[Senate Hearing 109-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-116
EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE: WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND
COORDINATION OF CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE HEAD START
PROGRAM, THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (CCDF), AND INCREASING
FOOD SECURITY AND REDUCING HUNGER
__________
APRIL 20, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-853 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
Katherine Brunett McGuire, Staff Director
J. Michael Myers, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
officio) (ex officio)
Christine C. Dodd, Staff Director
Grace A. Reef, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and
Early Childhood Development, opening statement................. 1
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts, opening statement............................... 3
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Horn, Wade F., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Raymond Simon,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education,
U.S. Department of Education; and Kate Coler, Deputy Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 7
Prepared statements of:
Wade F. Horn, Ph.D....................................... 9
Raymond Simon............................................ 16
Kate Coler............................................... 20
Dodd, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, opening statement................................. 13
(iii)
EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE: WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE?
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development,
of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Enzi, Dodd, and Kennedy.
Opening Statement of Chairman Alexander
Senator Alexander. Good morning. The Education and Early
Childhood Development Subcommittee will come to order. We
welcome our witnesses for what ought to be a very interesting
discussion.
I want to welcome Senator Kennedy, who is the ranking
member of the full committee. Senator Dodd, the ranking member
of the subcommittee, will be here after he makes an opening
statement at another committee. Between the two of them, they
have about 16 more years of experience than I do, or something
like that. It is a pleasure to work with them both.
This is a subject in which we are all very interested, and
let me see if I can frame it a little bit and then I will ask
Senator Kennedy if he would like to make some opening remarks
and Senator Dodd when he comes.
The purpose of the hearing is to learn more about the
effectiveness of the 69 Federal programs that help parents help
their young children with child care and early education. By
the end of the hearing, we hope to get an assessment from the
witnesses from three major Federal departments about how these
programs are working.
I hope that this hearing is the beginning of a year-long
look at Federal programs for early childhood education and
care. I have talked with other members of the committee about
this topic. We welcome our chairman of the full committee,
Senator Enzi of Wyoming. It is a top priority with him, with
Senator Kennedy, and with Senator Dodd. I have talked with
Secretary Spellings and Leavitt and Johanns about it and they
have talked with each other. We see this as an unusual
opportunity for us to take stock of what we have without
necessarily knowing before we start what our conclusion will
be, to see where we should go from here, and then maybe we can
find a consensus about any changes that we might need to make.
We each have our personal perspectives on early childhood
education. Let me tell you mine. I grew up in the mountains of
East Tennessee and attended my mother's nursery school and
kindergarten program, which was in a converted garage in the
backyard of our house. It was the only preschool education
program in our county. She had 25 3- and 4-year-olds in the
morning and 25 5-year-olds in the afternoon.
And even then, more than a half-century ago, she was able
to identify in those young children gifts that they had,
problems that they had, diseases that they had that their
parents didn't know about. She was convinced of the importance
of early childhood education. She noticed that when people
moved into Maryville, our little town, that the first thing
they did was try to enroll their children in what I would call
Mrs. Alexander's Institution of Lower Learning
[Laughter.]
Then they would go look for a house, because even then,
parents knew the importance of early childhood education.
Now, let us jump ahead a half-century and think how much
more we have learned about that since then. Specifically, about
how a child's brain doubles between birth and the age of 3.
This has been reflected by the interests of governments. Forty
years ago, the Head Start program began as a pioneering
program, but today, it is only $6 or $7 billion of $18 to $21
billion that the Federal Government spends through those 69
programs for children under 6, and that doesn't even count
Medicaid and other programs. So the Federal Government has
noticed the importance of early childhood for those families
especially who can't afford to provide it for their own
children.
And then States have recognized it. Forty States, I
believe, have some form of preschool education program, and
many of our Head Start centers are now affiliated with school
districts. So we have a lot going on in this area. We can be
almost certain that it is not being as well and effectively
spent as it might be if we would take a look at it, just
because of the way the world changes.
So we are really free to look at all of these programs, the
Federal ones, and then as we get on into other roundtables and
hearings, we will look at the State programs and the local
programs and determine, maybe there are some programs that are
unneeded. Maybe there is some money that is being spent one way
that can be spent another way. Maybe we need to spend
additional funds in a different way. Maybe we can learn
something from different programs.
For example, we might learn from the Department of
Agriculture something about Food Stamp money, because Food
Stamp money goes to parents. Parents then have a variety of
choices about where they can spend that Food Stamp money, at
different kinds of institutions. We also do that in our higher
education model. We don't do it very much in elementary and
secondary education.
Title I dollars, which are spent for elementary and
secondary education, might be better spent sometimes in
preschool programs. They may be spent that way, and maybe we
could encourage that. I was just at a meeting of chief State
school officers and the suggestion was made to me that perhaps
we could try to implement the President's suggestion that we
get the States more involved with Head Start without damaging
one of the great strengths of Head Start, which is the autonomy
and independence. We might give training grants to State
Departments of Education who are working with early childhood
programs, including Head Start, and for the next 3 or 4 years,
let us see what we can learn from States creating model
programs and model training programs as they seek to train
preschool teachers and teachers in the elementary grades.
So I guess it is fair to say everything is on the table.
Everybody is interested. We have got an administration with
three Secretaries that are talking to each other about it. We
have got a committee with people on both sides of the aisle who
put a high priority on it. We have a GAO report from the year
2000 that took a look at these programs. Senator Voinovich did
a lot of work on that study. We have asked for an updating of
that report. We will see what we can learn from the Federal
witnesses at this hearing and then we will develop an agenda
after talking with the other Senators about how to go from
here. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, by the
end of the year, or shortly thereafter, we will come back with
some suggestions about how we can do the best possible job of
spending Federal dollars to help parents who have very young
children who need preschool education and who need child care.
Senator Kennedy?
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. I want to thank
Chairman Alexander, for holding these hearings and for his
strong commitment in this area. I see Chairman Enzi, as well,
the chairman of the full committee. This bodes well for this
whole endeavor that we are involved in and I thank him and
welcome all of our witnesses that are here, some individuals
who are good enough to help us on a variety of different public
policy issues involving children and education. We are very
fortunate to hear from them.
Early childhood education deserves the same high priority
we now give to elementary, secondary education, and college
education. It is essential to children's later success in
school and in life. It is indispensible in minimizing learning
disabilities and emotional disorders and it is effective in
reducing crime and keeping our communities safe. A number of
Federal programs already support children in their early years
and encourage their social, emotional, and intellectual
development, but too often, they fail to do the job.
What we do in children's earliest years profoundly affects
the rest of their lives. Extensive scientific research makes
this point clear, from the landmark Neurons to Neighborhood
report, to the decades-old Perry Preschool study. If we fail to
meet children's developmental needs starting at birth, we
shortchange our children and our society as well. All of this
is an area that we haven't given focus and attention to and
offers enormous possibilities.
If you look through the results of the Perry Preschool
program, the Adledarian program, and the Child-Parent Centers
program in Chicago, all of these indicate the benefits of early
intervention and the impact it has had on children and
children's development. It has really been enormously
important.
So the research confirms what we have known all along, that
every child is born ready to learn. The question is, what
opportunities will children have to reach their full potential?
Head Start gives low-income children immunizations,
develops their vocabulary and reading skills, and provides
early knowledge of numbers. Title I preschool programs give
children the building blocks they need to do well in their
kindergarten classes and elementary school years. The school
breakfast and lunch programs make it possible for nearly 30
million low-income children to receive nutritious meals every
day at school. Each of these programs has a distinct goal and
provides a distinct service. Each is a lifeline of support for
children from low-income families.
Two overall factors, quality and access, are critical to
achieving our goals. The quality of children's experience
determines whether they develop well and have the skills to
enter school ready to learn, and the successful early
development depends heavily on the relationships they can build
with those around them, regardless of the setting of the
program that they are in. That is why it is critical for us to
focus on improving the quality of all of our early childhood
education programs, and we owe it to all the children to be
sure that their basic development needs are met, no matter
where they can get the care.
Our efforts in Congress will also depend on guaranteeing
access to these essential services. Budget cuts that compromise
these goals are unacceptable. Head Start, the Nation's hallmark
commitment to children, serves fewer than six out of ten
children who are eligible. Early Head Start, for the youngest
children, serves only 3 percent of the children that are
eligible.
Better interagency cooperation and coordination are
obviously important here, and we are going to hear more about
that this morning. They must include State and local efforts.
But coordination efforts that expand services for some should
not come at the expense of curtailing them for others.
We are very fortunate to have witnesses here this morning
that can really help our committee and all of us understand
this issue better. I commend the chairman and look forward to
the testimony.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Chairman Enzi?
Opening Statement of Chairman Enzi
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
you holding these hearings. I would ask that my full statement
be in the record. I am glad that you are holding these
hearings. I had no idea that we had as many programs until I
got this chairmanship, and now I am very interested in what
each program does, how effectively they do what they say they
will do, what kinds of duplication we have so that we can best
allocate resources to the most effective programs and make the
ones that aren't as effective more effective.
I think there is a lot of good that can come out of both
the hearings and the work that we do, so I thank you for taking
the initiative on this and getting it done. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your statement
will be included.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Enzi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael B. Enzi
I want to thank Senator Alexander for calling this
subcommittee hearing to address the role of the Federal
Government in our early childhood education programs. I also
appreciate our witnesses taking the time out of their very busy
schedules to be with us.
Today's hearing will give us a chance to focus on early
education programs with two questions in mind. First of all,
are early education programs effective and do they play an
important role in our goal of providing all our citizens with
access to a lifetime of learning? Secondly, if these programs
are effective, how can we best use our resources to make them
available to more of our children, especially in rural areas
where the delivery of these services has been hampered by
problems with geography, personnel and resources.
Earlier this week a report was released that cited a study
that started 40 years ago. It took a close look at the economic
impact of good preschooling on children determined to be at
risk. Although limited in scope, the study found that the group
that received a quality education was more likely to complete
school, they had better jobs, they were making higher incomes,
they were more likely to own their own homes, and they were
less likely to be on welfare or to have turned to crime.
Those are the kind of statistics that get our attention--
especially the estimate that every dollar invested in early
education programs saved taxpayers as much as $13 later on in
public education, criminal justice and welfare costs.
We shouldn't be surprised. There's an old saying, it's not
where you start, it's where you finish. In today's world, with
today's educational opportunities, we are finding the opposite
is true. More often than not where you start determines where
you finish and those who get off to a good start have
dramatically better finishes than those who do not get that
same break at the beginning.
Fortunately, the importance of a good education is a lesson
that was learned a long time ago and the Federal Government has
been doing its best over the past years to increase access to
these vital programs. From a handful of programs that were
begun during the War on Poverty in the 1960's that commitment
has grown to more than 60 such programs around the country.
Many of these programs serve similar populations of young
children. Programs like Head Start, the Child Care Development
Block Grant, and many others authorized through No Child Left
Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and
numerous others, are providing Federal support for States or
local communities to provide services for children.
Congress has an interest in ensuring that these programs
are working together, so that our children will receive the
services they need and are eligible to receive. We should also
be looking at ways we can improve the collaboration between
Federal, State, and local programs, so more children can begin
the learning process early, and enter school ready and fully
prepared to learn.
Many of these programs appear to overlap, and many States
and local communities are struggling with running similar
programs with different requirements. Several of these programs
are operated by different Federal Departments and the funds are
delivered to different State agencies. In some cases, Federal
funds are provided directly to local grantees without any State
involvement.
This inconsistent approach to early childhood education has
created a number of challenges that may be preventing States
and local agencies from helping students more effectively. The
Federal Government is asking different entities receiving
Federal funds to operate each of these programs slightly
differently, frequently without any form of collaborative
arrangement.
It is my hope that today's hearing will help provide a
foundation for stronger collaboration between these programs,
so our children can get the best start possible and Federal
dollars can be used most effectively. I look forward to today's
testimony and the discussion that will follow.
Senator Alexander. I would like to introduce all three
witnesses and then invite each of you to take what you need to
summarize your statements. Maybe you could take 6 to 8 minutes
to summarize your statements, or less if you wanted, and then
that would give us more of a chance to have a conversation with
you, but take the time you need.
I will give brief introductions. Kate Coler is Deputy Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. She was
appointed that at the end of 2003. She works to make the
Nation's agricultural abundance to end hunger and improve
health in the United States. She represents the United States
Department of Agriculture, where she first worked as Deputy
Administrator of the Food Stamp Program.
Ray Simon is Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education. He used to be the
superintendent in Arkansas and he was a school superintendent
himself. He was called in in the middle of the implementation
of No Child Left Behind and given various missionary
assignments out across the country and has done a remarkably
good job, according to the State school officers with whom I
meet. We appreciate his service and we welcome him here.
Dr. Wade Horn is almost a member of this committee, he is
here so often. We are delighted to have him again. He is
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the
Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. He was President of the National
Fatherhood Initiative and has had a distinguished career.
We welcome all three of you, and I would like to say again,
although I am sure you will say it, that in each case, I have
talked with the Secretary of your Department and each has told
me of how interested they are and what a priority they put on
this initiative. So we are here, as they say in Washington, to
help, to learn what we need to know and find out what changes
we need to make and see if any of it requires legislation.
Dr. Horn, I would like to start with you, and then go to
Mr. Simon, and then Ms. Coler.
STATEMENTS OF WADE F. HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
RAYMOND SIMON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; AND KATE COLER, DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the programs in the
Administration for Children and Families that focus on early
childhood education, particularly the Head Start program and
our child care programs.
The administration is committed to helping to ensure that
children enter school ready to learn and looks forward to
working with the Congress and particularly with this committee
to improve the effectiveness and coordination of all programs
that support the healthy development and school readiness of
our Nation's children.
With an appropriation of nearly $7 billion, Head Start's
mission is to promote school readiness by enhancing the social
and cognitive development of low-income children. This year,
the program will serve nearly 910,000 children in nearly 50,000
classrooms located across the country.
Additionally, through the Child Care and Development Fund,
we provide $4.8 billion to States, territories, and tribes to
subsidize child care for low-income working parents and to
improve the quality of care for all families that use child
care. When TANF funds are considered as well as other State and
Federal funding sources, over $11 billion currently is
available for child care and related services for children.
This funding will provide child care assistance to an estimated
2.2 million children this year.
Combined, Head Start services and child care assistance
provided through the Child Care Development Fund offer an
enormous opportunity to influence the healthy development and
school readiness of low-income children, and success in school
is a strong predictor of success in life, as reflected in lower
delinquency rates, less teen pregnancy, higher incomes, fewer
health issues, less suicide, and so forth.
To help States make informed early care and education
policy decisions, we are equipping them with relevant research
findings about effective practices. Research into child
development, with its recent focus on how children develop
early literacy skills, gives us an increasingly clearer picture
of what knowledge and skills children need to attain in the
preschool years in order to be successful in school and in
life.
Many of our research and evaluation efforts are coordinated
with others in HHS and also with the Department of Education
and the Department of Agriculture. For example, the Interagency
School Readiness Consortium, a multimillion-dollar
collaborative program between HHS and the Department of
Education, supports research on the effectiveness of early
childhood curricula, programs, and interventions in promoting
the range of cognitive, social, and behavioral skills necessary
for a child's success when turning to school.
I believe that we all agree that Head Start makes positive
contributions to the lives of tens of thousands of children and
families. But if the program is to achieve its full potential,
we must better integrate new research findings about early
childhood learning into the program.
The same holds true for child care services. Key to the
administration's efforts to focus on an integrated and
coordinated approach to early childhood learning is the
President's Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood initiative
first announced in 2002. The initiative contains three key
elements related to partnering with States to improve early
learning.
First, research-based early learning guidelines in each
State that describe what it means to be kindergarten-ready, no
matter what care setting a child is coming from.
Second, Statewide professional development plans linked to
the early learning guidelines for educating and training child
care and preschool teachers and administrators.
And third, coordination across major early childhood
programs and funding streams.
To promote Good Start, Grow Smart goals, we have created
strategic partnerships with States to improve early childhood
programs through a significant infusion of guidance, training,
and technical assistance. Within the Head Start program, we
implemented an intensive national teacher training program in
early literacy. Within the child care program, States have been
encouraged to include Good Start, Grow Smart objectives in
their Child Care Development Fund State plans, and we have
provided technical assistance and training for States, tribes,
and territories to assist in this effort. States have embraced
the Good Start, Grow Smart goals and have made tremendous
progress.
Further, an interagency Good Start, Grow Smart work group
representing early childhood programs at HHS and the Department
of Education coordinates Good Start, Grow Smart activities
across the two Departments and works together to achieve school
readiness goals for young children. This work group is focused
on creating and maintaining a shared vision for early childhood
education at the Federal level and with State and local
constituents.
In addition, since 2002, a series of regionally-based
meetings have been conducted with State stakeholders from child
care, Head Start, and education to develop a strategic plan for
implementing Good Start, Grow Smart in their States. ACF's
child care and Head Start staff have partnered with the
Department of Education to provide national training for
States, territories, and tribes, including a forum on child
care and early literacy and two State roundtables on early
learning guidelines and professional development.
We will continue our efforts to forge significant
partnerships on behalf of children and families to maximize the
number of children served and the positive impacts provided by
Head Start and Child Care Development Fund funded child care.
To help us accomplish greater coordination among all early
childhood players, we look forward to working with the Congress
on several fronts.
First, we are asking Congress to include in the
reauthorization of the Head Start Act a provision that will
allow interested States to include Head Start in their
preschool plans. Under the proposal, States are offered the
opportunity to coordinate preschool programs with Head Start
programs in their States in exchange for meeting certain
accountability requirements.
Moreover, to improve coordination, the President's welfare
reform reauthorization plan proposes allowing States to
integrate funding and program rules across a broad range of
State welfare and workforce programs, including CCDF and other
early childhood programs. States can request under this waiver
authority the authority to better integrated Federal programs,
including program eligibility and reporting requirements. The
goal of each of these two legislative initiatives is to provide
maximum flexibility to States in order to allow better
coordination across program lines.
I appreciate your strong interest and ongoing commitment to
strengthening coordination across early childhood programs and
to improve the quality, effectiveness, and coordination of
services, and in turn the care and education of the Nation's
low-income preschool children. Working together, I am sure that
we can make this vision a reality. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Dr. Horn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss programs in the
Administration for Children and Families that primarily focus on early
childhood education and care of children under 6--the Head Start and
child care programs. The administration is committed to helping to
ensure that children enter school ready to learn and looks forward to
working with the Congress to improve the effectiveness and coordination
of all programs that support the healthy development and school
readiness of our Nation's young children.
With an appropriation of nearly $7 billion, Head Start's mission is
to promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive
development of low-income children. Some 1,600 Head Start grantees
throughout the country strive to fulfill this mission through the
provision of comprehensive education, child development, health, and
social services to enrolled children and their families. This year the
program will serve nearly 910,000 children in nearly 50,000 classrooms
located across the country.
In addition to the Head Start program, the Administration for
Children and Families administers the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF). Through CCDF, we provide $4.8 billion in funds to States,
Territories and Tribes to subsidize child care for low-income working
parents and improve the quality of care for all families that use child
care. In addition, States have the flexibility to use TANF funds for
child care both by transferring up to 30 percent of TANF funds to CCDF,
and by spending additional TANF money directly for child care. When
TANF funds are considered, as well as other State and Federal funding
sources, over $11 billion currently is available for child care and
related services for children. This funding will provide child care
assistance to an estimated 2.2 million children this year. While
available for children under age 13, most child care funds are used for
preschoolers, infants and toddlers.
Combined, the Head Start program and child care assistance provided
through the CCDF offer an enormous opportunity to influence the healthy
development and school readiness of low-income children. I would like
to share with you the steps we have taken to improve the quality and
effectiveness of these programs, including our efforts to integrate and
coordinate our efforts within HHS and with other agencies with related
goals. I would like to begin by discussing the research that is guiding
our efforts.
Research on Early Childhood Programs
The bottom line for the President in early childhood learning is
school readiness--improving the learning experiences and strengthening
the focus on accountability for outcomes from those experiences.
Research tells us a great deal about the skills and knowledge children
need to be successful in school. And success in school is a strong
predicator of success in life, as reflected in lower delinquency rates,
less teen pregnancy, higher incomes, fewer health issues, less suicide,
and so forth.
To help States make informed early care and education policy
decisions, we are equipping them with relevant research findings about
effective practices. Research into child development, with a recent
focus on early literacy skills, gives us a progressively clearer
picture of what knowledge and skills children need in the preschool
years and predict later school success. For instance, we know that
children need exposure to language and a variety of vocabulary words,
mainly through meaningful conversations and reading with adults. We
also know that children need exposure to the sounds and letters that
are the basic building blocks of language. Equally important, they need
well-developed social and emotional skills that allow them to
participate in group activities and have positive interactions with
adults and peers. We also know that the knowledge and skills that help
children prepare for kindergarten can be nurtured in a variety of
settings, including Head Start programs, preschools, and home-based
child care providers.
The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is at
the center of our research on the quality and effects of Head Start.
FACES, an ongoing longitudinal study of Head Start programs, drawing on
a nationally stratified random sample of between 2,400 and 3,200
children, provides in-depth information on such areas as child
outcomes, family involvement, and key aspects of program quality and
teaching practices.
FACES data have been collected for children entering Head Start in
1997, 2000, and 2003. These data show that children enter Head Start
with levels of academic skills and knowledge far below national norms.
Although children demonstrate progress in early literacy and social
skills, their overall performance levels when they leave Head Start
still remain below national norms of school readiness.
Research on Early Head Start programs demonstrated that children in
Early Head Start functioned significantly better than a randomly
assigned control group in cognitive and language development and their
parents report they were more likely to read to them regularly.
However, like older children in Head Start, children in Early Head
Start leave the program still lagging behind their more advantaged
peers in some areas of development.
Another important element of our research agenda is the Head Start
Impact Study, now underway. It is the first large-scale, nationally
representative study of Head Start using a randomized control group
research design. This study will compare outcomes for Head Start
children with what they would have been in the absence of the program,
and will show how impacts differ among children, families, and programs
with different characteristics. We hope to publish the first findings
from this study shortly.
In addition, we are funding several projects that are testing the
effectiveness of innovations and improvements in Head Start, Early Head
Start and related services for young children. Through partnerships
among local Head Start programs and universities and other research
organizations, we are sponsoring the development and testing of
cutting-edge approaches to literacy, children's approaches to learning,
measurement of children's development, and the use of assessment to
enhance teaching.
We also have implemented a National Reporting System (NRS) to
collect child outcome data from every local Head Start program. This
reporting system was launched in the fall of 2003 when approximately
436,000 4- and 5-year-old children received a common standardized
assessment of a limited set of key school readiness indicators. The
participation rate was greater than 99 percent of all Head Start
programs and families in this largest-ever assessment of young
children. Each local Head Start program that participated received a
report on the average levels of performance of both English and
Spanish-speaking children on each of the four sections of the
assessment: language comprehension, vocabulary, letters of the alphabet
and early mathematics skills. The reports allowed programs to compare
their results to national averages and to results for agencies with
similar characteristics. Programs will use the data from the NRS to
improve the delivery of services in those areas in which the NRS
suggests improvement is needed. We will assist them in this effort.
With respect to child care, we also are funding a comprehensive
research and evaluation agenda that focuses on: the effectiveness of
strategies to improve children's early learning; the impact of
professional development efforts in changing caregiver skills and
practice (including coordination of training efforts across early care
and education systems); and the impact of partnerships and
collaborations among Head Start, child care, and pre-kindergarten in
promoting child, provider, and family outcomes. We launched a 4-year,
multi-site study of alternative approaches that show promise for
improving the knowledge, skills, and performance of child care
providers across the range of care settings. This research will help
States make informed decisions about how to use their CCDF quality
improvement dollars to support children's early learning.
Many of our research and evaluation efforts are coordinated with
others in HHS and the Department of Education. For example, we are
supporting an enhanced analysis of early learning indicators in the
National Household Education Survey. Further, to ensure that
policymakers and administrators have easy access to key research
findings, a Child Care and Early Education Research Connections archive
was launched a year ago. Research Connections is an online, interactive
database of research, information, and data sets on topics related to
early care and education.
In addition, the Interagency School Readiness Consortium, a multi-
million dollar collaborative program between HHS and the Department of
Education, supports research on the effectiveness of early childhood
curricula, programs, and interventions in promoting the range of
cognitive, social, and behavioral skills necessary for the child's
successful entry into school. Eight research teams are rigorously
evaluating cutting edge early childhood intervention implementation in
public settings--including Head Start, child care, State pre-
kindergarten and blended programs.
Further, in partnership with the National Institute of Health (NIH)
National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD), we are
creating additional measures that may be used to replace or to extend
the current measures with the National Reporting System. With its
investment of $3 million annually in Head Start Research, Development
and Evaluation funds during fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2009,
the work governed by the ACF and NICHD partnership will support the
administration's commitment to our Nation's most vulnerable children
who remain at risk for not achieving success in school.
Efforts to Improve Head Start and Child Care
I believe that we all would agree that Head Start makes positive
contributions to the lives of thousands of children and families. But
if the program is to achieve its full potential, we must integrate new
research findings about early childhood learning into the program. The
same holds true for child care services.
Key to the administration's efforts to focus on an integrated and
coordinated approach to early childhood learning, is the President's
Good Start, Grow Smart Early Childhood Initiative announced in 2002.
The President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative provides a clear
charge not only to Head Start but to the entire early childhood
education field, including child care programs. The initiative contains
three key elements related to partnering with States to improve early
learning: research-based early learning guidelines in each State that
describe what it means to be kindergarten ready, no matter what care
setting a child is coming from; statewide professional development
plans, linked to the early learning guidelines, for educating and
training child care and preschool teachers and administrators; and
coordination across major early childhood programs and funding streams.
Good Start, Grow Smart encourages program coordination across early
learning efforts, particularly among four key programs--CCDF, Head
Start, public pre-kindergarten programs, and Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF). Through joint planning and information sharing,
we are working together to ensure that State Good Start, Grow Smart
partnership efforts are coordinated with other related State
initiatives, such as the State Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems
grants funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, our sister
agency at HHS. These grants are helping States work across programs to
develop and implement collaborations that support families and
communities to raise children that are healthy and ready to learn.
Further, an Interagency Good Start, Grow Smart workgroup
representing early childhood programs at HHS and the Department of
Education coordinates Good Start, Grow Smart activities and works
together to achieve school readiness goals for young children. This
workgroup is focused on creating and maintaining a shared vision for
early childhood education at the Federal level and with State and local
constituents.
We also are paying particular attention to the needs of children
with disabilities. For example, this summer ACF's child care, Head
Start and developmental disabilities staff along with staff from the
Department of Education will be co-sponsoring the National Early
Childhood Inclusion Institute to develop better collaborative
relationships and cross-agency systems to support early childhood
inclusion for children with special needs.
To promote Good Start, Grow Smart goals, we have created strategic
partnerships with States to improve early childhood programs through a
significant infusion of guidance, training and technical assistance.
Within the Head Start program, we implemented an intensive national
teacher training program in early literacy. Project STEP, Head Start's
Summer Teacher Education Program, provided training to all of the
nearly 50,000 Head Start teachers in early literacy teaching
techniques. Project STEP has enhanced the effectiveness of Head Start
teachers by providing intensive teacher training on strategies to
foster children's progress in specific indicators of early language and
pre-reading skills, including phonological awareness, vocabulary, print
and book awareness, letter knowledge, and early writing.
Within the child care program, States have been encouraged to
include Good Start, Grow Smart objectives in their CCDF State plan and
we have provided technical assistance and training for States, Tribes,
and Territories to assist in this effort.
States have embraced the Good Start, Grow Smart goals and made
tremendous progress. Every State successfully submitted plans for Good
Start, Grow Smart only 1 year after its launch. Many States are engaged
in embedding the early learning guidelines in expanded professional
development systems. All States have created partnerships with key
early care and education programs in their States and are coordinating
with these stakeholders in the establishment of their professional
development systems.
Since 2002, a series of regionally-based meetings have been
conducted with State stakeholders from child care, Head Start and
education to develop a strategic plan for implementing Good Start, Grow
Smart in their States. ACF's child care and Head Start staff have
partnered with Department of Education to provide national training for
States, Territories, and Tribes, including a Forum on Child Care and
Early Literacy and two State Roundtables on early learning guidelines
and professional development. We also have provided individualized
technical assistance for many States, including onsite consultation.
States are taking the initiative to advance coordination efforts as
well. For example, Ohio recently launched the Early Learning Initiative
where programs in Ohio integrate Head Start, Child Care and public pre-
kindergarten into a program with the same standards and requirements.
ACF is providing funds to support Ohio's efforts to evaluate whether
and how partnerships between programs improve the quality of education
that children receive. This project will study observed quality and
children's school readiness in child care-Head Start partnerships in
randomly-selected child care center classrooms and family child care
homes, and examine whether, and under what conditions, these
partnerships are related to observed quality and the school readiness
of children.
Next Steps
We will continue these efforts to forge significant partnerships on
behalf of children and families to maximize the number of children
served and the positive impacts provided by these programs.
Coordination is essential at the Federal, State and local levels.
Nobody benefits by a fragmented approach to meeting pre-school
children's needs and, working together, we can be greater than the sum
of our parts. Although many States have demonstrated significant
interest in, and commitment to, building strong early childhood systems
in recent years, no State has a comprehensive system of early care and
education that makes high quality services available to all low-income
families who want them for their children.
To help us accomplish greater coordination among all early
childhood players, we look forwarding to working with the Congress on
several fronts. First, to strengthen the Head Start program, improve
services to low-income children, and promote the coordination and
integration of comprehensive early care and education services, we are
asking Congress to include in the reauthorization of the Head Start Act
a provision that will allow interested States to include Head Start in
their preschool plans. Under the proposal, States are offered the
opportunity to coordinate preschool programs with Head Start programs
in exchange for meeting certain accountability requirements.
Moreover, to improve coordination, the President's welfare reform
reauthorization plan proposes allowing States to integrate funding and
program rules across a broad range of State welfare and workforce
programs, including CCDF and other early childhood programs. States can
request demonstration authority to integrate aspects of Federal
programs, including program eligibility and reporting requirements. The
goal of each of these legislative initiatives is to provide maximum
flexibility in order to allow coordination across program lines.
Conclusion
I appreciate your strong interest and ongoing commitment to
strengthening coordination across early childhood programs to improve
the quality, effectiveness and coordination of services and in turn,
the care and education of the Nation's low-income preschool children.
Working together we can make this vision a reality.
Senator Alexander. We welcome Senator Chris Dodd of
Connecticut, who is the ranking member on this subcommittee,
who has taken it upon himself in the last few years to try to
personally populate the preschool education programs of the
country with two young children.
[Laughter.]
Welcome, Senator Dodd. You are welcome to make opening
statements now or at a later time.
Opening Statement of Senator Dodd
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I doze off, I
want you to know it has nothing to do with the quality of the
testimony and your leadership on this committee. But when you
are up at 3:00 and 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning, it----
Senator Kennedy. That is your wife, Chris, not you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. Jackie is not listening right now.
[Laughter.]
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank you
immensely for holding these hearings and for your interest in
the subject matter as well as your interest on the issues
before us. Just a few comments, if I could, and I thank our
witnesses, as well, here for their testimony.
I certainly agree with the chairman and others who have
spoken that there are numerous programs, obviously, that are
geared toward children, from birth to age 5, that we should
have a clear understanding of what these goals are so that we
have as much cooperation as we possibly can have. I certainly
believe that additional efforts to coordinate between Federal
and State programs are worthwhile and we ought to examine how
we can best promote coordination.
I don't want to overstate the issue, though, and that is my
concern, that as important as coordination is, and we ought to
examine it, but the underlying problem is that we are
underserving populations in this country that really need
additional attention. Only half of eligible children who could
participate in Head Start are actually participating today.
About three percent of eligible infants and toddlers
participate in Early Head Start in our country. Only one out of
every seven eligible children receives child care assistance.
Coordination could make a difference in these areas, but I
don't want to overstate the case, and that would be my worry
here, that we have things we need to do where coordination
could play a role but coordination alone is not the answer. At
some point, we need to talk about the investment as a nation
that we are willing to make and whether we really want to make
these kinds of commitments on behalf of the most vulnerable
children in our country.
We know that quality child care, for instance, can make a
difference, particularly in the outcomes of poor children, yet
State policies based on insufficient resources have led to
subsidy rates far below the going rates for child care in many
communities, reduced income eligibility for assistance, and
increased parent co-pays. All of these policies have shut the
door of quality child care to many, many low-income families
across our country.
We could fully fund Head Start. We could make all Head
Start programs full-day programs instead of mostly part-day
programs. We could provide additional child care funds to Head
Start centers to offer wrap-around care so that working parents
can have their children participate in Head Start without
worrying about who will watch their children before the program
begins and after it ends.
CBO has estimated, of course, that this would cost an
additional $500 million. It is not inexpensive to do this,
although I would make a case that those moneys could be well
spent in terms of seeing children get a proper beginning and a
proper start.
So I think we all share the common goals. We all want our
children to start school ready to learn and we want to offer
preschool programs to all children, but particularly to poor
kids who often start kindergarten way behind their wealthier
counterparts, and there is no question about that whatsoever.
So we want to make sure that all children have the building
blocks in place that will make them successful in elementary
school, and we have got a lot of work to do to make that
happen.
Coordination is certainly an issue, and I support the
chairman's examination of those issues. But I think we also
need to understand the underlying concerns here that exist
today with a lack of resources committed to some of these very
well-tested, good programs that are underserving significant
parts of our population that deserve more help.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I look forward to
the witnesses.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Mr. Simon?
Mr. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, look forward to
continued dialogue on this very important issue.
President Bush has long recognized the importance of
education during a child's earliest years. A signature program
in that effort is Early Reading First, which draws on
scientifically-based research to enhance pre-reading skills and
improved skill readiness for children from low-income families.
Mr. Chairman, you may know that Tennessee has three Early
Reading First projects, including one in Wayne County that has
served as a part of our research to practice work. They have
retooled some of the ways they do business to make the program
more effective. We appreciate their work with us in giving us
some early research.
More generally, the Department has subjected all of its
programs to close scrutiny for evidence of effectiveness and
duplication, and our early childhood programs are no exception.
We take seriously the goal of streamlining and consolidating
our programs wherever possible and we want to avoid the
potential inefficiencies highlighted by the GAO in its April
2000 report on early childhood education and care.
As a result, if the GAO were to update its list today in
education, early childhood programs, it would number 26, not
34, after the consolidation or elimination of eight programs on
the earlier list. Our 2006 budget request would eliminate an
additional seven programs on GAO's April 2000 list. President
Bush also has emphasized the importance of coordinating the
broad array of Federal early childhood programs, both to
improve efficiency and to encourage parents, early childhood
educators, and other caregivers to use research-based
activities to help develop the early language and pre-reading
skills of young children.
The goal is to use the findings of scientifically-based
research, particularly in the area of reading, to strengthen
the education component of Federal early childhood programs so
that such programs effectively help prepare children for
success in school.
The President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative created
an interagency work group involving both the Education and
Human Services. It has played a critical role, for example, in
encouraging and helping States to identify voluntary high-
quality early learning guidelines. Nearly all States have
drafted these guidelines. That committee work group meets
monthly.
Last fall, this work group sponsored the second State Early
Learning Guidelines Roundtable, where 10 of the most
progressive States shared their experiences implementing early
guidelines and in collaborating across child care, Head Start,
pre-kindergarten, and early childhood education partners.
Good Start, Grow Smart also launched the interagency School
Readiness Consortium, which is investing $40 million in
research on the effectiveness of early childhood curriculum,
programs, and interventions in improving readiness for school.
More recently, Secretary Spellings has stepped up
interagency collaboration with Secretary Leavitt, with
assistance from Dr. Reid Lyon, one of the Nation's foremost
experts on early childhood development and education. Dr. Lyon
will split his time between both agencies to help strengthen
Federal early childhood programs.
I believe we have made considerable progress since the
publication of the April 2000 GAO report, both at the
Department of Education and in concert with our fellow
agencies. We will continue to measure program effectiveness,
streamline and consolidate programs, require the use of
scientifically-based research to deliver effective services,
and work with other agencies to coordinate separate programs
serving the same population.
On a personal note, please know that when I was State chief
in Arkansas, I worked very closely with our State Department of
Human Services to coordinate preschool programs. It is a very
important priority to me personally, and my first
administrative job back in 1972 for 2 years was Director of
School Food Services, so I have a little bit of a connection
with the Department of Agriculture.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to be with you
today.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Simon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond Simon
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to bring you up to date on the Department of Education's
efforts to improve the quality of early childhood education. From the
very beginning of his administration, President Bush--with help from
First Lady Laura Bush--emphasized the importance of education during a
child's earliest years, based on their understanding of new scientific
research on brain development and early cognition that suggested a new
paradigm, one focused on prevention of learning difficulties rather
than remediation. Since then, we have worked hard to incorporate that
paradigm into each of the early childhood education programs we
administer at the Department of Education.
More recently, Secretary Spellings has stepped up interagency
collaboration with Secretary Leavitt of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). Importantly, this collaboration will include the
insight and leadership of Dr. Reid Lyon, one of the Nation's foremost
experts on early childhood development and education. As most of you
know, while at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Lyon played a key
role in developing Early Reading First and Reading First, which I
believe are the first Federal education programs to mandate the use of
scientifically based research in reading instruction for low-income
children, both in preschool and in the early elementary grades.
Five years ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
completed a report on early education and care that highlighted the
large number--69 in all--of Federal programs that provided or supported
education and care for children under age 5. Because of the sheer
number of these programs, as well as the fact that they were
administered by no fewer than 9 separate agencies or departments, the
GAO quite reasonably suggested that the Federal Government might not be
supporting early childhood education and care in the most efficient and
effective way possible. The GAO also suggested that performance and
evaluation data then being collected under the Government Performance
and Results Act should be used to guide policymakers in making the
reforms needed to improve the delivery of effective early childhood
education.
I believe we have made much progress since the publication of that
GAO report, both at the Department of Education (ED) and in concert
with our fellow agencies. Particularly with regard to our own programs,
we have worked hard to measure program effectiveness, streamline and
consolidate programs, require the use of scientifically based research
to deliver effective services, and coordinate separate programs serving
the same populations.
WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT
In July of 2001, First Lady Laura Bush hosted a White House Summit
on Early Childhood Cognitive Development as part of her Ready to Read,
Ready to Learn initiative. This initiative had two broad goals: to
ensure that all young children are ready to read and learn when they
enter kindergarten, and to ensure that every classroom has a well-
trained teacher, particularly in high-poverty areas.
The Summit aimed at supporting these goals by publicizing the
findings of scientific research into early cognitive development and
encouraging parents, early childhood educators, and other caregivers to
use research-based activities to help develop the early language and
pre-reading skills of young children. This reflected the
administration's belief that education was not a strong enough
component of most early childhood programs: that there was little
connection between preschool activities and what children are required
to do once they enter school; that few early childhood programs were
evaluated on the basis of how well they prepared children to succeed in
school; and that parents, early childhood teachers, and other
caregivers had little valid information on how to prepare children for
success in school.
GOOD START, GROW SMART
To help address these problems, in early 2002 President Bush
launched his Good Start, Grow Smart initiative, which aims to
strengthen the academic focus of Head Start programs, encourage States
to develop quality criteria for early childhood programs that are
aligned with their K-12 academic standards, and expand research into
effective pre-reading and language curricula and teaching strategies in
order to provide better information to parents, teachers, and
caregivers.
A key achievement of Good Start, Grow Smart was the creation of an
Interagency Workgroup that includes offices involved in early childhood
education and care from both ED and HHS. ED participants include my own
office, which administers the Early Reading First, Title I, Even Start,
and the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development programs; the
Office of Special Education Programs, which administers the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Preschool Grants and Grants for
Infants, Toddlers, and Families programs; and the Institute for
Education Sciences, which carries out research on early childhood
education. The Workgroup meets monthly to coordinate Federal efforts to
support the implementation of Good Start, Grow Smart in States and
local communities.
As part of Good Start, Grow Smart, ED developed and published a
guide for caregivers in early 2002 called Teaching Our Youngest. We
also collaborated with HHS in hosting regional Early Childhood Educator
Academies that were designed to assist States in developing voluntary
high-quality early learning guidelines. Nearly all States have now
drafted these guidelines. Last fall, the Interagency Workgroup
sponsored the 2nd State Early Learning Guidelines Roundtable, where 10
of the most progressive States shared their experiences implementing
early learning guidelines and collaborating across child care, Head
Start, Pre-K, and other early childhood education partners.
Under the research component of Good Start, Grow Smart, ED's
Institute for Education Sciences is investing significant resources in
scientific research on early childhood education, including a
systematic evaluation of preschool curricula based on randomized trials
and an Early Childhood Longitudinal Study is tracking the experiences
of children from birth through 5th grade. IES's National Center for
Education Evaluation also is conducting large-scale randomized trials
to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of reading instruction.
Good Start, Grow Smart also launched an interagency early childhood
research initiative, known as the Interagency School Readiness
Consortium, which includes ED and HHS and is led by the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development. This initiative is
investing $39.5 million in research on the effectiveness of early
childhood curricula, programs, and interventions in promoting the range
of cognitive, social, and behavioral skills necessary for a child's
successful entry into school. In 2003, the Consortium made 5-year
grants to 8 institutions across the country to identify the types of
early childhood programs and interventions that are most effective--
when implemented in public settings, including State pre-kindergarten,
Head Start, child care, and blended programs--in supporting early
learning and school readiness, with an emphasis on literacy and social
competence outcomes.
ED PROGRAMS: EMPHASIS ON EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSOLIDATION
Within the Department of Education, we have subjected all of our
programs to close scrutiny for evidence of effectiveness and
duplication, and our early childhood programs are no exception. We also
have sought to employ the findings of scientific research in improving
the effectiveness of our programs, particularly in the areas of
cognitive and language development and early reading instruction, key
priorities for effective early childhood education.
The GAO report that I mentioned earlier found that the Department
administered 34 programs providing or supporting early childhood
education and care. GAO distinguished between programs for which those
activities are merely allowable and those for which they are a basic
program purpose, and I believe this distinction is an important one. In
the interest of expanding flexibility for States and communities,
Congress has increased the range of allowable activities for many
programs in recent years, especially for our large State formula grant
programs. This new flexibility makes a lot of sense, both educationally
and administratively, and I believe it is somewhat misleading to count
such expanded authorities as though they were discrete programs. To
cite just one example, prekindergarten programs are one of no fewer
than 35 authorized activities under State Grants for Innovative
Programs, a program specifically designed by Congress to provide
maximum flexibility for States and school districts. To call such a
program an early childhood program implies a level of duplication and
overlap that does not really exist.
But as I said, we do take seriously the goal of streamlining and
consolidating our programs wherever possible, and if the GAO were to
update its list of ED early childhood programs today, it would number
26 and not 34, after the consolidation or elimination of 8 programs on
the earlier list. And our 2006 budget request would eliminate an
additional 7 programs on GAO's April 2000 list.
One key program that has been targeted for elimination is Even
Start, a popular family literacy program with laudable goals, but one
that national evaluations repeatedly have found to be ineffective. The
key finding is a simple one: the literacy gains of children and adults
participating in Even Start were no greater than those of non-
participants. We think it makes more sense to direct our energy and
resources to more promising approaches.
KEY ED EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
The Department's Reading First initiative provides the best
evidence of the President's determination to inject rigor into Federal
education programs by grounding them in scientifically based research.
The Reading First State Grants program requires the use of curricula
reflecting scientifically based reading research to help ensure that
all students can read on grade level by the end of the third grade.
Early Reading First is a complementary effort to jump-start this goal
by infusing research-based pre-reading instruction into existing early
education programs for disadvantaged children.
Early Reading First is designed to help provide preschool-aged
children with cognitive learning opportunities in high-quality language
and literacy-rich environments in order to enhance pre-reading skills
and improve school readiness for children from low-income families.
More specifically, projects provide ongoing professional development
and materials, services, and activities aimed at fostering oral
language development, phonological awareness, print awareness, and
alphabet knowledge. Funded at $104 million in fiscal year 2005, Early
Reading First currently serves about 28,000 children in 92 projects
nationwide. Initial performance reports for Early Reading First are
promising, suggesting that a majority of participants are achieving
age-appropriate benchmarks on measures of vocabulary and alphabet
recognition.
Mr. Chairman, you may know that Tennessee has three Early Reading
First projects, including one in Wayne County that took part in the
Department's Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Study. In a true
example of research-to-practice, Wayne County is now using the results
of that study to better prepare teachers and staff to implement a new
curriculum. In particular, the project is now providing extensive
professional development to teachers, paraprofessionals, and
administrators, including the use of facilitators to provide coaching
and mentoring to teachers and staff.
Another program that provides significant support for early
childhood education--though an often-overlooked one--is Title I, which
provides preschool services to about 2 percent of participants, or
about 400,000 children, at an estimated annual cost of about $500
million. As research increasingly confirms the value of high-quality
preschool education and its potential for improving later academic
achievement, the Department is working to provide leadership and
guidance in helping States and school districts create effective
preschool programs that develop cognitive and early reading skills and
contribute to school readiness. Key strategies in this effort are the
promotion of the scientifically based methods of Early Reading First to
strengthen Title I preschool programs, and encouraging States and
school districts to use Title I funding to increase the education
component of other existing preschool programs.
Other major ED early childhood programs are those authorized by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These include
Special Education Preschool Grants and Grants for Infants and Families.
The $385 million Preschool Grants program supplements funds provided
under the IDEA Grants to States program to help States and school
districts serve about 700,000 children with disabilities ages 3 through
5, with the goal of ensuring that these children start school ready to
succeed.
The Grants for Infants and Families program provides formula grants
to assist States in implementing a coordinated statewide system of
early intervention services for children with disabilities, from birth
to age 2, and their families. This $441 million program will serve an
estimated 286,000 children with disabilities in fiscal year 2005.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Department of Education continues to play a
major role, in concert with other Federal agencies, in advancing the
President's goal of improving the quality of early childhood education
and care, especially for children most at risk of later failure in
school. In particular, the Department has taken the lead in promoting
the use of scientifically based research to improve interventions at
all levels of education, including interventions that improve school
readiness skills, such as oral language development, pre-reading
skills, and social development. We also are committed to measuring
results, and to using those results--as recommended by the GAO 5 years
ago--to streamline and consolidate our programs in order to provide
more efficient delivery of effective early childhood education
services. I will be happy to take any questions you may have.
Senator Alexander. Ms. Coler?
Ms. Coler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Kate Coler, Deputy
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am pleased to be at
today's hearing to discuss the Federal Government's role in
providing education and care to children under 6 years old.
The Food and Nutrition Service is responsible for managing
15 domestic nutrition assistance programs. Its mission is to
increase food security and reduce hunger in partnership with
cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income
people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition
education in a manner that supports American agriculture and
inspires the public's confidence.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2006 demonstrates
the administration's unwavering commitment to this mission by
requesting the record level of $59 billion in new budget
authority to administer our nutrition assistance programs.
These programs include the Food Stamp Program, which provides
nutrition assistance to over 25 million low-income people. Over
50 percent of Food Stamp participants are children. The program
enables low-income families and individuals to improve their
diets by increasing food purchasing power using electronic
benefits that are redeemed at retail grocery stores across the
country.
Under the umbrella of the child nutrition programs, which
includes the National School Lunch Program, the School
Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and
the Summer Food Service Program, we provide reimbursement to
State and local governments for nutritious meals and snacks
served to over 30 million children in schools, child care
institutions, after school care programs, and adult day care
centers.
Additionally, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children, also known as WIC, addresses
the special needs of at-risk low-income pregnant, breast-
feeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to 5
years of age. WIC provides 8 million participants each month
with supplemental food packages targeted to their dietary needs
as well as nutrition education and referrals to a range of
health and social services. These benefits promote a healthy
pregnancy for mothers and a healthy start for their children.
Our major goals in administering these programs focus on
three areas. First, promoting access to and awareness of the
programs so that all eligible people can participate with
dignity and respect. Second, building a healthier U.S. with
nutrition education to support healthy weight and healthful
behaviors. And third, enhancing the program integrity with
which our programs are administered.
In short, Mr. Chairman, these food assistance programs are
primarily nutrition programs that help participants obtain a
better diet. They do not overlap with education programs or
with child care programs. They have a clear purpose and a
distinct function separate from, but complementary to, the
goals of targeted education and child care services.
The Food and Nutrition Service is proud of our efforts to
coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure that Federal
funds are used to maximize benefit delivery. We work closely
with the Department of Health and Human Services and with the
Department of Education to ensure that benefits provided under
child nutrition programs are fully integrated into the Head
Start and Even Start programs. In fact, the Department of
Health and Human Services encouraged Head Start centers to
participate in meal services offered under the Child and Adult
Care Food Program. By using these funds through CACFP to
support their food service, Head Start funds that were
available for nutrition services are then freed up for use for
other important educational activities.
Program regulations ensure that children in Head Start and
Even Start families are automatically eligible for free meals
when they participate in child nutrition programs.
We have also worked closely with the Department of
Education's 21st Century Schools to ensure that these programs
are aware of snacks that are available through the National
School Lunch Program.
All of our programs have a long history of working with our
counterparts in other agencies to ensure that they complement
early education efforts.
In summary, USDA's mission is to provide nutrition
assistance in a variety of settings, but not to interfere with
nor duplicate other efforts of Federal and State programs. On
the contrary, the Food and Nutrition Service programs enable
these other programs to operate better by making sure that
young children have access to proper nutrition and are ready to
learn. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kate Coler
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Kate Coler, Deputy Under Secretary,
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
I am pleased to be at today's hearing to discuss the Federal
Government's role in providing education and care to children under 6
years old. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is responsible for
managing 15 domestic nutrition assistance programs. Its mission is to
increase food security and reduce hunger in partnership with
cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income people
access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a manner
that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence. The
President's budget for fiscal Year 2006 demonstrates the
administration's unwavering commitment to this mission by requesting a
record level of $59 billion dollars in new budget authority to
administer the nutrition assistance programs.
Over the past half-century, beginning with the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP) in 1946, the Nation has gradually built an array
of unique nutrition assistance programs designed to help the most
vulnerable populations meet their food needs. Taken together, the
current programs form a nationwide safety net supporting low-income
families and individuals in their efforts to escape food insecurity and
hunger and achieve healthy, nutritious diets. These programs serve one
in five Americans over the course of a year.
The nutrition assistance programs work both individually and in
concert with one another to improve the Nation's nutrition and health
by improving the diets of children and low-income households. These
programs are based on the USDA and Department of Health and Human
Services Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are revised every 5
years to ensure Federal nutrition policy is based on current scientific
and medical knowledge. Among the programs administered by FNS are:
The Food Stamp Program (FSP): Authorized by the Food Stamp
Act of 1977, the FSP serves as the centerpiece and primary source of
nutrition assistance for over 25 million Iow-income people. It enables
participants, over 50 percent of whom are children, to improve their
diets by increasing food purchasing power using benefits that are
redeemed at retail grocery stores across the country. State agencies
are responsible for the administration of the program according to
national eligibility and benefit standards set by Federal law and
regulations. Benefits are 100 percent Federally-financed, while
administrative costs are shared between the Federal and State
governments. The FSP provides the basic nutrition assistance benefit
for low-income people in the United States while the other FNS programs
supplement the program with benefits targeted to special populations,
dietary needs, and delivery settings.
Child Nutrition Programs (CNP): The NSLP, School Breakfast
(SBP), Special Milk (SM), Child and Adult Care Food (CACFP), and Summer
Food Service (SFSP) Programs provide reimbursement to State and local
governments for nutritious meals and snacks served to over 30 million
children in schools, child care institutions, after-school care
programs, and adult day care centers. FNS provides cash reimbursement
and commodities on a per-meal basis to offset the cost of food service
at the local level as well as offset a significant portion of State and
local administrative expense and provides training, technical
assistance, and nutrition education. Reimbursements are substantially
higher for meals served free or at a reduced price to children from
low-income families.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC): WIC addresses the special needs of at-risk, low-
income pregnant, breast-feeding, and postpartum women, infants, and
children up to 5 years of age. It provides 8 million participants
monthly with supplemental food packages targeted to their dietary
needs, nutrition education, and referrals to a range of health and
social services; benefits that promote a healthy pregnancy for mothers
and a healthy start for their children. Appropriated funds are provided
to States for food packages and nutrition services and administration
for the program.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): This
program provides food purchased by USDA to low-income infants and
children up to age 6, low-income pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding
women, and to low-income senior citizens who are residing in approved
project areas. In recent years, there has been a shift towards low-
income elderly in this program; in fiscal year 2004, elderly
participation comprised more than 88 percent of total participation.
Federal nutrition assistance programs operate as partnerships
between FNS and State agencies and local organizations that interact
directly with program participants. States voluntarily enter into
agreements with the Federal Government to operate programs according to
Federal standards in exchange for program funds that cover benefit
costs, as well as a significant portion of administrative expenses.
Under these agreements, FNS is responsible for implementing
statutory requirements that set national program standards for
eligibility and benefits, providing Federal funding to State agencies
and local partners, and monitoring and evaluating to make sure that
program structure and policies are properly implemented and effective
in meeting program missions. State agencies and local organizations are
responsible for delivering benefits efficiently, effectively, and in a
manner consistent with national requirements.
Our major goals in administering these programs are:
1. promoting access to and awareness of the programs so that
eligible people can participate with dignity and respect;
2. building a HealthierUS with nutrition education and promotion to
support healthy weight and healthful behaviors; and
3. enhancing the integrity with which our programs are
administered.
In short, Mr. Chairman, these food assistance programs are
primarily nutrition programs, helping participants obtain a better
diet. They do not overlap with the education programs or with child
care programs. They have a clear purpose and distinct function separate
from, but complementary to, the goals of targeted education programs
and general grants to provide child care services.
One program in particular that interfaces well with other programs
that aid early childhood development is the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CAFCP). CACFP plays a vital role in improving the quality of
day care and making it more affordable for many low-income families.
Each day, 2.9 million children receive nutritious meals and snacks
through CACFP. CACFP reaches even further to provide meals to children
residing in homeless shelters, and snacks and suppers to youths
participating in eligible after-school care programs.
I would like to explain how the CACFP works. FNS administers CACFP
through grants to States. The program is administered within most
States by the State educational agency. In a few States, it is
administered by an alternate agency, such as the State health or social
services department; and in Virginia, it is directly administered by
the FNS Mid-Atlantic Regional Office. The child care component and the
adult day care component of CACFP may be administered by different
agencies within a State, at the discretion of the Governor.
Independent centers and sponsoring organizations enter into
agreements with their administering State agencies to assume
administrative and financial responsibility for CACFP operations. CACFP
reimbursements pay for nutritious meals and snacks served to eligible
children and adults who are enrolled for care at participating child
care centers, day care homes, and adult day care centers.
Eligible public or private nonprofit child care centers, outside-
school-hours care centers, Head Start programs, and other institutions
which are licensed or approved to provide day care services may
participate in CACFP, independently or as sponsored centers. Meals
served to children are reimbursed at rates based upon a child's
eligibility for free, reduced price, or paid meals. Under certain
rules, for-profit centers may also qualify for this program.
When many people think of ``day care'' they envision the day care
center, in a more formalized setting than a neighbor's home. However, a
significant portion of the meals reimbursed in the CACFP are in fact
provided by Family Day Care Homes. Let me speak for a moment about how
this part of the program works.
A family or group day care home must sign an agreement with a
sponsoring organization to participate in CACFP. Day care homes must be
licensed or approved by appropriate State agencies to provide day care
services. Reimbursement for meals served in day care homes is based
upon eligibility criteria established in statute.
The reason I have provided this background is to point out that the
grants for this program are not education programs per se nor are they
grants to provide child care. However, we do work with our State
partners and our Federal partners to make sure that the nutrition
programs work together with other resources to provide the best
environment possible for young children in day-care settings.
The Food and Nutrition Service is proud of our efforts to
coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure that Federal funds are
used to maximize benefit delivery. We have worked closely with the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of
Education (DOE) to ensure that the benefits provided under the Child
Nutrition Programs are fully integrated into the Head Start Program and
the Even Start Program. In fact, Head Start notified Head Start centers
of the advisability of participating in the meal services offered under
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). By using CACFP funds to
support their food service, Head Start funds that were available for
food service are freed for use in important educational activities.
Program regulations ensure that children in Head Start and Even Start
families are automatically eligible for free meals when they
participate in the Child Nutrition Programs. We have worked closely
with the Department of Education's 21st century schools to ensure that
these programs are aware of the snack service available under the
National School Lunch Program. All of our programs, including the WIC
Program, have a long history of working with our counterparts in other
agencies to ensure that the nutritional assistance offered through the
Food and Nutrition Service complements their early education efforts.
In summary, the FNS mission is to provide nutrition assistance in a
variety of settings, but not to interfere with nor duplicate the
efforts of other Federal and State programs that provide education or
child care services. On the contrary, FNS programs enable other
programs to operate better by making sure that young children have
access to proper nutrition and are ready to learn. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have at this time.
Senator Alexander. Now we have some time for questions, and
I will take 5 minutes and then go to Senator Dodd and Senator
Enzi, if that is agreeable.
Mr. Horn, both the Department of Health and Human Services
and the Department of Education provide professional
development opportunities for teachers, teacher training. Do
your agencies work together to provide training for early
childhood educators? When you provide training for Head Start
teachers, for example, in your Department, do you ever inform
the Department of Education about the training opportunity for
preschool teachers?
Mr. Horn. Senator, as you know, one of the most important
components of the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative
is to enhance professional development of caregivers in the
early childhood arena, be those caregivers parents, Head Start
teachers, pre-K teachers, or child care providers, and we have
been working aggressively with the Department of Education to
ensure that we coordinate our efforts and we do make available
training opportunities across a variety of different caregiver
categories.
So, for example, when we did our early literacy training of
Head Start teachers, we opened up that training to child care
providers, as well. So we are committed to trying to have a
more integrated professional development and training capacity.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Simon, do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. I would just certainly second what he
had to say, plus we have conducted--the Department has become
more aggressive in direct outreach to teachers through what we
call our Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative. Early childhood
education is one of the components of that initiative. We have
featured programs specifically dealing with early childhood
issues at our Teacher-to-Teacher summits and included on our
web broadcasts. So we, too, are beginning to focus somewhat
more. Also, within title I, we are beginning to encourage
States to look at their title I funds and also their title II
funds that are used for teacher training to include preschool
instruction in that area, too.
Senator Alexander. Teachers in preschool programs, I
believe, according to guidance from the Department of
Education, don't need to meet the highly qualified teacher
standard of No Child Left Behind in most instances, is that
correct?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir, it is. The only requirement would be
if a State, and I believe there are only two that I am aware
of, Texas and Oklahoma, that include pre-kindergarten teachers
as part of their typical K-12 system. They would be required to
include that, but the other States would not.
Senator Alexander. Now, a school district might spend part
of its title I money on preschool education, but that would not
mean that the No Child Left Behind highly qualified teacher
requirements applied to its preschool program, is that correct?
Mr. Simon. That is correct, yes.
Senator Alexander. We will be reauthorizing Head Start in
the next few months, we hope, and one of the things we are
discussing is whether to require that all Head Start teachers
have bachelor degrees. We have to try to take into account the
differences that exist in many parts of the country and not
produce unreasonable requirements. Do any of you have any
advice for us about what should be done in the Head Start
legislation about qualifications for preschool educators?
Mr. Horn. I have an opinion on that subject, Senator. There
are two competing goods or values when it comes to
credentialing of Head Start teachers, and I think it is
important for us to find an appropriate balance.
The one is to ensure that we have well-trained teachers in
every Head Start classroom who can deliver quality services,
and we are committed to doing that. One way to try to get there
is to require a certain level of credentialing, and we have
worked very hard at helping teachers in Head Start get that
credentialing. In fact, about a third of all Head Start
teachers today have a bachelor's degree.
But there is another value, and that value has to do with
working with the community and helping to develop people within
that community, to nurture them and have them develop skills
that become marketable. And one way Head Start has historically
done that is by working with individuals, sometimes parents of
current or former kids in Head Start, maybe bringing them in as
a teacher's aide and training them up and eventually getting
them to the point where they have the skills to be a quality
Head Start classroom teacher.
My fear is that if we made that a specific credential, that
is too high, that Head Start will lose that capacity or at
least compromise it, because if you are faced with a choice,
you have got to hire a teacher and you are looking on the one
hand at somebody who is from the local community who is going
to take years to nurture to get to the point where they are
well-trained enough to be a good quality Head Start classroom
teacher or hiring a 22-year-old kid fresh out of college but
has a bachelor's, it is easier to go to the latter.
So I think that while all of us are committed to having
quality teachers in Head Start, there is a balance here that we
need to achieve. I think we have that balance in the sense that
there is a clear direction in the current statute to move
teachers toward credentials, but I am afraid that if we have an
entry-level mandated credential at too high a level, we are
going to lose that ability of nurturing individuals from that
community.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much. Mr. Simon, do you
have anything to add to that?
Mr. Simon. I would just say, I think, true, we need to be
sensitive to the issues that Mr. Horn has raised, and as far as
our Department is concerned, we have increased our
conversations with his office, with his Department, especially
through our title I office to work to get better content
knowledge available to the teachers of the Head Start children.
We believe that is a very important skill, knowing the content
you teach, and that would be a very important thing for us. And
again, we are working with them to try to help get some of that
information to the teachers that are there now.
Senator Alexander. Senator Dodd?
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
witnesses again for their testimony.
Let me, if I can, Dr. Horn, on the first page of your
testimony, at the very bottom of it here, you talk about the
amount of funds that are available for child care and related
services for children. To quote it here, you say, ``When TANF
funds are concerned, as well as other State and Federal funding
sources, over $11 billion currently is available for child care
and related services for children,'' and that it will provide
assistance for some 2.2 million children. That is absolutely
accurate. Your numbers are good. I am not questioning your
numbers at all.
My concern is that reading that number, it sounds like we
are awash in child care funding across the country. Eleven
billion is a lot of money, and I am not suggesting it is not.
But the impression one could be left with is that the problem
isn't adequate resources.
I just wanted to put it in context, if I could, into some
perspective, because what we have seen is child care funds over
the last 4 years, of course, have been frozen. We have had no
increase in the CCDBG program, the Child Care Development Block
Grant program, which Senator Hatch and I authored some 20 years
ago now. We have also seen a decline of some, I think it is
around $500 million in TANF funds. Then you combine that with
what is happening in States across the country. I think New
Mexico may be the exception, but most States have huge
deficits. I know mine does. I think most States do. They have
wrestled with that over the last few years.
So we have seen a declining ability on the part of States
to meet obligations, and as a result of that, we have seen, as
I mentioned in my opening comments, reduced income eligibility
for qualifying families, frozen reimbursement rates in many
States, or subsidy rates for providers serving low-income
families, increased parent co-pays, and reduced or eliminated
funding for quality improvements.
Not every State keeps data. Most do. About half do. But I
am going to put this up just for the purposes of people seeing
this. As of today, there are some 600,000 children on waiting
lists to get into child care. Just to go over these numbers, I
was looking down the chart, and I will let my colleagues take a
look at this, but every little figure of a child represents
2,000 children. As I say, a lot of States don't even keep data
in this area, just don't bother, but to give you an idea, the
biggest cases, California, 280,000 on a waiting list in
California. In my State, 15,000. In the chairman's State,
20,000. I don't have a number for Wyoming. Wyoming may not be a
State that keeps that, or maybe there isn't a waiting list.
Some are very small. Arizona, or I guess Arkansas has 1,300,
relatively small. In the District of Columbia, 1,400. In Maine,
1,800. But Texas, 26,000. Florida, 48,000. Georgia, 30,000. So
you have a very high number of eligible children that are not
getting the services.
So I am not arguing with your number at all. Just if you
say the number, it can sound like there is no additional need
out there, yet between what is happening in States and what we
are doing here, what is happening at the national level, I
think we are--so my question, I guess, to you is how do we
improve the quality of child care as well as retain the current
number of children, the 2.2 million you talked about here,
without additional resources, I guess is the question I have.
Mr. Horn. Well, first of all, the $11 billion I cited in my
testimony, I want to clarify, actually doesn't include Head
Start funds, and so when you add Head Start, you are actually
up to almost $18.5 billion, and that is a big number. But I am
not here to suggest that every single person who would like to
have a subsidy gets the subsidy for child care.
When it comes to waiting lists, to a large extent, waiting
lists are a reflection of decisions that States make within the
flexibilities provided under the Child Care Development Block
Grant----
Senator Dodd. You are not considering Head Start to be a
child care program, are you?
Mr. Horn. Well, if a child is in full-day, full-year Head
Start, they can't simultaneously have child care.
Senator Dodd. But aren't most Head Start programs part-day,
the majority?
Mr. Horn. The best information we have suggests about
half--and this is from the parents themselves--half the parents
say they are in need of a full-day, full-year experience.
Senator Dodd. I know that. I am not questioning that.
Mr. Horn. And half of those get that directly on-site at
the Head Start program. So a quarter of the--a half don't need
full-day, full-year, according to their parents. The half that
do, half of those get it through Head Start directly. The other
half get it through certain wrap-around arrangements. They
might go to another child care center. They might go home to a
parent. They might go home to a family day care provider. There
is not a lot of evidence that within the Head Start-served
population that there is an inability to provide full-day care
and some arrangement for kids who are enrolled. But, of course,
that doesn't count kids whose parents don't try to enroll their
kids in Head Start because their Head Start didn't serve their
needs. But certainly child care can.
So when it comes to waiting lists and child care, it often
reflects decision making at the State level about priorities.
For example, as you know, the Child Care Development Fund
allows subsidies to be given to parents who are at 85 percent
of the median State income. In your State, Connecticut, that is
about $50,000. Now, if States choose to go all the way up to 85
percent of State median income, they not only include a higher
population, but it is less well-targeted to the low-income
population.
So I am not here to suggest that this system is flush in
money, but I am here to suggest that, to some extent, waiting
lists do reflect priorities set within the flexibility given to
them by the Child Care Development Fund, and I also do believe
that there is an under-enrollment problem in Head Start that is
at least partly explained by lack of coordination with State
pre-K programs and child care programs.
Senator Dodd. Let me get to that, because that is my second
question, if I--let me ask just one more, if I can, and that is
in your testimony, you talk about the Ohio example and our
colleague, Senator Voinovich, when he was Governor. I would
argue we had maybe the best child care-Head Start programs in
the country. They really were very creative and very
imaginative. You mention here that States are taking the
initiative to advance the coordination efforts, as well. You
cite Ohio as an example, currently launched the Early Learning
Initiative.
But then I read what has happened in Ohio with a story last
week, or last month, rather, in the Columbus Dispatch and the
article points out since Governor Taft, revamping the State-
funded Head Start program, enrollment has fallen from 18,000 to
6,500 in that State. Half of Ohio's 88 counties have dropped
their programs, unable to meet the new requirements set by the
Governor in his program.
Are you familiar with what has happened there? When you are
citing Ohio, I am just curious, are you familiar with this?
Mr. Horn. Obviously, what States do with State funds, I
don't dictate how they use State funds. But one of the
difficulties is that because Head Start is a direct Federal-to-
local grant program without any involvement by the State, and
child care funds go directly to the State and then are
delivered to local agencies who then are accountable to the
Federal Government, and State funds go directly from the State
to local agencies, they are not well coordinated and that can
result in difficulties.
Senator Dodd. But you cite the Ohio example as a good
example of what has happened----
Mr. Horn. I think that----
Senator Dodd. If you go from 18,000 to 6,500, half of the
counties in the State are dropping the program, something is
wrong.
Mr. Horn. Well, as I say, they have got shifting, or
different priorities, but they are, in fact, trying to
integrate better their State pre-K programs, their child care
programs, and Head Start in a way that makes sense in their
State.
Senator Dodd. I understand that, but if you are losing--my
point is made. I thank you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Enzi?
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I
appreciate your bringing the three different agencies together
that provide the expertise in these child care programs.
I was remembering back to when I was Mayor of Gilette. The
President at that time decided that there ought to be some
coordination between the Department of Interior and the
Department of Energy, and since Gilette, WY, is the energy
capital of the Nation--it sits over a coal deposit that has
more BTUs of energy than all of the Middle East--I was invited
back to testify. I knew that the purpose was to be able to
coordinate programs between these two agencies, and when I
finished testifying, I actually asked the two under secretaries
how they were going to coordinate that and was a little
disappointed to have one of the secretaries say, ``Well, I
don't know about him, but my report is going to be in on
time.''
[Laughter.]
I am kind of interested in how you work together to compare
programs and see what kind of consolidation can be done. Is
there any effort underway that way?
Mr. Simon. One of the efforts is a monthly meeting with
this interagency work group between the Department of Education
and the Department of Health and Human Services and they meet
on a very regular basis. Our Secretary Spellings now has taken
to a new level, a Secretary-level engagement with the new
Secretary Leavitt and Secretary Johanns.
Plus, our own Department within our own agency is being
reconfigured to give more emphasis, to give more focus to
particularly K-12 initiatives. We look forward again, with Dr.
Lyon coming on board, working with the Department of Education
and the Department of Human Services specifically in the role
of coordinating preschool. Those are a few things that we are
doing right now.
The Chairman. Thanks. Mr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. Someone once cynically described coordination in
the Federal Government as an unnatural act between
nonconsenting adults.
[Laughter.]
I think, however, that the work which the Federal
interagency Good Start, Grow Smart work group really belies
that cynicism. I think it has done extraordinary work over the
last 2, 3 years in really focusing a common vision across two
Departments. We have been sharing resources. We have been
holding joint conferences. We have been doing joint training.
And as Mr. Simon says, we have been holding, at a staff level,
monthly meetings.
So I think that we are, in fact, doing a pretty good job of
coordinating across the Departments. We have also done a good
job, I think, of coordinating with the Department of
Agriculture and particularly in regard to the distribution of
parent booklets through the Healthy Start, Grow Smart
initiative in which parents, particularly low-income parents,
get a booklet a month for the first 12 months of a child's life
that describes child development, what they can do to help
their child.
So I think we have been trying as best we can to better
coordinate across three Departments.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am very encouraged by that. Did
you wish to comment on that?
Ms. Coler. I would just like to add that we rely on our
Federal partner agencies often to reach eligible populations
where we serve similar populations who are participating or
eligible to participate in a number of programs. Most recently,
we are working with the Department of Education and State
Departments of Education to share information about children
who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals and children
who participate in the Food Stamp program, to share that
information to make sure eligible kids are receiving the
benefits they are entitled to.
The Chairman. Thank you. I have also been a strong
supporter of the Government Performance and Results Act. In
order to meet the goals of that act, the administration has
been using the PART assessment to evaluate programs. How
successful is the PART assessment at determining whether or not
programs are duplicative and how can Congress support efforts
to ensure reviews that the PART take that would make a
difference? What can we do?
Mr. Simon. Speaking from the Department of Education, we do
utilize the PART process very rigorously. In fact, many of our
budget recommendations this year have been based upon PART
results.
As you know, one of the requirements, one of the specific
questions that the PART review asks is, is the program designed
to be nonredundant or overlapping with another program within
the same agency or across agencies? So we look at that very
closely.
One of the problems we have in trying to answer that
specific question on some of our programs is it is very
difficult to tell, particularly when you go out to school
districts where the Federal Government's share of funding is
only about 8 percent. In some cases, the program might be
totally federally funded. In others, the Federal share might be
very small. So is that a redundancy or is it not?
So there are a few quirks, I guess, in the PART process,
but overall, we are very pleased with it. I don't know of
anything else that we could say to do to improve it, to be
honest with you.
Mr. Horn. And I also am very supportive of the PART
process, and I have had programs that have scored high and
programs that have scored low in the PART process. I think that
it has been very helpful, for example, in focusing our
attention on erroneous payments and developing initiatives to
try to assess and reduce erroneous payments in the various
programs.
But I don't think the PART process was meant to look across
programs to how well they are coordinated with each other. You
kind of--you take the program and you examine it on the various
components of the PART process, and this is where I think that
the President's interest in using both the Head Start
reauthorization and welfare reauthorization to provide tools
for States to better integrate programs at the State and local
level is so important.
And so I do think it is important that this committee, and
I know you are, seriously consider including in Head Start
authorization the ability for States to have some ability to
better coordinate their pre-K programs with Head Start and
child care. They just--right now, basically, unless a Head
Start program wants to coordinate with a Governor, they don't
have to. There is no requirement for them to do that. And we
think that a program that touches so many citizens within a
State, the Governor ought to have some say in what happens in
that program and at least some levers to be able to get
coordination across these various programs that serve similar
populations.
And the same is true for welfare reauthorization with the
now famously-dubbed ``super-waiver'' proposal, which is a way
to help States to better align different programs so that we
can create what all of us have been after for the last 20
years, which is a seamless system of services for low-income
families. And you can't do that when you have so many programs
that are so categorical, that go to States in different ways,
some of which, like Head Start, have no State involvement
whatsoever, that have different reporting requirements,
different eligibility requirements, different information
technology requirements.
I mean, if we want a seamless system of services, we have
to give States the tools to get there, and just simply talking
about coordination is not enough. It seems to us we need to do
something in the context of reauthorization of Head Start and
welfare that will allow States to get there.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. That is a very interesting
discussion, and let me continue a little bit and from the point
of view of somebody who has been accused of never having gotten
over having been a Governor.
Of course, there is another way to do that, which would be
instead of giving the money to States, is to not involve them
at all and make them both federally-run programs. Twenty years
ago, I suggested to President Reagan that Medicaid should be
wholly run by the Federal Government. I didn't see how the
States could run a program that the Federal Government sets the
eligibility standards for, denies flexibility to Governors for,
and the courts then get involved and try to run it, too. So
looking back, that would have been a good idea.
And one of the complications we have, we see with the No
Child Left Behind, for example, we have an intention here, for
example, more professional development, and I believe my
figures are about right. I think in Tennessee, for example,
there is a $50 million annual budget item for professional
development for Tennessee teachers so they can become more
highly qualified. That is a lot of money. I mean, we hear a lot
of complaints, there is no money in No Child Left Behind. Well,
that is about $800 or $900 for every single Tennessee teacher.
If you just take it and give it to them, that is a big pay
raise if they got the money.
But they didn't get the money because we gave States the
flexibility to deal with it and the States are strapped.
Senator Dodd mentioned that. So maybe the State says, well, we
want to reduce class size, and so the money ends up over there.
So someone comes to see us and says, you are underfunding No
Child Left Behind because there is no money for professional
development.
I am just thinking out loud here. I agree with you that if
we look at these Federal programs that affect children under
the age of 6 and that are so huge, I mean, Head Start is $7
billion, child care is $8 billion, something like that, is that
about right?
Mr. Horn. Four-point-eight in Federal dollars.
Senator Alexander. Four-point-eight in Federal dollars, but
if you include TANF and child care together, it is $4.8?
Mr. Horn. When you include TANF----
Senator Alexander. It would be more like----
Mr. Horn. When you include CCDF, TANF, and SSPG money, it
is about $8.4.
Senator Alexander. About eight. So we are talking big
bucks. And Senator Dodd also said something about child care.
Eighteen years ago, I helped to start a company to provide
worksite day care with a fellow named Bob Keeshan, who was
Captain Kangaroo, and he said, ``Don't ever say child care or
day care,'' he said. ``We say child development.'' And
increasingly, even in child care programs, we are talking about
child development. And increasingly in Head Start, we are
talking not just about a place for children to go, we are
talking about cognitive learning. So increasingly, we are
talking about giving parents more options, choices of places to
go to get child development, whether it is through the vouchers
that are for child care or Head Start programs which are
autonomous.
Let me ask you a question then about this sort of ramble.
At a meeting of chief State school officers just now where
there is considerable sympathy for the administration's
position, which is that States--to make these programs
coordinate, States have to be more involved some way.
One of the suggestions by a chief State school officer from
South Carolina was that a step toward that would be to have
training grants from the Department of Education or HHS to
State boards of education for preschool teachers. In other
words, let the States have some money to work with preschool
and child care teachers to help improve their training and
capability and that would be one way of getting the State more
involved as a coordinator of better services for children under
6. Is that going on, or what do you think of that proposal,
either, any of you?
Mr. Simon. States now have the right to utilize title I
funds for preschool activities. They also, the title II
professional development funds, there is some $5 billion in the
current budget for teacher-related services. I believe that
those can be used for preschool, and then certainly our
Teacher-to-Teacher. As I indicated, we have expanded our
Teacher-to-Teacher workshops to include preschool reading,
preschool math type of activities for teachers so that they
really understand what it is the children need to know and how
to better coordinate that with----
Senator Alexander. If you will excuse me, I will follow
this and then we will take--does this ever include Head Start
teachers?
Mr. Simon. Sir, I would have to check that. I am not sure.
Senator Alexander. Would that be something that we should
consider or that your working group should consider, is
involving--I have one example of, I think Rutherford County
in--well, Charlotte Menklenberg uses lots of its No Child Left
Behind money in preschool, as I understand. The theory is, if
the children arrive better ready to learn, they will do better
on the annual yearly test.
Mr. Simon. Right, and I know a number of our grants that we
give do, in fact, require cooperation, participation of Head
Start in those grants. Early Reading First, for example,
requires participation--or if a Head Start program is there,
that they must be a part of that. If Head Start is not there,
then other public or private providers are eligible, and that
same thing is true with a number of our other grants. I am just
not sure about the title II moneys.
Senator Alexander. Dr. Horn?
Mr. Horn. And I am not sure of that, either, in terms of
the use of title II moneys. But it is something that I think is
a good suggestion----
Senator Alexander. But in terms of training for Head Start
teachers, would you have any--the objective of getting States
more involved, finding different ways for the Governor to get
more involved with the Head Start programs so the programs can
be better coordinated with teacher training programs
administered by the Governor or additional Federal dollars for
that to be useful, or does it sound like enough is already
being done there?
Mr. Horn. Well, we believe that there is plenty of training
and technical assistance money in Head Start, but that is a
separate issue as to whether or not joint or cross-training of
different early child care providers would be a good thing. I
think it would be a good thing. I think we are trying to move
in that direction.
As I noted in my testimony, one of the things that we have
done in the Child Care Development Fund program is the State
plans that are required to be submitted. We have asked that
States submit sort of a Good Start, Grow Smart section that
concentrates on, first of all, what they have been doing to
develop early learning guidelines, second, what they are doing
to develop sort of coordinated professional development
systems. And about 29 States now are in the process of
implementing those Statewide sort of coordinated professional
development systems.
So we are making progress in that regard and that will
help. But at the end of the day, it seems to us that it is
still going to be important if you have got a child care center
on one corner, a Head Start center across the street, and a
State pre-K program on the other corner, that they ought to be
coordinated in some fashion so they are not fighting all for
the same kids.
And I am not suggesting, again, that the system is flush
with money. What I am saying is that when you are not
coordinating those three systems, what happens is you get
pockets where you have too many slots for the kids that are
available and other areas where you have too few slots, and
coordination allows you to create greater efficiency. You can
serve more kids.
When I came into office, we had a 7 percent under-
enrollment rate in Head Start. That is 62,000 federally-funded
slots with no child in them. We have reduced that to about 4
percent now through a variety of administrative actions that we
have done, but part of the difficulty in eliminating that
problem is the difficulty in coordinating Head Start with pre-K
and child care programs the way that we think we ought to do
and we think that the Governors need to have some say in that.
However we can move toward that goal is something we would be
very supportive of.
Senator Alexander. I will come back to that, but Senator
Dodd, please take whatever time you want.
Senator Dodd. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I am not arguing with the idea of how to get more
efficient and make the system work. I don't disagree with that
at all. I think we have got to be careful, though, to some
extent when we start talking about Head Start and child care as
early child development programs. That is where the similarity
sort of ends. I mean, those are very different.
The Child Care Development Block Grant program, I would
have very much liked to have seen early on that we have
developmental standards included, but there was no way in the
world we were going to get that done at the time, even today.
We have health and safety standards, but that is about it. Any
effort we made to set additional developmental standards or
qualities that teachers ought to have and so forth coming in
was vehemently opposed at the time and has been over the years.
Head Start, on the other hand, of course, has extensive
quality standards, some 1,800 requirements, am I correct? I
think it is about 1,800 requirements to be met. So I presume if
it is going to be State-run, unless there are some of those you
are going to get rid of, we have studied Head Start to death
over the last number of years in terms of the amount of reviews
that have been made of the program. So I think it is important
to kind of--and, in fact, Head Start has far many more
standards to it than most State pre-K programs, as well.
So you are right. You go through them on the corner here,
but they are very different requirements there. So leveling the
playing field a bit there would be a tremendous help to some
degree. If we could get more developmental standards in child
care, it would be something I would like to see. I just don't
know if you are going to get our colleagues to go along with
those kind of things because of the resistance.
Another problem, again with States, and again, Connecticut
is a very affluent State. We are always right near the top in
terms of per capita earnings. I always like to quickly point
out that Hartford, Connecticut, our capital, is listed as the
poorest city in America, by the way. In a State that is the
size of San Diego County or Yellowstone National Park, I have
great affluence. I have significant poverty in that State, as
well.
Of course, our system, while there is State support, so
much of it is dependent on local community resources and we are
just going--the ability to have supporting things like class
size and teacher training and all these things we would like to
do. What is being cut out of my elementary school programs, I
think 8 percent today--I think I am correct, correct me if I am
wrong, but only 8 percent of elementary school kids have any
requirement of physical education today. We are wondering about
the rise in diabetes and other things and obesity problems and
so forth. And not because people think it is a bad idea to have
physical education. There just are not the resources to do all
that is required.
And I am glad the chairman raised the No Child Left Behind
Act because, again, I am a strong supporter of the goals of
that bill, having been here and part of the decision. I don't
have any problem with the goals of that. But obviously, the
reasonableness, and today there is a meeting, in fact, between
the Secretary of Education and my commissioner to try and see
if they can't work out some of these issues in terms of how
often people are tested in our State and the requirements under
No Child Left Behind. But the pressures are huge on these
States and the resources there.
Trying to get the States more involved, it is hard to argue
with that, but if we are going to get them more involved, we
have got to be very conscious of the ability to actually step
up and meet these financial obligations, given where most of
the resources come from. That is one of my concerns.
I am not going to sit here and try to suggest to you that
building more efficiencies into the system is a bad idea. It is
not at all. We need to be doing that all the time. I just want
us to carefully do it and understand there are differences and
different requirements today that we require of Head Start, of
child care, and State pre-K programs.
Mr. Horn. May I just remark about something about that?
Senator Dodd. Sure.
Mr. Horn. In the President's proposal to allow a limited
number of States to better coordinate Head Start and pre-K
programs and child care programs at their option, it is often
assumed that what will happen is that if there is a difference
between State standards in a State pre-K program and Head Start
and if Head Start standards are higher, that this will drive
the standards of Head Start down.
What is often overlooked in the President's proposal is
that we have a requirement that for kids served with Head Start
funds, those programs must continue to meet or exceed the
current Head Start standards. We actually believe--so you are
kind of cementing in the Head Start standards for kids served
with Head Start funds. We think this is an opportunity where
there is discrepancy to actually drive up the standards in
State pre-K programs.
So far from trying to water down the quality of services to
kids, we actually think the State option has the potential,
unproven at this point, to be sure, but the potential to
actually drive up the quality of State pre-K programs if the
State pre-K programs are not meeting the same quality standards
that the Head Start programs are.
Senator Dodd. That is an interesting observation. I would
hope you are right. My concern is, and I suspect it may be
yours, as well, that, again, as we do that, putting in
requirements cost money, and if it costs money, that is going
to mean you are going to end up with this problem, and we talk
about in terms of waiting lists and so forth and who gets into
these programs. You sort of get burned either way. Do you want
the quality to go up? If we are not going to be willing to help
pay those costs and defer that, to some degree, given State
budgets and the demands on them, it gets harder and your
population, the eligible population shrinks and you leave an
awful lot of kids out.
But you may be right. Look, it turns out that the opposite
happens, it would be fantastic if that were the case. I just
worry, the realities being what they are, and knowing what
Governors and State legislative bodies go through--and good
people out there. These are not people who are opposed to these
things. They care about them very much. But, boy, they have got
an awful lot of demands on them and it is hard to meet those
obligations.
Senator Alexander. I recall that I used to bristle a good
bit when people would say things like, we turned it over to
you. You are going to all compete to see how bad you can do,
where that really wasn't the way we looked at it. We competed--
and I served with Bill Clinton and Dick Reilly and Bob Graham
and we competed to see who could have the best program that we
could. It was a race to the top, not the bottom.
But let me pursue this discussion a minute. You have been a
very effective defender of the President's proposal and I am
sympathetic to the idea of finding some way to get, maybe the
President's way, some way of getting the States more involved.
I think it is useful to think about the three, the Head Start
center, the preschool program maybe for a 4-year-old on another
corner, and a day care center across the street. You have got
Federal dollars and you are spending $7,000 per child at the
Head Start center, all Federal. You have got a Federal voucher
that takes you to the child care center. And then you have got
a preschool program that may include 4-year-olds which is going
to be funded almost exclusively by State and local dollars.
One of the things we talked about last year was creating a
number of Early Childhood Centers of Excellence that would--in
fact, it was in the Senate bill. It would allow the Governors
to designate, let us say in Nashville, you take all those
preschool places, the Head Start centers and the day care
centers, and the Governor comes forward to Wade Horn and said,
or your Secretary, and said, ``We want to designate or we want
to show the world what can happen when we voluntarily--the Head
Start people, child care parents, and the school systems--work
together to spend this money better.'' And then the Secretary
would then designate that as an Early Childhood Center of
Excellence. There might be additional funds for that, depending
on what the program was, the State putting in some money, the
Federal Government putting in some money. We may think of more
things to add on to it. And then we would see how that went for
3 or 4 years, and from that we might learn more ways for States
to solve this problem.
That seemed to create broader support, at least from the
Head Start community. They felt less threatened by this
proposal. It didn't go as far as the President wanted to go in
terms of his 10-State pilot program. Would you have any comment
on how we might be able to strengthen the early childhood
development, Early Childhood Centers of Excellence idea and
bring it closer to the administration's objectives and still
find something that we could create a consensus on here within
the Congress?
Mr. Horn. Well, first, to state the obvious, I think that
the present proposal is a good one. I am very supportive of it.
Senator Alexander. And you have effectively defended it.
No, I mean that sincerely.
Mr. Horn. I also think that there are other reasonable
options to be considered. I am not here to say that there are
no places where good coordination is happening. I think there
are. And we can always learn from good exemplary situations in
order to then disseminate that----
Senator Dodd. I think you ought to check on that Ohio
example that you cite here as a great example.
Mr. Horn. I will check on that.
Senator Dodd. You might have a better one for us the next
testimony.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horn. And we actually have an example of us doing this
in a coordinated way with the Department of Education already,
and that is with the two State roundtables that we have had
where we have taken the 10 States that we think are farthest
along at implementing some of the aspects of Good Start, Grow
Smart and then using the learnings from those roundtables to
then determine what the next best training ought to be with the
rest of the States to bring them along.
So I think there certainly is value to the idea of finding
good examples and then having a process to disseminate those.
But at the end of the day, it still seems to me that Governors
need some leverage in forcing that coordination, and I would
suggest that this committee look to the Abbott School
Districts, so-called Abbott Districts in New Jersey to see a
situation where that coordination is not happening well and
where the State is frustrated because that coordination is not
happening well.
Senator Alexander. I am going to ask Ms. Coler a question,
and then we will go for any further questions that Senator Dodd
has or comments he has, and then I think we will bring the
hearing to a conclusion.
Ms. Coler, the Department of Agriculture structure
providing services to children is a little different than the
way we do it in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Basically,
the Federal money--it is more like the way we do it with the
child care certificate or voucher and less like the way we do
it with U.S. Department of Education grants to schools. In
other words, the Department of Agriculture money follows the
child, it seems to me, to wherever the child is, and then if
the child is at this place, you pay for that. The Department
puts the Federal money there.
Is there anything, as we talk about coordinating these
three different kinds of buildings on different corners and
hoping that we serve the children well--anything we can learn
from the Department of Education model about how it spends its
money that might apply to this better coordinated system?
Ms. Coler. Well, our programs, while they are federally
funded, are State administered, and we want to make sure that
children, no matter what setting they are receiving through
early childhood education, whether they are in school or a
summer food service program, that they have access to that now.
So while it does follow the child, it is actually administered
by the State and reimbursement is from the State to the
provider. But if the children are entitled, we want to make
sure that they have access to those meals, no matter what
setting they are in, so----
Senator Alexander. Senator Dodd, I am very interested to
see if we can find some ways to allow Governors in areas show
us what can be done. I mean, I think if I were back in the
Governor business, and Senator Dodd may not like this, but I
would probably try to persuade a Head Start center and a school
district and group of parents to let us operate a whole series
of programs. Let the parent choose the school, the child care
service, or the combination that they needed. Attract the
maximum amount of dollars, such as the Department of
Agriculture dollars, and let the money follow the children to
the schools and the services they needed.
And then looking at where the parents chose to go, which is
what we do with the child care voucher today. We then could try
to decide what are the training programs for the teachers in
the various programs and how can we effectively spend the
money, because we would have about $7,000 for each Head Start
child. We would have a range of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000
a year for the child care voucher. The State is probably
spending more than that for preschool education. So that is
quite a bit of money that could go into the pot and it would
bring out the creative imagination, I imagine, of lots of
Governors and lots of Head Start center directors.
I am very interested in finding some way that Congress can
support the President's objective there.
Senator Dodd?
Senator Dodd. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And again, I don't
think they are contradictory goals. I mean, obviously, getting
parents involved and trying to be more efficient in how we
provide these services is critically important, and giving
parents more involvement. In fact, one of the Head Start
requirements is parental involvement. We have about 80 percent
parental involvement with Head Start programs. It drops to less
than 20 percent by the time the kids are in the first grade
because we don't require it other places.
I mean, had it not been--it is kind of easy to talk about
these requirements that the Federal Government has placed in
these areas, but I think over the years, we have proved to be
more right than wrong in setting these standards, and I am not
sure--looking at child care, we have got virtually none. We
have better standards for people's pets than we do for children
in some of these places, other than basic safety standards and
so forth.
So it is very easy to sort of attack the Federal Government
in this area, and obviously Governors feel that way. As a
former Governor, I know I felt restrained probably in more
cases than I would care to know. The Federal Government was
requiring things, and allowing States to be a bit more
imaginative in how they would provide for their families is
important.
And I say this and I mean this very deeply. Unfortunately,
not every Governor was Lamar Alexander in the country. We had
people out there who really understood this and cared about
this stuff and would insist as a Governor that these kids were
going to have requirements and standards were going to be met,
and too often, that is not the case.
And so if we are talking about Federal dollars going back
out, we want to make sure that these dollars are going to do
what we want them to do to the extent possible and invite
creativity and imagination, try to do what we can do to make
sure these dollars are efficiently used, so we maximize them to
the extent possible, and that is not easy in doing all of these
things.
But I welcome the discussion. I think it is important to
have it. I don't think anything ought to reach a status that it
is static and they are not willing to examine how you can do a
better job all the time.
The demands are more complicated today. Just what parents
are going through is so much more, so much more difficult than
it was 20, 30 years ago, and I think we have got to be
cognizant of that. It is hard. You are teasing me about being a
new father with a 6-week-old and a three-and-a-half-year-old,
who I took to a preschool program this morning and will pick
her up in about an hour or so from it. She does about 3 days a
week. She is three-and-a-half. And how lucky we are. I mean, we
have the resources to be able to do this, although it is
expensive, I will tell you, and what is available.
But just pressures on families today, trying to make ends
meet economically, and look at some of these dollar amounts we
are talking about and what constitutes a poverty figure if you
can then qualify for any help. I went down the numbers in some
of the States and they are just very, very low. I mean, you are
making $35,000 and you have got three kids and you are no
longer qualified. You are no longer in poverty. Well, you are
not maybe poor, you are not poverty stricken, but if you try to
put food on the table and provide shelter and clothes and also
educate these kids with $35,000, it is tough. So it is
important we do this.
I was just going to ask Ms. Coler about your program. I am
a strong supporter of these child and adult care food programs.
I would just like to see even more family day care homes
participate, if they could, because I think it is a great
program. It is, again, one of these things where Federal
dollars can make such a difference. I wonder if you have any
suggestions on how we could be more effective in outreach
within communities to achieve that goal.
Ms. Coler. Working with partners always helps, and we have
had some experience with the Department of Health and Human
Services where they from Washington notified all the Head Start
centers about the advisability of participating in our program,
not only for the benefit of food that it brings to the child
who is participating, but it also frees up money for other
education activities. So with all of our programs, the ACFP,
Food Stamps, WIC, we are undertaking major outreach efforts to
try to reach all eligibles and trying to streamline the
administration so providers will be willing participants, as
well.
Senator Dodd. Well, that is great. Thanks for that.
And again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our
witnesses. I just want to make the point, and Dr. Horn, who is
very knowledgeable about all these things and I appreciate
your--we have dealt with each other a lot over the years on
these questions.
Again, going back to that issue of the standards, the Head
Start standards, I mean, as I understood in the law, the word
is ``generally meet'' the standards. There is not a specific
requirement that the Head Start standards be met. And I
understand that getting down too specific maybe, but I was
looking for maybe a stronger word than ``generally meet.'' It
seems to me almost to be an invitation to sort of dumb-down the
system rather than reach up to it. I would hope that we might
look at that language so that we are driving States, and then
really keep an eye if this becomes law on what States are doing
and what costs are associated with meeting those standards and
what the effects are in terms of serving eligible populations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Dodd. I believe title
I dollars used for preschool are required to meet Head Start
standards. I believe that is also correct.
This has been a very helpful beginning to our discussion.
Dr. Horn, Mr. Simon, Ms. Coler, we want to make effective use
of your time and the Departments' time. I know that you will be
having an ongoing review of these programs. You have your own
working group, and we not only don't want to interfere with
that, we want to encourage that.
I think what we would like to do here is find an effective
way to keep up with it, not necessarily through big hearings on
broad subjects where you repeat what you have already said
before, but if I could ask you to work with our staff here and
let us set up a flexible schedule, say, over the next year and
at two or three different intervals, what I would like to do is
for us to meet with you again. It might just be an hour's
discussion around the table. It might be more focused on a
particular issue.
You may have a specific proposal you would like--I mean,
this is an invitation, really. You may have something that you
think we have been too busy to understand, and while we have
got a consensus here toward an objective, if you want to get
our attention toward a specific legislative change, that would
be a good way to do it, or if we need to put the spotlight on
something you need done, then that would be a way for us to do
that, too, or we need to invite some people in who are
stakeholders and have a general discussion.
So I would like to use the combination of our interests
here over the next year to do what we can to spend this money
as wisely as possible. And, of course, Senator Dodd, it may
show that some money is not being spent wisely. It may show
some additional needs that will require more money, and there
would be no stronger case for additional dollars than a year-
long review that turned that up.
I thank Senator Dodd for being here and other Senators, and
I thank each of you for coming, and the meeting is adjourned.
Senator Dodd. Could I just----
Senator Alexander. Yes, sure.
Senator Dodd. I should have mentioned this. There have been
a lot of groups out there that are doing surveys on this wait
list issue, and we have asked the Government Accountability
Office to take a look at this, as well, state-by-state. We
expect to have some answers back from the GAO around June
sometime, which may be helpful to throw some light on this
subject matter.
Senator Alexander. Good.
Senator Dodd. I think your point about title I meeting Head
Start educational component standards is absolutely true, but
what they don't do is they are not required to meet the
standards on nutrition and other factors that Head Start
requires, so there is a difference. Educational performance
level, but not the others, and that is a gap, clearly, in these
areas.
Senator Alexander. If we have additional questions, if we
may send them to you within the next 2 or 3 days to complete
our record, we will do that. Thank you for your time.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]