades preK-2 and inform decisions about school expansion, renewal, sanctions, and closure.

All of this adds up to a much higher level of attention to actual instructional and classroom quality in pre-k programs than is executed by the vast majority of states receiving high scores on NIEER's rating. DCPCSB has repeatedly reached out to NIEER to explain to them why their current rating grossly mischaracterizes the quality of pre-k offered by D.C. charter schools, to no effect.

The NIEER rating is a real injustice to the many D.C. charter schools that offer exemplary pre-k programs. But it also reflects a fundamental flaw in NIEER's own approach to rating state pre-k quality based solely on regulatory requirements. Ultimately, NIEER's emphasis on specific regulatory standards and requirements reflects an approach to preschool quality that is much more aligned with and appropriate to a child care licensure approach than with quality control, oversight, and accountability as practiced in public education. This is deeply problematic, because ensuring access to quality preschool for all children requires persuading policymakers and the public that quality pre-k is about education, not just child care, and that pre-k must become a core component of our public education system (albeit one premised on diverse delivery), with the same importance and level of public commitment as 3rd grade or 8th grade. NIEER's Yearbook plays an incredibly important role in tracking data and providing information about pre-k programs and policies across the states, but to the extent its standards are out of step with trends in K-12 education reform over the past decade, they unfortunately serve to undermine NIEER's ultimate goal.

Posted by Sara Mead at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In light of the recently released NIEER report showing significant state cuts in preschool funding, I decided to look and see how states that receive Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grants from the Department of Education fared in terms of preschool funding and access in 2011-12. After all, Early Learning Challenge Grant funds were supposed to reward state that had made significant commitments to quality early childhood education. So states that got the grants should have been less likely to make funding or access cuts in preschool than others, right? Wrong. A cursory glance shows that several ELC winners made significant cuts in pre-k funding or access in 2011-12. Note that states had already made these funding and access cuts before they were awarded ELC grants--and they still received the grants. California cut preschool spending by $1,009 a child in 2011-12 and cut the number of slots by more than 5,000 (which reduced access statewide by 1 percentage point). Maryland, another RTT-ELC winner, cut pre-k spending per pupil by $946. And North Carolina reduced the total percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in pre-k by 5 percentage points. Another data point showing that ELC was not about preschool.

Posted by Sara Mead at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, the National Institute for Early Education Research released their annual State Preschool Yearbook, a valuable resource on state preschool programs, spending and enrollment. It's not a pretty picture. Total state spending on preschool was down 7% in 2011-12, marking the first time in a decade that overall state spending on preschool has fallen. To understand why this is so striking, it's important to place pre-k spending trends in longer-term context (see chart below). For most of the past decade, the Yearbook has shown states making progress on pre-k. Even after the recession hit in 2008, the report still found states holding ground on pre-k, thanks in part (but not exclusively) to an infusion of federal ARRA funds, and even showed a funding uptick last year. This is the first time since NIEER started counting that states collectively have actually taken a step backwards on pre-k. Further, pre-k funding levels in 2011-12 were at their lowest point since the recession began in 2008.

The positive overall trend is in someways still encouraging--even with the cuts this past year, states are still spending more than twice as much on pre-k as they did a decade ago, and serving vastly larger numbers of children. But the downward shift in a previously upward trend is cause for alarm--particularly in light of how far states still remain from providing access to quality preschool for all children who need it. Nationally, state preschool programs still serve only 28% of 4-year-olds and 4% of 3-year-olds (Head Start, state preschool, and other public programs combined serve only about 40% of 4-year-olds and 15% of 5-year-olds).

Even in the face of declining funding, state preschool enrollment actually rose last year by about 10,000 children, keeping the percentage of children enrolled roughly steady given population growth. How did states grow enrollment even as they cut funding? By lowering the level of state resources spent per pupil--to $3,841 in 2011-12, down from $4,284 the previous year--or a 10% funding cut for preschool in a single year, and a level of resources far lower than the cost to provide quality preschool. This continues a trend of declining per-pupil spending levels on pre-k even as states have expanded access in recent years.

Mike Petrilli, writing at the Fordham's Gadfly blog, argued that the falling spending levels over the past decade illustrate the folly of universal preschool and need to concentrate resources on the neediest kids. Unfortunately, the actual data don't suggest the problem here is states spreading resources too thin in order to serve higher income children. For all that "UPK" has become the public shorthand for state-funded preschool programs, the vast majority of state preschool programs are anything but universal and most do, in fact, target resources to the neediest kids. And most states are spreading resources thin while still failing to serve all eligible low-income children. Indeed, some of the largest cuts in per-pupil pre-k spending came in states, like California, with very tight income eligibility criteria targeting preschool funds exclusively to low-income children.

Ultimately, improving access to quality preschool for all children who need it is going to require a significant increased state commitment to preschool funding. More than that, however, it requires a shift in attitude by state policymakers, away from seeing preschool as a social service and childcare program and towards seeing it as an educational commitment on par with states' K-12 commitments. The numbers in the most recent NIEER report show that we're still a long way from that.

Posted by Sara Mead at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Over the past year, this blog has covered the Head Start designation renewal process, in which Head Start grantees that fail to meet certain performance measures are required to "recompete" for their grants. In December 2011, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which manages Head Start, notified 132 grantees that they would be required to re-apply for their grants. These grantees, and other agencies wishing to compete for Head Start grants, submitted applications in Summer 2012, but then heard nothing for months--to the considerable frustration of both the programs and early childhood policy analysts who wondered if something had gone off the rails with ACF's designation renewal process.

Today, ACF released the list of 160 applicants that have been selected for the redesignated grants. These selections are preliminary--selected grantees will still need to negotiate the specifics of their grants (including the exact amount of funding they will receive per child) with ACF.

As I previously predicted, most Head Start grantees identified for designation renewal will wind up keeping their grants. ACF reports that, of 125 providers require to compete for funding, 80 were able to retain their grants. 25 previous grantees lost their grants to new applicants. And 14 existing grantees will see their previous awards split up--the existing grantees will continue to receive some Head Start funds and serve children, but the grant will be divided and some funds will now go to other organizations that are new Head Start grantees. In some cases, these new grantees are already delivering Head Start programs as delegate agencies of the existing grantee, but will now receive Head Start funds directly from the federal government, rather than from another agency. These divisions of some grants are why the number of grantees announced today is larger than the number of grantees that were required to re-compete for funds. (Astute observers will note that 80+25+14 add up to less than 125, and that 125, the number of grantees ACF is saying were subject to designation renewal in this round, is lower than the 132 grantees notified in December 2011. I'm not sure why that is but will try to find out).

It also appears that 4 of the 10 Ohio Head Start agencies identified for designation renewal lost their funds and that both Massachusetts agencies identified for designation renewal kept theirs. I'm not sure what, if any, implications this has for the lawsuit brought against HHS by the Ohio Head Start Association, Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies, Massachusetts Association for Community Action, and Southeastern Association of Community Action Agencies. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled to be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this Friday.

The loss of grants by a substantial portion of grantees identified for designation renewal demonstrates that ACF is serious about using designation renewal as a tool to strengthen accountability, replace underperforming programs, and improve overall quality in Head Start. Some observers may think the percentage losing grants (roughly 20%) is too low, given that programs are subject to designation renewal only if they have already failed to meet certain standards. Two factors are worth taking into account here: First, many of the programs identified for designation renewal in the first round were identified based on administrative factors, which are in some cases easily remedied and may not necessarily mean the program wasn't doing a good job of serving children. Also, some larger agencies could be identified for designation renewal based on performance findings related to one of their delegate agencies, and may already have addressed the problems by terminating their relationships with the delegate agency. Second, ACF's ability to award a grant to another provider depends, in part, on the existence of another provider in the same geographic area that is able and willing to provide a better-quality Head Start program. Such providers may not have emerged in some areas. Just another reason the early childhood field needs to focus more on building the supply of quality providers.

One big question here is how sequestration will affect the negotiations between ACF and the grantees that have received preliminary identification for awards. Since Head Start slots are being cut in some existing providers, what will that mean for grants to brand new providers? Will all geographic areas lose slots by the same amount? In providers whose funds are being split, will the impact of sequestration fall evenly on all grantees? Will sequestration primarily impact the numbers of slots or also per-pupil funding levels? Also, in conjunction with its preschool announcements earlier this year, the Administration has indicated some goals for additional Head Start reforms and changes, further details of which are likely to be included in next week's budget proposal. Will these goals have any impact on the negotiations, particularly as relates to funding for 3 year-olds vs. 4-year-olds?

Posted by Sara Mead at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Earlier today, I moderated a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress on David Kirp's new book, Improbable Scholars. You can watch the full event streaming here.

Kirp's book tells the story of Union City, New Jersey's transformation from a deeply troubled and low-performing district in the early 1990s to one where a predominantly low-income, Latino, immigrant student population performs on par with or better than the New Jersey statewide average today. Union City's success is powerful, and the district's leaders and educators deserve tremendous credit for the difficult work they do on a day in and day out basis.

That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the broader school reform lessons that David draws from Union City's experience--as I've written previously. But Union City's experience is still worth hearing and thinking about--and we were particularly lucky to have Union City's Superintendent Sandy Sanger and early childhood director Adriana Birne on this panel to tell the story firsthand.

Posted by Sara Mead at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Interesting NYT article examines why, even as girls are pulling ahead of boys in measures of academic achievement--not just in New York, but across the United States and even internationally--boys significantly outnumber girls at New York City's elite, exam-based public schools, such as Stuyvesant, The Bronx High School of Science, and Brooklyn Tech. This is one of the more interesting issues in the current evolution of gender and educational achievement in America: Over the past few decades, women have caught up with and then surpassed men in indicators of educational attainment, and girls (on average) tend to do better in school than boys. At the same time, boys and men tend to remain over-represented in some of the highest ranks of educational and professional attainment, for a mix of reasons that are in some cases obvious and in others not well understood at all. For its part, The New York Times doesn't seem to come up with much of an answer explaining the phenomenon it describes, although I suspect NYC Chancellor Shael Polakow-Suransky captures the key point in this paragraph:

[Polakow-Suransky] said that at the highest echelons of test-takers, girls scored as well as boys, but that overall, fewer of the strongest female students were taking the exam.

What no one seems to understand here is why. Are girls, as some interviewed for the story suggest, less likely to take the exam because the schools that use it tend to have a heavy focus on math and science? (Other elite NYC public schools that use different entry measures tend to have much higher percentages of girls, and in fact have disproportionately female enrollments that mirror the male-heavy skew at the schools listed above.) Are parents, teachers, and counselors less likely to identify girls as candidates for the elite schools or to suggest that they take the exam in the first place? Do girls from certain communities have family obligations or life expectations that make them less likely to see the value of attending a highly selective public high school? No one seems to know for sure. It would be interesting to know.

Posted by Sara Mead at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Smart, brief report from ACT (with whom I've worked in the past on K-12 issues) looks at why early childhood education matters and what is most important for children to learn in preschool, kindergarten, and the early elementary grades. I particularly like this report for several reasons: First, it looks at the early years as a learning continuum, not just preschool or early elementary school. Second, it maintains a strong focus on the early skills and knowledge that research indicates are most predictive of children's later school performance. This is helpful to lay people and K-12 educators and policymakers who often feel flummoxed by apparent disagreements in the early childhood field about the relative importance of different types of skills and experience for young children.

This report also zeros in on some often under-acknowledged barriers to improving the quality of learning experience in preschool and the early grades, in particular educator and policymaker attitudes towards content-rich instruction in the early elementary grades. Too often, educators and policymakers assume that rich content is either inappropriate for young children, or that content in early childhood programs should focus on things that are closest to children's day-to-day experiences. But the reality is that content, well-delivered, can be incredibly engaging for young children and that restricting their content exposure to content close to their daily lives wastes tremendous opportunities to build background knowledge and vocabulary and can actually reinforce early learning gaps. Check out the entire thing here.

Posted by Sara Mead at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

New results from the longitudinal study of children who participated in New Jersey's Abbott pre-k program (a universal pre-k program for 3- and 4-year-olds in 31 of the state's highest poverty districts) find that gains from participating in Abbott pre-k persist through at least 4th and 5th grade. Gains were both statistically and educationally significant (equivalent to as much as 20-40 percent of the black-white achievement gap for children who attended 2 years of preschool).

This is an important additional piece of evidence on the debate over preschool effects and the phenomenon of "fade out." As I said at the Fordham Foundation last week, the issue here isn't whether evidence shows that preschool works or not, or whether preschool gains can be sustained over time. There is a abundant evidence that preschool programs can produce significant learning gains for participating children and that in at least some cases those gains can be sustained into elementary school. The question, then, is whether adults have the political will to put in place the kinds of programs that produce those results, and the capacity to execute them effectively.

Posted by Sara Mead at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday Russ Whitehurst and I participated in a debate on the federal role in early childhood education, hosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Video of the full debate is now available online here.

One point I made during the debate is that, however dimly political insiders may view the prospects for the President's proposal in the near term, over the long term it's virtually inevitable that we'll see expanded public spending on pre-k, leading ultimately to universal preschool access. Why am I so optimistic about this? Two reasons: First, the trend in developed (and, increasingly, developing) countries has been towards expanding children's access to quality preschool. The U.S. currently lags its peers on this front, but over time it's going to be imperative that we catch up if we want to maintain our economic competitiveness. Second--and probably more immediately important--after several years of stagnant state budgets due to the recession, we're now seeing states take up the lead again on expanding pre-k.

As the National Women's Law Center reports, 27 governors included early childhood education in their 2013 state of the state addresses, and 15 of them called for expansion of preschool. Equally important, support for preschool is a bipartisan initiative at the state level--Republican Governors in Michigan and Alabama, among other states, called for significant increases in pre-k spending. Maybe Congressional Republicans could learn a thing or two from their state-level peers on this front.

Posted by Sara Mead at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend