[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: DISCUSSING EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION AND CARE IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 5, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
86-488 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 5, 2014................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown, Kay, E., Director, Education, Workforce and Income
Security................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Dichter, Harriet, Executive Director, Delaware Office of
Early Learning Carvel Building, Wilmington, DE............. 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Whitehurst, Grover J. "Russ", Senior Fellow and Director of
the Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings
Institution, Washington,, DC............................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Yalow, Elanna S., Chief Executive Officer, Knowledge Universe
Early Learning Programs, Portland OR....................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Additional Submissions:
Ms. Brown: response to questions submitted for the record.... 214
Ms. Ditcher: response to questions submitted for the record.. 219
Holt, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey:.............................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 177
Letter, dated February 14, 2014 from James J. Heckman,
Professor of Economics, The University of Chicago...... 178
Questions submitted for the record....................... 212
Chairman Kline: questions submitted for the record 212
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York:.........................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 183
Prepared statement of Otha Thornton, President, National
Parent Teacher Association............................. 184
Mr. Miller:..................................................
List of organizations supporting the Support for the
Strong Start for America's Act of 2013................. 101
Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids................................................ 103
Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from Mission: Readiness
Military Leaders for Kids.............................. 139
Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from America's Edge....... 153
Letter from Shepherding the Next Generation.............. 155
Summary from First Five Years Fund of selected governors'
investments in early childhood education............... 157
Summary from First Five Years Fund of evidence base on
preschool education.................................... 160
U.S. News article: Why the GOP Should Get On Board with
Preschool?............................................. 161
Prepared statement of First Focus Campaign for Children.. 188
Prepared statement of Matthew Josephs, Senior Vice
President, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) 196
Letter, dated February 18, 2014 from National Children's
Facilities Network..................................... 201
Prepared Statement of Cleofias Rodriguez Jr., Executive
Director of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start Association...................................... 202
Prepared Statement of Matthew E. Melmed, Executive
Director, Zero To Three................................ 205
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado: questions submitted for the record...... 217
Mr. Whitehurst: response to questions submitted for the
record..................................................... 244
Ms Yalow: response to questions submitted for the record..... 250
The Foundation for Success: Discussing Early Childhood Education and
Care in America
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Wilson, Hunter, Roe,
Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon,
Barletta, Heck, Miller, Scott, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva,
Courtney, Polis, Wilson, and Bonamici.
Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Amy Raaf Jones, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch Kumar,
Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel
Murner, Press Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy
Schaumburg, Senior Education Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative
Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director;
Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator;
Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly
Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jody Calemine,
Minority Staff Director; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education
Policy Advisor; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education
Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; Brian Levin,
Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; and
Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order.
Well, good morning.
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
To my colleagues, welcome to the first full committee
hearing of 2014. I am looking forward to a productive year.
We are short one witness but are advised that is--will be
filled here shortly. Something about rain and commutes, and
those of us who spend time around here have great empathy and
sympathy for that.
Well, the debate on early childhood education has taken
center stage in recent months. In his State of the Union
address last week President Obama called early education,
quote--``one of the best investments we can make in a child's
life.''
And there is certainly a lot of evidence to support that.
Early childhood education and development programs can have a
lasting influence on a child, laying the foundation for future
success and achievement in school, the workplace, and life.
Since the 1960s the federal government has played an active
role in helping children--especially those in low-income
families--gain access to critical early care and development
services. The first program, established under the Social
Security Act of 1962, helped disadvantaged families afford
child care. Since then, dozens of additional federal programs
have been established to provide a range of development
services for children from birth through age five.
According to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability
Office, there are now 45 federal programs linked to early
childhood education and care operated by several different
federal agencies. These programs, as you can see from the
graphic we have displayed on the screen and in the hearing
room, are in addition to dozens of programs operated at the
state level.
The GAO report also found taxpayers dedicate more than $13
billion annually to support education or related services for
children under the age of five--a hefty price tag that is
getting even bigger thanks to new funding included in the
fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill. Despite this
considerable investment, serious questions remain as to whether
these federal programs are producing the positive results our
kids deserve.
The Head Start program, for example, has been the subject
of concern since the release of the 2010 Head Start Impact
Study and the 2012 Third Grade Follow-Up to the Head Start
Impact Study. Head Start receives approximately $8 billion a
year--more than half of the total investment in early care and
development. Yet the studies found little difference between
the achievement levels of children who had participated in the
program and those who had not.
During a visit to the Harlem Children's Zone last summer I
saw firsthand that amazing things can happen in Head Start
classrooms. But these troubling studies highlight the need to
assess the challenges facing Head Start and consider smart
reforms to strengthen the program. In fact, many federal early
care and education programs are in need of serious review. This
should be our first priority, not rubber-stamping a 46th
federal program.
As we examine the current federal early childhood education
and care system this morning, my Republican colleagues and I
believe we should discuss opportunities to streamline the
mountain of existing federal programs, reduce regulatory
burdens, and improve transparency to make it easier for
providers and parents to understand their options. And above
all, we must work together to ensure these programs are serving
disadvantaged families first, consistent with the original
intent of the federal investment in early childhood programs.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
recently took steps toward these fundamental goals with
legislation to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block
Grant. As you know, CCDBG provides funds to states to help low-
income families access quality child care and has been due for
reauthorization for over a decade.
The Senate bill, approved by the committee late last year,
includes several common-sense provisions that will help empower
parents and enhance coordination between CCDBG and other
federal early care and development programs such as Head Start.
I believe this proposal provides a solid foundation to begin
related discussions in this committee and look forward to
working with my colleagues on this initiative in the coming
months.
And I now recognize my distinguished colleague from
California, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education
and The Workforce
The debate on early childhood education has taken center stage in
recent months. In his State of the Union address last week, President
Obama called early education ``one of the best investments we can make
in a child's life.'' He's right. Early childhood education and
development programs can have a lasting influence on a child, laying
the foundation for future success and achievement in school, the
workplace, and life.
Since the 1960s, the federal government has played an active role
in helping children--especially those in low-income families - gain
access to critical early care and development services. The first
program, established under the Social Security Act of 1962, helped
disadvantaged families afford child care. Since then, dozens of
additional federal programs have been established to provide a range of
development services for children from birth through age five.
According to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office,
there are now 45 federal programs linked to early childhood education
and care operated by several different federal agencies. These
programs, as you can see from the graphic we've displayed on the screen
and in the hearing room, are in addition to dozens of programs operated
at the state level.
The GAO report also found taxpayers dedicate more than $13 billion
annually to support education or related services for children under
the age of five - a hefty price tag that is getting even bigger thanks
to new funding included in the FY 2014 omnibus appropriations bill.
Despite this considerable investment, serious questions remain as to
whether these federal programs are producing the positive results our
kids deserve.
The Head Start program, for example, has been the subject of
concern since the release of the 2010 Head Start Impact Study and the
2012 Third Grade Follow-Up to the Head Start Impact Study. Head Start
receives approximately $8 billion dollars a year - more than half of
the total investment in early care and development - yet the studies
found little difference between the achievement levels of children who
had participated in the program and those who had not.
During a visit to the Harlem Children's Zone last summer, I saw
firsthand that amazing things can happen in Head Start classrooms. But
these troubling studies highlight the need to assess the challenges
facing Head Start and consider smart reforms to strengthen the program.
In fact, many federal early care and education programs are in need of
serious review. This should be our first priority, not rubber-stamping
a 46th federal program.
As we examine the current federal early childhood education and
care system this morning, my Republican colleagues and I believe we
should discuss opportunities to streamline the mountain of existing
federal programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and improve transparency
to make it easier for providers and parents to understand their
options. And above all, we must work together to ensure these programs
are serving disadvantaged families first, consistent with the original
intent of the federal investment in early childhood programs.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
recently took steps toward these fundamental goals with legislation to
reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. As you know,
CCDBG provides funds to states to help low-income families access
quality child care, and has been due for reauthorization for over a
decade. The Senate bill, approved by the committee late last year,
includes several commonsense provisions that will help empower parents
and enhance coordination between CCDBG and other federal early care and
development programs, such as Head Start. I believe this proposal
provides a solid foundation to begin related discussions in this
committee, and look forward to working with my colleagues on this
initiative in the coming months.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing, and the witnesses for your
attendance today and your expertise.
Quality early learning is a critical issue that President
Obama and members of our committee have been highlighting for
years. Last fall Congressman Hanna of New York and I introduced
the Strong Start for America's Children Act, a bold, innovative
10-year federal-state partnership that will expand and improve
early learning opportunities for children nationwide.
And just last month we got a down payment on those efforts
from the omnibus appropriations bill, which provided 250
million in preschool development and expansion grants and 500
million in Early Head Start, including the same child care
partnerships proposed in our bill. Indeed, this is an exciting
time for early childhood education.
Ask any parent in America how important access to pre-K is
to their family or whether the quality of their children's
program matters and they will tell you how important it is that
their children have a safe, high-quality learning environment.
Or maybe ask elementary teachers, or law enforcement, or
military and business leaders why they are fighting to expand
and strengthen early childhood education around the country.
They are all likely to engage you in the same discussion that
we need to have today--how through quality early learning and
child care the federal government can improve our nation's
educational outcomes, strengthen our economy, reduce crime and
delinquency, improve the lives of multiple generations of
children and families.
We know from years of empirical longitudinal research that
high-quality preschool leads to good short-and long-term
educational and economic outcomes for children, particularly
those from low-income families. Despite what you may hear from
critics, early childhood education has been proven over and
over again to generate a substantial return on investment--one
that far exceeds the ratio we use to determine whether most
public projects can be considered successful for economic
development.
This has been proven not just in one study, but by decades
of research across the country. The near-term effects include
reading and math gains, fewer special education placements, and
better health outcomes. The long-term benefits include better
high school graduation rates, higher earnings, reduced crime,
and fewer teen pregnancies.
That is why states once again are increasing resources to
early childhood programs, with at least 30 states bolstering
early education investments in the last year. The federal
government needs to support that action and partner with those
states, counties, and school districts to give our youngest
Americans a good start in life.
You will also hear today that GAO has documented that the
federal government has 45 programs in early care and education
and already spends money on early education. What I believe the
GAO report actually points is that there are just two programs
that provide the bulk of federal role and funding for early
education.
There are a handful of other programs dedicated solely to
special services to early education, such as services to
students with disabilities and literacy support. The vast
majority of those programs--75 percent--merely have a mention
of early education and that means that the funds in those
programs may or may not even be spent on early education. In
fact, GAO does not document if funds in those programs are
actually going to early education, just that the law says they
could.
Moreover, GAO could not find any duplication of services,
despite there being some overlap in purposes of some programs.
Today we will hear from Delaware's Early Learning Director,
if the trains permit. She has found that federal funds for
early education, along with the innovative state and local
efforts, can help transform children's lives.
The American people understand how important properly
funded, quality early education programs are to our future. A
recent national bipartisan poll showed that 70 percent of
Americans, including 60 percent of Republicans, support more
federal funding for better early education for children from
low-income families.
This is what the President proposed his fiscal year 2014
budget and in his State of the Union addresses for the second
year in a row. He has seen the research and knows that federal
action can generate state and local initiatives in support of
young children and their families.
He recognizes that even though we know quality early
learning works well on so many levels, too many disadvantaged
children don't have access to any of the services, much less
quality services. For example, only one in six children who is
eligible for federal child care assistance receives it. Less
than 45 percent of eligible children have access to Head Start.
Even now, with low-income families--even now, when low-
income families do have access to quality learning programs,
they are often unaffordable. This has not only affected
children and their family stability, but affects our jobs, our
economy, and the success of the next generation.
That is why we are doing something about it. We have more
than 60 organizations supporting my bipartisan Strong Start
bill, ranging from business leaders to law enforcement to
military leaders to elementary school principals. On top of
that, some 500 state legislators of both parties have sent
letters in support of the legislation.
I urge the committee to consider the bill and to move it to
the House floor for passage.
In addition, I will be working with the administration to
ensure that funds received through the omnibus bill are spent
wisely. Let me be clear: Until this committee and this Congress
decide to act on this issue in a responsible way, we are ceding
control to legislate and managing this funding to the
administration.
Got that? Okay.
Greater--
Chairman Kline. This would be the only place--
Mr. Miller. Great child care and early education
investments at federal, state, and local levels are needed
because low-income working parents lack access, can't afford
services, or don't have enough good choices. The future of our
nation depends on turning this around and providing high-
quality early learning for all children.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Miller:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, senior Democratic member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
I want to start by thanking Chairman Kline for holding today's
hearing.
Quality early learning is a critical issue that President Obama and
members of our committee have been highlighting for years.
Last fall, Congressman Hanna of New York and I introduced the
Strong Start for America's Children Act, a bold, innovative 10-year
federal-state partnership that would expand and improve early learning
opportunities for children nationwide.
And just last month, we got a down payment on these efforts from
the omnibus appropriations bill, which provided 250 million in
preschool development and expansion grants and 500 million for Early
Head Start, including the same child care partnerships proposed in our
bill.
Indeed, this is an exciting time for the early childhood education.
Ask any parent in America how important access to pre-K is for
their family, or whether the quality of their child's program matters.
They will tell you how important it is that their children are in a
safe, high-quality learning environment.
Or maybe ask elementary school teachers, law enforcement, the
military, and business leaders why they are fighting to expand and
strengthen early childhood education around the country.
They are all likely to engage you in the same discussion that we
need to have today: how, through quality early learning and child care,
the federal government can improve our nation's educational outcomes,
strengthen our economy, reduce crime and delinquency, and improve the
lives of multiple generations of children and families.
We know from years of empirical, longitudinal research that high-
quality preschool leads to good short- and long-term educational and
economic outcomes for children, particularly for those from low-income
families.
Despite what you may hear from critics, early childhood education
has been proven over and over again to generate a substantial return on
investment--one that far exceeds the ratio we use to determine whether
most public projects can be considered successful economic development.
This has been proven by not just one study, but by decades of
research across the country.
The near-term effects include reading and math gains; fewer special
education placements; and better health outcomes.
The long-term benefits include better high school graduation rates,
higher earnings, and reduced crime and fewer teen pregnancies.
That's why states are once again increasing resources for early
childhood programs, with at least 30 states bolstering early education
investments in the last year. The federal government needs to support
that action and partner with states, counties, school districts, and
cities to give our youngest Americans a good start in life.
You'll also hear today that GAO has documented that the federal
government has 45 programs for early care and education and already
spends money on early education.
What the GAO report actually points out is that there are just two
programs that provide for the bulk of the federal role in, and funding
for, early education.
There are a handful of other programs dedicated solely to support
services in early education, such as services for students with
disabilities and literacy support.
The vast majority of those programs, 75 percent, merely have
mention of early education in them. This means that the funds in those
programs may not even be spent on early education.
And in fact, GAO does not document if funds for those programs are
actually going to early education--just that the law says they could.
Moreover, GAO could not find any duplication of services, despite
there being some overlap in the purposes of some programs.
Today, we will hear from Delaware's early learning director. She
has found that federal funds for early education, along with innovative
state and local efforts, can help transform children's lives.
The American people understand how important properly funded,
quality early education programs are for our future. A recent national
bipartisan poll found that 70 percent of Americans--including 60
percent of Republicans--support more federal funding for better early
education for children from low-income families.
This is what the president proposed in his FY 2014 budget and in
his State of the Union address for the second year in a row. He's seen
the research and knows that federal action can generate state and local
initiatives in support of young children and their families.
He recognizes that even though we know quality early learning works
on so many levels, too many disadvantaged children don't have access to
any services, much less quality services.
For example, only one in six children eligible for federal child
care assistance receives it, and less than 45 percent of eligible
children have access to Head Start.
Even when low-income families do have access to quality early
learning programs, they are often unaffordable. This is not only a
threat to children and family stability, but to jobs, our economy, and
the success of the next generation.
That's why we are doing something about it. We have more than 60
organizations supporting my bipartisan Strong Start bill, ranging from
business leaders to law enforcement to military leaders to elementary
school principals. On top of that, 500 state legislators from both
parties sent a letter in support of the bill.
I urge the committee to consider this bill and move it to the House
floor for passage.
In addition, I'll be working with the administration to ensure that
the funds received through the omnibus bill are spent wisely.
But let me be clear, until this Committee and this Congress decide
to act on this issue in a responsible way, we are ceding control of
legislating and of managing this funding to the administration.
Greater child care and early education investments at the federal,
state, and local levels are needed because low-income, working parents
lack access, can't afford services, and don't have enough good choices.
The future of our nation depends on turning this around and providing
high-quality early learning for all children.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will
be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements,
questions for the record, and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses, which--no. We got a little--just a little flurry
back there.
I will introduce the three of you here and when Ms. Dichter
arrives we will get her wherever she comes in, wherever the
trains allow.
Ms. Kay Brown is the Director for Education, Workforce, and
Income Security issues at the Government Accountability Office,
the GAO. She is currently responsible for leading GAO's work
related to child welfare, child care, domestic nutrition
assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and
services for older adults. And we do keep her busy.
Dr. Grover J. ``Russ'' Whitehurst is the Director of the
Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.
Previously he was the first Director of the Institute of
Education Sciences.
Dr. Elanna Yalow is the Chief Executive Officer for
Knowledge Universe Early Learning Programs. She has over 20
years of experience with Knowledge Universe, where she is
responsible for the development of educational programs in the
United States and for the use of best practices in education,
professional development, and quality assurance across the
company's education programs in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony
let me briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have
5 minutes to present your testimony.
When you begin the light in front of you will turn green;
when 1 minute is left the light will turn yellow; and when your
time is expired the light will turn red. At that point I ask
you to wrap up your remarks as best you are able, and after
everyone has testified members will each have 5 minutes to ask
questions of the panel.
I now recognize Ms. Brown for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO), WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Brown. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss
our work on early learning and child care programs.
Today I will cover the number and range of these programs
and the extent to which they are fragmented, overlap, or
duplicate each other. My remarks are based on GAO's 2012 review
in which we looked for federally funded programs that focused
on preparing young children for school or provided subsidized
child care to help low-income parents work or attend school or
training.
Overall we identified 45 programs, and these can be grouped
into three categories. First, 12 of the programs have an
explicit purpose of providing early learning or child care
services. That is, these services are part of their main
mission.
In fiscal year 2012 these programs received more than $14
billion in federal spending. Some are very large, such as Head
Start, which obligated $8 billion that year, while most others
are smaller, obligating less than 500 million each. They all
target specific groups, such as low-income children or children
with disabilities.
Of the remaining 33 programs, the second group contains
multipurpose block grants or other programs that have a
different main purpose but whose funds may be used for early
learning or child care. For example, the TANF program aims to
promote work and help end dependence on government benefits,
and 2.6 billion in TANF funds were used for child care in 2012.
The third group includes programs that provide services
that facilitate or support early learning or child care
programs. For example, the Child and Adult Care Food Program
provides nutrition assistance to young children in different
settings. In addition to these programs we identified five tax
provisions that subsidize private expenditures in this area.
Now, moving on to the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication, the federal investment is fragmented. By this I
mean that these programs are administered by multiple agencies.
They are concentrated within the Departments of Education and
HHS, but six other federal agencies and one federal state
commission are also involved.
Further, these programs overlap each other, meaning
multiple programs have similar goals and target similar groups
of children. For example, several programs provide school
readiness services to low-income children, and programs in both
Education and Interior provide funding for early learning
services for Indian children.
Now, it is harder to tell whether these programs are
duplicative--that is, whether they provide the same services to
the same beneficiaries. This is because many of the different--
because of the many different ways the programs are structured,
the wide range of allowable uses for the funds, and the lack of
data in some cases on services provided. Also, the eligibility
requirements differ among programs even for similar subgroups
of children, such as those from low-income families.
So what does all this mean? The federal support for these
programs has developed over time in response to emerging needs.
However, administering similar programs through different
agencies can lead to situations where the programs may not
serve children and their families as efficiently and
effectively as possible. This can also lead to added
administrative costs for things like eligibility determination
and reporting requirements.
I should also note, though, that even with this overlap it
is likely that there are gaps in service. For example, HHS
estimated that between fiscal years 2004 and 2007 about one-
third or fewer of potentially eligible children from low-income
working families received child care subsidies from the three
main programs. Further, there are likely cases where the
programs complement each other, such as when a child in daycare
also receives meals funded through a separate nutrition
program.
Now, one way to help mitigate the effects of fragmentation
and overlap is through enhanced coordination. Education and HHS
have an interdepartmental work group, and in our 2012 report we
noted the need to deepen and extend their ongoing coordination
efforts by including all of the relevant federal agencies. At
this time, the work group is still considering what action to
take.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Whitehurst, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. GROVER J. ``RUSS'' WHITEHURST, SENIOR FELLOW
AND DIRECTOR OF THE BROWN CENTER ON EDCUATION POLICY, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Whitehurst. Mr. Kline, Mr. Miller, members of the
committee, I am very pleased to be here.
Mr. Kline, you mentioned my current job and my previous
one, but I want to spend most of my time here reflecting on the
work that I did as an applied developmental psychologist. I
spent a lot of time in child care facilities during that period
that were under the sway of federal legislation.
I remember vividly a young mother I met at a parents'
meeting at a Head Start center. On leaving the center that
evening I saw her walking down the road with a 4-year-old in
hand, pushing her 2-year-old in a stroller, and carrying a
large bag of materials that had been passed out at the meeting.
She was struggling.
I asked her if she wanted a ride home. She accepted. I
thought I would be taking her a couple of blocks but it was a
couple of miles before I dropped her off in front of the
dilapidated home where she lived.
I asked her if she had walked all the way to the meeting
with her young kids. She said that she had. I said, ``That is a
long way to walk with two kids. Why did you do it?''
Her answer was, ``I just wanted to do what was best for my
babies.''
We all should want a system of federal funding that would
allow her and millions of parents like her to do just that--
what is best for their babies. The question for me is not
whether the federal government should support the learning and
care of young children, but how it should do so.
The current system is simply broken. If we are going to
reform it we must acknowledge some facts. I will give you five;
there is a longer list in my written testimony.
Number one: The federal government spends a lot on early
childhood programs, particularly relative to its expenditures
at other levels of learning. You have heard Kay Brown say it is
about $14 billion. If you take into account expenditures from
these other programs that are not directly focused by
legislation on early childhood it comes to over $22 billion.
By way of comparison, the federal government's entire
expenditure on the education of the disadvantaged in grades K-
12 is roughly $15 billion. It is a lot of money.
Number two: We are not getting our money's worth from
present federal expenditures on early childhood services. You
have heard Chairman Kline speak about the evaluation of Head
Start. It is a very strong federal evaluation from Health and
Human Services--demonstrates that Head Start produces no
lasting educational gains for participants. In fact, the
impacts of Head Start don't even last until the end of
kindergarten.
Expenditures for child care under the Child Care
Development Block Grant Program may actually do harm to some
children because states administer this program in ways that
encourage families to place their children in low-quality care
or to not get any help at all, and this is true of TANF as
well.
Number three: State programs may be no more effective than
Head Start. A recent high-quality evaluation of Tennessee's
Voluntary Pre-K Program found that the group that experienced
pre-K actually performed less well on cognitive tasks at the
end of first grade than the control group.
Number four: The results from early model programs cannot
be generalized to present-day investments. Who among us has not
heard the claim that a dollar invested in quality preschool
returns seven dollars in public benefits--or perhaps $13 or 18,
depending on who you are reading?
These estimates are derived from studies of two small pre-K
programs from 40 to 50 years ago serving about 100 kids in all.
They are different in almost every way from anything that is
being seriously considered presently, so when you hear that
every dollar invested in quality pre-K today will return seven
dollars or more tomorrow, I would swallow with a grain of salt.
Number five: Only some children need pre-K services to be
ready for school and life. Most young children do not need to
experience organized, center-based care in order to develop
normally, profit from later educational opportunities, and live
happy and productive lives. My staff leads me to believe that
no President of the United States attended pre-K or nursery
school.
Every credible evaluation of early childhood education
shows that the impacts, when they are found at all, are
concentrated at the lower end of the distribution of family
socioeconomic status.
What do these facts suggest for federal policy? First,
federal expenditures should be targeted on families that cannot
otherwise afford child care. The federal funding stream should
be reformed so that it is a reliable and predictable source of
support for those families.
States have a critical role to play as partners of the
federal government in its support of child care, but not, I
believe, as intermediaries in dispensing federal funds to child
care providers. Federal policies should support child care
systems that can evolve and learn based on feedback from their
customers rather than top-down systems in which details of
curriculum and staffing are decided by government.
And finally, current levels of federal expenditure, I
believe, are adequate as a starting point for an effective
system of support for child care if only it were redesigned.
One way that my policy recommendations could be translated
into legislation would be through the creation of a federal
grant program for early child care--that is, that would work
along the lines of the federal Pell Grant system. Like Pell
Grants go to students, early learning grants would go to
parents to be carried with them to a licensed state child care
provider of their choice. These early learning grants would
replace most present forms of federal financial aid for early
learning, including Head Start and the Child Care Development
Block Grant.
Congress, I believe, has a choice. It can continue to
tinker with current programs and create new programs for which
states have to jump through hoops that are designed in
Washington, or it can trust families and place the financial
resources to purchase early learning and child care directly in
their hands--
Chairman Kline. Excuse me, Dr. Whitehurst, if you can wrap
up quick--
Mr. Whitehurst. I hope it is clear which of these I prefer.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Whitehurst follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Timing is everything.
Dr. Yalow, you are recognized?
STATEMENT OF DR. ELANNA S. YALOW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS, PORTLAND, OR
Ms. Yalow. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the importance of high-quality early childhood
education and the role that federal programs such as the Child
Care and Development Block Grant play in ensuring working
parents have access to a quality educational provider of their
choice.
I am Dr. Elanna Yalow, Chief Executive Officer of Knowledge
Universe Early Learning Programs. Serving children and families
for over 40 years, Knowledge Universe is the nation's largest
provider of early childhood education, best known for its
community-based KinderCare Learning Centers. We also provide
education and care at employer-sponsored centers through
Children's Creative Learning Centers and before-, after-school,
and summer learning in partnership with school districts
through our Champions brand.
We are honored each day to provide a high-quality education
to over 150,000 children ranging in age from 6 weeks to 12
years at over 1,600 centers and 300 school sites. We are
committed to serving all children regardless of background.
Approximately one-third of our children are from low-income
working families who receive assistance under CCDBG. In
addition, we serve more than 2,500 children with special needs.
We are also the largest partner with the Department of Defense
in providing high-quality community-based child care for
America's military, serving some 2,700 active duty families.
The core focus of Knowledge Universe is the quality of each
child's educational experience. To ensure our children have
this strong foundation, our teachers deliver our proprietary
developmental curriculum that covers the essential domains of
child development.
And to assure a seamless transition from our educational
program to elementary school we have aligned our curriculum
with state standards in English language arts and mathematics
and with early learning standards in the 39 states in which we
operate. In developing our curriculum, we have worked with
outside subject matter and developmental experts to ensure that
our curriculum is consistent with the latest research and best
practices and that it will meet the diverse needs of the
children that we serve.
To ensure quality and continuous improvement, we embrace
the opportunity to subject our centers and our programs to
external review and validation. We have already achieved
national accreditation at 763 of our centers--more than any
other provider in the United States--with the balance of our
centers already in process or initiating accreditation within
the next 12 to 18 months. We also actively participate in state
quality rating and improvement systems.
Further, we are committed to working with states to follow
the performance of our children as they enter kindergarten. We
recently partnered with Maryland to evaluate the school
readiness of children who attended KinderCare. Data from the
Maryland statewide kindergarten assessment showed that a higher
percentage of Maryland children who attended KinderCare were
fully ready on key school readiness indicators, including
language and literacy, mathematical thinking, and scientific
thinking, than their peers who did not attend KinderCare.
Additionally, children who had participated in KinderCare
full time for more than 1 year showed even higher percentages
of school readiness, indicating more positive outcomes with a
more concentrated dose of KinderCare.
Without the dedication of our over 24,000 teachers we would
not be able to deliver the high-quality education and care that
we do each day, and we are partnering with research scientists
at the Gallup Organization to develop a selection tool to help
us identify, hire, and retain the best teachers, and also to
measure employee and family engagement--critical components of
quality.
Given the importance of a child's earliest years,
investments should focus on the children who will benefit the
most; promote continuous program improvement and quality; not
displace the many qualified, experienced, and dedicated
teachers already serving our youngest citizens; and continue to
support and respect parental choice in meeting the needs of
individual children and families.
When parents entrust their children to the care of others
they must feel confident about their options. The current CCDBG
program serves as an important model for mixed delivery,
providing vital support and choice for America's working
families.
Unlike some programs that target only certain ages or that
provide only half-day or school-year programs, under CCDBG low-
income working families can choose a provider of their choice
for their children from birth through age 12 that meets their
work schedules, providing for greater consistency and better
child outcomes.
Lower-income families also have access to the same schools
and the same classrooms available to children from more
affluent backgrounds, typically at a significantly lower cost
with the benefit of a more diverse and balanced learning
environment for all children.
There are a few areas you may wish to consider for
improvement to CCDBG, given that it has been almost two decades
since its last reauthorization. Efforts to provide
reimbursement rates that cover the full cost of quality care
should be made to ensure that all children receiving services
do so in a safe, secure, and enriched learning environment and,
in turn, yield improved child and societal outcomes. Continuous
improvement should also be incentivized through state quality
rating and improvement systems and national accreditation.
I also ask that you consider changes that would allow for
greater continuity of care for children. Currently, children
can lose access to care at any time due to an unexpected job
loss or change in income. While maintaining program integrity,
it is possible to allow for less disruptive redeterminations
and for parents to seek increased wages without fear of
immediate loss of their child care subsidy.
An additional benefit of the mixed delivery model is the
current system has excess capacity that could easily be
leveraged to serve more children without incremental
investments in facilities, program management, and professional
development and training. A number of states already do so in
implementing their state preschool programs, but this
opportunity should be expanded.
For instance, Knowledge Universe participates in the state
voluntary pre-K programs in Florida and Georgia, among others,
and we participate in a number of Head Start partnerships in
Ohio. All these varieties of public-private partnerships could
be better utilized to provide more children and families access
to a high-quality early learning experience that best meets
their family's needs.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to
questions and discussion.
[The statement of Dr. Yalow follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
I am going to make an administrative announcement here. We
are still waiting for the--I think it is probably taxi now. We
have moved from train to taxi. And with the weather, not sure
of the arrival.
So we are going to go a little bit out of sequence here. I
will start asking questions and then we move to Dr. Roe and we
hope that the cab has arrived so that we can get members from
both sides a chance to ask questions.
I know a number of you are waiting to ask questions of Ms.
Dichter, so we are going to try this.
Go for it. All right.
Okay, so let me start, and I will start with you, Ms.
Brown, and let me start by saying thank you to the good work
you have done personally and the work that GAO does. We, both
sides, are tasking you pretty heavily and do pretty fine work
for us.
In your testimony you report that we have got an
overlapping and fragmented system, and there are also gaps in
the system. So I have sort of two questions.
One, this overlapping and fragmented program, how does that
impact the ability of parents to get accurate information about
what might be available? And then two, what might be a
recommendation for what Congress can do to address that
situation?
Ms. Brown. As far as the effect on parents, I think the
kinds of things that we talk about here as far as what is the
appropriate eligibility criteria, and what are the expectations
for the services that are provided, and how they vary from
program to program translate into some very practical
challenges and potential for confusion on the front line when
parents are trying to arrange child care for their children, in
that maybe some like--``I have a half-day Head Start program
but now I have a job and I have to figure out how I can also
apply for child care for wrap-around services,'' and it just--
it can get confusing and challenging.
As far as what Congress could do, in our report we made a
recommendation to an interagency working group that they should
better coordinate, and I just want to clarify what we mean by
that. We don't mean getting together and sharing information;
we mean actually sitting down and taking a hard look at the
programs that cut across these different agencies: Do they
still work? What do we know about who they are serving? What
are the results? Are they unique or did they--you know, are the
needs still exist?
And so we are asking them to take a look at that because we
think that can be a really useful starting place, but the
outcome of that, we would hope, would be some recommendations
for agencies--federal agencies--to take and some
recommendations that would have to come to Congress, because I
am sure that they would be identifying some changes that would
need to be legislated, as well.
Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you.
On Head Start, you have done a lot of work on Head Start--
GAO has over the years, and we have talked about it here and we
are going to look towards reauthorizing the Head Start Act. Can
you talk a little bit about what you have done in the way of
reporting and what your recommendations have been as we look at
Head Start?
I said in my remarks that I have personally seen Head Start
programs which are doing marvelously well, and yet we have
reports from you and others they have some that aren't. So
could you address that--Head Start specifically, please?
Ms. Brown. Yes. We have made some recommendations through
the years that are primarily related to oversight of the
program, both in areas like financial management and we had a
report that was related to accurately determining eligibility
for applicants, and we have also talked about program quality.
Now, HHS, I believe, is taking some action in some of these
areas, so a future look might be to make sure that those
actions are actually achieving the goals that they are hoping.
And the other thing that--as far as what is going on right now
with Head Start is the re-competition for grantees and whether
that process is working as intended.
Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you.
And then, Dr. Whitehurst, a lot of discussion--I said,
again, in my remarks and others have said that a lot of these
federal programs were aimed at economically disadvantaged
homes. Can you take the 40 seconds or so I have got here and
address that issue of what the importance of targeting early
childhood to those homes?
Mr. Whitehurst. Yes. I mean, the research, I think, is very
clear that these investments have a disproportionate impact on
the families that are in greatest need, where the parents have
low education levels, where there is a single parent, where
English may not be the language spoken in the home, and that
the impacts certainly trail off as you move into serving
families that are well-situated--they have money, they have
resources, they invest time in their kids.
So if you are thinking of this in terms of a cost-benefit
analysis you certainly want to tailor the investment and target
the investment on the families that are going to most profit
from it.
Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you.
My time is down to 4 seconds so I will yield back and
recognize Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. Thank the chairman for yielding.
And just a moment, I want to thank all the time Congressman
Andrews has spent on the committee. I know he is not going to
be with us in the near future, and I know I have certainly
enjoyed working with Rob during my time here on the committee.
The problem we are trying to solve is the achievement gap,
and we know that the achievement gap begins really almost at
birth. And that is what we are trying to make up.
And, Dr. Whitehurst, I couldn't agree more with you that it
would make no difference whatsoever in my family to have a
national program for pre-K. It isn't going to affect the
outcomes.
And I have a reading assignment for everybody here in--that
is on this committee, and I would encourage each and every one
of you to read the book ``I Got Schooled'' by M. Night
Shyamalan. I have read it, now I am reading it for the second
time. A famous movie producer, and did ``The Sixth Sense'' and
some other very good movies, and he makes that point over and
over again: It is basically income inequality that creates this
gap.
And all you do at let's say Head Start--some places Head
Start works great; in some places it is a waste of time, the
kids don't get anything. But if every child--the data proves
this beyond a shadow of a doubt--if every child shows up at the
starting line in kindergarten at the same place, that low-
income child is going to fall behind because every summer--you
take a middle-class family like myself that are going to read
to my kids and my grandkids, they actually gain during the
summer. And the average low-income child loses 3 months, so by
the eighth or ninth grade they are hopelessly behind.
And I just--before I got here, Dr. Whitehurst, I called my
local school director, and we have 50 percent free and reduced
lunch in Johnson City, Tennessee--not exactly a high-income
area. But they have been able to narrow that gap by expanding
the school day and also expanding summer. We used lottery money
there to use and have reading programs during the summer.
And I think you are right, and I want you to expound on it
some--and Ms. Brown or Ms. Yalow, either one, Dr. Whitehurst
first--about how we can better use our limited resources. There
is no reason in the world to waste money on my family, but
there is a great reason to spend the money on low-income
families.
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, thank you for the excellent question
and comments. I mean, one of my concerns about the way that
pre-K has been sold recently as the magic bullet is the sense
that, you know, if we invest there we are going to solve all
these problems. We are not.
The problems are multiply determined and they take multiple
solutions, and so I would like to see the policy discussion go
to the issues of how can we best spend this money? Would it be
better spent on after-school programs? We know that there are a
lot of school-based interventions that have--and past the pre-K
years that have a strong impact on children.
Chairman Kline mentioned the Harlem Children's Zone. We
have other charter schools that are hitting the ball out of the
park in terms of catching kids up. So there are all these
choices involved. I think investment in pre-K for the most
disadvantaged kids is a wise investment, but we have to balance
that with a consideration for needs throughout the lifespan and
where we can get the greatest impact.
Mr. Roe. Well, let me make one statement that really caught
my attention in this book. If you take away--if you take
schools in this--we are always told about how we are behind
Lichtenstein and Poland and every other place in the world, but
if you takes schools that only have a 10 percent poverty rate
level, and that is defined by 75 percent and above free and
reduced lunch--America has the highest scores in the world,
period. Nobody is even close.
The problem are the bottom quartile--the 20 percent of low-
income--and there are--the Harlem--I have done extensive
reading about that. Why don't we pool these resources that we
have got, this $20 billion or $22 billion you mentioned, and
those resources, instead of starting a new program that goes to
my kids and grandkids who don't need it and really target where
that money needs to be?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, you know, that is what I have
recommended. And in some sense a lot of it is targeted now, but
as Ms. Brown has indicated, it is so--such a mish-mash that
many parents who qualify for it don't get it, they drop in,
they drop out. It is not designed in a way to achieve impact
from the point of either the taxpayer or certainly for most
families.
So I, you know, I would encourage the committee and
Congress to think about not just tinkering around the edges,
but what can we do to make sure these resources get to the
families who really need it in a way that they can spend it
coherently to produce a better life for themselves?
Mr. Roe. Would year-round school be one of the ways you
could close this gap? Because we did that at home and our
director clearly pointed out that we got 10 more days in the
classroom and added 30 minutes more to each day. I think that
has a lot to do with it.
I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank you,
Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Miller, you are recognized.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Thank you to all of the witnesses.
Ms. Brown, I would like to talk a little bit about your
report here, because I want to make sure that we are looking at
this through the proper lenses, if you might. And I have a
series of questions, if you could be as brief, but I want you
to answer, you know, but be as brief as you possibly can.
As I looked at your report, you differentiate between types
of programs: those with explicit learning purposes and those
programs where funds could, may, or may not be spent on early
learning. Is that correct?
Ms. Brown. Correct.
Mr. Miller. So roughly about 75 percent of the programs are
in that latter category, the funds could or could not be spent.
Ms. Brown. Correct.
Mr. Miller. Then there is the question of the funds that
provide particular slots for programs. It would seem logical to
me that TANF would carry some child care allocations because
there is a waiting list at most child care centers so you are
going to have to figure out how to expand in that region, that
neighborhood, that city additional opportunities for child
care--the goal is to get parents to be able to take up training
and hopefully jobs.
So that would be a specific purpose. There is a reason that
is connected to TANF.
Ms. Brown. Yes. That is fair to say.
Mr. Miller. Okay. And children with special needs--we are
finding more and more research telling us that intensive early
learning opportunities for children along a--children with
different--disabilities allows many of those children one, to
stay out of special education, to go into the mainstream
classrooms, whether they are sight-impaired or have other
difficulties. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Miller. So there would be a reason why you would
connect that expenditure of early learning to children with
special needs and IDEA?
Ms. Brown. Yes. I think the question there is how many
programs do we need to do that, but fair point.
Mr. Miller. No, I understand that, but you are also, I
think, in those programs--at least I see it in my area, the San
Francisco Bay area--a lot of that is very specialized work and
training with those children because of their disability to try
to keep them out of, you know, the next 12 years of special
education. So just to say, ``Well, you could just do that in
Head Start or you could just do that across the street,'' not
necessarily so.
Ms. Brown. I can buy that, yes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I have got something else to sell
you.
[Laughter.]
I think it is important that we pull this apart. I mean,
the Republican ESEA bill, I think, mentions early childhood
learning 12 times but doesn't carry any money, no expenditures
for it. I don't know what category that fits in or doesn't fit
in, but the idea that there is this massive duplication and
nothing--and it is not working I think is a little bit
misleading.
That may not be your characterization; that may be the
political spin that is being put on your report. But it is very
clear.
You know, there was a huge argument when TANF was created
about that this is about getting people to work. And one of the
things you have to do to get people to work is to make sure
that their children have a safe setting, and hopefully a
setting where they are learning, while the parent is engaging
in seeking employment.
And so I think that when we talk about the duplication, yes
or no, we don't--you don't tell us in the report whether, in
fact, any of that money is being spent or not being spent,
correct?
Ms. Brown. What we say about duplication is it is very,
very hard to say because we don't have the data, and some of
the actual programs that are funding these don't have the data
at the federal level, as well.
Mr. Miller. You don't know or they are not providing the
data yet. Because it would be important for us to know if, in
fact, they are actually spending part of that appropriations on
the provision of child care early learning services--and
sometimes child care and early learning, tragically, are still
separated today.
You do not list any of the military programs.
Ms. Brown. No, we don't.
Mr. Miller. And again, I would assume that the military
might believe, certainly in bases where repeated deployments
and extended deployments and all that take place, they might
want to know very well the credentials of those child care
providers, those early learning providers dealing with that
population of families that live under a lot of stress. You may
not just want those kids to throw them anywhere off base
because there is a slot available, so there would be the
rationale for some segmentation for that population.
Ms. Brown. I think there are many rationales along that
very line. You know, the question is, that is why we made that
recommendation to the interdepartmental work group to look at
these programs together--
Mr. Miller. I agree with that.
Ms. Brown.--as a whole. Maybe we should have included DOD
in that list.
Mr. Miller. Well, that would be important for us to know,
because I don't think you can just say, ``Well, you know, all
this separate segmentation is bad,'' but when you look at DOD,
doing a lot of work with military families that I have over the
year on the questions of early learning, they think they have a
model that works. They think they have a K-12 model that works.
They are very proud of that.
We would love to have them included in this full debate.
And obviously many military leaders are included in this
question of the early learning debate.
Finally, just quickly, I would just ask your issue--your
remarks on the question of whether or not the re-competing of
Head Start, whether it is working as it--I would like to talk
to you about that. I was the author of that amendment to force
Head Start to re-compete. I got all the arrows in my back to
prove it, but I think it is very important.
And one of the considerations, obviously, is the quality of
that program and whether or not the mission of that program is
being delivered or not. And that has got to be a basis for that
re-competition.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Dichter, welcome.
Mr. Miller. We have been waiting and waiting.
Chairman Kline. So you have really earned your spurs or
something here. You have got rain and trains and cabs and all
those things. We are very happy that you are here. Let me
introduce you to the committee.
Ms. Harriet Dichter is the Executive Director of the
Delaware Office of Early Learning. She led the national policy
team for the Ounce of Prevention Fund and established the
Washington, D.C. office for the Ounce's federal policy and
advocacy affiliate, the First Five Years Fund. I think I got
that all together here.
So we are going to pause in our questioning and I would
like to yield the floor to you, Ms. Dichter, for your 5
minutes. I would just ask that--the little lights that are in
front of you, it is going to start green and it will work its
way through to red in a sequence which you will easily be able
to figure out. If it turns red, please try to wrap up your
remarks.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MS. HARRIET DICHTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE
OFFICE OF EARLY LEARNING, WILMINGTON, DE
Ms. Dichter. Thank you so much. I appreciate everyone's
forbearance. It did take me quite a long time to get here this
morning.
Good morning, everyone. I am Harriet Dichter, Executive
Director of the Delaware Office of Early Learning.
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, I would like to
begin by saying thank you. Congress recognized the economic and
educational payoff of early education and care in the omnibus
appropriations bill for 2014.
You restored sequester cuts to Head Start and to child care
and added more than 900 million to serve additional children
and establish another opportunity for states to expand
preschool. I thank you for these advances as well as for
dedicating a hearing today to early childhood development as
you plan for the next phase of federal leadership and
investment.
Research and science confirms what parents, grandparents
have always known instinctively: The first years of life set
the stage for all aspects of development and learning. This
makes the quality of our early childhood programs essential to
good lifelong outcomes.
Now, in Delaware our young children and their families are
fortunate to be supported by the commitment of our Governor
Markell and our state legislators. Governor Markell created the
Office of Early Learning to assure a strong, integrated
federal-state-community effort for young children and their
families.
To support this work, we have over 100 types of partners in
the state. This includes our school superintendents, our
principals, and our teachers, our child care and our Head Start
programs, foundations, universities, business leaders, health
and behavioral health providers, museums and libraries, and of
course, our families. That is a lot of partnership in such a
small state.
Delaware's state investment in early learning increased by
one-third of state general funds in the 2011 legislative
session and it has been further improved through our
participation in the federal Early Learning Challenge. We
improved payment rates for our child care providers and we
funded a statewide framework for early learning, known as
Delaware Stars, that allows us to work with all of our early
learning programs--child care, Head Start, schools, early
intervention--to focus on quality improvement.
Now across the country both Republican and Democratic
governors recognize the value of early education. In 2013, of
the 40 states that provide state resources for preschool, 30
increased their budgets by a total of nearly $370 million.
States are committed to this work but I have to stress, we
cannot do it alone. Partnership with the federal government is
essential to help us improve outcomes for young children. So I
would like to use my remaining time to make two main points.
First, there is no one silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all
answer. What does matter for outcomes for every child and every
family is quality.
In other words, states want the flexibility to structure
programs to best meet our needs, but establishing and growing a
high-quality foundation is critical to success. To meet the
needs of children and families we must provide a range of
options: full-time care, part-time care, night and weekend
hours, speech and language development, special needs care. We
can and should expect to make investments in programs such as
child care, pre-kindergarten, and Head Start, and we should be
expecting to invest in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
But what do I mean when I emphasize quality early learning?
A quality program works in partnership with our families to
develop our children's skills and abilities not just in key
areas of language, literacy, and general cognition, but also
social and emotional skills. This is the fuel for our
children's lifelong success--initiative, grit, persistence,
resilience--that, together with traditional academic areas,
help pay the way to productive adulthood.
Quality early learning is part of our equation for our
children's school and life success. That is why we have so many
partners and stakeholders in our efforts in Delaware.
Now, despite scattered criticism of individual program
evaluations and programs, we know quality early learning
programs work. We have decades of scientific studies conducted
by well-respected institutions and researchers. They show that
our children and our communities benefit in many ways--better
education, higher earnings, lower crime--resulting in greater
public savings in the short and long term.
The question is not whether we know enough to proceed, but
instead, how to expand upon the proven successes of high-
quality programs and, of course, very importantly, we must
continue to look for ways to improve our work and outcomes.
Second--and this will be my closing--the federal government
has not been sufficiently proactive in this area, leaving much
too much for the states to do, notably on funding and
financing. As I mentioned earlier, Delaware and other states
across the country have been making new investments in early
learning, but the gap between unmet need and available
resources remains vast.
We can't do it by ourselves. Our two major funding
streams--the Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head
Start--are not sufficient.
Head Start serves 40 percent of eligible 4-year-olds and
only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. Only one in
six children eligible for child care assistance can get it
because of scarce resources.
We have children at risk in every county, city, and state
in the United States. We need new funding to help close the gap
between those children without access to quality and those who
do have it. We need a sustained public funding base for
education to improve access and to improve quality in our
settings.
The bipartisan Strong Start for America's Children Act
would commit new federal resources, along with an umbrella of
quality standards, to ensure federal money is accountable and
targeted to proven programs and outcomes. This will help those
of us in the states to fill gaps, strengthen our efforts
towards building a high-quality early childhood system with a
strong framework and new resources.
I thank you for providing me with the time today. I am
honored and humbled when I go to work every day to play a role
in trying to make our office's tagline, which is ``great
tomorrows begin today,'' a reality for Delaware's children,
families, and communities.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Dichter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Ms. Dichter.
Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes as we resume
questioning.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the panel for being here today talking
about this important subject and trying to come to grips with
how we best can use resources, programs, and encourage this
education to take place with a good foundation for early
childhood students to grow upon.
Dr. Yalow, I am impressed that you have 30 schools in my
state of Michigan, and it sounds as though you are doing great
things in working in this important field. Can you talk about
some of the examples of states or cities where you have
partnered in this educational opportunity where you have seen
positive impacts on our youngest students?
Ms. Yalow. Thank you, and we are proud to be in Michigan as
well as 38 other states and serve children there.
Our interest in partnering with states actually began a
couple of years ago and certainly aligned with the focus that
states had on having systems that allowed us to track how
children perform once they entered school. We have reached out
to about 10 other states in order to do such a partnership
where we simply provide them information about how our
children--about who our children are and they link it to the
state data systems.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to partner with many
other states either because they don't have the state data
systems in place or they have not made the information
available to us. Currently we are working with Pennsylvania,
with Georgia, with Florida, with Ohio, and hope to be able to
have the data that will allow us to better evaluate the impact
of our programs.
We are also conducting our own internal research, where we
are testing our pre-K children using a normative assessment to
see how our children are performing on a pre-post assessment
and that we can understand better how our programs improve our
children's lives.
Mr. Walberg. Where you have that data, what are the key
impact points that cause the success with the children you
serve?
Ms. Yalow. The focus of all of our programs is that we are
aligned with learning objectives, the standards across all
domains of learning important for young children, so we believe
that because we have a comprehensive curriculum the focuses not
just on traditional school readiness but also, as was cited
earlier, social, emotional development, physical development,
executive function, some of the key skills that children will
need in the long run in order to be successful in school and
later life.
Mr. Walberg. Dr. Whitehurst, so appreciated your story of
the young mother who was willing to walk miles both ways,
probably through snow if necessary, because she wanted the best
for her babies. You know, I choose to believe, and from
experience as well, that the overwhelming majority of parents
want the best for their babies and will do what it takes, if
the opportunity and incentive is there and they are aware of
that fact.
Some just simply have more opportunity; some have more
resources; and certainly, some have more life examples for them
to pattern themselves after, which makes the difference.
How do we best support a state's ability to increase that
role of parental involvement in early childhood education? And
let me also add to that question, how do we preserve the role
of parent as the ultimate decision-maker in the child's life,
especially in the area of early childhood education?
Mr. Whitehurst. Those are very, I think, critical issues
and--issues and challenges. I think it is extremely important
that we not slip into a mode of zip code-based, one-size-fits-
all education for 3-year-olds, where you live determines which
pre-K you are going to be assigned to by the state, which
determines what curriculum you are going to get.
So I think certainly for young children, parents need to be
in the driver's seat. They need to retain the fundamental
ability to decide who is going to provide out-of-care service
and under what conditions.
I think states have a critical role in helping parents
shop, because it is a complicated decision. It is not like
buying a cell phone plan, which is itself complicated, because
you often don't know what is going on in the center or what the
outcomes are or how--what the staff turnover is or how
satisfied other parents have been.
So I think states could play a critical role in collecting
that type of information and making it publicly available so--
Mr. Walberg. If they make that publicly available well, how
do we get the parents, then, to be able to have what you say, a
non-zip code opportunity? How do they take control of that?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, if you give them the resources I
think they will shop and they will get good care for their
child when it is available. I mean, states need to have--to
create a portfolio so that there are choices available, so that
there are areas that are well served. But I think if you
provide the information and provide the resources--
Mr. Walberg. Are you talking vouchers or something like
that?
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Whitehurst. Yes.
Chairman Kline. Mr. Tierney, you are recognized.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today.
Sir, I just want to follow up on--I want to avoid all the
battles about methodology on specific programs and get--you
appreciate, from--I gather from your written testimony, the
federal support for child care for poor families, if designed
and implemented properly, and say that it enables parents to
work, live productive lives, and raise their children
adequately. Is that correct?
Mr. Whitehurst. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Tierney. And you say they can't--we can't reasonably
require parents to work if they do not have the resources to
purchase quality child care.
Mr. Whitehurst. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. So you also say the most vulnerable children
raised in the most pathogenic family circumstances should have
access to programs that help their parents and improve their
circumstances beginning prior to their birth.
Mr. Whitehurst. I agree. Yes, I said that. I--
Mr. Tierney. Will you define ``pathogenic'' for us?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, it is a term taken from medicine. It
is a situation that creates illness. And so there are some
situations that are so bad, either in the family or
occasionally in the child care settings or the child care to
which kids are sent, that they create lifelong problems, and we
need to help kids not be in those situations and we need to
help parents so they are not creating those situations.
Mr. Tierney. And apparently you think that some of the
existing child care facilities themselves are pathogenic.
Mr. Whitehurst. I do.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. So in your testimony you state that the
states have a role to play, and one of those roles is
establishing licensing and oversight processes. If there are
already pathogenic facilities out there that states are
supposed to be licensing and regulating, that aren't working so
well, so we have a problem there apparently.
So who would set the standards? If we were to have a
program where federal government put money in and people could
then use that to go to a facility that was overseeing just
state-to-state, presumably a different standard in every state
or something like that, who is going to establish the standards
and the quality?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, I do think it has to be a state
responsibility. I can't see how this can be done from
Washington. I think Washington can certainly incentivize states
to do a better job of it, and if they are accepting the federal
money to report back on how well they are doing it, I think GAO
and other organizations could evaluate the degree to which
individual states are well carrying out that--
Mr. Tierney. The fact is do we really think that this
Congress, as currently constructed anyway, is going to allow
the federal government to go in and tell states whether or not
they are doing a good job in licensing and setting standards on
this particular item of anything.
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, I think this Congress is interested
in accountability, and--
Mr. Tierney. Right. But if they are interested in
accountability that means that we have to take charge of the
federal dollars. We don't want to go into pathogenic facilities
in states, and some states may set a level that we think is
pathogenic, but are--we really think in this Congress we are
going to allow the federal government to go in then and say to
a state, ``We are closing those down.''
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, I--it is not my job to speculate, I
guess, on what this Congress will do. I think it is--
Mr. Tierney. And I am really just going with your proposal
and trying--
Mr. Whitehurst. No, I think the best Congress can do is set
up incentives and accountability provisions so that when states
get money and they are supposed to license daycare centers and
make sure that they are not pathogenic, that they are well
doing so.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. So if we were going to give vouchers to
people to go and choose in a state which are not pathogenic,
which are good and which are bad, and we have pathogenic
parents and families, are they equipped to make that decision?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well look, there are going to be bad
choices. There are bad choices in middle-class families; there
are going to be bad choices in low-income families.
I think first, the state's responsibility, incentivized by
the federal government, is to carry out its licensing and
oversight responsibilities seriously so that the worst
performers--
Mr. Tierney. That is a mixed bag already, because those
responsibilities already exist, and yet you and I agree there
are some pathogenic facilities out there, so some states aren't
doing as well as they ought, or maybe some--all states are
failing on some of those. So if a parent under your theory is,
``Hey, if you are a pathogenic family and you get the voucher,
you know, good luck; there are going to be some failures out
there''?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, I am interested in the counterfactual
or, you know, what are the choices that are better than beefing
up licensing and oversight and letting parents choose. I am not
suggesting this is a perfect solution; I am suggesting that it
is the best available solution, in my view, to a serious issue.
Mr. Tierney. Would you define for me ``middle class,'' as
you were saying that the middle-class people are getting
disproportionately benefited from this because they are
substituting money from the federal government for cash they
would pay anyway? What is your middle class definition?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, it varies. It is certainly, you know,
above 200 percent above the poverty line. And so it is any
parent who was previously able to--managed to purchase pre-K
who, under a free system, no longer has to do that, immediately
has in their pocket whatever they would otherwise have paid,
which is typically $5,000 to $6,000.
Mr. Tierney. Only because most people I know that classify
themselves as middle class, even if they are two parents
earning, will tell me they can't afford child care--quality
child care. And that means either one of them has to leave the
workplace and just goes back and forth, so they are not being
able to work on that basis, so I don't know.
My last question for you is you broke down the numbers on
this and determined that it is somewhere between $5,000 to
10,000 per early childhood person in federal dollars being
spent every day. Are you advocating that would be the amount of
the federal voucher per child?
Chairman Kline. This has got to be a really short answer.
Mr. Tierney. Well, a yes or no will do.
Mr. Whitehurst. I think depending on the age of the child
and the region, a voucher on the order of $7,000 to $8,000 a
year would allow families to purchase good care in their
locale.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Heck?
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you, Ms. Dichter, for braving the elements to make it
down here.
Certainly K-12 education in and of itself is very--there is
passionate supporters, and when you get into the early
childhood education I think they become even more passionate on
the discussion. I am a pretty empirical data-driven guy. In the
ranking member's opening statement he listed a long list of
presumed benefits associated with early childhood education,
and everybody always tends to cite the Perry Preschool and the
Abecedarian Project as the gold standard in empirical data in
support of early childhood education.
But I would ask, are there any more recent randomized and
replicated studies that control for outside variables across
the lifespan of the child that demonstrate the purported long-
term benefits of early childhood education for either the
general population or targeted populations when we look at
where we are going to best apply limited resources? And I will
open that up to anybody who wants to take a stab at it.
Mr. Whitehurst. I will take a stab at it.
The best study we have is the Head Start Impact Study,
which follows kids through grade three. The other studies are
interesting. I think we have to look at them, but they have
serious challenges in terms of interpretation.
So for example, we have studies that compare siblings.
Parents decide to send one of their kids to Head Start and
another child not.
Researchers have examined the outcomes of those kids into
adulthood. It looks like the kids who went to Head Start are
doing better. But you know, if you have two kids, they are
different. And so why the parent decided to send one child to
Head Start and not the other is the crux of the issue of
whether these two kids or two types of kids were the same to
begin with.
So actually, I think there is not a lot of evidence,
despite claims to the contrary, that we have these lifelong
benefits, except from the two early studies that you mention,
that involved all together less than 100 kids and that were
very different from the programs we are talking about today.
That is why I think they perhaps set an upper bound on what
we can expect. We need, I think, to be realistic and cautious
in interpreting that rather than swallowing the notion that we
are getting the same impact today that these programs for black
families in Chapel Hill or Ypsilanti, Michigan were able to
achieve with multiyear, $90,000-a-child investments 50 years
ago.
Ms. Dichter. So I did bring with me a recent summary of all
the studies that was produced by the Society for Research in
Child Development and the Foundation for Child Development of
October 2013, and it is a rather extensive review of about 40
years of literature, including the contemporary studies, and
discusses in depth, actually, the findings that give people
like me a good feeling as I go to work every day about the
opportunities to make a difference and to really get good
outcomes with a reasonable approach, so I am happy to share
that with you.
But this is a really excellent summary by a number of
leading researchers affiliated with really high-quality
institutions who have taken the time to look at really the
decades of research, and again, both studies at scale--the
bigger programs as well as these smaller programs that were
just referenced--to help us to understand the positive benefits
of these programs in the short term for our children and their
ongoing contributions.
Mr. Heck. Yes. If you could please make that available,
that would be great.
Ms. Dichter. Yes.
Mr. Heck. I am just curious, is that a meta-analysis of all
the previous studies or is there actual--
Ms. Dichter. Yes.
Mr. Heck. Okay.
Ms. Dichter. It is not a new study. It is a document that
was put together to be able to help people who are not
researchers have a good understanding of what the scientific
community has to say to us about our work.
Mr. Heck. That would be great. Thanks.
And, Dr. Whitehurst, you mentioned, I think, with the
Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program, which showed there were--
basically had no better outcomes than the controls, but I would
have to ask, would that be a valid analysis? I mean, was it
prospective versus retrospective? I mean, if it is voluntary
those kids that are enrolled are self-selected, so in your
opinion, was that study a valid study to say that there was no
benefit for--
Mr. Whitehurst. Yes, sir. It was a very strong study. It
involved centers that were oversubscribed. A lottery was used
to select those who got in and those who didn't. All of those
children were followed to the end of first grade. So it is a
gold standard randomized trial, which is the best evidence we
have for drawing these types of conclusions.
Mr. Heck. Great.
Again, thank you all very much for taking the time to be
here and making your presentations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, given the conversation Mr. Heck
had, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit some
documents for the record of this hearing, which include the
study--I mean the summaries that Ms. Dichter, along with other
research?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Without objection.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Hearing none, so ordered. Okay.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you for being here.
Regarding the summaries that you just mentioned, Ms.
Dichter, is there anything in there that would suggest that
actually we are throwing too much money at this subject?
Ms. Dichter. No. And actually, in my own experience working
in the field, there is a lot at my end to suggest that we
actually aren't yet investing the level of resources. I
mentioned this in my opening remarks, that if we look around
the country we see many gaps of children who aren't able to get
services, and we have a great deal of need, still, to continue
to invest to help people improve quality.
People who do the work on the ground with our children--the
teachers--are very serious about wanting to have great impacts
for the children that we are serving, and our ability to
support them in developing the skills that they need to work
effectively with the kids and with their families requires
greater investment, not lesser investment in the infrastructure
and in the service programs.
Mrs. Davis. In looking at those gaps, then--and I know
there are different opinions of whether or not dollars should
be focused and resources should be focused more on children who
ordinarily would not get that help versus--depending anywhere
where we define ``middle-class families,'' and we might
disagree about that, as well--in the summary, to your
knowledge, is there anything that really looks at having
populations of students more diverse, in terms of economic
levels, than less so? Because I think and there are programs
where we tend to divide children in that way, and we know that
parents will do just about anything to get them into the
preschool that they perceive to be at the highest level when
they can.
And I am just wondering, within those summaries do you see
anything that really jumps out in terms of the programs that
would speak to the need to really have I guess more stimulation
and more diversity among those young children that are there
playing together, that are learning together?
Ms. Dichter. Sure. So I think that we know that we have a
great benefit to our at-risk, low-income children from being
able to participate in early childhood programs, and we
certainly know from our dialogue and discussion with their
families how much they want for their children's future to have
the benefit of a good, quality program.
We also know that our middle-class children also derive a
benefit from these programs, and if we look more broadly, I
think, in society, we see that families of means basically tend
to enroll their children in early childhood programs. They
understand what the benefits are for the kids not only, again,
on language and literacy and cognitive development, the things
Dr. Yalow was talking about, but also in terms of social skills
and preparation, basically, for school.
So I think that we know that there are benefits across the
board, and that there are also benefits for the children to be
able to be in classrooms together. If we want to have a diverse
and productive society with that focus on our own economic
competitiveness, some of that is starting in our early
childhood programs, and being able to meet the needs of these
many diverse families that we have, and to assure good quality
and good access for them is critical.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I mean, part of it, I think, is this return on investment
that I suspect you can find studies, and I think our witnesses
have certainly spoken to that, where you don't--where they
don't see the gains that perhaps they would like to see, but
trying to make an argument that therefore we shouldn't provide
these programs as a result of that seems--and, Dr. Whitehurst,
I don't think you were making the case, necessarily, that we
shouldn't have any programs whatsoever. I didn't hear that. But
I think that sometimes we really do need to focus on that
return on investment, and you seem to suggest that you don't
think that in many cases it is there.
Mr. Whitehurst. No. I am certainly not arguing for less
investment. I am just arguing that we should target that
investment to families that need it and we should do it in a
way that has a system that evolves rather than as a top-down
decision about what is best for all parents on Tuesday in
November--
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Right.
Among OECD countries--and many of them, of course, have
strong programs--in the summaries, Ms. Dichter, is there
anything that, again, jumps out in terms of how other countries
are structuring their pre-K programs versus our programs, and--
where you get that kind of high quality, where you are paying
teachers more, where you are valuing the fact that the teachers
are really recognized for their talent in being able to teach
young children and not necessarily sort at the low end of the
spectrum in terms of teaching?
Dr. Yalow, do you want to speak to that?
Ms. Yalow. I would be happy to just address that briefly,
because I have worked fairly extensively in Singapore and the
United Kingdom as well as some other countries in Southeast
Asia, and I have had the opportunity to observe some
outstanding early childhood education programs. What we tend to
see there is a stronger commitment, both on the policy side as
well as a stronger realization on families of the importance of
early childhood education.
So, for example, in programs in Singapore, when they went
through not as dramatic an economic turndown as we did, but we
saw our enrollments being very stable because parents
appreciated that the difference they could make in their
children's lives in the youngest years was going to have long-
term beneficial impacts. They would make many other sacrifices
before they would sacrifice high-quality early learning
programs.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman.
And good morning to the witnesses. I thank you each for
your testimony.
Let me start my time by acknowledging the ESEA
reauthorization bill that not only passed out of this committee
but is waiting over at the Senate for a hearing. As the
subcommittee chairman for early childhood, elementary, and
secondary education, we put a lot of time and effort into that
bill, and a lot of that time and effort was spent with some of
our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle.
See, we are 10 years into what we have termed No Child Left
Behind, and in that decade of experience we realized what
worked with No Child Left Behind, what is working, and more
importantly, what is not working. We realize that
accountability is a good thing, and that has been discussed
here.
But we also realize that the best people to determine what
success is lies with our parents, our teachers, taxpayers at
the local level. The reauthorization that I am talking about
trusts those people more than bureaucrats in Washington. No
offense. Present company excepted, and we will get to you in a
minute.
And that is the key difference here. And the architect of
No Child Left Behind, the speaker of this House, even voted for
our reauthorization, coming to the same conclusion.
What we really need in this town, and it should be no
surprise to any of the witnesses, is leadership. Let the bill
be heard in the Senate. What could it hurt? What is the
problem?
In the research that I did in preparing that language, I
went to a place called EduCare that was built in the--right on
what would have been the shadows of the Robert Taylor Homes in
Chicago, and what I saw there was no less than amazing. And I
will just bring up for the record a couple of those
observations.
First of all, they were trying, in an early childhood
education environment, to teach kids whose parents were never
parented. So now we are in second and third generations here,
and so part of their contractual relationship that they have is
that the parents come in to learn how to be parents. And I
found that amazing.
The second thing I found was that they were mature enough--
the leaders of this institution or organization were mature
enough and responsible enough that when they started the first
time they found some things that weren't working. They actually
suspended the program. They stopped taking people's money and
worked out what was going wrong and then started again.
And you can correct me or tell me if that happens
throughout these programs and throughout these different
schools. I am happy to be educated further. But I found that
really amazing and appreciate it.
There has been some comment made that the ESEA doesn't
authorize or spend any money in this area, and that is wrong.
For the record I want to say that in Title I for fiscal year
2014 we are allocating $14.385 billion. Two percent of $14.385
billion is about $288 million, and that is the amount that the
CRS, the Congressional Research Service, says that is used to
support preschool services.
So I understand the point that might have been made, that
dedicated funds may not be siloed, but again, when you look at
the approach of ESEA reauthorization you see that we want that
flexibility in there because why? We trust parents, teachers,
local taxpayers more than any other bureaucrat--than a
bureaucrat in Washington. We believe they know what is best for
our kids than anyone in this town.
Ms. Brown, I am running out of time. How long have you
studied the federal government?
Ms. Brown. How long have--
Mr. Rokita. Yes.
Ms. Brown. More than 25 years.
Mr. Rokita. Yes. Do you know of any bureaucrat that you
have ever met that knows the children of Indiana better than
Indiana's parents, teachers, and taxpayers?
Ms. Brown. I can say no to that.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
What is your definition of ``duplication,'' a duplicative
program? Do you have an official definition at your agency?
Ms. Brown. Yes. The official definition for ``duplication''
is programs that serve the same children at the--with the same
purpose and serve the same children.
Mr. Rokita. Right. Have you ever met a--have you ever seen
a duplicative program under that definition?
Ms. Brown. In the food assistance area, we have done some
work in that and have seen a number of cases where there might
be programs that could or do serve the same population.
Sometimes that is okay because there might be a need for
different entry points for families, and sometimes that can be
a problem.
Mr. Rokita. I am yielding back the microphone. I would say
that maybe we should consider in that definition overlap and
fragmentation as better ways to determine what duplication
really is.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I am sorry.
Ms. Dichter. I just wanted to say how delighted I was to
hear that you had been to visit an EduCare program. And that
is, of course, such a powerful example of the kinds of things
we are talking about--coordinating the different funding
streams we have to try to, in an intensive, very reflective
way, establish high standards, lots of assessment of the
children--I think Dr. Yalow talked about that to inform
practice--good partnerships to the families.
These are the kinds of things that we work on at the state
level with local partners in this coordinated way, but they are
also exactly the kinds of things--because it is hard. It is
very hard work. You saw that. To be able to do that, why these
issues around needing more resources, basically, and being able
to deliver more support to the states to be able to help pull
this together, really set a strong foundation, are important.
Mr. Rokita. I appreciate that.
Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?
Mr. Scott. I actually wanted to follow through on the
question you had asked. Go ahead.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
I would just say, I appreciate that, and I just don't
understand when we can't determine, based on--for a lack of
data, where the duplication is, where the overlap is, where the
waste, fraud, and abuse is, how we can then conclude that
automatically we need to spend more money. I believe in
targeting the money, but just to say we need to throw more
money at something when we can't even show that the money
currently being used is being used efficiently is the wrong
approach.
I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And I wanted to follow up on the difference between overlap
and duplication. You are not suggesting that the same child is
in actually two different programs, are you?
Ms. Brown. Okay, there are two answers to that. One is that
it is possible that the same child could be in two different
programs, and it might be something like Head Start in the
morning and daycare in the afternoon.
Mr. Scott. But basically by duplication you mean the child
had two programs serving the same area, but not that the same
child is in two programs.
Ms. Brown. Right. The only--
Mr. Scott. And so there is a difference between overlapping
services and duplicated services.
Ms. Brown. We tried to think about instances in these types
of programs where there would be true duplication, and most of
the examples we came up with were cases where there might be
inappropriate or improper use of funds, like, you know, someone
was, you know, had--claimed that they had a child enrolled in a
program or something like that. And unfortunately, when you
have this many programs that are operating similar services
that kind of opens the door for--
Mr. Scott. Well, sometimes the overlap is helpful because,
as we have heard, some programs are more appropriate for some
students than others, and if you have overlapping programs they
would be able to choose, but the same child isn't going to be
in kindergarten and Head Start at the same time.
Ms. Brown. Right. I mean, it is very possible that a child
might be in a family daycare home and be receiving Child and
Adult Care Food Program, and that may be appropriate.
Mr. Scott. That is not the normal case of duplication.
Let me just move on to another question. There have been a
lot of studies that have been referenced, and I think the
consensus is that the early childhood education is extremely
valuable.
Ms. Brown, can you say how valuable it is in reducing the
achievement gap?
Ms. Brown. That is not my area of expertise.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Dichter?
Ms. Dichter. Yes. I am happy to talk to that.
So, from where I sit, we have lots of evidence of the
important role that early childhood education does play in
reducing the achievement gap. I think you are probably aware
just of recent studies revalidating work from a couple of
decades ago around vocabulary gaps for children basically with
less economic resources, and those vocabulary gaps start pretty
early and they have a big influence in terms of something I
think we all know is very important.
We want our kids to be good readers, right? We want the
great command of language and vocabulary for them, you know,
particularly by the time they are in third grade. And I think
that we know when we have a high-quality program that is very
well focused it can do a lot to help us with closing those
kinds of vocabulary gaps and setting up our children very well
for their participation in school and to get a really great
benefit from the school years.
Mr. Scott. And also, does it have an effect on future
dropouts?
Ms. Dichter. And we can see, if we carry this trajectory
out what we are able to see is that we have better persistence
for kids who are less advantaged who have been in high-quality
programs at high school graduation. We see that in terms of
crime reduction. We see this in terms of earnings and
productivity--
Mr. Scott. Teen pregnancy?
Ms. Dichter.--the ability to participate in college and
post-secondary education.
Mr. Scott. And what about teen pregnancy?
Ms. Dichter. And also teen pregnancy. There are also health
effects. I think Dr. Heckman, Nobel laureate, who has taken a
big interest in our area, has been doing some really important
work in this area to be able to show us the range of effects.
And I think I mentioned before that we want our children to
be on a pathway to productive adulthood and to be helping,
actually, with the maintenance of a competitive economy in this
country. Early childhood is not the only solution, but it is
certainly part of the solution that we have in terms of the
future that we are trying to build for ourselves and our
children.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
And thanks to the panelists, the witnesses for speaking on
this very important issue when it comes to education.
You know, all the information that has been presented, it
seems like there is a lot of variance in terms of the outcomes
here. And most importantly, it seems they are really
questionable of the sustainability, which is probably the most
important thing, that the outcomes that are achieved have--are
sustainable, as they hit the, you know, the primary school
years and continue on to secondary.
And certainly there are many different paths to assuring
our kids a great start in life, and so, Dr. Whitehurst, just
real simply, from your perspective, what should we be doing?
What would work and what would be effective? What would be
sustainable, that these kids keep those outcomes and they grow
with as the kids grow?
Mr. Whitehurst. Well, there are a lot of things that I
think are important. I think the first thing that may be
important is to stop thinking about an investment in a 4-year-
old as somehow more important than an investment in a 5-year-
old. Kindergarten is as important as pre-K, and first grade is
as important as kindergarten.
So I think one of the things we need to be thinking about
is the larger impact of these programs on the lives of the
people involved--their ability to work, their ability to get
additional education and training.
Within that, I think we want programs that provide what
children are not getting at home. So with regard to the
vocabulary gap, it certainly does exist so we want programs
that provide rich stimulation that enable children to learn
words and learn things about the world that they would be
learning in a middle-class family that might not be learning in
their family of birth.
And as we are able to collect information, which is really
hard to get now, on which programs and which teachers are doing
that well, I would hope that we would have incentives in place
that would encourage centers to do better and teachers to do
better and would enable parents to know what they are getting
into when they choose to let their child off at the door and
let that child have 6 or 7 hours a day in the care of other
people.
Mr. Thompson. In terms of, you know, as--parents dropping
those kids off, putting them in the hands of what you hope are
qualified and obviously caring professionals, which I think
many are, but does input data like a preschool teacher's
credentials have--if that has little impact on a child's
learning, what factors are important to determining the, you
know, the effectiveness? Because I think when it comes to
education, you know, the number one factor is obviously the
teacher. Most important asset that we have, in terms of
education and learning.
Mr. Whitehurst. Right. That is, I think, extremely
important. I think we have learned that lesson in K-12. The
evidence is there that the most important influence is not the
school the child attends but the classroom and teacher that the
child experiences, and we seem to have lost that lesson in pre-
K, where we are focusing mostly on centers and not on
classrooms.
Unfortunately, the other lesson we have learned in K-12 is
it is very hard to tell what makes a good teacher except
observing teachers and finding out who is good and who is not.
And I think that is surely the case in pre-K, as well.
The evidence is pretty strong that credentials are not
predictive of the quality of adult-child interactions in pre-K,
and I think we need to focus on professional development that
will help. Some will, some not. And I think we have--need
systems in place that carefully evaluate teacher performance in
the pre-K arena and do what we ought to be doing, and that is
encouraging the good ones to stay in the profession by paying
them a living wage and getting the bad ones to do something
else.
Ms. Dichter. Yes. I just wanted to mention, in the area of
supporting our teachers in the early childhood education
setting, that one of the things early childhood has been doing
for quite some time is actually creating good instruments to be
able to go in and conduct classroom observations--observations
of teachers interacting with children, observations of learning
environments for the kids.
And so, certainly in our programs we incorporate these
kinds of instruments and tools into our overall statewide
programming that we are doing, and it is part of our
accountability measurement.
Mr. Thompson. I think that speaks to an important part of
education, and that is making sure that the supervisors--
whether they call them head teachers, or principals, or
whatever the title is--that they are prepared to perform those
supervisory duties to increase the individual's performance
whom they are supervising. I think that first and foremost is a
responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, in the event of changing colors, I yield
back.
Chairman Kline. Perfect timing, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Holt, you are recognized.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
Ms. Dichter, you present a strong case about the successes
in your state. I think we could equally well have a witness
from New Jersey because we have had, through court order, tens
of thousands of children in many parts of the state now, under
the Abbott v. Burke order, tens of thousands of students
receiving high-quality early childhood education.
It is worth pointing out, and I will summarize quickly,
before these programs were mandated and put in place, fewer
than 15 percent of pre-K classrooms were good to excellent; a
quarter of them were worse than minimal quality. That is all
turned around. There are essentially none that are in the
``poor quality'' and very many in the ``good to excellent
quality'' in classrooms.
But more important, the estimated effects on the kids--or
the demonstrated effects on the kids, I should say, are
substantial and persistent. And they go a long way toward
closing the achievement gap between low-income children and
more advanced children.
The Abbott program in New Jersey has shown positive effects
on children's cognitive and social development--immediate and
lasting--on school progress and educational attainment, on
social behavior. So, you know, it is important to look at that.
And yet, today's hearing begins--and I would like to
address this to you, Ms. Dichter--begins with the chairman
talking about all of these federal programs. Mr. Miller, I
think, in his colloquy with Ms. Brown, established that there
really is a need for some of these diverse programs.
But really what I wanted to ask you, as somebody who is
running statewide programs, having to coordinate these many
different programs, as we have had to do in New Jersey, is that
really the problem? Is the fragmentation of different programs
the problem here, or the principal problem that we--the
starting problem for us to look at here today?
Ms. Dichter. Thank you so much, and I am glad you brought
up Abbott, of course. It is really a fantastic program and a
great benefit for the children of New Jersey and their
families.
In terms of the principal issues, I don't--I at least spend
time coordinating our programs. We have good partnerships,
basically, with the various programs. I don't see the issue as
being one of duplication or an issue of fragmentation, you
know, or overlap.
I actually see that our biggest issues are resources so
that we can meet needs appropriately, and appropriate
partnership between the states and the federal government so
that we can both do the work that is contextual within the
state about our frameworks for quality, but with good support
and good linkage with the federal government.
So from where I sit--and I think I said this in my
remarks--you know, a big issue is resource development for us,
and making sure that we are able to be clear about meeting the
needs of the various targeted populations. We have a lot of
diverse families, a lot of diverse children whose needs that we
are trying to meet.
So for me, yes, we need more resources in our big programs,
like Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant,
and we would also have a very good benefit from establishing
some additional federal funding, you know, as suggested in
certainly one of the bills here to be able to assist and to
make sure that we can do a great job. Our families do expect,
when they are enrolling their children in our programs, that we
wouldn't allow them to be open unless they were high-quality
offerings for them.
And of course, as we have been discussing, there is a lot
of ongoing need to do quality improvement. So the resources are
really necessary, from where I sit, to be able to make sure
that as parents enter the door with their kids they get what
they are expecting from our programs.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
My time is almost up, so I will ask the witnesses to
supplement their testimony if they choose to in writing to
address the fact that economist James Heckman says that the
highest return on investment is in the first 3 years and the
highest return in that comes from attention to instruction--the
instructors, the caregivers, the educators. So if you would
care to supplement your remarks about 9-month to 24-month
programs and contributions, I think that would be helpful to
us. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time is expired.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am from the great state of Oregon, and last week our
Oregon Department of Education released the results of its
statewide kindergarten assessment, and this test asked incoming
kindergartners to name capital and lowercase letters, and they
found that the average 5-year-old, when looking at a page
containing 100 combinations, could name just 18.5 on average.
When asked to pronounce letter sounds the study found that the
average student could pronounce only 6.7 on a page of 110.
So our governor has called these results sobering. He said
that Oregon has had a scattershot approach to early childhood
education, and I know that the state is looking at making some
changes.
And indeed, too many qualifying Oregon students are left
out of public preschool programs. Only about 7 percent of all
3-and 4-year-olds are able to take part.
So Oregon is taking steps to remedy the problem at a state
level, creating early learning hubs to focus the efforts and
strategies of educators and social services, school districts,
and health care providers.
So, Ms. Dichter, would you please discuss how effectiveness
can be increased if there is a coordinated effort across all
sectors that involve early childhood education? And also,
please compare the expected results of coordinating these
programs versus consolidating or eliminating them, as has been
suggested.
Ms. Dichter. Sure. I am happy to do that.
So I think that as we approach this work in Delaware, what
we do across the programs--I mentioned our Delaware Stars
effort--is to have an approach that integrates research-based
standards, improvement supports for our providers, and of
course, financial incentives for them so that we are able to
work within our unique context, as you would be doing in
Oregon, to be able to meet local needs and to take advantage,
actually, of the network of existing programs, whether they are
offered by schools, through child care or Head Start, to be
able to bring things together.
We also work, then, to take advantage of social media and
other opportunities to really work with our families so that
they become aware of our Stars framework and are able to use
that to guide their own program selection, and we are able to
be very transparent with people about where the programs are
and where things are going.
So it does take a lot of energy. It is dynamic work that we
are able to do.
But it is actually work that excites everyone in the
community. Not only do we hear this from our families who are
excited about this and how we are working with them, but the
network of providers actually welcomes this approach because it
is unifying for them.
One of the issues--and I think you raised this as you were
talking about the experience in Oregon--is needing to make sure
that we have really good connections between our early
childhood programs and our K-12 system. And you can get some of
that when districts choose to offer early childhood, but not
all districts want to, and there are well-established players--
you know, we are sitting with a good example of that here--who
are in the game and have been offering a lot to our children
and families.
And so this kind of approach actually can be very unifying
because it allows us to do more building of that continuity for
children and families and, actually, across the teachers, as
well, as they are moving from the early childhood setting into
the kindergarten and above setting.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I want to follow up with
another question.
Thank you for continuing to mention families. Early
childhood education is a pillar of the Women's Economic Agenda,
and the premise is when women succeed America succeeds. The
President mentioned that the other evening in the State of the
Union.
One statistic in Oregon's recent study struck me as
particularly telling but not surprising. The two school
districts with the highest performance--one happens to be in my
district and one just outside of it--also had the lowest
incidence of child poverty in the state. And conversely, the
two districts with the lowest scores had the highest rates of
child poverty. And I don't think that is surprising, but it is
quite troubling.
Would you please discuss whether these results are
generally consistent with what we know about the role that
poverty plays in a child's ability to start kindergarten
prepared to learn and discuss what we know about the importance
of continuing to address poverty as a barrier throughout a
child's educational career? And my time is about to expire,
so--
Ms. Dichter. Okay. I will briefly say yes, basically those
results, I think, are not surprising to us. There is a
disadvantage, basically, that we need to work to be able to
provide appropriate support, classroom-based partnerships with
families.
They are critical regardless of family income, okay?
Parents are first and foremost responsible. Early childhood
working successfully in partnership with families across all
economic strata, is a critical part of my definition of a good
program that will yield better results for children.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
And my time is expired, but I would appreciate hearing from
the others in writing after the hearing because I am out of
time.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
We have reached the end of our questioning period. Before I
thank the witnesses I would like to yield to Mr. Miller for any
closing remarks he might have.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Just, Ms. Yalow, you wanted to quickly respond to something
Ms. Bonamici asked, if you want to take a minute?
Ms. Yalow. I just wanted to second Ms. Dichter's comments
about the importance of--and really emphasize the importance of
informing families about the choices that are available to
them. There are multiple options that families have, and we do
not do as good a job as we can do of letting parents know what
different options they have so that they can make the choice
that is best for their child and for their family. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
And thank you to all the witnesses for this morning.
Ms. Dichter, thank you for making the extra effort to get
here. You could have called in and everyone would have said she
is snowed in or iced in, I guess was the trick.
But thank you. And I think your testimony was very
important because what you are doing in your state is exactly
what we would like to see the states do, is to take the
responsibility, knit the programs together, have a continuum of
care and learning for these children, recognizing the
sociological differences and economic differences. But the goal
is the same for all of the children in Rhode Island or
California.
I happen to have much more confidence in your state, in my
governor and others, who are trying to knit this together from
kindergarten to transitional kindergarten to early learning and
all of those opportunities. And why are we doing it? Because we
know it makes a difference.
Every family that takes the time to read to their children,
to describe colors to their children, that sits--even families
where they don't know English or they can't read to their
children, if they show that the action is important the
children are different, okay? And the largest pay raise that
most middle-income families will get is the day their child
leaves child care and goes to the public schools, okay? It is a
big payday.
But it is important they make the sacrifice to make it.
Other families don't have the wherewithal to do that, so we are
trying to provide that.
But I almost think like we are--because President Obama has
suggested this program we are developing a class of sort of
like, you know, child care deniers, early learning deniers. The
evidence is compelling. It is validated by families who will do
anything to get their child into the best early learning
atmosphere in all of Manhattan. They will cheat, they will lie,
they will do whatever it takes to get their kids to understand
the principles of life.
But yet we are going to have a denial here. I don't know
quite why we are denying it. When we shut down the federal
government they immediately ran to the floor and said, ``Open
up the Head Start centers. We are hearing from Head Start
parents. It is important that we not miss a lot of days of Head
Start for these children.''
Title I--sequestration cut it across the board. They
immediately restored it now in the first chance they had with
the appropriation--and they put in the new money for Head Start
and for the expansion programs.
They want the states to control it but they don't want the
states to have the resources to do it. It is a little
schizophrenic here. They understand--America has come to
understand, families have come to understand--the importance,
and the brain science is compelling, whether you want to get
this.
We are all aware of the very toxic trauma that children can
live in, and we know the impact. We also know the impact of the
opposite of that: an enriched environment, a sustained
environment.
Even in low-income families, even in the poorest families,
even in homeless families, that can be transmitted, and we have
to meet these children and these families in these various
settings, whether they are homeless--I remember the struggle we
went when Ed Meese decided that, you know, they were homeless
because they wanted to be, and then we had to find out what
school they could go to, what their address is, and all of
that.
Well we try to provide services because we don't want to
lose those children. We don't want to lose those children.
And the fact is, we can keep denying, you can say the Perry
study is 50 years old--it has been updated all of the time, all
through these generations, and it has been supplemented by
others, and just the evidence of parents, the evidence of
school teachers. And the fact is, if you take kids out of a
really good early learning situation and you dump them, as you
do in my congressional district, into some of the worst-
performing schools in the state--yes, they are going to start
losing ground.
So you have got to build that tradition, and we are in the
effort of trying to do that with the rewrite of ESEA. And we
are giving that to the governors with more authority.
So I think we are on a track here that is supported by both
parties, but one part just can't quite step up to provide the
resources to do it. And yet every day the validity of the
impact and the importance to students is--and here we are
sitting here with the public and the private effort--many cases
a public and private partnership in a number of states, as you
point out, Ms. Yalow--and that is true in my state, California.
Obviously, you know that very well.
And so what is that last kernel of evidence that is going
to make you understand that this is important, that government
should be doing it? You can keep fooling around with there is
duplication or what have you.
Yes, we have programs for homeless kids and programs for
kids with disabilities and programs with kids with autism and,
you know, with special populations, and we have to sometimes
feed kids at the summer playground as opposed to the school, so
we have a summer recreational feeding program and we have an
early morning program, we have an afternoon program because
that attracts mentors to work with the kids after school. Yes,
these are special settings where people find themselves, their
children, where they can take advantage of the best of what
this country has to offer with respect to its educational
systems and its child development systems.
But I guess the debate will continue to rage. It is a
tragedy because every moment we fail to empower you with the
resources in Rhode Island or California or anywhere else to
form these partnerships, to develop this data which is so
critical--so critical in this day and age in terms of real-time
information about children--we just postpone the future for
these children day in and day out.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
And I thank the witnesses for being here today, for your
testimony.
Just a couple of comments. Listening to the word
``deniers,'' I don't think there is anybody at this table and
the witnesses' dais that is denying the importance of early
childhood education.
Some of us who may be in the denying thing by inference, we
put together this hearing that calls this ``The Foundation of
Success,'' so there is not any denial here that I have been
able to see that early childhood care and education are
important.
We sadly do not have unlimited resources. I know some don't
agree with that, but we don't have unlimited resources so we
are trying to answer the questions, what is working here, what
is not?
One of the questions that came up was: All these programs--
some 45 programs identified by the GAO--are they fragmented?
Well, seems to be they are. Is there duplication?
There is no suggestion in your report, Ms. Brown, that
there is duplication.
We are not claiming that.
But there is fragmentation, and is there a better way to
bring them together? And the GAO report said yes, there ought
to be an interagency working group here that tries to work
through this stuff so we get better return on those limited
resources.
And Dr. Whitehurst said look, we ought to be focusing our
efforts here on the children that need this the most--on lower
income. Because I think that, at least certainly in many cases
that I know of, there are children who are doing very, very
well without any formal pre-K education. They typically come
from family with their own resources--perhaps a stay-at-home
mom or dad or somebody is there with them who is addressing
that vocabulary growth, reading with the children. But that is
not available everywhere, and we all know cases--we have talked
about the impact of poverty, for example--where there clearly
you don't have that.
And so it seems to some of us that we probably ought to be
looking at where we are going to focus those limited resources
so that we get the most back.
States have been claiming how good they are. I am from
Minnesota. We actually have very excellent pre-K education, so
I would put that in. I can't let New Jersey and Delaware and so
forth get by with it.
We would like to see that this foundation for success is
developed properly. You have been very, very helpful today as
witnesses. I thank you for being here.
And, Ms. Dichter, as Mr. Miller said, you get sort of extra
double gold stars or something--however how many stars we can
award--because when you weather the weather and the trains and
I don't--were there any planes involved? I guess not. Just
trains and taxis.
Ms. Dichter. Just trains.
Chairman Kline. Anyway, thank you all very much for being
here.
We are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]