[Senate Hearing 113-832]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-832
EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING: THE STRONG START FOR
AMERICA'S CHILDREN ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING, FOCUSING ON THE
``STRONG START FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN ACT''
__________
APRIL 10, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-610 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina RAND PAUL, Kentucky
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARK KIRK, Illinois
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
Derek Miller, Staff Director
Lauren McFerran, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014
Page
Committee Members
Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Tennessee, opening statement................................... 3
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 5
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 35
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 42
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Witnesses--Panel I
Pepper, John E., Jr., Retired Chairman and CEO, Procter & Gamble
Company, Cincinnati, OH........................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Taveras, The Honorable Angel, Mayor of Providence, Providence, RI 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Barnett, W. Steven, Ph.D., Director, National Institute for Early
Education Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ...... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Whitehurst, Grover J. (Russ), Ph.D., Director, Brown Center on
Education Policy, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC........ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Tadeo Saenz-Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of Inspire
Development Centers, Sunnyside, WA and Board Member and CEO
Affiliate President of the National Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start Association..................................... 50
National Indian Head Start Directors Association, Jacki
Haight, President.......................................... 53
Letter to Senator Casey from Angel Taveras, Mayor,
Providence, RI............................................. 54
Response of Steven Barnett to questions of:
Senator Murray........................................... 55
Senator Casey............................................ 56
Response of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst to question of
Senator Casey.............................................. 56
(iii)
EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING: THE STRONG START FOR
AMERICA'S CHILDREN ACT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Alexander, Murray, Casey,
Franken, Whitehouse, and Murphy.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
I want to thank, first of all, all of our witnesses for
being with us today to examine the Strong Start for America's
Children Act, a bill that will greatly expand access to high
quality early learning experiences for children from birth
through kindergarten.
I introduced this bill last November along with Congressman
George Miller and Congressman Richard Hanna on the House side.
Already, it has received broad support from more than a quarter
of the members of both the Senate and the House. The bill
enjoys bipartisan support in the House but, unfortunately, is
supported on only one side of the aisle here in the Senate and,
of course, I am hopeful that that situation will change through
the process of our hearings and mark-up.
This legislation has received support from organizations
that you would expect to be associated with early childhood
bills--early childhood advocates, and professionals, and
researchers--who have dedicated their professional lives to the
study of what is developmentally appropriate for children. But
Strong Start also has support from retired generals, top
business leaders, law enforcement organizations, local chambers
of commerce, pediatricians, and other health professionals.
They are all urging us to invest in high quality early learning
for very young children.
As a matter of fact, I remember when we had our press event
for rolling out the bill, Congressmen Hanna, Miller, and
myself, and there were others there. There was the Sheriff of
Hennepin County, MN, whom I did not know, but he had been
invited, and he was the last speaker, and he was in his sheriff
's uniform, and he introduced himself as the Sheriff of
Hennepin County. He said, ``But more importantly, I am the
person you pay later. I am the person you pay later if you do
not invest in early childhood education.''
In drafting this legislation, we learned from the success
of States that have developed systems of early childhood
development and education, particularly for preschool-aged
children. We talked to researchers to make sure our proposals
have a solid basis in evidence. We talked to organizations
representing Governors, and school districts, teachers and
community-based early learning providers to make sure that what
we put together can be successfully implemented on the ground.
Last month, when I was in Iowa for a field hearing on early
childhood learning, we visited a preschool in Des Moines, the
Mitchell School. Their staff was well-trained, they had small
class sizes, and used developmentally appropriate curricula.
But here is the catch: because of inadequate funding, they
could only offer preschool for only 3 hours a day. So people
are coming there, dropping their kids off, 3 hours later, they
had to have somebody come and pick them up. Research strongly
indicates that a full day of preschool yields far better
results for children than just a couple of hours.
On a practical level, as I said, a part-day structure can
make it tough on families who have to knit together
transportation and childcare arrangements to make preschool
work. So this bill would help States, like Iowa and others, to
offer full-day programs for children so that parents do not
have to think about picking up their kids just a couple of
hours after they have dropped them off.
Some argue that we have a proliferation of early learning
programs and we should determine how to better coordinate them.
I agree with that, which is why in the Strong Start bill, we
ask States to coordinate and align their efforts. Others argue
that we should simply look to the Child Care and Development
Block Grant that we recently passed as the answer to early
childhood education.
I would like to make it clear that, while I am proud of our
efforts to reauthorize that longstanding program, the bill that
passed the Senate made only modest changes to improve a
childcare program that had not been reauthorized in 18 years.
So it is really a bill that is 18 years old or more, and we
authorized it with modest, minor changes. The problem is, we
know a lot more today than we did 18 years ago.
The most frustrating argument is that we already invest a
significant amount of money in early childhood and that new
investments are not needed, but I think reality suggests
otherwise. Given that only 1 in 6 children eligible for
childcare subsidies receive them, 1 in 6; fewer than half of
children eligible for Head Start receive its services; and
fewer than 1 in 20 infants and toddlers eligible for Early Head
Start have access to those programs, 1 in 20. So to say that we
have already invested a significant amount is just not so. We
can, and should, do more to ensure that young children are
given every opportunity to have access to quality early
learning opportunities.
Currently, 43 States offer preschool. Indiana was among a
few States that did not provide State-based support for
preschool; but, recently, Governor Pence was able to advance a
measure to get the State started in providing preschool. As
Governor Pence put it, ``This is our shining moment to get out
there and say, `Yes, we are crazy about kids and we want to
support these initiatives,' '' and I agree with that.
I am eager to work with any Senator who is willing to be a
part of this legislative effort. But I just do not think we can
wait any longer to take action on what, I believe, is one of
the most important issues over which this committee has
jurisdiction. So accordingly, we will have our hearing. I look
forward to having mark-up sessions on this legislation next
month, May. That is sort of the process that we will go
through.
And now, I will yield to Senator Alexander for his opening
statement.
Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to the witnesses. We are glad you are here and
appreciate your coming.
Today's hearing, as Senator Harking said, is about his
proposal, which mirrors the President's proposal. I believe
there is a better way to do it, and I am developing legislation
that would implement that, and hope it will be considered when
we have our committee mark-up next month.
There is not any question about whether early learning is
important. That question is: what is the best, next step? What
is the best way to do it? And I believe the best way to do it
is to provide States with the flexibility to use some or all of
the more than $22 billion in Federal money that we already
spend on 45 different early childhood education programs, and
allow States to use it in the way that best meets their needs.
We learn a lot from our witnesses such as you are. Earlier
on this subject, the Louisiana Superintendent of Schools, John
White, talked about his State's effort, and what they were
doing to provide the basic conditions for parents and children
to have quality choices and access to preschool education.
He explained the greatest barrier, in his words, to
implementing the pre-Kindergarten program for children zero
through four in Louisiana, one that meets the basic conditions,
is not necessarily funding but, ``The fragmentation of our
country's early childhood education system.''
He used Head Start as an example. He said that $120 million
of Federal funding going to Louisiana annually for Head Start,
``Skirts State-level input, virtually
institutionalizes fragmentation, and guarantees
incoherence and access to quality for parents, and
teachers, and children alike.''
According to the Government Accountability Office, which
issued its report in 2012, the Federal Government already funds
45 different early childhood and preschool programs, including
33 that permit the use of funds to provide support of related
services to children from birth through age five, and 12
programs where the explicit purpose is to provide childhood and
preschool or childcare services. So a total of 45 programs plus
5 tax provisions that subsidize private expenditures in the
area of early childhood and preschool programs.
This year, Congress appropriated more than $15 billion for
the 12 programs that are explicitly focused on early childhood.
That includes $8.6 billion for Head Start; $250 million for
Race to the Top; $790 million in grants on Disabilities
Education Act; $5.3 billion on the Child Care and Development
Block Grant; and then there is another $3 billion a year on
early childhood and preschool tax credits and exclusions for
employer-provided care.
One of our witnesses, Dr. Whitehurst, has estimated that
when you add up the other 33 programs that indirectly support
early childhood and preschool programs or childcare, the total
Federal spending in this area is more than $22 billion a year
today. That is a lot of money.
That is about the same amount that the U.S. Department of
Education spends on K through 12 education through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is about the same
amount of money that I propose we take from our Federal
education dollars from K through 12 and create a $2,100
scholarship for 11 million low-income children. It is a lot of
money that we are spending today. We are not spending it as
well as we could. And in addition, States spend another $5
billion on preschool education, according to the National
Institute for Early Education Research, and add to that local
and private spending.
The General Accounting Office says this has created a,
``Fragmentation of effort, some overlap of goals of activities,
confusion among families and other program users.''
So what should we do? I suggest that what we did with the
Child Care and Development Block Grant should be a guide.
First, the program enabled, instead of mandating. It enabled
parents to go to school or work. It pays for their childcare
while they do that.
Second, it is a voucher. It enables parents to choose that
childcare.
Third, it is a grant to States. It gives the States the
flexibility to say what the Louisiana Superintendent said he
wanted to do.
If that were our guide, what could we do with this $22
billion dollars we already spend? Tennessee's share would be
about $440 million. If given that kind of flexibility, we could
increase the number of childcare vouchers from 39,000 to
139,000. Or, we could expand the State-funded voluntary
preschool program from 18,000 to 109,000 children. Or, we could
expand Head Start from about 17,000 3- and 4-year-olds, to
56,000 children.
What we should not do is fall back into the familiar
Washington pattern of a grand promise, lots of Federal
mandates, and sending the bills to Governors to pay in the end.
The bill that we are talking about today, Senator Harkin's
bill, has $27 billion in new funding over 5 years, but it has
many expensive Washington mandates which, in effect, create a
national school board for preschool education.
I hardly have time to list them all. Washington would
decide the ages of children to be served; staff qualifications;
teacher salaries; maximum class sizes; length of the school
day; vision, dental, and health screenings; nutritious meals;
physical activity programs; health and safety standards;
development-appropriate standards and curriculum. All that
would be decided here, not locally.
This is an extremely expensive requirement that would
require States to expand their activities, and they would need
to develop and implement performance measures and targets on
school readiness, readiness gaps, special education placements,
grade retentions, more and more provisions looking like a
national school board.
We have millions of children who need this kind of early
education. We can do better than create a national school board
through 45 programs plus one more. And then, send the bill to
the States. The States would pay only 10 percent of the cost in
the first year, but that would rise to 50 percent, and then you
have got the maintenance of effort provision which is already
causing States to struggle. This is the same Medicaid model
that I saw as Governor. Medicaid was 8 percent of the State
budget when I was Governor; today it is 30 percent.
I suggest that we do have an alternative. That we should
take the advice of our witnesses, at least some of them, and
say that the right way to take the next step is to spend the
$22 billion Federal dollars we are already spending in a way
that enables States and parents to choose the very best early
childhood experience for their child.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
I will just introduce our witnesses, and then we will
start. I will introduce them first, then we will have you make
your opening statements.
I want to thank all of you for participating. All of your
statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety.
I read them over last evening. They are great statements, each
one of them.
Let me first start by welcoming our first witness, John
Pepper. Mr. Pepper is the former chairman and CEO of Procter &
Gamble. Currently, he serves on the advisory board of Ready
Nation, an organization of business leaders who work to
strengthen the economy through proven investments in children.
Over the past 25 years, Mr. Pepper has devoted himself to
early childhood and youth development. He was a founder of
Every Child Succeeds, an organization that provides home
visitation to at-risk children from birth through age three,
and is a cofounder and member of the executive committee of the
Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, one of the Nation's most
successful mentoring and tutoring organizations. Mr. Pepper,
thank you for being here.
And now, I am going to yield to Senator Whitehouse for
purposes of an introduction.
Statement of Senator Whitehouse
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
to be able to introduce a Rhode Island witness to the HELP
committee, Hon. Angel Tavares, who is the 37th mayor of our
capital city, Providence. I have known the mayor for many years
now, and I am very proud of his service and his dedication to
our capital city and to the State of Rhode Island.
Mayor Tavares can personally attest to the importance of
Head Start and early childhood education. His life journey from
Head Start through Harvard to becoming the mayor of our capital
city exemplifies the opportunity that Head Start has provided
to millions of children across our country, and thousands of
children in our home State of Rhode Island.
I am particularly proud of Providence for many reasons: our
diverse neighborhoods, our strong community ties, our historic
buildings, our world-class restaurants and academic
institutions, our artistic flare. I could go on and on, but I
think you get the point.
Providence is a pretty special place and it has been a
special place in education as well, first under mayor, and now
Congressman Cicilline, and then and now under Mayor Tavares.
In 2012, Mr. Chairman, Providence was 1 of just 14
communities across the entire United States to be designated as
an all-American city by the National League of Cities because
of the mayor's plan to ensure all students are reading on grade
level by third grade.
And Providence Talks, which is an early intervention
program designed to boost vocabulary development for low-income
children, recently won the $5 million grand prize from the
Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayors Challenge out of a field of
over 300 applicants.
Today, you will hear a unique perspective about Head Start
from an elected leader of a major American city who is a living
example of the benefits of early childhood education. His story
is proof that a strong start can empower students to pursue and
achieve their dreams.
I am pleased to have the chance to introduce Mayor Tavares
today, and welcome him to our committee.
And thank you for the privilege of introducing him, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse and Mayor
Tavares, we welcome you here. Your leadership in Providence has
been well noted, not only in Rhode Island, but around the
country, and we thank you for being here to share your
experiences, and what you have done in Providence, and your own
personal background.
Next, I would like to introduce Dr. Steven Barnett. Dr.
Barnett is the Board of Governors' professor of education and
director of the National Institute for Early Education Research
at Rutgers University. His research includes studies on the
economics of early care and education, including costs and
benefits, the long term effects of preschool programs on
children's learning and development, and the distribution of
educational opportunities.
For several years, Dr. Barnett has led the publication of
the widely heralded series of State preschool yearbooks,
providing annual State-by-State analysis of progress in public
pre-K. Dr. Barnett, we welcome you also.
And finally, I would like to welcome Dr. Russ Whitehurst.
Dr. Whitehurst is the Brown chair in education studies, senior
fellow, and director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at
the Brookings Institution. His work at Brookings focuses on
choice and competition in education, teacher effectiveness,
accountability, and preschool services.
Dr. Whitehurst was the first director of the Institute of
Education Science, and is widely acknowledged as making
important contributions in that position to the quality of
education research, and we welcome you here also, Dr.
Whitehurst.
We will start, Mr. Pepper. As I said, your statements will
be made part of the record.
I just want to note that at 10:30 we have a vote and so
where we are at that time, we will recess for a few minutes
while we run over. It is just one vote and then we will be back
to pick it up.
Mr. Pepper, please go ahead and proceed as you so desire.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. PEPPER, JR., RETIRED CHAIRMAN AND CEO,
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, CINCINNATI, OH
Mr. Pepper. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin, Senator
Alexander, Senator Casey, and Senator Whitehouse.
I look forward to being here today because I am talking
about a subject that I, personally feel, has more to do with
the future of our Nation and our economy than any other single
initiative we could be talking about.
I come here at the age of 75 deeply worried about the
future of our Nation and our continued failure with whatever
means are needed to provide quality early childhood development
for all our youngsters, 0 to 5. And if we do not do it pretty
soon, we are going to have a big problem in this Nation,
expanding from what it already is.
As you heard, I am the former chairman and CEO of P&G, I am
also the former chairman of the Walt Disney Company, and part
of the Ready Nation organization. I am finding that business
leaders today in larger numbers than I have ever seen before
are deeply concerned about scaling what we know works in the
area of early childhood education. Why? There are a number of
reasons that you well know, and I will cover them briefly.
People are worried and getting tired of talking about a
growing skills gap; an inability to find people who can fill
the jobs that need to be done today. We have all learned by now
that the growth of the brain from 0 to 5 is about 90 percent of
what happens. We are also learning that what happens during
that period of time has everything to do with what happens
afterwards, and how ready a child is to enter kindergarten has
predictable consequences whether they are ready to read by the
end of the third grade, and that has predictable consequences
on whether they will dropout.
We know from a myriad of studies that this pays out and in
financial terms, as somebody in business, what I call is the
financial no-brainer. The only question is how strong is the
return on investment? You will see 2 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1. I
do not believe the 10 to 1s, but I have seen enough and gone
over enough studies to feel that this is something that is rare
in business, and that is something with enough evidence that
you get behind it and make it happen on a scaled basis.
I would emphasize the concern that I and others have about
our global position. It is not like we are the only people who
know this is important and 90 percent of the children in most
Western European countries are already receiving, 90 percent,
quality early K. China has advanced a plan that will have 70
percent of their 3- and 4-year-olds by the year 2020 receiving
not 1, not 2, but 3 years of quality pre-K education.
This is a new world and unless we take positive action,
whatever that means may be to get this scaled from where it is
today, where maybe 1 out of 4, or 1 out of 5 children are
getting what they need, we have a cancer in this Nation.
Finally, we are now very encouraged by this. The public is
getting it. We have done research studies in southwestern Ohio,
we have done them nationally, and got 85 percent men and women
in this country of all parties saying all children should have
quality pre-K. People are ahead of the legislators.
Fortunately, and I have studied this, I think we do have a
piece of legislation in front of us in the Strong Start for
America that has a great deal that is right about it. We have
done a lot of work in the business community seeing what we can
rally behind. These are elements of this bill that we like.
It clearly recognizes the leadership role of the States and
of the money needed to go through. And, yes, as Senator
Alexander says, we have got to coordinate money at the State
level so it is efficiently done, including the private sector.
It is voluntary. It is voluntary for the States. It is
voluntary for parents. It does not do mandates. It sets
reasonable, and this could be argued, quality standards. Now,
maybe there is something that needs to be worked there; I am
not the expert. It focuses on children most in need and one
thing I love about it is it takes the whole of continuum of 0
to 5 and does not bifurcate this into different silos.
You could say, ``Let the States do it,'' and many are
progressing--cities like Denver--but it is my fear that unless
there is Federal support of the right kind, our progress--
despite the valiant effort of cash-strapped States--is going to
be incremental and far too slow to achieve the improvement that
we need.
I am sure that most everyone will agree with the
substantive points about the need for quality early childhood
education, and there could still be some debate about how it
works, though I think the body of evidence is really
compelling. But there will be the concerns about the cost. Can
we afford all this? Where will we find the money? And believe
me, I take these concerns seriously, and I do not trivialize
the response to them. We are talking about a lot of money, and
we have a big deficit to deal with.
However, in response to those fiscal concerns, I would say
two things. First, if I could draw a comparison with my
business career, Procter & Gamble, I would say we are faced
here, as we in business sometimes are, with a transformational
investment opportunity; transformational. It is one being
demanded, I submit, by our consumers, in this case, the public.
It is being pursued by our competitors, in this case, other
Nations, though I hope they are also allies. And it is critical
for the long-term success, and indeed I believe the vaiability,
of a company, or in this case our Nation and our economy.
Furthermore, based on the best conservative estimates I have
seen, it pays out. It comes back, I think, at least 2 to 1.
That, folks, is an investment which we as executives in a
business would take as our responsibility to make. To figure
out how to make it happen and not do it sometime in the future
when we have worked through all the things, but do it real
fast, because every year we pass without doing it is another
generation of kids. And yes, of course, we need to make it as
sound as possible in the execution, but we ought to get about
that with a sense of urgency.
One last part on the cost, I think it has to be put in the
context as all of you would of our total Federal budget. I have
got no idea how much money will eventually be put behind this.
He said $27 billion over 5 years; that is about $5 billion a
year. But if one were to say it would end up in the range of $5
to $10 billion per year; that would represent a fraction of
Federal spending; less than 1 percent of total discretionary
spending; less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the total
Federal budget.
I do not make light of those numbers. They are easy to use,
but they are a relative piece of perspective, it seems to me,
and I would submit in terms of the long-term importance of this
to our Nation of not having a quarter, 30 percent of our kids
growing up not ready to do it, and we know that fact. We need
to act on what we know to be true and that is find a way to get
this scaled in the next few years so it is not 25 or 30
percent, but it is 80 or 90 percent.
I hope and pray, having been down here in Washington on
this subject more than once that the way will be found to get a
bipartisan piece of legislation about on this soon and not
waiting for some whole new presidency or something. And get
something done, which all of you know, we have got to do, and
that is get this quality education development to all of our
kids.
I thank you for letting me express these deeply felt
convictions and hopes, and I will stop there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pepper follows:]
Prepared Statement of John E. Pepper, Jr.
summary
ReadyNation/America's Edge is an organization that includes dozens
of current and former CEO's dedicated to strengthening our companies,
our economy and our Nation through proven investments in children.
Providing quality early development and education to our children--
especially the most vulnerable--will determine the future of our Nation
and its economy more than any other initiative we can take.
Business leaders are deeply worried about the current and growing
skills gap--an inability to find individuals with the skills our
companies now require. We know we are not going to close that gap
unless we start early to prepare our children for academic success, as
90 percent of brain development occurs by age 5. This early development
determines a child's readiness for kindergarten, which greatly affects
their likelihood of future academic success.
I support the Strong Start for America's Children Act. I believe
the Federal Government has a crucial role to play in jump starting the
effort and funding at the State and local levels to bring to scale
programs that work. We know that high quality early childhood
development and education programs are a sound fiscal investment. Based
on the most conservative cost estimates available, this investment will
pay for itself with an ROI of at least 2:1.
The Act contains specific provisions which business leaders like
myself embrace, including recognizing the leadership role of the
States, providing the flexibility to direct funds to multiple delivery
systems, setting reasonable and needed quality standards, demanding
accountability, and maintaining voluntary participation, at both the
State and the individual level.
Various polls have consistently shown that the majority of the
American public support these programs and our international
competitors are pursuing similar investments. While the cost of this
bill warrants serious consideration, we are faced here, as we in
business occasionally are, with a ``transformational investment
opportunity.'' Without such Federal support I fear our progress,
despite the valiant effort of cash-strapped States, will be far too
slow to achieve the improvement in scale we need.
Failing to meet the need for these services has an impact on our
global competitiveness. The Strong Start for America's Children Act is
an opportunity to truly change the landscape of how our youngest
children are educated, with potentially far-reaching consequences for
the long-term viability of our Nation and its economy.
I hope you will act in a bi-partisan fashion to advance this
legislation so that we do develop the more skilled and educated
workforce that will fuel our economic growth and keep the United States
as a leader in our competitive global economy.
______
Good morning Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, members of
the committee and guests.
Thank you for inviting me here today. I am grateful for this
opportunity to present my thoughts to you today because I believe that
providing quality early care and development to our children,
especially the most vulnerable, will determine the future of our Nation
and its economy more than any other initiative we can take.
I speak to you as the former chairman and CEO of Proctor & Gamble
and as a member of Ready Nation/America's Edge, an organization that
includes dozens of current and former CEO's dedicated to strengthening
our companies, our economy and our Nation through proven investments in
children.
Why are business leaders speaking out as never before in support of
quality early childhood education? There are several reasons:
1. We are deeply worried about the current and growing skills gap--
an inability to find individuals with the skills our companies now
require.
Driving these gaps are the rising education requirements for jobs
of the future. Experts predict that of the 55 million job openings
through 2020, 65 percent will require post-secondary education. Yet
nationwide, 20 percent of our high school students fail to even
graduate on time and the rates of high school graduation in
impoverished areas are generally much worse.
2. We know we are not going to close that gap unless we start
early--90 percent of brain development occurs during the ages 0-5.
In order for American businesses to compete successfully in a
global economy, employees must have the knowledge, skills and abilities
to be communicators, collaborators and critical thinkers. Research
confirms that the foundation for these social and fundamental education
skills is developed during a child's earliest years.
The first 5 years of life are a unique period of brain development,
which lays the foundation for life-long learning. The achievement gap
starts to open as early as age 2 or 3, when research shows that low-
income children know half as many words as higher income children.
Children also show a significant achievement gap in math by
kindergarten entry. And early math skills predict later skills in both
math and reading. By the time children reach kindergarten, they are not
only far behind in vocabulary, but on pre-literacy and pre-math skills
as well. This disparity can hurt our ability to build the science,
technology, engineering and mathematics workforce that our country so
urgently needs.
3. We know that being ready for kindergarten has everything to do
with what follows and we know that we have proven programs that get
kids ready.
A longitudinal research study in my own region of southwest Ohio
shows that 86 percent of kids who were ready for kindergarten were
reading on grade level by the end of the third grade. Only 59 percent
of kids who were not ready for kindergarten were reading on grade
level. ``So what?'' someone might ask. Kids not reading on grade level
by third grade are four times more likely to drop out than those that
are; and 11 times more likely if they are poor.
High-quality early childhood education can prepare children to
start school ready to learn. It can bring student performance up to
grade level, boost graduation rates, and lead to a greater likelihood
of attaining a 4-year degree and being employed consistently. Recent
studies of high quality State programs demonstrate that early childhood
education programs--if they are of high enough quality--can deliver
solid results.
By the time at-risk children in disadvantaged districts served by
New Jersey's 2-year pre-kindergarten program reached the 4th and 5th
grades, they were three-quarters of an academic year ahead in math,
compared to their peers who did not attend, and two-thirds of an
academic year ahead in literacy. Attending preschool also cut the
likelihood of being held back in school by 40 percent and the
likelihood of needing special education services by 31 percent.
State programs in Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and others
also showed positive academic gains. These recent studies reinforce
long-term studies of high-quality early education programs that show
impressive education outcomes:
For example, a long-term study of the Perry Preschool Program in
Michigan tracked two groups of children in a randomized study. Children
who participated in the program were 44 percent more likely to graduate
from high school.
Children who participated in the Abecedarian early learning program
in North Carolina were four times more likely to graduate from a 4-year
college and 42 percent more likely to be consistently employed as
adults.
A long-term study of Chicago's Child-Parent Centers found that
participants in the pre-K program were 29 percent more likely to have
graduated from high school.
4. We know from myriad studies that high quality early childhood
development and education programs are a sound fiscal investment.
In business, we rarely have the luxury of making an investment
decision with as much evidence as we have to support the economic value
of investing in early childhood development and education.
Long-term studies show that high-quality early learning programs
cut crime, welfare and other societal costs so much that they save
money. A study by Steve Aos of the Washington State Institute for
Public Policy (WSIPP) found net economic benefits of $22,000 per child
served.
Put bluntly, in my terms, they are a financial no-brainer. The only
question is ``how strong is the ROI?'' The answer: Two or three or more
to one. It is rare that we in business have as much evidence on the
economic value of an initiative as we have on investing in early
childhood development and education.
5. The unmet need for these services and the impact on global
competitiveness.
Other countries are doing far more than we are in supporting the
development of our youngest. Today, less than half of our 3- and 4-
year-olds are in quality pre-K programs. Yet, some other developed
countries are covering 90 percent of their children. And it's not only
``developed'' countries. China has committed to having 70 percent of
its 3- and 4-year-olds receiving not 1, or 2 but 3 years of pre-K by
the year 2020.
The sad truth is that in 2012, more than half of our States served
30 percent or fewer of their 4-year-olds. Another 10 States did not
even have State pre-school programs.
Given the strong research, it is easy to see why parents across the
country want to get their children into high quality pre-school
programs. Unfortunately for many, high quality pre-K is as out of reach
as college tuition. Early learning programs that meet high-quality
benchmarks cost an average of $9,000 per child, per year, depending on
the State. That can be as much as in-State tuition at public
universities, which is way beyond what many working families can afford
for their preschoolers.
And while policymakers, educators and parents in many States would
love to see quality pre-K offered to more children, virtually all face
financial challenges that are making that very difficult.
We need public investments, from State and Federal sources, to help
families afford pre-K. States that have been working hard to do the
right thing for their families have been making progress, but it's such
an issue of national interest that it needs to be a State and a Federal
priority.
Given what we know about the positive impact of early development
and the huge gap we have today in providing it, this will be a long-
term cancer until we scale proven programs to all children in need.
6. Finally, we are advocating strongly for this because we know the
public wants it.
Various polls have consistently shown that the American public
agrees on the importance of all children having the benefit of quality
pre-K. A recent poll found more than 85 percent think that ensuring
that children get a strong start should be a national priority. A
majority support adding revenue to fund it.
the strong start for america's children act (s. 1697)
Fortunately, we have an opportunity before us to truly change the
landscape of how our youngest children are educated.
The Strong Start for America's Children Act, introduced by Senator
Tom Harkin, would create and fund a State-Federal partnership that
would enable States across the country to provide high quality pre-K
for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families in the Nation.
It would also expand access to high-quality early development programs
from birth through age 3.
I am glad the Strong Start for America's Children Act is in front
of you. I believe the Federal Government has a crucial role to play in
jump starting effort and funding at the State and local levels to scale
programs that work.
I am very pleased that this Act contains specific provisions, which
business leaders embrace:
1. It recognizes the leadership role of the States, providing
flexibility to direct funds to multiple delivery systems at the local
level, including the private sector;
2. It is voluntary, for the States and for the parents;
3. It sets reasonable and needed quality standards and it demands
accountability;
4. It focuses on children most in need; and
5. It provides support for the entire 0-5 development continuum.
Without such Federal support I fear our progress, despite the
valiant effort of cash-strapped States, will be far too slow to achieve
the improvement in scale we need.
Many people are understandably concerned about the cost of such
programs in a time when budget cuts are the norm. But failing to invest
in children when they are very young means a higher cost to society,
and business, down the road.
I take these concerns seriously, and I wouldn't trivialize a
response to them. We are talking about a lot of money, and we have a
big deficit to deal with. However, in response to such fiscal concerns
I would say two things.
First, if I could draw a comparison to my business career, we are
faced here, as we in business occasionally are, with a transformational
investment opportunity.
It is one being demanded by our consumers (the public), it is being
pursued by our competitors, and it is critical to the long term success
and perhaps very viability of the company--or in this case the Nation
and its economy. Furthermore, based on the most conservative cost
estimates available, this investment will pay for itself at least 2:1.
That ladies and gentleman is an investment which we as executives
would take as our responsibility to make; we would find a way to do it,
and do it now--not later, obviously being sure that it is as sound as
possible in its execution.
Also, the cost of this program, it seems to me, has to be put in
the context of the total Federal budget. While I have no idea of the
amount of funding that would eventually be attached to the programs
enabled by his Act, if it were to be, say, in the range of $5-$10
billion per year, that would represent a fraction of Federal spending--
less than 1 percent of total discretionary spending and approximately
one-quarter of 1 percent of the total Federal budget.
I respectfully submit that viewed in the perspective of its long-
term importance to our country, we should not flinch from figuring out
how to make it happen.
conclusion
Business leaders are in good company when it comes to recognizing
the value of high quality early childhood development and education.
Parents, educators, and policymakers around the Nation are strongly in
support of it. There is also a growing coalition of leaders from the
military, law enforcement, and faith communities that have joined
business leaders in support of providing high quality services in this
area.
I support the Strong Start legislation, particularly the increased
level of Federal resources and ability of States to structure services
in a way that makes sense locally, within broad, widely recognized
parameters of quality. This program needs to be a true partnership
between the Federal and State governments.
I hope you will act in a bi-partisan fashion to advance this
legislation so that we do develop the more skilled and educated
workforce that will fuel our economic growth and keep the United States
as a leader in our competitive global economy.
I thank the committee for allowing me to express these deeply felt
convictions. I believe that providing a quality start for all our
children is the moral and social and economic issue of our generation.
It is altogether clear that it is critical to offsetting the depressing
impact of poverty on a child's ability to fulfill his or her potential.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Pepper. I can assure
you that this committee has always worked in a bipartisan
fashion. In fact, we are pretty proud of the things that we
have done in the past couple of years here with both sides, and
I am sure that we can put our heads together on this effort
too. That is why we are going to work together to try to get us
as much of a bipartisan bill as we possibly can. We are going
to try our best. We can assure you of that.
Mayor Taveras, welcome to the committee, your leadership is
well known on this issue. Please proceed.
Mr. Taveras. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanking Senator
Alexander and Senator Casey, and I would like to say special
thank you to Senator Whitehouse for the introduction and for
his representation of Rhode Island here in the Nation's
capital.
If I could, Mr. Chair, I would like to deviate for one
moment to just point out one personal thing and that is that I
sit before you today as mayor of the city of Providence, RI. My
first involvement in public service, and certainly with being
elected to office, was campaigning for a wonderful Senator from
Iowa in New Hampshire in 1992.
I thank you for being an example for me and for many, many
others for years to come.
The Chairman. We are all allowed at least one political
mistake in our lifetime.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANGEL TAVERAS, MAYOR OF PROVIDENCE,
PROVIDENCE, RI
Mr. Taveras. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to really
speak for the children that this Act is intended to help.
As has been mentioned, I am a Head Start baby. My parents
are from the Dominican Republic, did not go to high school, and
came to New York City in the 1960s looking for a better life. I
was born in 1970 and raised in Providence, and I was in Head
Start because my mom knew of the program and was able to put
her young child in Head Start. It has made a very big
difference in my life.
In fact, when I was a student at Harvard, I spoke to my
roommate from Poughkeepsie, NY and he was a Head Start baby.
And we talked about that and we noticed that a lot of the
students, particularly minority students at Harvard that we
knew, were all Head Start graduates. And at that time, back in
the late 1980s, early 1990s, we said, ``There must be something
about that program.'' We did not know the research. We did not
know the data, but we thought it was interesting that so many
of us had been involved in Head Start early on. That has been
something that has influenced me as mayor of the city of
Providence and one of the reasons I have focused so much on
early childhood education.
Right now in the city of Providence, two-thirds of our kids
are showing up for kindergarten already behind on national
literacy benchmarks and we need to change that. That is why in
the city, I have decided to focus, as Senator Whitehouse
mentioned, on the early years of life, 0 to 5, as the Chairman
has pointed out previously. Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and
Bloomberg Philanthropies, we now have a program that is
designed to reach all of our children in the city of Providence
and focusing with parents on how important it is to talk to
your child. How much is going on in the first 5 years of life
for your child. How the brain is developing and the vocabulary
is expanding.
I am proud to tell you that the program is well underway.
We have already seen changes, positive changes, in the behavior
and the development of the children where they are hearing many
more words, and we know that this is going to help further down
the road as they enter kindergarten. And so, we are very
grateful for that opportunity.
In addition, we are working on pre-K because we know that
it is the best investment that we can make. We have a pilot
program in Rhode Island. We are looking to expand it and this
type of legislation will help us to do exactly that. It will
give us the flexibility to expand it and to grow it, to invest
the money now early on, so that we do not have to pay later as
the chairman mentioned earlier. And so, this legislation is
extremely important for that as well.
The last thing that I would say to you is that grade level
reading and the witness talked about that a little bit earlier;
one of the best predictors that we have for future success, is
whether a child is reading at grade level by third grade. We
were fortunate enough to be an All-America City for Grade-Level
Reading 2012.
There are three components to grade level reading. The
first is early childhood education, making sure that we expand
early childhood opportunities for our children. The second is
chronic absenteeism, making sure that children are in school
and not chronically absent. And the third is summer learning
loss and combating that, making sure that we have that.
What you are doing here really has a chance to impact
children across this country and give them an opportunity to
one day sit here on this side of the table or there, and talk
to others about the journey that they have traveled, and open
and create opportunities to make sure that all of our children
have a chance to succeed.
Thank you, and to the committee for the work that you are
doing, I look forward to working with you on this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taveras follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Angel Taveras
Chairman Harkin and Honorable Members of the committee, my name is
Angel Taveras and I have the honor of serving as the 37th Mayor of the
city of Providence, RI. It is my distinct pleasure to join you today
and provide testimony in support of the Strong Start for America's
Children Act.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in drafting this
legislation and want to echo something you said when introducing the
bill: ``The investment we make as a nation in early learning will pay
dividends for generations to come.''
I'm living proof of that statement. Let me begin by sharing with
you a little about my personal story. I am a proud Head Start graduate.
I grew up on the South Side of Providence, in publicly subsidized
housing, where I was raised by a hardworking single mother who worked
second shift in Rhode Island factories to support my sister, my brother
and me.
I graduated from the Providence Public School system. I often
credit my third grade teacher Mrs. Donaldson for encouraging me to
pursue my passion of becoming an attorney despite having few role
models in my life to emulate. Thanks to her and the countless other
educators who supported me along the way, I attended Harvard
University, the Georgetown University Law Center and in 2011 was
inaugurated as the first Latino Mayor of the city of Providence.
I can say with confidence that the success I have enjoyed as an
adult would not have been possible without the tremendous support I
received as a young person and specifically the access that I had to
quality early education. That is why I am so glad to be here today to
speak in support of the legislation that is before your committee.
The Strong Start for America's Children Act would launch a 10-year
Federal and State partnership designed to expand and improve early
learning opportunities for America's youngest learners. Specifically,
this legislation would create America's first Federal funding formula
for high-quality, full-day pre-kindergarten for 4-year-old children for
families earning up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. And
importantly, this legislation does not sacrifice quality in the name of
expanding access: participating States must ensure that educators are
highly qualified, that student-teacher ratios are low and that
instruction is grounded in evidence and developmentally appropriate
practices.
The Chairman and other committee members are aware, but I feel it
bears repeating: early childhood education is critically important for
the development of our young people and the communities in which they
live. Studies have demonstrated that participation in pre-kindergarten
programs help young people develop important cognitive, behavioral and
problem-solving skills. Pre-kindergarten graduates are more likely to
attend college, maintain a full-time job, and have health insurance.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, lifetime economic benefits
realize a return-on-investment of as much as $11 for each dollar
invested. It is no surprise, therefore, that 89 percent of Americans
surveyed say it is important to make early education and child care
more affordable for working families.
As Mayor, I have made early childhood learning a top priority for
my administration. Our efforts to ensure that every child is reading on
grade level by the end of third grade have won Providence distinctions
from the National Civic League, the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
America's Promise Alliance and other civic organizations.
Last March, I was proud when the city of Providence was named the
Grand Prize winner in the 2013 Bloomberg Philanthropies' Mayors
Challenge. Our winning initiative, ``Providence Talks,'' responds
directly to research that shows that children growing up in low-income
households hear up to 30 million fewer words than their middle- and
high-income peers by their fourth birthday. In Providence, we know that
approximately two-thirds of our kindergarten registrants arrive behind
on national literacy benchmarks on the very first day of school. Thanks
to a $5 million investment from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Providence is
empowering parents and caretakers with the tools and resources
necessary to understand and strengthen their household auditory
environments.
Rhode Island launched its first State-sponsored pre-kindergarten
program in 2009. By most accounts, the program has been a tremendous
success: according to the National Institute for Early Education
Research (NIEER), Rhode Island's State pre-kindergarten meets all 10
benchmarks for quality standards. But while Rhode Island maintains a
high quality program, unfortunately access is severely limited: only 1
percent of Rhode Island's 4-year-olds are enrolled in our State-
financed preschool program, compared to highs of 74 percent in Oklahoma
and 65 percent in Vermont, and a national average of approximately 28
percent of 4-year-olds enrolled in State-financed pre-kindergarten
programs.
I know that the sad and simple truth is that if we choose not to
make investments in the critical years of early development, we will
pay for them down the line in the forms of remedial instruction,
reduced economic productivity and criminal justice costs.
In conclusion, I urge the committee and all your Senate colleagues
to make the critical investments in early childhood education as called
for in the Strong Start for America's Children Act. Children in
Providence, RI, and throughout the Nation cannot wait for future
leaders to take action: they demand that we take action now to ensure
that they have access to the same life-changing opportunities that so
many of us enjoyed as young people.
On behalf of young people in the city of Providence and in the
State of Rhode Island, I strongly encourage the committee's full
support for the Strong Start for America's Children Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee, and I am
happy to answer questions from the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mayor. Appreciate that
and we will look forward to working with you.
And now, the buzzer has gone off. We do have a vote. I am
going to wait and hear Dr. Barnett's testimony, then I will
take a break. Did you want to go beforehand and then come back
and take over from me?
Senator Alexander. I would like to hear him. What would you
like to do?
The Chairman. Can we go ahead and do that now before we go?
Let us do that.
Senator Alexander. OK.
The Chairman. Dr. Barnett, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF W. STEVEN BARNETT, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR EARLY EDUCATION RESEARCH, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW
BRUNSWICK, NJ
Mr. Barnett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I am pleased to testify before you this morning. Thanks for
the introduction. I would like to add, as an economist, I have
studied investments in early learning and development for some
30 years now, and did the first benefit cost analyses based on
data, actual data through adulthood for the period preschool
and Abecedarian studies which, I am sure, you have heard of.
Strong Start for America's Children Act has a strong
scientific foundation. The first 5 years are a time of rapid
development during which good education can significantly
strengthen the foundations for later success in school and
life. And yet, many American children enter school poorly
prepared to succeed, in part, because few attend good
preschools.
Often, parents earn too much to qualify for public
programs, but too little to afford high quality private
preschool. And many public programs are inadequately funded to
provide quality, even for those children in poverty.
Funding per child in State preschool programs has been
declining. In fact, it is down over $1,000 per pupil in the
last decade, and access to good preschool remains lowest for
those children who would benefit the most.
Comprehensive reviews of the evidence including statistical
summaries or meta analyses find that preschool programs can
produce lasting effects on learning and development. Strong
preschools contribute to school and life success including
increased achievement and educational attainment, decreased
behavior problems and crime, increased earnings and even better
health.
As preschool is just the first lap in a longer race, strong
programs are designed to produce very large initial effects to
offset diminutions in effect size after school entry. It is a
misnomer to call this diminution, fadeout. Some effects persist
and much of the decline is likely due to, first, compensatory
efforts by schools for children who did not attend preschool.
And second, benefits to preschool for whole classes in
subsequent grades including the children who did not go to
preschool.
For example, when fewer children enter a kindergarten class
needing remedial help or disrupting classes, every child in the
classroom, including those who did not go to preschool, are now
in control groups.
Fortunately, some programs produce larger effects than
others and we know the features of highly effective programs.
These include: well-educated, adequately paid teachers focused
on explicit instruction; small classes and a high teacher-child
ratio to increase one-on-one and small group time;
comprehensive standards for learning and teaching with an
aligned curriculum; and strong support for teachers through a
continuous improvement system that includes evaluation,
reflection and planning, coaching and supervision.
Head Start provides one example of the effectiveness of
this formula. After the National Impact Study in 2002, Head
Start was reformed. Data collected from 2003 to 2009 show these
reforms worked. Head Start teacher qualifications and language
and literacy practices in the classroom improved, so did
children's gains in language and literacy.
New Jersey's Abbott Preschool Program provides an even
stronger proof of the principles embodied in Strong Start. By
implementing these principles for all 3- and 4-year-olds in 32
school districts, State policy dramatically raised the quality
of participating providers; Head Start, private and public
school, all working together in the same system.
The result has been dramatic increase in quality,
substantial and persistent increases in children's test scores,
most recently measured at Grades 4 and 5, and large reductions
in grade repetition and special education through Grade 5.
These results are similar to those produced in the Perry
Preschool and other model program studies.
I would like to invite the chair and other members of the
committee to visit these programs in New Jersey, see what high
quality preschool looks like, see the positive consequences for
children, families, and communities when all children are
offered an excellent preschool education.
Some 2,000 years ago, a teacher asked in the Sermon on the
Mount, ``If your child asks you for bread, would any of you
give him a stone?'' In America today for preschool children,
the answer too often is, ``Yes.'' Our children deserve better.
We know the right answer. Let us act accordingly.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnett follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Steven Barnett
summary
The Strong Start for America's Children Act has a strong scientific
foundation. Too many American children enter school poorly prepared to
succeed. The first 5 years are a time of rapid development, when high
quality early education could significantly improve school readiness
and later success. However, few children have access to high-quality
preschool, and current public programs have insufficient resources to
support quality for even those in lower income families. Funding per
child in State preschool programs has been moving in the wrong
direction, and access to high quality preschool is lowest for those who
would benefit most.
Comprehensive reviews of the evidence, including multiple
statistical summaries of the research findings, demonstrate that
preschool programs can produce strong and lasting effects on learning
and development. These, in turn, contribute to improved school and life
success, better health, and other positive adult outcomes, including
increased achievement and educational attainment, decreased behavior
problems and crime, increased earnings, and better health.
To counter the diminution in effects after school entry preschool
programs should produce large initial effects. However, it is a
misnomer to call this diminution ``fade-out,'' partly because some
effects persist, but also because much of the decline is likely due to
compensatory efforts by schools for children who did not attend
preschool and the ways in which preschool benefits entire classes in
subsequent grades whether or not they attended preschool.
Some programs produce larger effects than others, and we know the
features of highly effective programs. These include well-educated,
adequately paid teachers; small classes and a high teacher-child ratio;
comprehensive standards for learning and teaching that are also
embodied in the curriculum; and strong support for teachers through a
continuous improvement system that includes an emphasis on evaluation,
reflection, and planning with coaching and supervision.
Head Start is more effective than is generally acknowledged and has
been significantly improved since the National randomized trial of
children who attended Head Start in 2002 that found modest effects. The
National Impact Study underestimated effects because of the study
design, but important lessons can be learned from the results of
reforms since 2002. Data collected in 2003, 2006, and 2009 show large
increases in the size of Head Start children's language and literacy
gains, at the same time that the program raised teacher qualifications
and improved practices regarding language literacy.
New Jersey's Abbott preschool program provides a demonstration
proof of the principles embodied in Strong Start. By implementing these
for all 3- and 4-years-olds in 32 school districts, State policy
dramatically improved the quality of preschool education. The result
has been substantial and persistent gains in children's test scores,
most recently measured at grades four and five, and large reductions in
grade repetition and special education through grade five. These
results are similar to those produced by model programs with similar
characteristics.
______
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm pleased to testify
before you. My name is Steven Barnett. I direct the National Institute
for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University where I am a
Board of Governors Professor of Education. As a unit of Rutgers
University, NIEER conducts, archives, and disseminates research to
inform policymaking regarding early childhood care and education. I am
an economist, and I have studied investments in early learning and
development for more than 30 years, including publishing with
colleagues the first benefit-cost analyses of the economic returns to
the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian programs, based on actual data from
preschool to adulthood. In addition, I am the lead researcher on an
annual survey of State preschool policy that has collected data on
access, quality standards, and funding for more than 10 years.
The scientific basis for the Strong Start for America's Children
Act overall is extensive. It is well established that the first 5 years
are a time of rapid development that is sensitive to a child's
experiences. It is equally well established that many young children
have less than optimal conditions for their development, with those
whose parents have the lowest incomes and least education most
disadvantaged (Barnett & Lamy, 2013; Nores & Barnett, in press). This
problem is not limited to children in poverty; indeed an unacceptably
high percentage of children from middle-income families are poorly
prepared to succeed in school and are far too likely to fail a grade
and to drop out of high school.
Yet, rigorous studies find that educational programs over the first
5 years can meaningfully enhance early learning and development, and
thereby produce long-term improvements in school success and social
behavior that generate benefits to individuals and the broader society
(Barnett, 2008, 2011). Positive outcomes found in rigorous studies
include increased achievement, decreased grade repetition and special
education, increased educational attainment, decreased behavior
problems and crime, decreased risky behaviors like teen pregnancy and
smoking, and improved health (Barnett, 2008; Campbell, et al., 2014).
My brief remarks today will be limited to just one part of Strong
Start--high-quality preschool education for children at ages 3 and 4.
Although adequately investing in every year of a child's life is
important, I focus narrowly on current public support for such
programs, what is known about the effects of high-quality preschool
education, and what should be done to produce substantive gains for
children in large-scale public programs.
Although some might point to a proliferation of public policies
supporting preschool education, in fact there are only 3 large sources
of support for preschool programs--child care subsidies, including the
Food Program; Head Start; and State-funded pre-K programs (Haskins &
Barnett, 2010). Taken together, they are insufficient to support
quality preschool education for even those 3- and 4-year-olds below 200
percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Only about half of American
children attend any kind of preschool program at ages 3 and 4, and for
about 30 percent this is a publicly supported program (Nores & Barnett,
in press). Moreover, most programs that children attend are not high
quality. Even families with relatively high incomes who purchase
private preschool do not, for the most part, find good programs.
Over the last decade, the only real expansion has been in State-
supported pre-K for 4-year-olds and much of this has been through
adoption of Head Start and private programs (Nores & Barnett, in
press). In some States, that has meant that the quality of these
programs was substantially improved, but in others it has not.
Standards are too low and there is far too little money in the system
across all programs to support high quality, educationally effective
programs (Barnett & Carolan, 2013).
This situation is unfortunate and calls for change. Comprehensive
reviews of the entire literature on preschool program effectiveness,
including statistical summaries--often called meta-analysis--find that
high-quality preschool programs have substantial positive impacts on
cognitive development and on a variety of other child outcomes,
including school success and socio-emotional development. They also
find that even when cognitive advantages decline after school entry,
they do not disappear. As I will explain, it is not accurate to
characterize this pattern entirely as ``fade out.''
The research is clear that if society wishes to produce substantive
long-term gains for children from preschool education, public policies
must support high-quality programs that produce relatively large
initial impacts. Therefore, it is important to ask what program
features are associated with larger gains. A recent comprehensive meta-
analysis (Camilli, et al., 2010) found that explicit instruction and an
emphasis on working with children one-on-one and in small groups was
associated with larger cognitive gains. It also found that providing
comprehensive services, such as health and family services, was
associated with smaller cognitive gains. I interpret this finding as
indicating that trying to do too much with too little can result in
losing a focus on strong teaching, which must be at the core of a
successful preschool education program. Based on the meta-analysis,
moderate improvements in these aspects of program design could greatly
enhance long-term program effects.
Another meta-analysis found that average estimated effects have
declined in more recent studies (Duncan & Magnusson, 2013). Possible
explanations include: older research more often studied intensive model
programs; it has become more common for control groups to attend
another preschool program; and, State funding for quality has declined,
potentially weakening public programs. For example, the well-known
Perry Preschool and Abecedarian programs had adult-child ratios of 1 to
6 or 7 which has not been replicated in public programs. Head Start
evaluations have included in the control group children who attended
State pre-K, which did not exist when older Head Start studies were
conducted. Perhaps most worrying, NIEER's annual survey of State-funded
preschool programs finds that funding per child declined by more than
$1,000 over the last decade, and it would be surprising if that had not
undermined program quality and effectiveness (Barnett & Carolan, 2013).
Some of the largest State pre-K programs serving the most children,
including Florida and Texas, have especially low-quality standards.
Despite its advantages, meta-analysis is at best a blunt instrument
for identifying the features of highly effective programs. Another
approach is to ask what those programs that produced very large long-
term gains for children have had in common. Frede (1998) reviewed the
model programs that produced large impacts and found that they shared a
use of reflective teaching practices, a strong emphasis on language
development, and a school-like discourse pattern including initiation-
reply evaluation sequences and categorization. These practices, and
intensity and continuity of teacher-child interaction, were facilitated
by a highly developed curriculum, training and professional
development, reasonable ratios, and strong monitoring and supervision.
To this can be added levels of teacher qualifications and compensation
comparable to that in the public schools. All of the programs that have
been found to produce large long-term gains in rigorous studies have
had these features. There are no counter-examples in rigorous studies
of preschool programs with less-educated teachers, large classes, and
poor pay producing large long-term gains in children's learning and
development.
I do not mean to suggest by this that current public programs are
typically ineffective, or that their benefits do not exceed their
costs. First, public preschool programs, almost without exception, are
found to improve academic readiness for school, sometimes quite a lot.
Second, there is substantial evidence of persistent impacts on
achievement well beyond school entry, even though these are somewhat
smaller than short-term impacts. Some slippage between initial and
later effects should be expected for any preschool program (Barnett,
2011). High quality preschool prepares children to start off well. It
does not guarantee that nothing later interferes with their progress.
In addition, to the extent that schools focus more resources on
children who are behind to help them catch up--an emphasis no doubt
accentuated by No Child Left Behind--most studies of preschool will
tend to underestimate lasting effects.
When interpreting the research, it is important to understand that
most studies of the effects of preschool programs are not designed to
capture the systemic effects of preschool education. For example, bad
behavior in the classroom is of concern not only because it impairs
that child's ability to learn, but also because disruption reduces the
learning of all the other children in a class. If preschool leads some
children to better behavior in kindergarten, it benefits everyone,
including the control or comparison group children who did not attend
preschool. Similarly, if preschool attenders enter kindergarten much
better prepared to meet its learning goals, then teachers can spend
more time and effort on other children who are less well-prepared.
So what happens when we conduct a large scale randomized trial or
other rigorous evaluation comparing children who attend preschool to
others in the same schools who do not? When children in the study enter
kindergarten, the schools have a lighter overall load because of the
benefits from preschool and they offer more compensatory services (on
average) to the children who did not attend, helping them to catch up
over time. It is possible for all of the children in the affected
schools to have higher achievement, whether or not they went to
preschool, and this will not be captured at all by the evaluation. It
would be a mistake to interpret this as preschool's effects having
faded out, when in fact all children converged to a higher level.
Evidence of compensatory behavior by schools is in fact common,
even in studies that show persistent cognitive advantages after school
entry. It is usual, particularly in studies where initial impacts were
large, to find lower rates of grade repetition and special education
for children who go to preschool. This is a significant source of cost-
savings from preschool, but it is also likely that these additional
services received by those who did not go to preschool are successful
at helping the comparison children in the study catch up, mimicking
``fade out.'' When initial effects of preschool are relatively modest,
or focus on quickly learned skills like letter and number knowledge,
compensatory efforts within the classroom may be sufficient to rapidly
catch up those who did not go to preschool (of course, this does not
mean kindergarten teachers could produce the same results if no
children had gone to public preschool).
This type of compensatory behavior in schools is, of course, at
best a partial explanation for differences in outcomes across studies
and the disappointing results of some public programs. As indicated
earlier, program features do matter. While the Head Start national
impact study likely underestimates Head Start's impacts, it still
appears that effects are smaller than anyone would want. The Camilli,
et al. (2010) meta-analysis and other evidence clearly predict such a
result. Head Start has been given a huge mission and asked to do too
much with too little. Teacher qualifications and pay were too low and
there was too little focus on intentional teaching. That is why it is
particularly instructive that Head Start reforms over the last decade
demonstrate that changing such policies can improve outcomes for
children.
Head Start's Family and Child Experience Surveys (FACES) measured
children's learning during a year of Head Start in the 2003, 2006, and
2009 school years. The national impact evaluation was conducted on
children entering Head Start in the 2002 school year. FACES 2003
provides the closest FACES measure of how much children gained in Head
Start at the time of the national impact study. Subsequent FACES
surveys allow us to see how children's learning gains changed after the
impact study. NIEER analyses of these data reveal that Head Start
children made greater gains in language and literacy in 2006 and 2009
than in 2003. Language and literacy gains are larger for all three
major ethnic groups in 2009 compared to 2003, sometimes two or more
times as large. Policy changes in Head Start are likely to be behind
these results. Additional data from FACES indicate that both the
frequency of intentional literacy activities and the percentage of
teachers with a 4-year college degree had increased by 2009 (Hulsey, et
al., 2011).
The Strong Start for America's Children Act is designed to support
precisely these features of effective programs. Prominent among them
are: attention to the needs and development of the whole child, highly
qualified teachers who are adequately compensated, reasonable class
sizes and ratios, a sufficient amount of preschool provided, and a
continuous improvement system. I focus on these features not because
they are the only features of importance, but because they are the most
salient in policy debates and have significant implications for cost.
(For example, I do not deal with parent engagement because everyone
agrees that preschool programs should engage with parents to support
learning and development.) These features matter because they greatly
facilitate the types of teacher-child interactions and other child
experiences that most powerfully influence learning and development.
To be perfectly clear, like the 10 benchmarks for quality standards
which NIEER uses to compare State preschool standards, the standards
set by the Act are minimums that set floors below which programs should
not fall, not recommendations that optimize chances of success. For
example, a maximum class size of 15 is likely to lead to larger gains
for children than 20 students per class, especially in classes with
high concentrations of children in poverty, Dual Language Learners, or
children with special needs. Many States and localities may be expected
to improve upon the requirements of the Act as funding permits.
While academic abilities that directly contribute to achievement
are important, executive functions, social and emotional development,
habits, dispositions, and orientations toward learning, such as
curiosity are equally important (Barnett, 2008, 2011; Diamond, et al.,
2007; Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2008). So is the child's physical
development. Clearly this is about more than simply raising test
scores. The primary reason to attend to a child's nutritional needs is
so that he or she does not go hungry and develops healthy eating habits
from an early age, not to raise test scores. Better social skills make
for better neighbors and a more productive workforce. Stronger
executive functioning skills keep kids out of trouble and adults out of
jail. Early learning standards that address all of these domains have
been developed and adopted by virtually every State, which is a great
accomplishment. However, not all State preschool programs adequately
reflect their standards.
Initial teacher qualifications provide a foundation for high
quality teaching. In some State preschool programs, teachers are not
even required to have completed a 2-year degree to lead a classroom.
Based on an analysis of the knowledge and skills preschool teachers
must have to be highly effective, and a review of the research on
teacher effectiveness, a National Resource Council Report concluded
that every lead teacher in every preschool classroom should have at
least a BA degree and specialized training in early childhood education
(Bowman, Donavan & Burns, 2000). They and others have concluded that
this is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a highly
effective preschool education system. For example, it does no good, and
might do harm, to require all teachers to have a BA degree without
adequate funding to pay teacher salaries consistent with that level of
education. And, no program feature should be expected to succeed on its
own. Not even the best teacher, when given too many children and no
instructional support from a coach or other educational leader--can be
expected to succeed. Unsurprisingly, meta-analyses find only very small
average effects of a BA degree over other levels of education (which
includes teachers working toward the BA, it should be noted). However,
this does not negate the evidence that large effects have been produced
only when this ingredient was in place.
The logic of supporting small classes and reasonable ratios is
obvious. Smaller classes and more adults per child permit more one-to-
one and small group interactions. Not only are small classes and high
ratios of teacher-to-children common features of effective programs,
but there is also consistent evidence from education research generally
that smaller class size is associated with greater effectiveness
(Swanzenbach, 2014). This includes a large randomized trial that finds
smaller class size produced substantive gains for kindergarten children
(Nye, et al., 2000). Most recently, a randomized trial of smaller class
size in Chicago Public School preschools found that smaller class sizes
led to greater learning gains even though it did not change quality as
measured by commonly used observational measures (Francis, 2014).
The amount of preschool education provided matters, once the
quality of that education has been established. Although half-day
programs have produced strong results, a randomized trial has found
that an extended day and extended year produced greater learning gains
(Robin, Frede, & Barnett, 2006). Preliminary results from a more recent
randomized trial with Chicago Public Schools also indicate that a full-
day program produced larger gains than a half-day. Other studies have
found mixed results. It is possible to use the added time poorly; and,
when quality is low generally more of the same is unlikely to be of
much benefit. Another consideration is that when only half-day programs
are offered, some children may not participate at all, because such
programs conflict with their parents' work schedules. Finally, another
aspect of duration is the number of years of preschool. None of the
programs for which we have evidence of large effects and solid benefit-
cost analyses were just 1 year of preschool at age 4.
Teacher qualifications, class size, ratio, duration, and other
structural features of programs are best thought of as resources that
make quality possible, but do not by themselves guarantee results. For
this reason, it is critical that preschool programs have continuous
improvement systems (CIS) that constantly evaluate practices and
outcomes; feed this information back to teachers and those who support
them (supervisors and coaches); and guide practice, professional
development, and planning. Much like a GPS, a CIS tells everyone from
the classroom level on up where they are, where the children are, and
how to get everyone where they should be from there. Ensuring that
goals for learning and teaching are met requires a CIS infrastructure
that articulates these goals, monitors progress toward the goals,
provides supervision and coaching, and engages teachers and those who
support them in a continuous improvement process (Frede, 1998;
Mashburn, et al, 2008; Pianta, et al., 2009).
The approach to quality and effectiveness outlined above and
supported by Strong Start actually works when applied to public
programs As the result of a State Supreme Court order in the Abbott v.
Burke school finance case, New Jersey has implemented a version of this
approach in a public program serving more than 40,000 3- and 4-year-
olds annually. There are clearly articulated standards for learning and
teaching and evidenced-based curricula. Each classroom of no more than
15 children is staffed by certified teacher and an assistant, both
receiving strong support and supervision, and paid at public school
scale. High standards and a continuous improvement system transformed a
patchwork of private and public programs into a highly effective mixed-
delivery system that includes Head Start. Teachers in existing programs
were supported to return to school to obtain the appropriate
qualifications and then coached to success. Annual quality observations
document this transformation. In 1999-2000, less than 15 percent of
pre-K classrooms were rated good to excellent and nearly 1 in 4 was
less than minimal quality. By 2007-8 the vast majority of classrooms
were rated good to excellent. These are much the same programs (2/3
private) children had been attending previously, with the lower
standards and funding that typifies much of American preschool
education.
The consequences for children of this support for quality has been
seen in a series of studies that found strong initial gains in
children's learning and development, with persistent gains now
documented through grade five (Barnett, Jung, Youn, & Frede, 2013).
Substantive gains are found in language arts and literacy, math, and
science on the State's standardized tests at fourth and fifth grade.
Abbott pre-K also reduced grade repetition from 19 percent to 12
percent and special education from 17 percent to 12 percent through 5th
grade.
Unfortunately, as I documented at the beginning of my testimony few
children in the United States receive the kind of preschool programs
that would be supported by the Strong Start Act and that is available
in New Jersey's Abbott program. Moreover, the trend over the past
decade has not been good. Although States have made some progress in
raising standards, and there are exceptions among the States, in
general, funding per child is inadequate to support high standards and
total funding is to limited to reach even children in the bottom half
of the income distribution, much less all children. The Great Recession
was particularly damaging to State programs and demonstrated that
States have difficulty maintaining quality standards during economic
downturns, precisely when the opposite should be occurring (Barnett &
Carolan, 2013). Clearly our Nation's children would benefit from
financial incentives and support that would help States expand access
to high quality preschool. As I have shown (Barnett, 2013), over time
the long-term cost-savings to States from providing quality preschool
to all children under 200 percent of poverty will offset the costs
making it easier for States to sustain high quality preschool a decade
down the line. Federal support will make it much more likely that they
make the investments in the short-term needed to produce those long-
term cost-savings.
References
Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects:
Research and policy implications. Boulder and Tempe: Education and
Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention.
Science, 333, 975-78.
Barnett, W. S. (2013). Why expanding access to quality pre-K is sound
public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early
Education Research.
Barnett, W. S. & Carolan, M. E. (2013). Trends in State Funded
Preschool Programs: Survey Findings from 2001-2 to 2011-12. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Barnett, W. S. & Lamy, C. (2013). Achievement gaps start early:
Preschool can help in Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.).
Closing the opportunity gap: what America must do to give every
child an even chance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H.
(2012). The state of preschool 2012: State preschool yearbook. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Youn, M., & Frede, E., (2013). Abbott
Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-
Up. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research.
Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to
learn: Educating our preschoolers. National Academies Press.
Campbell, F., Conti, G., Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R.,
Pungello, E., & Pan, Y. (2014). Early Childhood Investments
Substantially Boost Adult Health. Science, 343(6178), 1478-85.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-
analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579-620.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool
program improves cognitive control. Science, 318(5855), 1387.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2013). Investing in preschool programs.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 109-32.
Francis, J. (2014). Relating preschool class size to classroom life and
student achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola University of
Chicago and Erikson Institute.
Frede, E. C. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for children
in poverty. In W. S. Barnett & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and
education for children in poverty (pp. 77-98). Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Haskins, R. & Barnett, W. S. (Eds.) (2010). Investing in Young
Children: New Directions in Federal Preschool and Early Childhood
Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and National
Institute for Early Education Policy.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. (2008). A
mandate for playful learning in preschool: Applying the scientific
evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hulsey, L. K., Aikens, N., Kopack, A., West, J., Moiduddin, E., &
Tarullo, L. (2011). Head Start Children, Families, and Programs:
Present and Past Data from FACES. OPRE Report 2011-33a. Washington,
DC: ACF.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin,
O. A., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008).
Measures of classroom quality in pre-kindergarten and children's
development of academic, language and social skills. Child
Development, 79(3), 732-49.
Nores, M. & Barnett, W. S. (in press). Access to High Quality Early
Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Center for Enhancing Early Learning Opportunities
(CEELO) & National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER).
Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of
small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee
Class Size Experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37,
123-51.
Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. (2009).
The effects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy
is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to
know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88.
Robin, K. B., Frede, E. C., & Barnett, W. S. (2006). Is more better?
The effects of full-day vs. half-day preschool on early school
achievement (NIEER Working Paper). New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.
Schwanzenbach, D. W. (2014). Does class size matter? Boulder, CO:
National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado.
Yoshikawa, H., et al. (2013). Investing in our future: the evidence
base on preschool education. Society for Research in Children and
Foundation for Child Development.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Barnett.
Why do we not recess now so then we can come back? We will
have Dr. Whitehurst, and then we will open up for questions and
discussion. We will recess for about 10 minutes or so; 10-12
minutes. OK.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. All right. The committee will resume its
sitting.
And now we turn to Dr. Whitehurst for your testimony.
Dr. Whitehurst, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GROVER J. (RUSS) WHITEHURST, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
BROWN CENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander.
I bring to my testimony 30 years of experience in my first
career, which was as a developmental psychologist developing
programs for preschool centers. And in that role, I spent a lot
of time in childcare facilities that were under the sway of
Federal legislation.
I saw good programs. I saw bad programs. I saw parents
well-served. I saw parents terribly served. I saw programs I
would like to have my kids in and others that made me cry at
the end of the day on the way home. So I care about this area
and I am very pleased that the Senate is focused on it.
In testimony before the House Education and Workforce
Committee in February, and in a number of reports that I have
released at Brookings over the past year, I have addressed
specifics of the research literature on pre-K programs. The
gist of my conclusions is that the research is much more mixed
in quality and equivocal in implications for public policy than
advocates for universal pre-K would lead you to believe.
My approach to examining the research has been to focus on
the studies that are central to the debate. But even a
nonselective reading of the research raises questions about the
degree to which transformative outcomes are predictably
achieved by pre-K programs.
Examination results from 84 studies of pre-K programs over
the last 50 years finds highly variable results ranging from
moderately negative to hugely positive with the average effect
of recent programs being small, even before the predictable
fadeout of effects once children enter school.
I believe the appropriate conclusion from existing research
is that some pre-K programs work for some children under some
circumstances. But which programs, for whom, under what
circumstances? I do not know and I do not think anyone else
does on the basis of strong research.
Most critical design decisions that face early childhood
policymakers have no evidence associated with them. Examples
include questions such as the value of investing in parenting
programs as an adjunct to center-based care, whether an
investment in a multiyear program has a higher payoff than an
investment in a program just for 4-year-olds, and how to best
hold providers accountable for delivering a quality service.
Further complicating the question of what the Federal
Government should require of States, and States should require
program providers is the role to give to parents in deciding
what they want for their young children.
Wherever the dividing line should lie between the authority
of parents versus the State in determining the content of a
child's education. I hope you will agree with me that the line
shifts toward parents in the period in a child's life prior to
the beginning of formal education.
Based on the few things we know, an appreciation of how
much we do not know, and deference to parents in deciding what
kind of out-of-home care they want for their young children, I
identify five desirable elements of Federal pre-K policy.
First, target expenditures on families with financial need.
Second, devolve administration to States with as few strings
attached as possible. Third, allow parents the maximum amount
of choice of childcare provider consistent with the laws and
regulations of the State in which they live. Fourth, invest in
data systems and research that will inform State actions and
make it easier for parents to shop. And finally, conceptualize
and evaluate pre-K expenditures as family supports rather than
construing them exclusively as about school readiness.
Many of these elements are incorporated in this committee's
bipartisan effort that led to the Senate's passage of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. This legislation
provides for parental choice in early childhood services,
allows States to administer block grant funds with substantial
flexibility, targets expenditures on low-income families, and
requires States to fulfill fundamental responsibilities with
respect to the quality and continuity of services.
Federal support for childcare for poor families, if
designed along the lines of the CCDBG template would enable
parents to work, live productive lives, and raise their
children in keeping with their values. It would allow States to
innovate and parents to take advantage of information on the
childcare services available to them.
This time of high interest in the expansion of Government
support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the
Federal Government to rethink its investments. Do not provide
45 different programs with many strings attached; provide one
with maximum flexibility. Proceed with a humble appreciation of
how much we do not know and the intent to learn as we go.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehurst follows:]
Prepared Statement of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, Ph.D.
summary
In testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee in
February and in a number of reports I have released at Brookings over
the past year I've addressed specifics of the research literature on
pre-K programs. I've reported that research is much more mixed in
quality and equivocal in findings than advocates of universal pre-K
would lead you to believe. The oft trumpeted claim that we should
expect $7 in taxpayer savings for every $1 invested in pre-K is a
fanciful extrapolation to today's circumstances of a flawed study of a
program that served a little more than 50 children 50 years ago in a
small town in Michigan.
Even a non-selective reading of the research literature raises
questions about the degree to which transformative outcomes are
regularly achieved by pre-K programs. An examination of results from 84
studies of pre-K programs over the last 50 years finds highly variable
results, ranging from moderately negative to hugely positive, with the
average effect from recent studies being small. A reasonable conclusion
is that some pre-K programs work for some children in some
circumstances. But, what programs for whom under what circumstances? We
don't know. Most critical design decisions that face early childhood
policymakers have no evidence or even much in the way of practical
experience associated with them. Examples include questions such as the
value of investing in parenting, whether multi-year programs are more
effective, and what type of curriculum is best for which children.
Further complicating the matter is the role to give to parents in
deciding what they want for their young children. Wherever people think
the dividing line should lie between the authority of parents vs. the
authority of the State in determining the content of a child's
education, nearly everyone agrees that the line shifts toward parents
in the period in a child's life prior to the beginning of formal
education.
Based on what we know and a humble appreciation on how much we
don't know, desirable elements of Federal pre-K policy include: (a)
targeting expenditures on families with financial need, (b) devolving
administration to the States, (c) allowing parents the maximum amount
of choice consistent with the laws and regulations of the State in
which they live, and (d) investing in data systems and research that
will inform State actions and parental choice.
Much of what I see as desirable elements of Federal policy on early
childcare and services has been incorporated in this committee's
bipartisan effort that led to the Senate's passage of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (S. 1086). This legislation
provides for parental choice in early childhood services, allows States
to administer block grant funds with substantial flexibility, targets
expenditures on low-income families, and requires States to fulfill
fundamental responsibilities with respect to the quality and continuity
of services.
Federal support for childcare for poor families, if designed along
the lines of the template in the CCDBG reauthorization, would enable
parents to work, live productive lives, and raise their children in
keeping with their values. It would allow States to innovate and
parents to take advantage of information on the child care services
available to them. This time of high interest in the expansion of
government support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the
Federal Government to rethink its investments. Don't provide 45
different programs with many strings attached. Provide one.
______
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
committee, my name is Russ Whitehurst. I am director of the Brown
Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, where I am a
senior fellow and hold the Herman and George R. Brown Chair in
Education Studies. Thank you for inviting me to offer testimony.
I bring to my testimony 30 years of experience in my first career
as a developmental psychologist conducting research on programs to
enhance the language and cognitive development of young children. In
that role I spent a lot of time in childcare facilities that were under
the sway of Federal legislation, including Head Start, Even Start, and
subsidized daycare centers. My testimony is also informed by my career
since that time, first as the founding director of the Institute of
Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education, and
subsequently as an education policy expert at Brookings.
In testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee in
February and in a number of reports I have released at Brookings over
the past year I've addressed specifics of the research literature on
pre-K programs, doing my best to objectively characterize the quality
of studies that have received public attention and trying to make sense
of what the findings mean for public policy. I'm not going to repeat
myself on those issues today, unless something comes up in questioning.
I'll simply say that the research is much more mixed in quality and
equivocal in findings than advocates of universal pre-K would lead you
to believe. The oft trumpeted claim that we should expect $7 in
taxpayer savings for every $1 invested in pre-K is a fanciful
extrapolation to today's circumstances of a flawed study of a program
that served a little more than 50 children 50 years ago in a small town
in Michigan. It is as if someone did a study in the 1960s showing that
a new Federal post office built in a small town somewhere increased
business activity in that town, and on that basis argue that building
new post offices across the Nation today will spur the economy.
Today I will focus not on specific research studies but on how
preschool services ought to be supported by the Federal Government. The
takeaway from my testimony is that we know very little from research,
or even from practical experience, that can inform the dozens of
important decisions that should be on the table for government
officials responsible for the design and implementation of early
childhood programs and services. In that light, as well as in deference
to parental prerogatives, Federal policymakers should design systems
that afford variety in the nature of the preschool programs that are
offered to parents and that can adapt with experience.
The Federal Government presently spends over $22 billion a year on
programs to support early learning and childcare through 45 different
programs and 5 tax provisions. To this the Obama administrative has
proposed adding another $15 billion a year in Federal spending and
State matching funds in order to create universal free pre-K for 4-
year-olds. Parents spend heavily as well for unsubsidized out-of-home
care for their young children.
Most of the present and newly proposed taxpayer expenditure is
based on the assumption that children will learn transformative skills
from early center-based care that will eliminate gaps in school
readiness between more and less advantaged children, enable all
children to get more out of every additional investment in their
education, and generate socio-emotional dispositions that pay dividends
in later life, for example, by reducing criminality or enhancing
performance in the workplace.
But even a non-selective reading of the pre-K research literature
research raises questions about the degree to which such transformative
outcomes are regularly achieved. The following figure is based on data
provided in the appendix to a 2013 article by Duncan and Magnuson
(Investing in Preschool Programs, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27,
2, 109-32). The authors review 84 studies on the impact of early
childhood programs published between 1960 and 2007, including all the
studies they could find that had a measure of children's cognition or
achievement collected close to the end of the program treatment period,
and, at the least, had a comparison group demographically similar to
the treatment group.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Each data point in the scatter plot represents the mean achievement
test outcome at the end of the program period for a single pre-K
program. The program year is plotted on the horizontal axis, with new
programs toward the right. The vertical axis represents the size of the
measured effect, i.e., the difference between the program group
outcomes and the control group outcomes, calculated as an effect size.
An effect size of zero means that there is no difference between the
treatment and control group. Negative numbers favor the control group
whereas positive numbers favor the pre-K treatment group. A rule-of-
thumb for judging effect sizes is that an effect size of 0.20 to 0.30
might be considered ``small'', around 0.50 ``medium'', and 0.80 to
infinity ``large''. The solid line represents the best linear fit to
the data points.
Keeping in mind that the program effects represented in the figure
do not include followup data from elementary school, where all
longitudinal research indicates fade-out, and that the studies are
overwhelmingly of programs serving disadvantaged children, for whom
impacts are largest, two conclusions seem undeniable: The first is that
the effects produced by pre-K programs as found in the 84 studies
represented in the figure are highly variable, ranging from moderately
negative to hugely positive. This means that any single preschool
program is not a sure bet to produce positive effects even at the end
of the pre-K year. The second conclusion is that older programs
produced much larger effects than more recent programs--the trend line
begins at 0.50, a medium effect, and ends at 0.14, a small effect.
The diminishing effect size across years is probably best
understood as resulting from changes in the home environments of
children from low-income families. For example, the percentage of
children from families in the bottom quintile of income who have
mothers who finish high school roughly doubled in the timeframe covered
in the figure while the percentage with postsecondary education
quintupled. To the extent that preschool programs are intended, in
part, to compensate for deficiencies in parent-child interactions in
the home that are associated with parental education, improvements in
parental education mean that the control group of children in a present
day study of a preschool intervention is likely to perform much better
than untreated children from 40 years ago. Thus the difference in
outcomes between the two groups in the present day study, the effect
size, is smaller.
Is it reasonable to conclude from the data in the figure as well as
the more detailed examination that I have given to high profile studies
with more rigorous methods that the return on investment from any
particular early childhood program is likely to be high, e.g., 7 to 1?
I believe it would be unreasonable to draw such a conclusion--again the
effects are all over the place, with many at zero or below. Is it
reasonable to conclude from this and other research that some early
childhood programs can produce worthwhile benefits for some
participants? I believe it is quite reasonable to draw that
conclusion--many of the effects are positive.
To sum up, we know that some pre-K programs work for some children
in some circumstances. But, what programs for whom under what
circumstances? That's where the empirical sledding gets rough.
Consider the following program design decisions that are available
to policymakers with regard to early childhood programs:
targeted vs. universal;
multiyear vs. single year;
significant parent component or not;
year-round or school-year calendar;
full- or part-day;
wrap around or school-like hours;
teacher certification or not;
provider licensure requirement or not;
teacher college degree or not;
school districts as providers or any sponsor meeting
requirements;
parental choice or zip code assignment;
market-based or regulatory accountability;
assessment of children to monitor program quality and
provide consumer information or not;
align pre-K curriculum with Common Core, or focus on
social/emotional development, or let a thousand flowers bloom;
sliding scale fee structure or strict income eligibility
for a free service;
financial incentives and career ladders to highly
effective early childhood teachers or not;
family day care included or only center-based programs;
spending levels per student per program type;
single State system with coordinated Federal and State
funding streams or separate systems serving different populations with
different needs;
early childhood programs as a seamless part of the
education system or serving broader and different goals and needs;
enable non-traditional early childhood teachers, including
Teach for America-type recent college graduates and educated retirees,
or focus on upgrading the traditional early childhood workforce;
financial support and training to qualifying parents to
care for their children at home or focus on out-of-home care;
provide digital materials intended to strengthen the role
of parents as their children's first teachers or not;
identify and disseminate evidence-based curriculum
materials and professional development activities or leave this
responsibility to others; and
expand State k-12 student-level database to include
children receiving early childhood services or not.
Only a couple of these design choices (targeted vs. universal and
requirements for teacher credentials) are informed by decent research
evidence. For all the rest, there is almost no relevant evidence, much
less anything from credible research. Further, the list of important
public policy design questions could be much longer, and most items in
the present list subsume a set of subordinate questions for which there
is also little or no evidence. For example, the decision to provide
accountability through regulatory oversight of the performance of
individual early childhood centers generates dozens of unanswered
questions about how to do so.
In short, we know very little about nearly all of the decisions
that policymakers with a relative clean slate of early childhood
options ought to have on the table--and for many States it is a nearly
clean slate.
Further complicating the matter is the role to give to parents in
deciding what they want for their young children. Wherever people think
the dividing line should lie between the authority of parents vs. the
authority of the State in determining the content of a child's
education, nearly everyone agrees that the line shifts toward parents
in the period in a child's life prior to the beginning of formal
education. Some parents will be as intent on homeschooling their
preschoolers as they are their school-aged children. Some will want
center-based care for their young children that has an explicit moral
or religious grounding whereas others will take exception to that. Some
will want a curriculum that has a pre-academic emphasis, e.g., building
math skills, whereas others will want a play-focused program, and still
others will want a program that develops social relationships. Some
will want a part-day program whereas others will want or need full-day.
Some will prefer a family setting for out-of-home care whereas others
will want their child in a classroom at a center. Some will want or
need out-of-home care for their toddler whereas others will not want
their child to be in a center until he or she is at least 4 years of
age. Some will want their children to experience a diverse set of
classmates whereas others will want their children to be with children
with similar backgrounds.
desirable elements of federal pre-k policy
1. Target families with financial need
There is no compelling reason that flows from the long-term well-
being of children for the Federal Government to expend resources on
universal pre-K programs. Existing research demonstrates that higher
income parents receive a disproportionate financial benefit from
universal programs because they shift their preschoolers from care they
would have paid for themselves to care that is paid for by the
taxpayer. At the same time, children of higher income, educated parents
benefit far less from pre-school, if they benefit at all, than children
from disadvantaged programs. If the goal of Federal or State programs
is to create access, increase participation, and decrease gaps in
school readiness, covering the childcare expenses of families that can
afford to cover their own costs is counter-productive. Federal
expenditures should be targeted on families that cannot otherwise
afford childcare.
2. Devolve administration to the States
States have critical roles to play in administering Federal funds
for early childhood services in: (a) establishing licensing and
oversight processes that rid the childcare market of service providers
that do harm or commit fraud, (b) collecting information on the quality
and effectiveness of center-based childcare providers and assuring that
parents avail themselves of it, and (c) designing a system of early
childhood services that reflects the preferences of the citizens of the
State. The Federal Government currently operates 45 programs that
support early child care and related services to children from birth
through age 5, as well as five tax provisions that subsidize private
expenditures in this area. Each program has its own requirements and
each represents a challenge to individual States that are trying to
design and implement programs. It would be far better, in my view, for
the Federal Government to provide funding to States to support early
child care on a formula basis, requiring that States use the money to
assure access for lower income families and to carry out the three
critical roles described above.
3. Allow parents the maximum amount of choice consistent with the laws
and regulations of the State in which they live
Whatever the reasons for the prevalent practice of assigning
school-aged children to the public school closest to their place of
residence, our lack of knowledge of what works best for whom under what
circumstances in preschool as well as the deference we should afford
parents in how they want to rear and educate their young children argue
for giving States the maximum leeway to support parent choice in early
childcare. Some States will fully embrace choice by providing families
a means-tested voucher to be used as they see fit to obtain early
childhood services from any provider the State licenses. Others will
want a system that is more constrained for parents, e.g., by funneling
funds through school districts. That is the nature of our Federal
system. The variety in the types of services that will emerge between
and within States if the Federal Government allows States maximum
flexibility in their use of Federal funds for early childcare is
desirable both in terms of our knowledge of what works as well as our
ability to learn as we go.
4. Invest in the data systems and research that will inform State
actions and parental choice
Anyone who tries to map the landscape of early childhood services
in the United States quickly understands how little reliable data exist
on who is served, by whom, with what forms of funding. Other than a
couple of Federal longitudinal studies and questions that the Census
Bureau asks as part of the Current Population Survey, even simple
descriptive information is absent or questionable. This affects both
policymakers and parents. The Federal Government should require States
receiving Federal funds for early childcare and related services to
extend their statewide longitudinal data bases to include preschoolers.
Without being able to follow children as they move through the system,
everyone interested in improving quality and access is flying blind,
including parents who need to make informed choices with respect to
their own children.
The Federal Government should expand its investment in the science
of early childhood education. And when knowledge is produced from that
investment that should find its way into practice, the Federal
Government should provide incentives for uptake by the States. As an
example, federally sponsored research has demonstrated that teacher
credentials bear scant if any relationship to teacher effectiveness,
and that the teacher to which a child is assigned is far more important
than the aggregate quality of the school the child attends. In light of
this knowledge, the Federal Government could provide competitive grants
for States to measure on-the-job performance by teachers and caregivers
in early childhood settings, and to use that information to establish
policies that encourage good teachers to stay in the classroom.
a way forward
Much of what I see as desirable elements of Federal policy on early
childcare and services has been incorporated in this committee's
bipartisan effort that led to the Senate's passage by a vote of 96-2 of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (S. 1086). This
legislation provides for parental choice in early childhood services,
allows States to administer block grant funds with substantial
flexibility, targets expenditures on low-income families, and requires
States to fulfill fundamental responsibilities with respect to the
quality and continuity of services.
Federal support for childcare for poor families, if designed along
the lines of the template in the CCDBG reauthorization, would enable
parents to work, live productive lives, and raise their children in
keeping with their values. It would allow States to innovate and
parents to take advantage of information on the child care services
available to them. This time of high interest in the expansion of
government support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the
Federal Government to rethink its investments. Don't provide 45
different programs with many strings attached. Provide one. Design it
so that it places key responsibilities with States and parents and has
a structure that generates continuous feedback and opportunities for
improvement. We need systems and services that help children learn and
that, likewise, can adapt to experience. We don't know what works best,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act.
Early childhood is a period of life for which evolutionary
processes have endowed the human species with an absolute need for
extended social dependency and opportunities to learn from caretakers,
and that brain science indicates is our most active period of
neurological development. The very factors that make early childhood a
critical period for children also make it a challenging one for
parents, particular for those who do not have the financial means to
purchase help when they need out-of-home care for their children. I
strongly support taxpayer expenditure on these young children and their
families. But a shared commitment to public investment in lower income
families with young children doesn't mean we know which programs that
are intended to help will do so at all, much less in the most
productive way. We should not be hobbled by consensus views that arise
largely in an evidence-free zone grounded on little more than high
hopes. We need to acknowledge how much we don't know and proceed in a
humble spirit of discovery. If we are prepared to learn and adapt as we
go, the prospects are exciting.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Whitehurst. Thank
you all for being here. We will begin a series of 5-minute
questions.
First I will start with just Mr. Pepper. I do not know if
you are familiar with this. I always like to bring this up
every time we start talking about early childhood.
Here is something called ``The Unfinished Agenda: A New
Vision for Childhood Development and Education.'' It was put
out by the Committee for Economic Development. It came out in
1991, and it was a group of business leaders in America who had
been pulled together in the 1980s to make recommendations for
what we needed to do in education. Not early, just education.
They met for several years. It was under the leadership of
James Renier, the chairman and CEO of Honeywell. And if you
look at all the lists, it is all--I did not see if Procter &
Gamble is on here, but a lot of the big CEO's, like you, from
around the country--about what we need to do in education.
I remember being delivered this book in 1991 in my capacity
then as the chair of the appropriations subcommittee. And so,
here is all these big business leaders meeting for a number of
years to see what we needed to do in education in America for
economic growth and development. Guess what they said? Put it
in early education. 1991. I have been waving this book for 23
years now.
Then in 2010, 20 years later, I was invited down to the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just downtown here, for their rollout
of their prescription for what we needed to do at education,
``Why Business Should Support Early Childhood Education;'' 20
years apart. The business community gets it.
Here we have been told by the business community all along,
you have got to put more in early childhood education. And
somehow, I made sort of the comment a couple of times, it seems
to me that here we have been given all this information over
all this period of time, and maybe it is not the kids who are
not learning much in America. Maybe it is the adults who are
not learning very much in America in terms of what we need to
do.
I thank you, Mr. Pepper, for your advocacy, your leadership
in this area, and the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who have
been supporting this.
But why do you think, I would just ask you why is it, after
all of this period of time, we just cannot seem to invest the
money we need to in early childhood education?
Mr. Pepper. Let me address that. I have had many young
people who have come into this much later than I did, ask that
very question. Why has it taken so long? Why is it?
And, of course, I am reminded that my first involvement
came with Governor Voinovich when he was Governor of Ohio, and
I was on his education committee back in the mid-1980s, and he
had no stronger mandate, I do not think. He certainly was
conscious of the budget as well. You know him. But he wanted
Head Start. He wanted higher enrollment of the kids in Ohio in
Head Start than any other State and he had it at a point in
time, and he was really proud of it.
But why has it taken so long? I think there are several
reasons. One is the voice of the people most affected is
sometimes hard to hear. These kids do not have that strong
voice and many of the parents who are most involved do not have
that strong a voice, and they are probably not the biggest
lobbying group.
Second, there has been the factor that many of the benefits
have been said to take a long time to come, and it is out in
the future, and there are all these other issues we need to
deal with.
One thing that has really changed in my mind in the last 10
years is the degree to which we have been able to connect what
happens in that 5 years to what happens ever after. And not
just because of cognitive skills, but because of what are now
called social-emotional. Now, they are even calling it, it
sounds like a business, executive skills.
And when I ask my two daughters-in-law recently, what was
the most important element of preschool, which they started at
age 2, 3, and 4 and why should they have that and not mothers
in Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati? They actually did not start
with learning letters. They started with the behavior and being
able to share.
I think one thing that has happened today that is positive
is we have the connectivity and we have Return on Investment.
And if I headed this panel, five other business people who are
involved in this, you would have probably more Republicans than
Democrats. And they would be talking to you about ROI's, and
they would say, ``Even if you do not buy this because of the
social and moral issue, you buy it because of the economics.''
And you have driven businessmen on this today, and they believe
it, and I believe it. So that is a change.
I am much more hopeful than I have been before. We will do
this because if we do not do it soon, it will become so ugly in
this country, as we see our failure. We still have a 20 percent
dropout rate.
I was before the Chamber of Commerce in Cincinnati in 1987
saying how terrible it was, we had a 25 percent dropout rate.
That was before China was at play, Eastern and Central Europe
was not nearly as competitive, and we still have a 20 percent
dropout rate.
Seventy percent of people who are incarcerated are
dropouts. If you are not reading by the end of the third grade,
and you are poor, you are 11 times more likely to dropout. That
is not an anecdotal number; that is a fact. And if you dropout
of high school, you are dead in terms, you are not really, you
can recover from that, but you are in real trouble. And we know
what happens--0 to 5 has everything to do with whether you are
reading on grade.
We cannot keep resisting these facts. How we get to this
full coverage, I do not know but the amount of money, whatever
it is right now is doing about a quarter of the job of a job we
need to do 90 percent, and we have got to fix that.
We are working on it in Cincinnati. We are not going to
wait for the Federal Government, but we cannot do it all
anymore than Providence can.
I just hope and pray we will do that bipartisan thing. Get
a bill the Republicans can rally behind. If it is not exactly
this, what is it, and let us make it happen. Please.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pepper. I have more
questions, but I will have to do it on the second round.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Whitehurst, based on your count and the General
Accountability Office's study, if we pass Senator Harkin's
proposal, it would be the 46th early childhood Federal program
involved in early childhood education. Is that correct?
Mr. Whitehurst. That is correct. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Based upon your research, those 45
existing programs spend about $22 billion this year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Whitehurst. In 2011, yes.
Senator Alexander. In 2011, $22 billion. I believe I am
correct that there are about 4 million 4-year-olds in America.
Do you know? Is that about right?
Mr. Whitehurst. I think that is about right. Yes.
Senator Alexander. And that would be about $5,000 for every
4-year-old in America. Is my math about right?
Mr. Whitehurst. I am not really good at mental math when I
am before a Senate committee.
Senator Alexander. About $5,000 for every 4-year-old in
America and $22 million, I know, is about equal to the total
amount of money that the Federal Government spends through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act for K through 12. I
mean, it is a lot of money; $5,000 for every 4-year-old in
America or $7,000 or $8,000 for every--or half that to $2,500
or so, for every 3- or 4-year-old in America.
So here is my question, Dr. Whitehurst, if that is the
case, would it be a wise first step to say let us take this $22
billion and at least give some States the opportunity to say,
``I would like to have my share of it.'' In Ohio, that would be
$800 million; in Tennessee it would be $450 million. And then
give parents, let the States fashion programs that would meet
the needs of children zero through five, and use that $22
billion as a way to start dealing with the goal that we all
share. Since the State superintendent of Louisiana testified
before this committee that the single biggest obstacle to his
achieving the goal we all share is the confusion and
fragmentation of the 45 existing Federal programs that spend
$22 billion.
Mr. Whitehurst. Yes. I mean, I strongly agree with the
position that is implicit in your question. I do not know what
the appropriate level of Federal appropriation is. It probably
needs to be more than $22 billion at some point.
But I do think the appropriate place to start is with the
money that is being spent, and see if that cannot be spent in
ways that permits more innovation, that lets States deal better
with what now is fragmentation that is largely a product of the
Federal system rather than something that the States themselves
are responsible for.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Whitehurst. So I would fix what we are doing already
before moving ahead with something else. I am very worried here
about one-size-fits-all solutions. I think we have got 50
States, they have different citizens with different sense of
what they need, and it would be great to proceed in that
direction.
Senator Alexander. My time is short. But just to be clear,
the number of programs that I mentioned, 45, comes from your
count of the General Accountability Office study; is that
correct?
Mr. Whitehurst. It is the GAO conclusion----
Senator Alexander. It is the GAO conclusion.
Mr. Whitehurst. Not mine.
Senator Alexander. The $22 billion is whose conclusion?
Mr. Whitehurst. Actually, Steve Barnett has a lot to do
with that conclusion. I have drawn that from his publication.
Senator Alexander. Let me ask Mr. Pepper. Mr. Pepper, I
know your passion for this. I can see it today. We have talked
about it before in my office and on the telephone, and you are
one of the most celebrated chief executives in the country.
Now, if you are at Procter & Gamble, one of the best
managed companies in the country, and you had your product
about which you were the most passionate, and your vice
president came in and said, ``Mr. Pepper, we have got 45
divisions already making Pringles,'' or whatever the product
was. ``I propose we have a 46th proposal, and we are spending
$22 billion already.''
Would not your first instinct be to say, ``Let us
consolidate all of that and let us make sure that is
effective?''
And would we not be better off taking all the Federal
dollars that we spend and give Ohio its $800 million and let
you and Cincinnati use that in the most effective way with your
State dollars, and your local dollars, and your private dollars
to meet the needs of children? We could give you enough money
so you would have $5,000 for every 4-year-old in Ohio if we did
that.
Mr. Pepper. Let me respond first. Obviously, if I was
confronted with 45 different streams that were going, I would
want to see if they could be improved.
Second, your math that you're throwing out here which, of
course, I do not know all of it, take it at face value, $22
billion, is $2,500 per 3- and 4-year-old. We have strong
evidence that three and four together is almost two times
better than four, is $2,500. The cost is about $8,000 or
$9,000. So it would leave me in Ohio about one-third of where I
needed to be, i.e., about where I am now, that is in trouble.
So the math that you have gone through here, Senator, as I
calculate it on 3- and 4-year-olds gets me to a point where I
am worried about; i.e., $2,500 which does not cover preschool.
Senator Alexander. So you want $100 billion new Federal
dollars.
Mr. Pepper. No.
Senator Alexander. That is all my time.
Mr. Pepper. I do not.
Senator Alexander. Twenty-two dollars----
Mr. Pepper. I do not think an investment beyond what is
being talked about here, leveraged with the States is anything
beyond what I would do, but you know more about this than I do,
respectfully, you do. But I certainly would not go right to
$100 billion. I do not think that is what it will take.
I think, at least as I read this legislation, come with the
States, it would allow us to provide preschool to all 4-year-
olds and I think that is a very good starting point, quality
preschool.
I think at least from the numbers I have seen, and you know
them and Senator Harkin does, that that amount of money that is
in this bill would allow us to get quality preschool to all 4-
year-olds.
Senator Alexander. My time is up and so I will stop;
Senator Harkin respected his. But the amount of money we are
already spending would allow you to spend $5,000 on every 4-
year-old in Ohio.
Mr. Pepper. But again, sir, that is only about half, about
70 percent of what it costs. So it does not do the job. More
money is needed. But saying that, if there is a way to get more
out of every dollar we are spending now, I would go after that
feverishly.
I just heard in the back of the room during the break that
a great deal of the problem come because there are so many Head
Start regulations. Somebody said 140 and that kind of thing
from business and probably to you, boggles my mind and I would
want to get in and see how can I simplify it dramatically.
Someone said, I think it was 1,400. Go to 140, I would say go
to 14.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Statement of Senator Franken
Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Harkin, for your
leadership on this, your Strong Start for America's Children
Act would serve an additional 1,456 children in Minnesota.
This is for anyone. What percentage of kids who are
eligible for Head Start are served currently?
Mr. Tavares. Senator Franken, in Rhode Island, it is about
one-third, I believe, of the kids who are eligible for Head
Start are served by Head Start.
Senator Franken. And when we had the sequester, we lost
funding for that, and we had to actually close the slots;
right?
Mr. Tavares. We did lose funding. I do not have the exact
number of slots, but I do know that that was one of the
casualties.
Senator Franken. I think there is a case here to be made
for additional funding, part of which is to make sure that our
workforce--when Dr. Whitehurst talks about the effectiveness of
these Head Start programs, and I heard your range was from
mildly negative to very successful. I would like to do the very
successful. I think what the difference is, is in workforce.
And so, I want to train the workforce.
Dr. Barnett, can you discuss the ways in which improved
teacher qualifications are connected to improving student
learning in the early stages of brain development?
Mr. Barnett. I would be delighted to and also would like an
opportunity to address that $22 billion number, since it is
mine at some point.
Senator Franken. Go right ahead.
Mr. Barnett. Teaching young children, a classroom of young
children, is complicated. And the bang for the buck, whether we
get those wildly successful results that you want, that really
comes down largely to teacher-child interaction. One-on-one in
small groups, and to some extent, enabling children to have
better interactions with each other, and with things in their
environment; but those are just kind of variations on the first
theme.
We have teachers today in Head Start, teachers are so
poorly paid, a quarter to one-third of them score clinically
depressed. We know that is not a good condition for an adult to
be in to interact with kids. We do not want to replicate this
elsewhere, and we want to solve this problem in Head Start. But
teachers do need specialized--they need to be well prepared.
The quality, the extensiveness, the unfamiliarity of the
language that children experience in the classroom is one of
the biggest determinants of how much it boosts their
vocabulary, which is then going to predict their reading
comprehension in high school.
So if you put teachers in the classroom who have low
vocabularies, who have negative interactions with kids, you are
going to replicate that in kids. That is not going to give us
the positive results and is, so often, why we fail.
This is not a mystery why some programs do not work. We
know why they do not work. We keep doing things, beginning with
not investing in initial qualifications and then not investing
in the kind of ongoing professional development and coaching
that people need to improve that would give us better results.
Senator Franken. That is why I want to tout my own Early
Childhood Care and Education Workforce Improvement Act as part
of the solution here.
Mayor Tavares, in your testimony, you touch on your efforts
to empower parents and caretakers to improve their children's
development. Can you elaborate on the methods that you are
using to encourage parents to become more involved? And I
really do believe that parents are the first teachers, and I
have seen this.
We have the Northside Achievement Zone in Minneapolis,
which is modeled after Geoffrey Canada's achievement zone. And
I have seen a baby academy there and, my goodness, it was very
moving to see these parents learning how to be parents.
Mr. Tavares. Thank you, Senator.
Let me just say with respect to Providence Talks, first of
all, it is a totally voluntary program. So parents have to
choose to get involved and we have it as a voluntary program.
We have a home visitation component and we have not reinvented
the wheel. We actually are working with Early Head Start and
other home visitation programs. And so, we are just a component
of that in order to be more efficient.
What I have found is that parents, and we have had,
actually, some press coverage on this is they have focused on
parents who are willing to speak to the press about it. They
are very engaged, and once they realize the impact that they
can have by simply talking to your child and being engaged,
engaging your child in all of the positive activities, they are
very, very engaged.
And we have seen data that has shown that when we began,
there was one family, and this was public; she consented to
making this public. But they were speaking maybe 11,000 words
and by subsequent visits, they were up to almost 30,000 in a
day. And she was ecstatic with that.
One of the things that we are seeing as well is that one of
the best things that we can have is word of mouth. So there are
other parents who are interested in coming forward and they all
want what is best for our kids. So that is something that is
important.
If I could add one thing, Senator, we talk a lot about
workforce preparation, but I would say to you that this is not
just about the workforce. It is about the future leaders of
tomorrow, and that is what we are really talking about here is
making sure that we are in a position to develop our young
children into the best leaders that they can be.
Senator Franken. Mr. Chairman, I am out of my time. I have
to leave. May I just end with a, if you will indulge me, with
just a couple of thoughts?
The return on investment has been demonstrated. Sir, you
were talking about that.
I am sorry I was not here. I was in an energy committee
meeting. I know, Dr. Barnett, you talked about fadeout and how
that is kind of a myth, and I remember the Perry study. And I
remember they found the I.Q. went up, and then there was a
fadeout supposedly after third grade, but then they discovered
all these other things.
Dr. Whitehurst referred to the fadeout as if it were a real
thing, as if there was not a carryover past the third grade in
terms of graduating from high school, in terms of health
outcomes, in terms of not being left back, in terms of
adolescent girls not getting pregnant, in terms of
incarceration.
Yes, the return on investment is great. And yes, I think we
need more flexibility for States. But we need to do this, not
just because the return on invest is great, and we need to do
it because of that. But we need to do that because you are only
3 years old once. You are only 4 years old once. These are our
children. These are beautiful children and that is why we need
to do it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We will start a second
round here.
We have 45 Federal programs. This is the chart that came
out of the House Education Workforce Committee. It makes it
look like it is just a spaghetti factory, and we have all those
things here. And then we put $22 billion into elementary and
secondary education, and we put in the same for early childhood
because of these 45 programs.
I looked at this. Here is one program that says,
``Workforce Investment Act dislocated worker formula grant.''
What has that got to do with early childhood? Well, because
some of the funding in this program can be used to train
childcare workers. That does not go to direct services that
support the early education of young children.
So let us get it straight. All of these programs here are
bits and pieces of things that can be used. Actually, there are
only 12 Federal programs that are distinctly for early
education and care, 12. The rest address very specific things
such as Native Hawaiian Education. There is also the school
breakfast program; which supports nutrition.
Forget about the 45 programs. That is just not so. That is
just bits and pieces of things that a little bit of money goes
out for specific purposes, like I said, to train childcare
workers. Is that really early education? Not at all. So the
whole ``45 programs'' thing is kind of nonsensical.
Also, we hear about the $22 billion. I would point out that
the $22 billion Federal money that goes to elementary and
secondary education is 8 percent of what we spend on elementary
and secondary education; 8 percent from the Federal Government.
However, the $22 billion that goes to everything in those
45 programs, and not just early education, that is over 50
percent of the funding for all early childhood education
programs; the Federal Government contributes over 50 percent to
the total amount we spend as a nation.
You look at these dollars spent on programs like the early
intervention for children with disabilities, tax credits for
families, food programs, the milk program for children, school
breakfast program. These funds are not all just going to
preschool. There are a lot of different programs in there.
Thirty-three of the 45 programs from the GAO report do not
provide direct early learning service, they just have early
learning as an allowable use of funds. The GAO does not know
how many children are served and what the extent of those
services are. The other 12 that I talked about have different
purposes and they are not reaching all eligible children.
For instance, you talked about, Dr. Whitehurst, the Child
Care and Development Block Grant. How many people know that
goes from 0 to 13?
Mr. Whitehurst. I do.
The Chairman. You do. Well, you throw it out there like
Child Care and Development Block Grant is just for little tots.
But, 50 percent of the money goes post-5 years of age; 50
percent. That is not early childhood. Some of it does go to
early childhood, but 50 percent of the money goes post-5 year.
You know that.
If you start looking at this, you will see there is an
unmet need. And then Head Start, that serves 3- and 4-year-
olds, most of them are families below 100 percent of poverty.
Is that our limit? Is that what we want to limit it to? Just
people that are really, really desperately poor, or do we want
to go up to 200 percent of poverty and include the near-poor
and those that really cannot afford to have any kind of early
learning programs for their kids?
Now, to the extent that we need better coordination, I am
all for it. To the extent that we can consolidate programs, I
am all for it. I said to Senator Alexander when I came back
from Iowa from my hearing out there on early childhood I said,
``My head is spinning,'' because what I heard was all the
different funding streams that come in to support these kids
that are going to school for 3 hours a day. I said, ``I cannot
get a handle on it.''
Better coordination? Yes. And what this bill does, by the
way, and I want to make this very clear, what the Strong Start
bill does is voluntary; it is not a Federal mandate. It is
voluntary. And what it does, it says to the States, ``You do
your thing.'' You know, ``You do it.'' If you want a match from
the Federal Government what we have said is, ``OK. Here are
some things that we would like.'' High-quality teachers for
example; we want those teachers to be high-quality, really
trained to know how they can deliver age-appropriate learning
to these children.
Other things that we want: appropriate health services and
referrals. Sure, we want that too. ``Yes, do that, then we will
match it. We will match the money.''
But we have left in the bill flexibility, and I would be
glad to look at it as we mark it up and change it. If we need
to change some things, Mr. Pepper, I am willing to make
changes. If we can streamline it, make things more effective,
some consolidation, I have no problem with that.
But we have to keep in mind the funding streams. Yes, the
States should have a lot of flexibility, but I do not think the
taxpayers of this country paying their Federal taxes would want
their money to go to substandard childcare programs to pay for
teachers that are not qualified to teach the kids, to go to
programs where they are not safe. They do not want kids to have
to go to programs where people have to patch and fix childcare
alongside 2 or 3 hours a day.
Dr. Whitehurst, I agree with you that when you get down to
that early age, you have to lean more toward the parents. I got
that. I fully agree with that. However, it is not like it was
when I was a kid. You got two parents working full-time,
sometimes three jobs, and you have a lot of single parent
families out there, and mostly women, and they are working
hard, and they are working one-and-a-half or two jobs. They do
not have the time. They do not have the wherewithal to deal
with their kids like we were when we were growing up. You might
bemoan that fact, but you cannot turn the clock back. It is not
going to change. And so, you might want to lean that way and
give as much discretion to parents as possible.
But I cannot tell you how many parents I have talked to, in
my own State and elsewhere, who want what is best for their
kids.
They want their kids to be safe and yes, ``Mrs. Smith down
the block takes care of kids, and I have known her for a long
time, and I can put my child there, and I feel good about
that.'' But they do not know if their child is really getting a
good education or if they are just getting babysitting services
for their kid when they send him/her down the street? They do
not know.
They want safety first. They want their kids to be safe
more than anything else. After that, they want education. They
want their kids to be learning, but they do not know how to
assess it because a lot of the parents, Angel, or Mayor, I
should say, a lot of their parents are parents that did not
have that kind of access themselves. Many of them did not even
go to college or maybe did not even finish high school, so they
cannot evaluate that very rapidly.
That is why we try to set up high quality standards. We say
to the States, ``OK. Flexibility is fine. You can do different
things your own ways.'' We try to encourage as much of that in
the bill as possible. I want to work with the Senator from
Tennessee to see how we can consolidate some of these and make
them more efficient, but keeping in mind that we just do not
live in a cookie cutter society. You just do not stamp one
thing and say, ``Everybody has got to fit into that mold.''
There has got to be a lot of different programs out there
to meet different needs and that is what some of these programs
do. The States that are doing this right now are trying to
establish or expand programs and meet some of their own unique
needs. We do not have Native Hawaiian education problems in
Iowa, but they do in Hawaii, so they should be able to use
their program funds to support Native Hawaiian early childhood
education. So they need some flexibility to meet their own
needs of those States. I have gone way over.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Whitehurst, the fact remains, we asked the General
Accountability Office to identify all the programs that
explicitly provided money for early childhood education or some
money that was related to it, and they came up with 45
programs; correct?
Mr. Whitehurst. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And some of them are pretty big
programs. I mean, Head Start is $8.6 billion and the Child Care
and Development Block Grant is $5.3 billion. And in your
testimony you suggested--and the legislation that I am
developing, I agree with it--that we be more like the Child
Care and Development Block Grant. That we give plenty of
flexibility to States to design their own programs.
A lot of the debate in Washington is between, what I would
say, the mandaters and the enablers, and it is not always a
partisan divide. We have Republicans who stand up in our caucus
sometimes and they have a really good idea, and they want to
make everybody do it. I remind them that we are supposed to
respect others, that we are to try to enable people to do it.
Senator Harkin's bill requires States receiving these
grants to ensure preschool programs meet requirements on staff
qualifications; staff salaries; maximum class sizes and child
instructor ratios; length of the school day; vision, dental,
and health screenings; nutritious meals and snack options;
physical activity programs; professional development for staff;
health and safety standards.
Does that sound like State flexibility to you?
Mr. Whitehurst. No, it does not. It sounds like No Child
Left Behind pushed down to preschool.
Senator Alexander. Yes. It sounds to me like a national
school board for preschool education, which is one way to do
it, but that is the mandating way, not the enabling way.
I was Governor for 8 years and I used to chafe most under
people who did not think I had enough sense to figure those
things out for myself in our local schools, and that they were
wiser than we were in the States.
I want to ask the mayor of Providence, that is the all-
American Senator Whitehouse. I have been to Providence.
Actually, it is a terrific city.
Let us say that the General Accounting Office and Dr.
Whitehurst are approximately right about the amount of Federal
dollars that we direct toward early childhood education, and
that we swept through the Federal Government and said, ``Let us
just give it to the States with the maximum amount of
flexibility, and let them devise the best way to deal with
things.''
If you were the Governor of Rhode Island, would you like to
have a check for about $75 million a year to use your own good
judgment to decide how to make early childhood programs relate
to one another? Or would you rather let us up here write very
details prescriptions about how best for you to do that in
Rhode Island?
Mr. Tavares. Let me just, if I can. I hope to be the
Governor of Rhode Island. So that is a very timely question.
Senator Alexander. I had a suspicion of that. But I am
quite serious about it because when in that position, usually
you sit there, at least I did, and most of my colleagues, I had
the former democratic Governor of Tennessee come up to me and
talk to me about the Workforce Development Act and just say,
``I threw my hands up,'' he said. ``It was too many Washington
restrictions. They assumed I did not know anything, so I could
not do anything with it.''
Mr. Tavares. I would say, Senator, that obviously if you
have a choice between $75 million with no requirements and some
with other requirements, you want to have flexibility.
I would also say to you that there is a danger, I think,
having general outline of some things that you should expect,
including qualifications of teachers, something that we are
doing in Rhode Island.
Senator Alexander. So you think we should decide what the
qualifications of teachers from Rhode Island should be, and
what their salaries should be, and the length of the school
day, and how long the physical activity program should be, and
what the professional development for staff should look like?
Mr. Tavares. I think it is very appropriate especially
given the amount of money that you would be appropriating.
Senator Alexander. What is left for you to do as Governor?
Mr. Tavares. To make sure that we get the kids in the
program, to make sure that we execute the program the proper
way, to make sure that they are learning.
Senator Alexander. So if you were Governor, you would like
for Washington to design the preschool programs in Rhode Island
and all you would do is just transport the children to the
schools?
Mr. Tavares. If I were Governor and you wanted to give us
$75 million, I would follow your rules because that would allow
me to serve a lot of children. And I would say having looked at
the pre-K situation, it is about $6,000 or $7,000 per child
that I estimate it would cost us in Rhode Island to have
universal pre-K for our children.
Senator Alexander. But you do not like the Child Care and
Development Block Grant model, then?
Mr. Tavares. I would, as I said, to receive assistance from
the Federal Government, obviously----
Senator Alexander. I am asking you which would work best
for the children? The Child Care Development Block Grant gives
the State great flexibility and the parents a choice. It is
vouchers and it has strong bipartisan support. It has worked
very well.
Mr. Tavares. If you want to increase that by the amount of
this bill, I think that that would be fine.
Senator Alexander. No, it is the form of it or not. So what
I hear you saying is that you would rather we make the
decisions that if I were the Governor, I would like to make.
Mr. Tavares. I am saying to you that from my perspective,
we need more assistance. I am saying that I do not think that
it is an issue that the U.S. Senate or the Federal Government
is giving us some guidelines, and I think that that is
appropriate.
Obviously, as I said, any Governor would prefer no
restrictions, but there are also dangers with that, and that is
how that money is going to be spent, and that it is being spent
appropriately.
Senator Alexander. My time is up. I have said what I had to
say.
The Chairman. I might just add that all we ask is that the
teachers teaching the kids have a B.A. degree; I do not think
that is onerous.
Senator Alexander. How about length of school day?
The Chairman. We want a full school day, yes. We do not
want to say, ``2 hours, 3 hours,'' something like that.
Senator Alexander. Right.
The Chairman. Yes, we specify there should be a full-day
program if you want the Federal match.
Senator Alexander. And the amount of the salary?
The Chairman. Yes, we want people to be well paid, but we
do not specify exactly what that salary is. We do not specify,
so it will vary by State. Some States will have to pay more,
some less. It varies by State and what is necessary to make the
pay comparable to other teachers.
But again, I say to my friend, we are the stewards of
Federal tax dollars, not State tax dollars. If the States want
to do different things with their State tax money, that is
their purview. We have a responsibility to the Federal
taxpayers to make sure that their Federal dollars are invested
wisely and well.
And we do make decisions. We do not just leave it up to a
Governor or a State and say, ``Here is some money. We do not
care what you do with it.'' Of course not. That would be
shirking our responsibility. I think we are shirking our
responsibility as Federal legislators.
I may not always agree with Mayor Tavares when he is the
Governor on certain things. I do not know, but as Governor, he
has a lot of flexibility for his State tax dollars. All we are
saying here is, in this bill,
``You want a match? Here are some certain things:
B.A. degree. Yes, you have to have full-day. You have
to make sure your teachers are paid comparably to other
teachers in the system.''
We do not specify exact salaries and we leave it up to
States to figure that out.
I do not think that is onerous, again, I am just saying,
that is being a good steward, I think, of Federal, of the
taxpayers in this country. That is just my view on it.
Senator Murray.
Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
really appreciate you holding the hearing.
I understand Senator Alexander's philosophy on not adding
too much restriction, but I also know that people who pay tax
dollars to the Federal Government want us to make sure it is
being used well and that there are positive results from it.
And I think we do have a responsibility as the Federal
Government to make sure we are good stewards of the Federal tax
dollar.
But having said this, I want to thank you for having this
hearing. I think it is extremely important. As you know, I was
a former preschool teacher. This is my passion.
I have in my office a very large quilt. Each one of the
squares is made by one of the kids in my last preschool class I
taught before I went to the State Senate, and it reminds me,
every day of who I am serving and what is important.
So I know how important it is, but I do not think you have
to be a former teacher to know how important this is. I have
heard from business leaders because they know that they need a
well-educated workforce, how important this issue is.
I have actually heard from a lot of military leaders, Mr.
Chairman, who tell me that a quarter of young adults who want
to serve their country, only a quarter of young adults are able
to meet the minimum education and health requirements today. So
we are turning away a lot of young men and women in the
military today because they do not have the early investment
they need to be educationally successful.
I hear from sheriffs in Washington State who have told me
that they know who ends up in their jails if they have not had
early childhood education.
We know the importance of this across the board and I
think, as I have seen in my State as I have worked on this, and
here at the Federal level, that we have across-the-board
support. We have Republican Governors in Alabama, and Kansas,
and Michigan who have made this a priority in their States.
I am hoping that as we move forward on this, it will not be
a partisan issue in the Senate either. I am very, very
supportive of the Strong Start for America's Children Act. I
hope that our Republican colleagues give us good input on it,
and that we can really get some strong bipartisan support, and
move it forward. I think it is absolutely critical that we
cannot continue to do studies telling us how important early
childhood education is and then just hope it happens. I think
we have to make it a national priority.
Having said that, I did want to be here at the hearing
today and I have been in and out, and I apologize. It has been
a busy morning.
But we have heard a lot of concern from some that there are
so many early learning programs out there. Here in Washington,
DC, it is kind of a strange place, we know that the rhetoric
inside the Beltway does not line up with what is happening in
our States.
I think the need for pre-K education is really a great
example of this. I hear at home all the time about the lack of
affordable, high quality preschool programs. But here in DC, I
often hear that there are too many Federal early learning
programs. So how come I hear at home that there is not enough
and here I hear there is too many?
I wanted to just ask two of you, Dr. Barnett, from a
national perspective, Mayor Tavares from a local level. Is
there duplication?
Mr. Barnett. One of our jobs at the Institute is to try to
figure out how many kids are served in public programs. It is a
hard thing to do. Fragmentation does not make that easy.
There are really only three big buckets, though, the
childcare bucket, the Head Start bucket, and the State and
local pre-K bucket. A lot of those other programs are programs
that prepare teachers, or that feed kids, or Department of
Defense schools. You are not going to block grant those to the
State.
We want to count all of those, but when we try to un-
duplicate, we find very few kids, actually, and we cannot be
precise, but maybe 1 to 2 percent of kids who are in Head Start
and some other program. And typically, those are kids who are
getting a half-day funded by one, and a half-day funded by the
other, and the State or local Governments figured out how to
blend that, and provide the experience they want for their kids
by bringing these programs together.
Pretty much every State now has a council that has taken on
themselves integrating these programs, reducing the
fragmentation, and making it seamless at the local and State
level.
So there is not a lot of duplication. The main problem is
there is not enough money to go around. The money that we have
in early childhood is for everything, birth to five; it is not
nearly enough. Even at age four, where most of the money is,
and the money has been declining at the State level in terms of
what is invested in each child for a decade now, and the
recession actually made that much worse.
States are responding, coming out of that, but to think
that we have plenty of money, all we need to do is redistribute
it. No. There is not nearly enough money in the system.
Redistributing it is just going to mean taking it away from
somebody and giving it to somebody else.
Senator Murray. Mayor.
Mr. Tavares. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say this. I
will repeat what I said earlier and that is one-third, one-
third of our eligible Head Start children are participating in
Head Start. And it is not because they do not know about it. It
is because we do not have the space for them.
In Rhode Island, we do not have full-day kindergarten. I am
not talking about pre-K; I am talking about kindergarten. We do
not have full-day K. Providence does, some cities do, but we
have a situation that we do not have the funding to make sure
that we have a full-day kindergarten for our children right now
based on what we are receiving and everything else that we are
doing.
In terms of duplication, I am sure that someone can find
something somewhere that might be duplication, but I can tell
you in Rhode Island, the need is there. It is critical and it
is an investment that we are trying to make, but we certainly
this bill would help us immensely prepare our kids to succeed
and to lead.
We certainly welcome the Senate's bill and that is why I am
here today.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I turn it
over, I just wanted to say, I think it would be easy for us to
sit back here and say, ``Our States or local communities think
this is important, they will just do it.''
But we need every child in this country to be able to
fulfill their potential if our military is saying they do not
have enough qualified people. If our business leaders are
saying, ``We need people.'' If we are putting too many kids in
jails, we cannot just hope. We need to make sure it is a
national priority.
I really appreciate you working on this bill.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Casey.
Statement of Senator Casey
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
this hearing, by the way. We are grateful for the time on this
issue.
I would just offer a comment before, and I will start with
Mr. Pepper because of his Pennsylvania roots and connections. I
will be shamelessly parochial, if you do not mind.
But I want to say a couple of things about the issue and
then what it means to the country. I believe that if we are
doing enough for not just children, but for our future, we
would make sure the children have at least four things. Maybe
you could add to this, but certainly quality early learning has
to be part of that; that is the subject of today's discussion.
Certainly healthcare, quality healthcare at the same time;
enough to eat and hopefully as nutritious as possible; and
fourth, to protect them from predators who will do them harm.
And all four priorities are critically important.
I have to say when you add them all up, we are nowhere near
where we ought to be. We made tremendous progress on children's
health insurance in the last generation, thankfully, but even
with the Children's Health Insurance Program, even with
Medicaid, we still have a lot of uninsured children in very
difficult circumstances. That has been a measure of progress.
On a national strategy, it should be, I think, in
partnership with the States, and we should learn from the
States and work with them as this legislation would do. I
cannot say it any other way other than to say it has been a
national failure. Other than, if you take out Head Start and
what individual States have done in the last generation or
more, other than that, it is a national failure, and that is
why we are here today.
I was especially impressed, Mr. Pepper, by some of the
remarks that you made, some of them very sobering. I think I am
quoting you accurately. I wrote it down here. You are worried
about the future of our Nation. You said that at the beginning
of your testimony.
You also said later that passing this bill, or something
comparable to it is a, ``Financial no-brainer,'' which, I have
not run a business like you have, so to have you say that is
great validation of what we are trying to do.
You also said this would be transformational, and you have
a sense of urgency about this issue that, frankly, Washington
does not have.
Then finally, though, one of the last things you said while
I was here, and I know I was back and forth, is, ``Make it
happen.'' Again, that sense of urgency.
I wanted to ask you, in particular: you talked about the
skills gap and a lot of that is certainly academic. But what
about the other skills, what some call ``soft skills'' or other
skills that you hope would be inculcated in the life of a child
early in their development, and that can manifest themselves
later when they are in school and then eventually in the
workforce?
Mr. Pepper. Senator, what I referred to there, I think the
first things that employers would look for once a person is on
the job and you know what they are: ability to focus, overcome
adversity, cooperate with other people, a sense of independence
but also working with other people. And these things happen at
very early ages.
It is hard to happen just alone in a home when, as Senator
Harkin was saying, 38 percent of the children 0 to 5 in Ohio
are living in a home with one parent and almost every one of
those parents are working. So to be able to be in a quality
preschool with a teacher, with a ratio with other kids is
starting to develop those elements of sharing, coming in and
coming back to the home.
At work it is attention to task, persistence, all of these
things. We know what they are, these values. They are what, I
believe, explains the fact that these effects have continued on
in these long-term studies that we have seen in incarceration,
we have seen it in income, graduating from college.
I will not rehearse the elements of urgency I feel. I hope
I conveyed them. I really do feel we have a big challenge in
this country which is kind of like a cancer. You may not know
it is growing.
It was not too long ago, a generation ago, we were the No.
1 country in the developed world having college graduates. We
still have the most to enter college. We are now No. 12 or 18
depending on what you look at in terms of actually, at that age
group, having college graduates.
The numbers, I think, it is 55 million new jobs that are
going to be created by the year 2020. Sixty-five percent will
require more than a high school education. This is data. We do
not know if it is exactly right, but it is probably about
right. Sixty-five percent will require more than a high school
education, yet we still have 20 percent of children that are
not graduating. What is to become of them?
I take the point that was made earlier, too, by Senator
Franken. There is the element here of each child. Why should my
grandchildren, why should you--because you are a child in a
certain zip code in Indian Hill in Cincinnati--have a better
right to life and grow up than somebody down in the other area
when we have a program that works, that we are giving to about
25 percent of the children who need it? Now that is about our
number. And for whom we have a lot of evidence that it will all
come back to us if all you care about is the finances.
How do you look at that picture and not act quickly,
resolving differences that will probably exist? But if in a
business setting, if I had this kind of situation, do you know
what I would do? And there would be disagreement in the top
team what we ought to do. I would go offsite and I would say,
``We are going to take the next weekend or the next
week, and we will come out of here with a bill or a
plan that we are rallying behind and we are going to do
it.''
Because I would feel if I did not do this, I was failing
the company. That is how I view this.
Senator Casey. I am out of time, but I want to make sure
that someone who was born in Pottsville, PA gets the last word.
The prepared statement of Senator Casey follows.]
Prepared Statement of Senator Casey
Chairman Harkin, thank you for convening this hearing to
talk about S. 1697, the Strong Start for America's Children
Act. It has been a pleasure working with you on this
legislation, and I am excited about this opportunity to
highlight our shared commitment to promoting pre-kindergarten.
I have been a strong supporter of early learning for many
years. One of the first bills I authored, the Prepare All Kids
Act, became one of the bills upon which the Strong Start Act is
modeled. Chairman Harkin and his staff worked with me, with
Senator Murray and with Senator Hirono on the Strong Start for
America's Children. It has been a privilege to join with the
other champions of early learning in the Senate on this
important legislation.
This legislation being discussed today, the Strong Start
Act, represents a major step forward in our fight to ensure
that all children have access to affordable and high-quality
early learning experiences.
Many States, including Pennsylvania, have already made
important investments in early learning, including in pre-K.
Pennsylvania's Pre-K Counts program is currently serving almost
12,000 3- and 4-year-olds, but that is just a fraction of the
children who need access to high-quality pre-K.
An increasing body of evidence demonstrates the lasting
impact of high-quality early learning. Children who participate
in quality early learning programs do better on a host of
measures, including both academic measures (higher academic
achievement, lower rates of grade repetition, less use of
special and remedial education) and social measures (decreased
crime, increased socio-emotional skills).
Successful children turn into successful adults, or as I
like to say, ``when kids learn more now, they earn more
later.'' Society benefits in many ways. We save money by
incarcerating fewer people and having to pay for less remedial
education. Employers benefit from a better-trained and more
capable workforce. It all starts with high-quality early
learning.
I thank Chairman Harkin for holding this important hearing,
and I thank our witnesses for their testimony. I hope we will
be able to mark up the Strong Start Act in the near future, and
I look forward to continuing my support of this important
legislation.
Mr. Pepper. Thanks very much. I would also celebrate coming
from Pottsville, Yuengling Beer.
Senator Casey. Right.
Mr. Pepper. OK? It would spray everywhere, Senator Casey,
and it came into Cincinnati or Ohio recently, and I was told by
Dick Yuengling, who was a childhood friend of mine, that it was
the best entry he had had in any State in the Nation, and I was
proud of that.
Senator Casey. We just want you to move back to
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Pepper. I am going to come back and visit again. I was
very happy to be in Harrisburg. That was my capital when I grew
up. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much. With an attitude
like that, Mr. Pepper, I have no idea what your party politics
are or if you even have party politics, but with that attitude,
we need you in the U.S. Senate, I can tell you that about
working things out. Just get together and work it out.
I just wanted to point out again, I do not mean to go on
too long, but I am just writing down here just some of the
cities that I know that are moving ahead on a full-day type of
preschool. They are investing in high quality teachers: San
Antonio, Mayor Castro; Denver, Mayor Hancock; New York, Mayor
De Blasio; Chicago, Mayor Emanuel; and Providence, Mayor
Tavares.
Some cities' mayors are getting it. They are doing it, but
that sort of begs the question. Should we just not do anything
and let the cities do their own things? But I do not think we
can wait that long. I mean, not every city can do it. They have
other things that they need to do, and so some people might
look at that and say, ``Well, why do we need to do anything?''
I think what I have heard from most of you, anyway, is that
we do need to have a national approach on this. And that is
just, again, a thing I have often thought about is, why should
we take tax dollars from Iowans, Federal tax dollars and put it
into programs in Providence, or Cincinnati, or wherever? And
that is because a child that grows up in Iowa, or Missouri, or
Ohio that is ill-educated does not stay in that city or that
State. They can move to Iowa or they can move anywhere, so we
are one Nation.
And so, there are some things that we have to look upon as
national efforts. Certainly, that is why you leave as much
flexibility to the States as possible, and I thought that was
what I have tried to do in this bill, setting up certain
standards. Make sure it is a full-day rather than a half day or
quality teachers that type of thing.
We want to give States flexibility on how to manage it, but
understanding that this is a national effort that we have to do
because we are one Nation. People move around. And so, that is
why. And not in every instance, but in many of these instances,
it behooves us to make sure that we address it in a national
way, even though we say, ``Well, we are taking tax dollars from
Pennsylvania and it is going to some other State.'' Well,
because it is going to the kids and those kids can live in
Pennsylvania later on too or any other State.
I do not have anything else.
I yield to Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. No, I do not have anything else except I
will be offering a proposal within the next couple of weeks
that will be modeled along the line of what Dr. Whitehurst and
I discussed. Which is to take the Federal dollars we now spend
and model it along the lines of the Child Care and Development
Block Grant, which would give the States maximum flexibility
and parents maximum flexibility.
So that the GAO's figures are right and Dr. Whitehurst's
figures are right, it could be up to $22 billion of Federal
dollars now headed toward early childhood in one form or
another; maybe it is somewhat less than that.
But it is a lot of money and we would be saying to the
Governors and the mayors,
``Let us see what you can do with this. Take this
money and combine it with yours, combine it with
private money and we will be the enablers. We will not
be the mandaters,''
and we will respect what the Louisiana State superintendent
said, which was they have this council to try to take these big
buckets and make them work together. And he said, ``The
greatest barrier to implanting a pre-Kindergarten program in
Louisiana was the fragmentation of it.''
So we will have that proposal because of the great need in
our country for more effective early childhood development. And
then, we will work together as we always do to see where we end
up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think that is good news because we have
philosophical differences, I understand that in this committee,
but as Senator Alexander has always said, we probably have the
most philosophically divergent committee in the entire Senate.
Senator Alexander. But the most productive.
The Chairman. But the what?
Senator Alexander. The most productive.
The Chairman. The most productive. We do get things done.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
The Chairman. And that is because we work together and we
hammer these things out, and I look forward to hammering this
one out, and getting something done so we can mark-up a good
bill and address this issue. So I appreciate Senator Alexander,
has always been great to work with, and I see no reason why we
cannot hammer this one out too one way or the other.
Thank you very much. You have been great witnesses. And I
hope that you will be available for further questions and input
as we begin to develop this legislation in the next month or
so.
Thank you all very much.
The record will stay open for 10 days for Members to submit
statements or other questions.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Tadeo Saenz-Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of
Inspire Development Centers, Sunnyside, WA and Board Member and CEO
Affiliate President of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
Association
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Murray, and
members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on
behalf of the farmworker families and children I work with in
Washington State and my colleagues with National Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start Association, for allowing us to participate in today's
hearing by submitting this statement for the record.
I am the chief executive officer (CEO) at Inspire Development
Centers, an Early Care and Education agency with the mission to inspire
growth, learning and success in life; one child, one family and one
community at a time. We are one of the largest providers of services in
the State with presence in twenty-three (23) rural communities. I am a
resident of rural Washington and a proud naturalized citizen of the
United States of America.
I congratulate members of the committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions for recognizing the importance early childhood
education plays in the positive development of all aspects of our
society and in preparing our children to lead our country into the
great future I am sure you, as I do, foresee. I offer this statement
both as a citizen and on behalf of the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
community and I share some of our experiences working with low-income
Latino children and farmworkers. I also offer to assist or be a
resource to the committee in the coming months, as you consider the
Strong Start for America's Children Act (S. 1697), a bill that promises
to make quality early learning available to all children.
The National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association is a
membership association that includes and represents Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start directors, staff, parents, and friends from across
the country. Every year some 30,000 children along with their families
are served by Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs operating across
the country. All of the families we serve have incomes that are well
below the poverty line and over 90 percent of the children we serve are
Latino. By advocating for resources, creating partnerships, and
affecting public policy, we support our members and their work to
educate and empower farmworker families.
As background, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) was launched
in 1969, 4 years after Congress authorized Head Start. MSHS was created
to ensure that the educational advantages made available to low-income
children through Head Start were available to the children of
farmworkers and the MSHS model was designed specifically to address the
unique needs of farmworker families and their young children. Over the
last 40-plus years, we have learned some important lessons about how to
effectively reach and provide quality education and comprehensive
services to farmworker families and their young children and we
appreciate the opportunity to share our insights with the committee.
I would like to describe several core challenges that face
farmworker families and explain how MSHS programs work to overcome
those challenges in order to serve these families and their children.
the demands of agricultural labor
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is unique in that parents are
required to work in order to qualify for services. In order for a child
to be eligible for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start a family must
demonstrate that over half of the family's annual income was earned in
agricultural work. Most of our families have two parents working in the
field and according to the U.S. Department of Labor the average
farmworker family earns less than $10,000/year and has no health
benefits. Farm labor keeps adults in the field for up to 10 hours a day
and often 6 days a week during the harvests and exposure to pesticides
is common.
Migrant farmworker families face additional challenges as they move
within a State or across State lines for work. On average, a migrant
farmworker family will move two to three times a year in pursuit of
agricultural work often following one of three traditional migrant
streams within States and across State lines as their seasonal
agricultural work demands. In most communities, local childcare
resources are not available, especially for infants and toddlers, when
farmworker families arrive and when resources are not available,
parents have no choice but to arrange for unlicensed childcare
relationships or take their children with them to the fields where they
are exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat, and other
health dangers. The attached map shows some of the most common migrant
streams, but to be clear, families move up, down and across the country
to meet the needs of America's farmers and the agriculture industry,
wherever that need may be. Indeed, the past President of the National
Migrant Head Start Association's Parent Affiliate travels each year
between Fort Meade, FL where his family harvests oranges and other
seasonal crops, to Sunnyside, WA where his family harvest apples and
cherries.
To accommodate the demands of the labor market and effectively
serve farmworker families, MSHS programs operate seasonally, some for 2
months and others for 6 months, as needed. During the peak agricultural
season MSHS programs are open up to 7 days a week for 8 to 14 hours a
day to accommodate the needs of parents working in the field or packing
houses.
MSHS providers work to coordinate services within and across State
lines as families migrate during the year. Our programs maintain an
effective network that provides seamless services to children and their
families, transfer academic and medical records and avoid disrupting a
child's education.
Bernarda Alatore came to Inspire Development Centers as a migrant
seasonal farmworker, a single mother of four children, three of whom
were in need of special services. Ms. Alatore migrated from Oregon,
where she received Head Start services, to find work for herself in
Washington State. She began to work in the fields harvesting a variety
of seasonal crops. She brought her children to Inspire Development
Centers in Pasco, WA where she felt confident that her children's needs
would continue to be served by the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
program that she had come to rely on for her children's early education
and personal growth needs. Her determination to make a better life for
herself and her family prompted her involvement with our Family Service
Workers who assisted her with setting goals and accessing local
resources to help her achieve those goals. She gained confidence and
began to develop her abilities and soon was very involved with the
Child Development Center. She served as a member of the Policy Council
and was chosen to attend the Public Policy Forum in Washington, DC. Ms.
Alatore worked actively in the community as an advocate for the Pasco
Center and was involved in volunteer recruitment activities. Ms.
Alatore continued setting new goals for herself and her children and
she recently started her own business working out of her home. Ms.
Alatore has enjoyed success in this endeavor and feels she has reached
a comfortable position in her personal life in which she can better
support her children's goals.
parent involvement
As I mentioned, MSHS is unique in that parents are required to work
in order to qualify for services. Most of our families have two parents
working in the field and despite working long hours in very difficult
conditions, our parents are very involved in the operation of the Head
Start center and their children's education. They understand the
importance of building a partnership with their child's educational
programs and they are engaged. For example, to address the 30 million
word gap, parents are taught in evening sessions how to expand how they
talk with their children by taking a book home each day and doing a
lap-time session each evening. Parents quickly realize their power in
helping their children gain vocabulary and concepts in their home
language, which is easily converted as the children learn English. We
know parent engagement is an essential element of our success and the
success of our Migrant and Seasonal Head Start graduates.
MSHS program directors work with parents to make sure meetings and
trainings are scheduled when and where parents can participate. This
requires flexible staff, willing to work evenings and weekends to meet
with parents when they are not working. Staff must be bilingual and
culturally competent to engage parents in a meaningful way and earn
their trust. Latino families value education, see it as the way out of
poverty and when they learn to expect success from their children, it
happens.
I'd like to share the story of Mr. Mendoza, a Head Start parent
since 2012, and currently the Secretary of the Migrant Seasonal Head
Start policy council for the Community Action Partnership of San Luis
Obispo (CAPSLO) in California. Mr. Mendoza attended CAPSLO's Male/
Father Engagement groups in 2012, a program that uses the Abriendo
Puertas Curriculum, the Nation's first evidence-based parent leadership
and advocacy curriculum for Latino parents with children under the age
of 5. The following year, after he and his family migrated back to
Santa Maria from Oxnard, CA, he situated his children at the Cielito
MSHS center and attended the second round of Male/Father Engagement
groups. Mr. Mendoza made it a goal to become more engaged as a Head
Start parent after he attended these classes. He decided he wanted to
serve in a leadership position on the MSHS policy council because he
knew people listened to him and he could make a difference giving a
voice to other parents and a role model. Mr. Mendoza's story
illustrates the power of parent engagement and I am happy to report
that I frequently hear stories like Mr. Mendoza's from MSHS programs
across the country.
providing comprehensive and culturally appropriate services
Like all Head Start programs, MSHS programs are interdisciplinary,
which means we focus on education, health (physical, dental, and
mental), social services, nutrition, and parent engagement. And like
all Head Start programs we firmly believe that providing comprehensive
services to children and families is essential to our success.
Approximately 84 percent of the farmworker families we serve speak
Spanish as a primary language at home and our programs are designed and
staffed to ensure that children and families are provided with
linguistically and culturally appropriate services and opportunities to
learn and grow.
first to serve infants and toddlers
Since launched in 1969, well before the Early Head Start was
created in 1994, MSHS programs have had the opportunity to serve
eligible children from 6 weeks to 5 years of age. As a result, all MSHS
facilities are designed to serve babies, toddlers, and preschoolers in
one building. Our programs are recognized experts in the comprehensive
care and development of children from birth through school-age
attendance. On average some 75 percent of the children enrolled in MSHS
programs are under 4 years of age and infants and toddlers comprise
more than half of the children on the MSHS waiting lists. MSHS programs
receive one grant to serve eligible children and with the exception of
the Early Head Start dollars provided through American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, MSHS programs had not received Early Head
Start funding. We were pleased to have a portion of the fiscal year
2014 Early Head Start expansion funds set aside to enable MSHS programs
to expand services to infants and toddlers. This opportunity to expand
services to serve more infant and toddlers is an important step and we
appreciate the work Senator Harkin, Senator Murray and others did to
make sure the needs of MSHS children were addressed.
I hope the stories and the experiences I have shared will be
instructive as the committee considers legislation, like the Strong
Start for America's Children Act, intended to make quality early
childhood education available to all children and particularly our most
vulnerable. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is a tested and successful
model that is instructive in understanding how a program can
effectively reach and meet the needs of farmworker families. The
challenges that faced farmworkers in 1969 and lead to the creation of
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start--long hours, the seasonal and rural
nature of the work, transportation, language, health and safety
issues--are still in place today and must be addressed as Congress
considers ways to strengthen existing early education programs like
Head Start and or launch new initiatives in partnership with the
States.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Head Start Directors
Association
introduction
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
National Indian Head Start Directors Association (NIHSDA) with regard
to the Strong Start for America's Children Act (Strong Start Act).
NIHSDA has been the recognized voice for American Indian and Alaska
Native Head Start programs for over 30 years. We have always sought to
advocate for the best interests of Native children and their families
through actively educating Federal officials about our programs and the
needs of our communities. Indian Head Start programs have been a vital
part of Head Start since its inception in 1965, and we have a wealth of
expertise to offer regarding early childhood education. NIHSDA welcomes
the opportunity to work with the committee as it considers the Strong
Start Act.
Early childhood education in Indian Country. NIHSDA thanks the
sponsors of the Strong Start Act for bringing back to the forefront of
the national conversation the importance of early childhood education
to the future of our country. Just as Head Start has transformed the
lives of millions of low-income children and their families since the
1960s, this legislation presents an opportunity to advance early
childhood education for decades to come. NIHSDA believes that Native
interests are in strong alignment with the goals of the Strong Start
Act. NIHSDA will work closely with Congress to address how the Act can
be tailored to achieve its objectives in the unique circumstances of
Indian Country as well as how the Act can support Native culture and
Native learning processes.
The Constitution of the United States, treaties, Federal statutes,
executive orders, Supreme Court doctrine, and other agreements define
the Federal Government's trust obligation to protect the interests of
Indian peoples, especially in the education and health areas. The
special challenges facing Indian communities require special
consideration in the legislation. Many Indian reservations suffer from
depression-era economics, with terrible crime and health statistics to
match. The Indian reservation poverty rate is 31.2 percent, nearly
three times the national average of 11.6 percent. The Indian
reservation rate is comparable to the national rate at the height of
the Great Depression. The Indian reservation unemployment rate is
approximately 50 percent, ten times the national unemployment rate of
5.2 percent (and on some reservations the rate is 80-90 percent). Most
Indian communities are remotely located and there are no other
resources besides Head Start to address the special needs of young
Indian children who, on a daily basis, must deal with the conditions
described above. The synergistic confluence of all of these negative
factors is often overwhelming. Indian Head Start has been the best
Federal program in place that actually addresses the dire situation in
much of Indian Country, while doing so in a culturally appropriate and
effective manner.
Fully incorporating Native children into the Strong Start Act.
NIHSDA strongly believes that the most effective Federal Indian
programs are the ones that work directly with tribes, such as the Head
Start program, rather than through the States. State involvement or
control over our programs can hinder our ability to shape the most
appropriate and responsive early education programs for children in our
communities. Because tribes have widely varying relationships with
their States, sufficient set-asides for tribal programs are critical to
ensuring that adequate funding is made available to Native communities.
NIHSDA is pleased to see that the idea of set-asides for tribal
programs is built into the Strong Start Act. NIHSDA remains concerned,
however, about the State-centered approach and would like to work with
Congress to ensure that efforts to extend early childhood education
programs to all children do not come at the expense of the ability to
implement effective programs for Native children.
Additionally, creating and sustaining effective programs requires
meaningful consultation with tribes early in the process of drafting
legislation that impacts Indian Country. Congress and the
Administration should reach out to tribal partners to receive much-
needed input on how programs should be implemented in Native
communities.
In the current budget climate, NIHSDA remains concerned about the
scarcity of resources. Indian Head Start programs, as well as the
communities they serve, were hit hard by the effects of sequestration
and budget cuts. If Head Start and the new pre-K initiatives in the
Strong Start Act are not fully funded, their potential will be
seriously compromised. NIHSDA also seeks clarity about how the
initiative will be implemented on reservations and in Native
communities, particularly with respect to the proposed Early Head
Start-Child Care partnership grants. It appears that these grants may
be largely contingent on partnerships with organizations and facilities
that may be in short supply in many areas where American Indian and
Alaska Native children live, or that may at times be incompatible with
the unique needs and interests of Native children. To fully incorporate
Indian children into the benefits of the Strong Start Act, the
particular circumstances of American Indian and Alaska Native
communities must be taken into account.
conclusion
For all Americans, our children are the most precious part of our
lives.
This legislation is an opportunity for America to come together and
invest in our children, creating a brighter future for all. We thank
you for your efforts to ensure access to high-quality early childhood
education throughout the country. We encourage you to engage in
meaningful consultation with tribal communities as this legislation
moves forward. We hope that this is the beginning of a fruitful
collaboration as we work together with you to make our shared dreams a
reality for all our children.
For more information, please contact Teri Stringer at
[email protected] or Greg Smith at [email protected].
Jacki Haight, President.
______
May 12, 2014.
U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey,
Education Policy Office,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
615 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Re: Response to Question from Senator Casey
Dear Senator Casey: Thank you for your question about whether I
worry about Providence and Rhode Island children falling behind their
peers because of limited access to high-quality early learning
opportunities.
As a strong supporter of early childhood learning, I am deeply
concerned that not every child is afforded the same access to education
in the earliest years of life. I understand from personal experience
how critical this early support is to future academic success.
Studies have demonstrated that participation in pre-kindergarten
programs help young people develop important cognitive, behavioral and
problem-solving skills. Pre-kindergarten graduates are more likely to
attend college, maintain a full-time job, and have health insurance.\1\
According to the Economic Policy Institute, lifetime economic benefits
realize a return-on-investment of as much as $11 for each dollar
invested.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``High quality preschool program produces long-term economic
payoff,'' National Institutes of Health, 2/4/2011.
\2\ ``Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation: Rhode Island
Summary,'' Lynch, Economic Policy institute, 7 /9/2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, early childhood learning programs in Rhode Island
and others are severely limited in scope and only serve a small
percentage of children in need. According to the 2014 Rhode Island KIDS
COUNT Factbook, only 2 percent of 4-year-olds in Rhode Island are
currently enrolled in our State-financed Pre-K program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Children enrolled in State Pre-K,'' 2014 Rhode Island KIDS
COUNT Factbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why, as Mayor, I have made early childhood learning a top
priority of my administration.
Our winning initiative, Providence Talks addresses the research
that children growing up in low-income households hear up to 30 million
fewer words than their middle and high-income peers by their fourth
birthday. Thanks to a $5 million investment from Bloomberg
Philanthropies, Providence is empowering parents and caretakers with
the tools and resources necessary to strengthen their household
auditory environments.
I was proud to be able testify in strong support of S. 1697, the
Strong Start for America's Children Act. Thank you for co-sponsoring
this important legislation and for supporting America's first Federal
funding formula for high-quality, full-day pre-kindergarten. This Act
ensures that our youngest learners are afforded the same opportunities
to succeed--not only in Rhode Island, but across our country.
Again, thank you for your leadership in promoting effective early
childhood education.
Sincerely,
Angel Taveras,
Mayor, Providence, RI.
Response of Steven Barnett to Questions of Senator Murray
and Senator Casey
senator murray
In your testimony before the Senate HELP Committee you discussed
some of the positive impacts high-quality early childhood education has
on student's success. As you may know, literacy is critical to a
child's success in school and later in life. Support for early literacy
development should start very early in a child's life, whether that's
in their own home, a child care site, or an early childhood education
program.
Question 1. Can you discuss the gap that currently exists in early
literacy opportunities between lower income children and their peers?
Answer 1. The ``literacy gap'' is not simply a static difference
between low-income children and others, but a continuously expanding
gap between children from the most advantaged families and children
from both middle- and low-income families. This gap is remarkably large
for children in middle-income families and becomes twice as large for
children in poverty (Barnett & Nores, 2014). Contributors to the gap
include differences in home and community experiences associated with
parental education and income levels and differences in the experiences
children have because of what parents can purchase for their children
including digital media, visits to zoos, libraries, museums, and even
stores (low-income communities have less print on display and far fewer
children's books readily available), and, of course, good preschool
education programs. The children of high-school dropouts have only a 1
in 10 chance of attending a good preschool program; children of high
school graduates have a 2 in 10 chance of good preschool. Even for the
most educated parents this rises to just 3 in 10 (Barnett & Nores,
2014).
Question 2. How will the Strong Start for America's Children Act
help close the opportunity gap between lower income children and their
peers?
Answer 2. The Strong Start for America's Children Act provides
incentives for States to increase access to quality preschool programs
beginning with those in families under 200 percent of the Federal
poverty line. This will reduce the opportunity gap in two ways. First,
it will increase access to good preschool programs for low- and
moderate-income families, and it will increase access the most for
those who currently have least access. Second, although all children
benefit from high quality programs, language and literacy gains are
larger for children from lower income families.
My overall assessment of the data on program participation is that
Hispanic immigrant families in particular have a very strong need for
such programs because their young children often have extremely low
levels of English language and literacy proficiency. Hispanic parents
also are highly reluctant to send their children to poor or mediocre
quality programs. However, they do send their children at very high
rates to high quality public preschool education programs when these
are available in their community.
senator casey
Questions 1 and 2. Thank you for talking about the elements that
constitute quality early learning, such as low student-teacher ratios
and qualified teachers, and how they are an interconnected network
that, as a whole, creates positive results for children when maintained
over time. What can we do to ensure that programs are looking at
quality in this holistic, and continual, way, and not just checking off
boxes on a list?
How do we maintain quality in the long term? Is it a matter of
ongoing teacher preparation and professional development, or further
reductions in class size? Given that you've talked about quality as a
combination of factors, how should a State looking to improve quality,
but with limited resources, prioritize their investments to get the
greatest improvement in quality?
Answers 1 and 2. Both questions focus on the key question of how to
ensure quality and, thus effectiveness, and the answers are related.
Programs must have a way to measure quality and outcomes for children
across all domains of learning and development. Current measures are
not up to the task. The inexpensive ones are too narrow or unreliable,
while a comprehensive battery is too time consuming and expensive.
Congress could support research and development on better measures of
(1) learning and (2) teaching for young children that could be used in
continuous improvement systems at a reasonable cost in time and money.
It is prohibitively expensive for each State to do this independently.
Two current initiatives to develop kindergarten entry assessments are
useful, but not nearly enough. There should be enough invested in this
effort to create a competitive market place for the best approaches.
Without such an effort I fear that States will adopt poor measures
because they are required to have something for accountability and
evaluation. However, they will largely ignore the results because they
know that the data are unreliable or, worse, they will make high stakes
or costly decisions based on invalid information.
Congress could also provide for more frequent national surveys of
program practices, availability and quality based on actual
observation. The most recently available data are from 2005 and apply
to just 4-year-olds. It would be useful to measure the quality of a
sample of preschool programs nationally at least every 5 years and for
children from birth to 5. Such data also ought to be more widely
disseminated. For example, it is not widely known that the percentage
of preschool teachers scoring good or better on measures of teaching
quality was twice as high in the Northeast as in other regions of the
country in 2005.
Finally, many Federal programs require that recipients of funding
conduct evaluations. Typically these are one shot, point in time
measures of outcomes that are not really capable of producing valid
conclusions about program effects on outcomes and do not produce
results that can be combined or compared. It would be more useful to
require that programs have continuous improvement systems in which data
are used much like a GPS--to tell people how to get to their goals from
where they are and make course corrections as needed.
Response of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst to Question of Senator Casey
You have said that you're not advocating reducing Federal spending,
but targeting it. Currently, Head Start serves children below the
Federal poverty line. Most children receiving Federal child care
subsidies are from families with incomes below 150 percent of poverty.
The Strong Start Act would require States to focus first on 4-year-olds
below 200 percent of poverty, and then they may expand to the same
group of 3-year-olds. These children are not fully served by existing
early learning programs; the three largest programs serve less than
one-third of all eligible low-income children.
Question 1. How much more targeted do you see us getting?
Answer 1. Evidence strongly suggests that children from the most
disadvantaged families are the most likely to benefit from organized
pre-school settings. President Obama's proposal for Preschool for All
provides a strong financial incentive for States to provide free pre-K
for all children. In my view, State and Federal funds would be more
productively deployed to serve children in greatest need rather than to
serve all children. My policy preference is for a sliding scale of
financial support based on family income rather than a hard cutoff such
as 150 percent of the poverty line.
Question 2. How would you determine which families are in the worst
circumstances? How would you get them into services and what would
those services be?
Answer 2. Family income, parental education, and children's
disability and linguistic status could be used to qualify children for
basic services (e.g., center-based care) funded by the taxpayer on a
sliding scale. Additional funds would be available for intensive
services (e.g., home visiting) for children with exceptional needs,
based on evaluations and recommendations by social service, child care,
and health care providers. Families would be in the driver's seat in
determining which services to obtain for their children, but States
would be required to help parents through the collection and provision
of information on the quality and characteristics of individual service
providers and through web-based tools to help parents shop and nudge
them toward good selections.
Question 3. You have previously said that $7,000-$8,000 should be
enough for families to purchase good care. Do you really think you can
find good quality infant-toddler care for that amount? The average cost
of infant care falls beneath that level in only 15 States, and exceeds
$10,000 in 19 States--and these are for current levels of quality that
aren't very high.
Answer 3. You are, presumably, referring to an answer I gave to a
member question during a House Education and Workforce Committee
hearing in February 2014. Rep. Tierney asked whether the cost of early
education of $5,000 to $10,000 per student would be equivalent to the
cost of a voucher in a Federal voucher system. I replied that
contingent upon the geographic region and the age of the child a $7,000
to $8,000 voucher would allow for quality childcare. I was referring
specifically to the cost of center-based care for 3- and 4-year-olds.
This is the age group on which Preschool for All is focused. Full-day
infant and toddler care is considerably more expensive, as indicated in
your question, and as recognized in my answer to Representative Tierney
in which I noted that costs are contingent on the age of the child.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]