[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATE LEADERSHIP
OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 13, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-143 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
____________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Duncan Hunter, California Virginia
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Jared Polis, Colorado
Luke Messer, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Northern Mariana Islands
David Brat, Virginia Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark Takano, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Donald Norcross, New Jersey
Francis Rooney, Florida Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Adriano Espaillat, New York
A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia
Ron Estes, Kansas
Karen Handel, Georgia
Brandon Renz, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
Duncan Hunter, California Jared Polis, Colorado
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Luke Messer, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
David Brat, Virginia Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Susan A. Davis, California
Karen Handel, Georgia
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 13, 2017.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education............. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown Barnes, Ms. Cindy, Director of Education Workforce and
Income Security, Government Accountability Office.......... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Harris, Ms. Pamela, President and CEO, Mile High Montessori
Early Learning Centers..................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Maas, Ms. Ericca, Executive Director, Close Gaps By 5........ 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Stevens, Dr. Katharine, Resident Scholar, Education Policy
Studies, American Enterprise Institute..................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional Submissions:
Mr. Polis:
The Head Start Advantage................................. 73
Article: Head Start: Keeping It Real..................... 82
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATE LEADERSHIP
OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
----------
Thursday, July 13, 2017
House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Garrett, Handel, Polis,
Fudge, Bonamici, Davis, and Wilson.
Also Present: Representatives Foxx, and Scott.
Staff Present: Michael Comer, Press Secretary; Kathlyn Ehl,
Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
Kelley McNabb, Communications Director; James Mullen, Director
of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel;
Michael Woeste, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/
Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Press
Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Director of Education
Policy; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman,
Minority Staff Assistant; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Director
Health Policy/Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Kevin McDermott;
Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Alexander Payne, Minority
Education Policy Advisor, and Veronique Pluviose, Minority
General Counsel.
Chairman Rokita. Good morning. A quorum being present the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education will come to order. Welcome to today's subcommittee
hearing. I would like to thank our panel of witnesses and my
colleagues for joining today's important discussion on the
effectiveness of early childhood education programs.
You know, a child's early development lays critical
groundwork for he or she to succeed in the future. So, while a
parent is the ultimate decider of what is best for their own
children's early development the federal government has had a
role in child care for over 50 years.
With enactment of the Head Start Act in 1965, a byproduct
of President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, the federal
government established its role helping promote healthy
development of vulnerable children in their earliest and
arguably most important years.
While Head Start provided greater access to early childhood
education for vulnerable family, like many Johnson-era programs
the federal government's involvement in this space has
mushroomed into an overly burdensome, costly, and confusing
network or program.
Today, GAO will testify on their new report which finds the
federal government provides support for early childhood
services through 44 separate programs, nine of which have an
explicit purpose to do so at an annual cost of more than $15
billion. The two largest are the Head Start and the Child Care
and Development Block Grant programs, and we will hear that the
agencies have done a better job at improving their
communications and operating these programs, but that overlap,
duplication, and fragmentation among the programs,
unfortunately, remains.
Finding an early childcare or education program is an
important decision for many working parents and families. The
federal government should not be making the job of navigating
the system even more difficult through a confusing maze of
federal programs. Luckily for parents, states have stepped up
to the plate.
Recently we have seen states take the lead in operating
early childhood programs, as well as increased funding for this
area. For example, my home state in Indiana has launched a
promising new pilot program aimed at helping low income Hoosier
children access a free, high-quality pre-K education.
In 2016 alone states increased funding by a combined $480
million in early childhood programs. Now, this is an increase
of 6.8 percent from the previous year.
Now, we will hear today, I assume, examples of how states
are finding a better way for children and are helping small
businesses innovate and improve their services to their
employees. States have recognized that they are better
positioned to help parents when it comes to choosing the
services that are best for their child.
And now for those of us that want to see the federal
government take a diminished role in deciding what is best for
our children in terms of education I think this is excellent
news. States understand their local communities best and
understand what works and what does not work for their children
and their parents within the state.
So, today we will hear about the positive impacts of state-
centered early childhood programs. Additionally, we will hear
testimony on just how large and cumbersome federal involvement
has become. I hope this conversation will help us consider how
we might address the redundancies and inefficiencies throughout
these programs. In short, I hope the conversation is
constructive and productive.
Early childhood development is a critical issue because we
are talking about the future students, future citizens, and
future leaders in the workforce. In short, our best assets. At
the same time, we have a responsibility to reevaluate the
current climate and make sure the tax payer investments are
being used effectively.
I look forward to a discussion about the ways we can better
meet the needs of American children, families, and taxpayers
alike. So with that, I know recognize Ranking Member Polis for
his opening remarks.
Mr. Polis?
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning, and welcome to today's subcommittee hearing. I'd like
to thank our panel of witnesses and my colleagues for joining today's
important discussion on the effectiveness of our early childhood
education programs.
A child's early development lays critical groundwork for he or she
to succeed in the future.
While a parent is the ultimate decider of what is best for their
own child's early development, the federal government has had a role in
childcare for over 50 years.
With enactment of the Head Start Act in 1965, a by-product of
President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, the federal government
established its role helping promote healthy development of vulnerable
children in their earliest--and arguably--most important years.
While Head Start provided greater access to early childhood
education for vulnerable families, like many Johnson-era programs, the
federal government's involvement in this space has mushroomed into an
overly-burdensome, costly, and confusing network of programs.
Today, GAO will testify on their new report which finds the federal
government provides support for early childhood services through 44
separate programs, nine of which have an explicit purpose to do so at
an annual cost of more than $15 billion. The two largest are the Head
Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant programs. We will
hear that the agencies have done a better job at improving their
communications in operating these programs, but that overlap,
duplication, and fragmentation among programs remain.
Finding an early childcare or education program is an important
decision for many working parents and families. The federal government
should not be making the job of navigating the system more difficult
through a confusing maze of federal programs.
Luckily for parents, states have stepped up to the plate. Recently,
we have seen states take the lead in operating early childhood
programs, as well as increase funding for this area. For example, my
home state of Indiana has launched a promising new pilot program aimed
at helping low-income Hoosier children access a free, high-quality pre-
k education.
In 2016 alone, states increased funding by a combined $480 million
in early childhood education programs. This is an increase of 6.8
percent from the previous year.
We will hear today examples of how states are finding a better way
for children, and are helping small businesses innovate to improve
their services.
States have recognized that they are better positioned to help
parents when it comes to choosing the services that are best for their
child.
For those of us who want to see the federal government take a
diminished role in deciding what is best for our children in terms of
education, this is excellent news.
States understand their local communities best, and understand what
works and does not work for the children and parents within the state.
Today, we will hear about the positive impacts of state centered
early childhood programs.
Additionally, we will hear testimony on just how large and
cumbersome federal involvement has become. I hope this conversation
will help us consider how we might address the redundancies and
inefficiencies throughout these programs.
Early childhood development is a critical issue because we are
talking about future students, future citizens, and future leaders in
the workforce. At the same time, we have a responsibility to re-
evaluate the current climate and make sure that taxpayer investments
are being used effectively. I look forward to a discussion about the
ways we can better meet the needs of American children, families, and
taxpayers alike.
______
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot emphasize
enough the importance of this hearing highlighting the
importance of early childhood programs. Support for our
investment in making quality early childhood education a
reality for every child in our country has broad support from
across the political spectrum because it simply makes sense.
As a father of a three- and a 5, year-old I get to see this
firsthand at home every day. Support for early childhood
education expands across the ideological spectrum. According to
a recent poll 82 percent of Republicans and 97 percent of
Democrats believe we should make quality early education more
prevalent.
It is not just the public who sees the benefit. The
academic and research side results are also completely clear.
The advantages of high-quality early childhood education
include higher graduation rates, improved job outcomes, longer
life expectancies, lower rates of criminal acts, higher
attendance, and greater academic achievement.
Noble Prize winning economist James Heckman estimates that
society receives $7.30 in benefits for every dollar invested in
high-quality early learning programs for at risk kids. But
despite the nearly unanimous findings about the value of early
learning our country continues to rank third to last among
developed nations for enrollment of three- to 5- year-olds.
As law makers, I hope that my colleagues join me in finding
this unacceptable. The lack of access to early childhood
education is something we experience firsthand in Colorado. The
Colorado Preschool Program, or CPP, helps provide preschool for
at-risk kids in our state, but has a very limited number of
slots.
Students enrolled in our Colorado Preschool Program come
from low income families or dual language learners or in foster
care or of another variety of high-risk factors, and compared
to their peers who do not participate in our preschool program,
the Colorado Preschool Program students are much less likely to
be held back and more likely to perform well in school, even
years after preschool.
And while our Colorado Preschool Program is an important
step, and it is opening the door for many families, it is not
nearly enough. Our Colorado Department of Education estimated
that over 8,000 at risk four year olds had no preschool
available to them through CPP or Head Start, and many more
middle class and non-at-risk kids also did not have those
opportunities.
Overall, in our state, only about half of our four year
olds are in preschool. The lack of availability and the rising
costs of childcare hits working families especially hard;
parents who cannot afford or do not have access to high-quality
childcare. I represent a district with two, large four-year
universities and many community colleges, and I hear many
stories of college students who have children who struggle to
find childcare for their kids.
Strong investments at the local, state, and federal level
in early learning will make an enormous positive difference for
our economy, for our future, and for the children. Fortunately,
at the state level both red and blue governors agree on the
benefits of early childhood education. The National Governors
Association included early learning support and investment in
its platform for the very first time.
In many states, including states led by both Republican and
Democratic governors are making bold investments in early
learning with the support of federal programs like Preschool
Development Grants.
These states look at the data and are making sound
decisions knowing that the data shows that the early years of a
child's life truly lay the foundation for success in later
years. They also see the federal government as an important
partner in efforts to expand access to quality early childhood
learning and improve life outcomes.
Frankly, the debate about the efficacy of early learning is
over. It is simply undeniable that high-quality early childhood
education has lifelong benefits for kids. So, together, we now
need to think creatively about how we can further support,
expand, grow quality of early learning, creating more
opportunities for children and for families across our country.
I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their
day to join us to help improve the knowledge of this committee,
and I look forward to hearing about what more the federal
government can do to help improve access to early learning
opportunities, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing. Support for
public investment to make quality early childhood education a reality
for every child has broad support from across the political spectrum.
As a father of a three and five year old this is not merely a partisan
issue, but a personal one.
According to a 2017 poll sponsored by the First Five Years Fund,
82% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats believe that we should make
quality early education more affordable and prevalent.
It's not just the public who sees the benefits of early learning,
the extensive research is clear too. The advantages of high-quality
early childhood education include higher graduation rates, improved job
outcomes, and longer life expectancies. Long-term, Nobel Prize-winning
economist James Heckman estimates society receives $7.30 in benefits
for every $1 invested in high-quality early learning programs.
Despite the nearly unanimous findings about early learning, our
country ranks third-to-last amongst all developed nations for
enrollment of three- to five-year olds. As lawmakers we should all find
these results absolutely unacceptable.
The lack of access to early childhood education is something we've
experienced firsthand in my home state of Colorado. The Colorado
Preschool Program, or CPP, helps provide preschool for at-risk kids in
our state.
Students enrolled in CPP are those who may come from low-income
families, are dual language learners, are in foster care, or a range of
other factors. Compared to their peers who don't participate in CPP,
CPP students are less likely to be held back and more likely to perform
well in school even years after preschool.
CPP is an important step, and it's opening doors for families
across our state. But it's not enough. The Colorado Department of
Education predicts that nearly 8,400 at-risk four-year olds had no
preschool available to them through CPP or Head Start in the 2015-16
school year.
For those 8,400 four-year olds, it's simply not fair that they
won't have the same access and opportunity because there aren't enough
slots in our system.
Overall, only half of Colorado's three- and four-year olds are in
preschool.
The lack of availability and the rising cost of childcare hits
working families especially hard. Many parents can't afford or don't
have access to high-quality childcare. I represent several large four-
year universities and community colleges in my district. I've heard
countless stories of college students who have children who struggle to
find the childcare their kids need.
Strong investments - at the local, state, and federal levels - in
early learning will make an enormous positive difference for our
future. But President Trump is running in the other direction. His
administration proposes to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in
federal funding for early childhood education.
Fortunately at the state level, both red and blue state governors
agree on the benefits of early childhood education. The National
Governors Association, for the first time, included early learning
support and investment in its platform. And many states, those led by
both Republican and Democratic governors, are making bold investments
in early learning with the support of federal programs like preschool
development grants. These states know that the early years of a child's
life lay the foundation for success in later years. They also know that
the federal government is a partner, not a burden, in efforts to expand
access to quality early learning and improve life outcomes.
The debate about the efficacy of early learning is over. It's
undeniable that high-quality early childhood education has lifelong
benefits for kids. Together, we should think creatively about how we
can further support early learning and create more opportunities for
more children.
I thank the witnesses for taking time out of their day to come
testify and look forward to hearing from them about what more the
federal government can do to ensure all children have access to
quality, affordable, early learning opportunities.
I yield back.
______
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to
turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses. First,
Ms. Cindy Brown Barnes is director with the Education Workforce
and Income Security Team at the Government Accountability
Office. Welcome, Ms. Barnes.
Dr. Katharine Stevens is a resident scholar in education
policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome,
as well, Doctor.
And I will now turn to Mr. Polis again to introduce our
next witness.
Mr. Polis. We are very excited to have Dr. Pamela Harris
with us who is the president and CEO of Mile High Learning
Center, Denver's largest and oldest provider of early care and
education in Denver. They reach over 9,000 children annually
with high-quality learning centers and community outreach,
including parents. She has over 25 years of experience in
education with a focus on early childhood and vulnerable
populations.
She has directed Head State Grantee and Delegate programs,
most recently received an Early Head Start and Child Care
Partnership grant. Dr. Harris was also instrumental in
developing Colorado's early learning and development guidelines
and the state's Early Childhood Workforce Plan 2020, and we are
excited to welcome her here today.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman, and not to be
outdone, and finally, Ms. Ericca Maas is the executive director
of Close Gaps by 5 which seems self-explanatory. I am sure we
are going to hear even more about your program.
I now ask our witnesses to each raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Okay. Let the record reflect that each witness nodded in
affirmation.
[Witnesses sworn]
Chairman Rokita. Before I recognize each of you to provide
your testimony let me briefly explain the lighting system, and
it goes just as much as a reminder for us up here as it does
for you. You each have 5 minutes to present your testimony.
When you begin, of course, the light will turn green. When you
have one minute left it will be yellow, and when it is red that
means I will start gaveling you, so please try to wrap it up,
and that goes the same for 5 minutes of questioning up here.
So, with that I would like to recognize Ms. Barnes for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF CINDY BROWN BARNES DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION WORKFORCE
AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Brown Barnes. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis,
and members of the subcommittee I am pleased to be here to
discuss the report we are issuing today on federally funded
early learning and childcare programs. Millions of children age
5 and under participate each year in federally funded
preschool, other early learning programs, or childcare.
Historically, early learning program focus on preparing
young children for school. In contrast, childcare programs
subsidize these costs for low income parents who worked. Over
time, the distinction between these two types of programs has
blurred somewhat as policymakers seek to make educationally
enriching care available to more young children.
Today I will cover one, the number and funding of programs
that comprise the federal investment in early learning and
childcare. Two, the extent to which these programs are
fragmented, overlap, or are duplicative, and the efforts
agencies have made to address these conditions, and three, what
is known about program performance.
Today's report updates previous work we did on this topic
in 2012 and in 2014. Overall, we identified 44 programs and
three tax expenditures that may provide or support early
learning or childcare. While the overall number is similar to
our 2012 review there are several differences due to such
factors as programs ending or beginning in the intervening time
period.
As shown on the figure on the monitor, nine of the 44
programs have an explicit purpose of providing early learning
or childcare services. That is these services are part of their
main mission. Seven of these programs focus on early learning,
and two focus on childcare.
In fiscal year 2015 these programs received about $15
billion in federal funds. Some are very large, such as Head
Start, which obligated nearly $9 billion that year. While most
others are smaller and obligated less than $500 million each.
The remaining 35 programs do not have an explicit early
learning or childcare purpose, but permit funds to be used for
such services.
For example, worker development programs authorized by the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act can pay for childcare
to enable participants to attend these activities, and the
Child and Adult Care Food Program provides nutrition assistance
to young children in different settings.
Regarding the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication in early learning and childcare the federal
investment is fragmented, meaning that these programs are
administered by multiple federal agencies. They are
concentrated within the Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services, but three other agencies, six and one federal
state commission are also involved.
Further, some of these programs overlap one another,
meaning they have similar goals and target similar groups of
children. For example, four of the nine programs with an
explicit early learning and childcare purpose target low income
children. However, overlap among programs is limited for a
number of reasons.
For example, some programs target very specific
populations, fund different types of activities, or support
early learning or childcare for young children by providing
food, materials, or other services rather than early learning
or childcare itself. It is harder to tell whether these
programs are duplicative. That is whether they provide the same
services to the same beneficiaries.
This is because of the many different ways the programs are
structured, the wide range of allowable uses for the funds, and
in some cases the limited data on services provided. Also, the
eligibility requirements differ among programs, even for
similar subgroups of children such as those from low income
families.
However, HHS and Education have helped mitigate the effects
of fragmentation and overlap through improved agency
coordination and have followed leading practices for inner-
agency collaboration. For example, in response to needed
actions GAO identified in 2012, HHS and Education expanded
membership of their interdepartmental workgroup on young
children to other agencies with early learning and childcare
programs.
The agencies have also documented their agreements,
dedicated staff time to promote the goals and activities of
this workgroup, and issued joint policy statements.
In terms of program performance, we found that agencies
assess performance for all nine programs with an explicit early
learning or childcare purpose. Additionally, many programs
examine common aspects of performance such as school readiness.
In conclusion, multiple agencies administer the federal
investment in early learning and childcare and have improved
their coordination of these programs. Thank you. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
[The testimony of Ms. Brown Barnes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Barnes. Dr. Stevens, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KATHARINE STEVENS, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, EDUCATION
POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Ms. Stevens. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for
convening today's hearing on opportunities for state leadership
of early childhood programs. My name is Katharine Stevens and I
am a resident scholar in education policy studies at the
American Enterprise Institute where I lead AEI's early
childhood program.
My research is focused on the science of brain development
and its implications for early care and education policy,
especially the role of early learning in expanding opportunity
for low income Americans. The views I offer today are mine
alone.
Before my current position at AEI, I worked for nine years
in higher education, followed by 15 years in K-12 school
reform. Having worked at every level of the education
continuum, I have come to believe that early childhood is
perhaps the most exciting and crucial area of U.S. domestic
policy. So, it is a special honor for me to testify before the
subcommittee today on this topic.
As is now widely known, a growing body of scientific
research has established that the first 5 years of life are the
most crucial period of human development. What we also know is
that the education process is cumulative. Each stage builds on
the prior one, and research shows that, in fact, gaps between
higher and lower income children emerge long before children
start school.
Many children enter school unprepared to succeed and
research shows that schooling, largely, does not close those
initial gaps. Improving the well-being of America's youngest,
most vulnerable children is crucial to both their life chances
and our nation's future. Yet, even as science underscores the
importance of early childhood, federal policy has lagged
behind.
Since 1935 the federal government has supported early care
and education for poor children and still has a critical role
but the policy making legacy of the past 80 years has left us
with two core problems. The first problem is that integrating
disparate federal funding streams to best serve children and
family at the state and local levels is difficult, at best, and
often impossible.
Not all states are equally committed to improving early
care and education. But those that are working hard to do so
find their efforts hampered by current federal policy.
The second problem is that federal programs strongly
reflect the commonly made, but false distinction between
childcare and early education. Research has established that
young children are continuously and rapidly learning wherever
they are and from whomever they are with starting at birth.
We have long thought of school as where children learn, but
the reality is that every environment, whether home, school, or
childcare is a learning environment for young children. In
fact, childcare is unique among early childhood programs
precisely because it serves multiple purposes. By promoting the
complementary aims of adult responsibility and self-sufficiency
on the one hand, and healthy child development on the other,
childcare offers a valuable strategy for two generation human
capital development in America's most disadvantaged
communities.
We know that family and child well-being are inextricably
linked. Indeed, today's early care and education programs must
have two purposes: supporting parents' work in a 24/7 economy
and advancing children's healthy growth and learning during the
most crucial period of human development. But current federal
policy fails to realize the significant potential of this dual
generation approach to help children and their parents move
ahead at the same time.
Federal early childhood programs still play a key role in
addressing inequality of opportunity and lack of economic
mobility for disadvantaged children. But the context has
changed enormously since our major federal early childhood
programs were first put into place.
Unlike half a century ago, today the strongest leadership
in early childhood is emerging from forward looking states. The
best path now for federal policy is to build on this growing
state momentum by identifying, supporting, and highlighting the
work of leading innovative states.
Our goal should be to amplify the impact of currently
siloed programs aiming to build states' capacity to support low
income working families and give American's most vulnerable
young children the strong start they need to thrive.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony before this subcommittee on such an important topic.
I look forward to your questions.
[The testimony of Ms. Stevens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Harris, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF PAMELA HARRIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MILE HIGH
MONTESSORI EARLY LEARNING CENTERS
Ms. Harris. Thank you and good morning Chairman Rokita,
Ranking Member Polis, and members of the committee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify today about early childhood
programs. As Mr. Polis said, I am an early childhood education
provider in Denver and we work in the most impoverished
neighborhoods there.
We have an enormous responsibility. Children are born with
100 billion neurons. That is as many stars as are in the Milky
Way, and it is through interactions with responsive, caring
adults that children thrive. Eighty-five percent of brain
development occurs before a child even enters kindergarten and
delays in development appear as early as 9 months old. And if a
child is not reading proficiently in third grade, they are four
to six times less likely to graduate high school.
Reaching children in their critical years, as you have
heard, is very important and it is federal early learning
programs that target unique populations or specific needs that
are complementary and not duplicative help us do our work.
We serve 384 Head Start and Early Head Start children and
our families live in poverty. By using Head Start's whole child
approach, focusing on cognitive, physical, social, and
emotional development while supporting their families we can
really make a difference and this shows in our school readiness
for our children.
In the fall, only 60 percent of our children are meeting
developmental levels, but by the end of the year, more than 90
percent are meeting those same benchmarks. Head Start is really
the original two generation program, and its model, federal to
local funding, allows programs to be responsive to the specific
needs of their community.
We have seven early learning centers. One serves
predominantly Spanish speaking families. One serves refugee
families who speak over 20 languages, and one is in a
historically black neighborhood impacted by gentrification.
Across Colorado, Head Start programs in rural and farming
communities, in the mountains, and on the plains in Western
Slope, and Eastern plains they are working locally to
collaborate and leverage services to meet the needs of their
specific families.
Through the federal Early Learning Challenge grant that
Colorado was awarded, we developed a quality rating and
improvement system for licensed childcare providers using Head
Start performance standards as quality indicators. One hundred
and sixty families in my program access childcare subsidies
through the Childcare Development Block Grant, CCDBG, while
they are working or going to school to improve their families'
lives. And in Colorado, the state has invested additional
funding for subsidies to serve infants and toddlers.
IDEA provides funding for early intervention services for
children birth to 5. Approximately 15 percent of our children
enrolled have disabilities and we partner with our school
district to support toddlers with delays as they transition to
preschool. And the most recent federal changes in Head Start
and CCDBG continue to ensure and emphasize high-quality
services for children and families.
However, gaps in ensuring access exist. While subsidies
help defray the cost of childcare they do not meet the full
cost and do not support parents working non-traditional
schedules. And due to low wages, there is a severe shortage of
early childhood teachers; turnover rates average 30 percent.
Colorado's Early Childhood Leadership Commission, our
statewide advisory board, with Departments of Education and
Human Services just published an ambitious early childhood
workforce plan to address these issues. The bipartisan Every
Student Succeeds Act encourages greater coordination within
states, requiring local educational agencies to develop
agreements with Head Start.
Our state plan aligns early childhood competencies for
educators who are working with children from birth through age
eight. And we have also benefited with Colorado within the
Departments of Human Services and Education and our Head Start
Collaboration Office. By successfully coordinating these
federal programs at the state and local levels, Colorado has
been better able to address our access and quality gaps.
From discussions over the years with my colleagues from
other states. it is evident that the systemic collaboration has
had similar, positive effects across the country. The benefits
of high-quality early care and education and Head Start are
clear: high rates of high school graduation, attendance at
college, greater income levels, decreased need for special
education services.
The true importance of our work is making sure children
reach their full potential and are contributing members to
their communities. Thank you.
[The testimony of Ms. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Dr. Harris. Ms. Maas, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ERICCA MAAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLOSE GAPS BY 5
Ms. Maas. Thank you. Good morning Mister Chair and members.
My name is Ericca Maas. I am the executive director of a
Minnesota based nonprofit organization called Close Gaps by 5.
We champion the use of targeted early education to close
Minnesota's achievement gaps before children enter
kindergarten.
Our approach has come to be known by some as the Minnesota
model for early learning. Beginning 11 years ago this model was
developed, piloted, and refined by a business-led nonprofit
called the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation or MELF. MELF
sunsetted in 2011; Close Gaps by 5 continues to advocate for
the implementation of its recommendations.
MELF set out to design an early learning model that
specifically addressed achievement gaps. Minnesota has some of
the worst achievement gaps in the nation. The workforce
benefits of closing those gaps are of particular interest to
the business and community leaders supporting this effort.
MELF raised $20 million in private funds and rejected
appropriated government funds so it could be an independent,
honest broker in the debate. MELF used the funding to pilot and
evaluate an approach based on best available research with
pointed to the following core principles: start early, target
resources, empower parents, and insist on quality.
The approach that MELF proved effective has since been
expanded state-wide with help of Governor Mark Dayton,
bipartisan members of the Minnesota Legislature, and a federal
Race to the Top Grant.
The market-based Minnesota model has two primary
components. The parent-aware quality rating and improvement
system which provides good information, helping parents make
informed choices, and early learning scholarships would provide
resources to families who need them most.
Here is how it works. Imagine you are a low income parent
in Minnesota. Because of your circumstances your child is at
high risk of falling into gaps, but you cannot afford high-
quality early learning. Now, imagine that you learn your child
is getting one of about 10,000 early learning scholarships
awarded each year. This scholarship can change the trajectory
of your child's life. Your scholarship empowers you. It opens
the doors to any one of 3,000 proven, high-quality programs
that are based in schools, Head Starts, childcare centers,
churches, nonprofits, and homes.
Rather than having someone else tell you what to do, you
pick a program that fits your family's needs, your preferred
location, schedule, cultural connections, and teaching
approach. Importantly, the act of making that choice engages
you in your child's learning right from the start.
The only requirement is that your scholarship has to be
used at a program that is using kindergarten readiness best
practices, as measured by the consumer report-style Parent
Aware rating system. Beyond the ratings, Parent Aware also
helps small childcare programs learn to adapt to those
kindergarten readiness best practices.
Parent Aware is a completely voluntary program. It works on
a reward system, not with mandates. We are continually working
to refine this model, but the early results are encouraging.
Minnesota children in Parent Aware programs are making
significant gains in kindergarten readiness measures such as
phonics, executive function, vocabulary, social competence, and
early math skills. Low income children are making even larger
gains than their higher income counterparts. We are headed in
the right direction.
In addition to the benefits for children, the model is
helping a struggling childcare sector tap into a larger, new
group of scholarship empowered customers, adopt best practices,
and market improvements to a customer base that now has a new
and deeper appreciation of the need for quality early
education.
Particularly for mom and pop type businesses who tend to
struggle the most, all of this offers a helpful economic shot
in the arm. We also see other important benefits that I have
addressed in my written statement.
Finally, let me just say that Minnesota's early education
debate has focused on whether to invest in this flexible
scholarship-based approach or in a more rigid, universal pre-K
model. Specifically, there is a focus on the extent to which
each of those approaches is aligned to the research-based cored
principles I described at the beginning of my remarks.
Minnesota's achievement gaps was a huge threat to our
economy, children, and communities. To address those gaps
research says we need solutions that start early, are targeted,
empower parents, and demand quality. The scholarship and Parent
Aware approach meets those tests; universal pre-K falls far
short.
It is for this reason that we continue to be strong
advocates for the Minnesota model. I have provided more detail
about this debate in my written statement as well.
In conclusion, you know, this is the model that we have
moved forward with in Minnesota. Scholarships open doors in a
flexible, empowering way. Parent Aware ensures quality
improvement through rewards rather than mandates, and the
winners are small businesses, our most vulnerable children, and
our state's economy. I am happy to answer any questions that
you have. Thank you.
[The testimony of Ms. Maas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Well, thank you, Ms. Maas. We will now
turn to member questions and any statements. And I would first
like to recognize the Chairwoman of the full committee, Dr.
Foxx, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, and I want to thank
all of our witnesses for being here today and sharing their
expertise with us.
Ms. Barnes, welcome back to the Education and Workforce
Committee. You testified there is a limited overlap in
duplication of federal early childhood programs. The graph you
showed claimed that Head Start and Child Care and Development
Fund programs serve different purposes. However, your testimony
states that quote, 'historically early learning and childcare
programs existed separately with separate goals, but over time
the distinction between these two types of questions has
blurred somewhat as policy makers seek to make educationally
enriching care available to more children.'
If your findings indicate these programs' distinctions have
blurred then in a practical sense does the difference between
overlap or duplication matter? And as Dr. Stevens suggests,
shouldn't policy makers look at the breadth of these programs
in totality to determine the best use of tax payers' funds in
this space?
Ms. Brown Barnes. Again, the overlap refers to programs
with the similar goals, activities, or target populations. An
example of both activities and target populations overlapping
would be Head Start and preschool development grants which
target both of them, low income children under 5 and provide
slots for early learning.
An example of programs that provide the same types of
activities are the Early Intervention Program for Infants, and
the preschool grants for children with disabilities. These
programs provide special education services, both of them, but
they target different ages to children 5 and under.
In terms of duplication, it is difficult to determine if
programs are actually duplicative because they would serve the
same beneficiaries and provide the same exact services. Our
report discusses how there is the potential for the
duplication.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Having worked on these issues when I
was in the state as the president of a community college who
built a childcare center on our campus and then worked in the
legislature and served on Smart Start Board in North Carolina,
I have always been concerned about the duplication and also the
expenditures in administrative cost.
I worry a great deal about how much money we spend on
administrative cost as opposed to monies going directly into
services. Dr. Stevens, maybe you can help clarify things from a
more realistic standpoint.
You testified that any setting a child is in, whether it be
their home, a childcare center, or a preschool is inherently
both caring for and educating that child. And I remember very
well the head of Smart Start in North Carolina telling me long
ago when children are playing they are learning. That their
play is their work and their learning.
Do you agree that we should not focus on whether the
programs are overlapping or duplicative, but instead consider
all of the programs as inherently serving the same purpose of
caring for and educating children?
Ms. Stevens. One of the things that I find most exciting
about this area of policy, the area of early care and education
there is no other area of policy that I know of that has such a
strong body of science that so clearly points us in the right
direction. And to me, that is where we need to be starting.
So, what the science is telling is very clearly is that
from the moment of birth children are learning continuously and
rapidly wherever they are and from whomever they are with. It
does not matter what we call it. It does not matter what
funding stream is. It does not matter what building it is
occurring in. We cannot stop them from learning.
So, the question is only the quality of that environment. I
think the best way for us to be thinking about this is
ultimately from a child-centered point of view. Focusing
starting at birth which is when the most--there are 4 million
infants, 4 million children every single year begin and end
their infancy, and what we know from science is that is the
most critical period of learning.
So, the bottom line is we need to be relying on the science
to be making these decisions.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the Chairlady. Mr. Polis, you are
recognized.
Mr. Polis. Point of Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Rokita. Go ahead.
Mr. Polis. I wanted to ask whether the GAO report which was
literally just made available to the Democrats and was not made
available 48 hours ahead of the appearance of this hearing,
whether the delay in the delivery of that is a violation of
Rule 7 Subsection D?
Chairman Rokita. I think the gentleman for his inquiry. It
is not.
Mr. Polis. Okay. If I may speak to the Parliamentary
inquiry for a moment briefly. I just want to express the
dissatisfaction of the Democrats and we obviously are not ready
to discuss the GAO report because we have not read it. It was
literally just made available moments ago. So, perhaps there
can be a future hearing and that addresses, of course, much of
Ms. Barnes testimony.
We are happy to engage on the other topics, but, obviously,
we have not had a chance to read this yet.
Chairman Rokita. Noted. Do you have questions? You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis Dr. Harris, thank you again for being here again
today from Colorado and everything you do for Colorado's
children as a practitioner.
As you know, in Colorado we do not have full day
kindergarten for all of our students. Now, we have made
progress in recent years. It is my understanding about 77
percent of kindergartners are attending full day. Many parents
pay for that, of course. Those that do have access either live
in communities that have full day kindergarten, they pay for it
either through their own tax revenue or just out of pocket in
tuition.
That being said, there are still over 20,000 kindergartners
that are not enrolled in full day. Mile High Learning serves
some of the neediest students in Denver. Do most of your
students make a seamless transition to a full day kindergarten?
Ms. Harris. Yes.
Mr. Polis. And statewide, is there a similar picture or are
there inconsistencies across our patchwork or communities
across our state?
Ms. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Polis. There is inconsistency
actually across the state. There has been a commitment to try
to get full day K. In Denver we have a great relationship with
Denver public schools, so most of our children do transition to
full day kindergarten.
Mr. Polis. What can be done to support the continuity
between early learning and K-12? What more can we do in our
state and nationally?
Ms. Harris. So, part of the ESSA is to do those kinds of
coordination, so really to align what is happening in early
childhood with what is happening in our local educational
agencies and one specific is to help with transitions. So, as
children are coming into public school, into kindergarten after
finishing preschool that there are activities, professional
development for staff.
There are a number of things and it is really looking at
the continuum of childcare from birth to eight, and thinking of
professionals who are in the workforce as professionals.
Mr. Polis. And along those lines, you mention in your
testimony the shortage of high-qualified early childhood
education teachers. You referenced the average compensation of
around $11 an hour. We all know how hard it is to have that as
your vocation and support yourself. Research shows us that the
result is nearly half of childcare workers actually rely on
public assistance to make ends meet.
In Colorado means many childcare workers are, themselves,
eligible for the Colorado Childcare Assistance Program. What
does that mean for teacher turnover? How does it affect quality
that the average rate is about $11 an hour?
Ms. Harris. Well, we know in addition to the wages being
low that compensation, so thinking of healthcare, time off,
paid sick leave, that kind of thing really impacts, especially
many of our staff who come from similar situations as those
families that we serve.
Sorry, do not remember the rest.
Mr. Polis. What does it do to turnover rates and your
ability to retain good early childhood educators?
Ms. Harris. So, I would say in general if we do not have
childcare, continuity of childcare for any parents, so our
teachers, but also parents who are working then the turnover
rate impacts the employment as well as the development of
children.
Mr. Polis. What can we do at the local, state, and federal
level to support early childhood teachers and try to establish
a greater respect and support for the profession?
Ms. Harris. I think it is a great opportunity now. Head
Start has taken the lead in ensuring that at least 50 percent
of teachers have a Bachelor's Degree. We really need to focus
on professional development interaction between children and
their teachers is how they have great outcomes. That supports
brain development.
So, treating teachers as professionals. Currently,
childcare teachers are defined as hourly workers.
Mr. Polis. Dr. Stevens, you recently published a report
making the business case for high-quality childcare which I
very much enjoyed. On July 3rd, the Wall Street Journal
published a story that compared women's participation in labor
force and its implication on economic growth. I wanted to ask
you based on your research can you briefly explain why
investments in childcare are simply a wise decision for our
economy and economic growth?
Ms. Stevens. Yes, as I addressed in a report that was
released a couple of weeks ago, and as I mentioned in my
testimony childcare serves multiple purposes.
So, first of all we know we are laying the groundwork for
children's lifelong learning and success from kindergarten
through their own participation in the workforce, and secondly,
it enables parents to work which enables them to be self-
sufficient, and contributes to overall economic well-being of
communities.
Mr. Polis. So, you draw the numbers both from increased
workforce participation which, for instance, you have an
example in Canada which has led to more women working, as well
as, of course, the longer term benefit which is the child
themselves receiving it. Both of those are factors?
Ms. Stevens. Correct.
Mr. Polis. Okay. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Handel, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Handel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of the witnesses here today. My question is for Ms. Maas. You
explained in your testimony how important it is for families to
choose the type of care that is right for them and for their
child whether that be the location, the schedule, cultural
connections, teaching methods, and other very important aspects
of the program.
Do you think it is appropriate, more so or less so, for
Congress to specify and dictate these aspects of a program or
have you found that it is more important for each community and
program to be able to determine and tailor what works best in
that community for those families?
Ms. Maas. Thank you for your question. So, from our
perspective we do not support either Congress or local
governments controlling program choice. We support individual
parents controlling program choice and really having input into
what is on offer in their community.
And Dr. Harris mentioned some of this in her testimony.
There are a ton of variables in play. In particular, as you
think about childcare also as a workforce support, so the
location. Close to work. Close to home. What makes the most
sense for you. The hours.
We see in a lot of instances in Minnesota, you know,
workers in light manufacturing or food processing working
second shift. We need to provide services to those families. It
is really difficult to know or to set kind of a one size fits
all in terms of schedule or programming options that are on
offer.
So, from our perspective we need to give parents a wider
range of high-quality program choices and let them choose
because they are in the best position to know what works for
them.
Ms. Handel. Thank you. It seems to me that would be an
important aspect of a child-centered approach that would most
succeed.
Ms. Harris. Ms. Handel, I just wanted to share about Head
Start.
Ms. Handel. Actually, thank you. I have a second question,
I do not want to use up my time, for Dr. Stevens. When you gave
your testimony you talked a lot about science and research, and
I was interested in understanding from you how best to promote
rigorous research that would increase the knowledge about what
works best for children and families.
What general questions would that research answer? And what
information are we currently lacking? And how will that benefit
the states and local programs in making the best decisions for
a child-centered program?
Ms. Stevens. Yes, I mean, I think what the science tells us
is general principles of what is crucial for child development.
But, for example, one of the questions that we really do not
know much about is we know that the adults working with
children are the crucial factor for the development of young
children, physical plant, curriculum is not really what matters
for children under 5.
What we do not know is how to identify and develop the
kinds of professionals who will be effective with young
children. What is clear from K-12 is that graduate degrees in
no way ensure high-quality teaching. So, my background is in K-
12. As a matter of fact, my background is in teacher quality
and preparation. I think we have an opportunity to learn from
the mistakes that K-12 has made and approach this in a
different way. I do not want to underestimate. I do not want to
be underestimating how important the quality of that person is,
but we just do not know enough about how to find the right
people and how to prepare them to be effective with young kids.
Ms. Handel. Great. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Fudge, you
are recognized for 5 minutes. Not here. No, we had him crossed
out. We asking questions?
Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Polis for holding his hearing and thank you to our witnesses.
Like many of my colleagues I have visited many programs in
Northwest Oregon. Head Start, Childcare Centers, Childcare
Homes, prekindergarten programs. I was recently out at the
Hillsboro, Oregon Head Start and one of the things that I
really appreciate about Head Start is the family engagement
piece, too. It is really meaningful.
I hear support for high-quality early childhood programs
everywhere I go, and even here this morning. And that is one of
the reasons why I was so troubled to see that this
administration is proposing cutting hundreds of millions of
dollars for early childhood programs including Childcare
Develop Block Grants, Head Start, Preschool Development Grants.
I am pleased that the House appropriators are so far
ignoring many of these proposals, but I am concerned about
Congress' long term commitment to early childhood programs in
light of all the research and all the success.
I also want to note that the current Healthcare legislation
proposes to slash Medicaid and that jeopardizes services for
children, including children with disabilities both in early
childhood and in school settings. And I recently met with the
President of the Oregon Pediatric Society who is extremely
concerned about that.
So that the federal investment in early childhood programs
is essential. It is meaningful. Of course programs need to be
of high-quality to have a lasting benefit and high quality
programs require significant resources, and it is a wise
investment because we know children who get a strong start are
more likely to succeed, less likely to need safety net programs
later.
Are there still, however, many eligible families who
continue to go unserved? And I asked that question when I was
visiting Head Start. There is a lot of unmet need out there, so
clearly there is a role for us here.
And I want to note, I do not think anybody supports funding
duplicative, overlapping programs. We all want to work to make
sure that we are expanding access and making sure that the
resources are going to the families in need. If we can make
these programs better and more assessable, let us do that. We
can do that in a bipartisan way, similar to the bipartisan
Child and Adult Care Food Program bill that Representative
Stefanik and I have reintroduced, streamlining the program
making kids eligible for a third meal when they are in
childcare.
Dr. Harris, I wanted to start by asking you to go ahead and
respond. You wanted to say something about Ms. Handel's
question regarding choice and I want to give you that
opportunity.
Ms. Harris. Thank you. Head Start sets high-quality
standards, but part of that is to be responsive to the
community that they are in. So, there is a structure and a
framework that ensures that teachers are qualified, that there
is comprehensive services. But you also then respond to if you
are in the inner city, if you are in a farming community, so it
really does help support parental choice.
Ms. Bonamici. And I appreciate that. Constituents in my
district, many of them benefit from high-quality migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs. The children and families who
participate in those programs benefit and so does the local
economy, which relies on a productive agriculture sector.
So, I want to ask you about that, but I also want to talk
about the whole child approach. Certainly, we know that is
important. I authored, it has not been reintroduced yet this
year, but a bipartisan resolution demonstrating support for a
whole child approach to education, social, emotional, and
physical well-being.
There are some great examples of that happening in Oregon,
Earl Boyles Elementary School, for example, benefits from those
strong community partnerships, preschool programs. There is
access to housing resources, home visits, adult education
programs, community health professionals, a food and pantry,
and after school learning opportunities, and it really makes a
difference.
So, can you talk about the importance, Dr. Harris, of
addressing all of the needs of families and children and the
long term benefits of that? And then I also want you to address
the importance of tailoring services like the migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs. Go ahead.
Ms. Harris. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Before we run out of time.
Ms. Harris. So, children, as they are developing it is not
just cognitive. It is physical. It is social/emotional. Some
children have different levels of needs which is why the
community partners are important, as well as the relationship
that we have with school districts and IDEA.
Children are learning to think, and so it is not just about
learning ABCs. It is about how to problem solve, how to have
self-regulation skills. And communities, again, are different.
So, the migrant Head Start programs are really clearly focused
on working with the children so that the children have a place
to go, a place to be educated.
The other thing I just wanted to add is that Head Start
asks the community to be engaged. There is a 25 percent in-kind
match. So, the idea is that communities really want to provide
this kind of service to their children and families.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Rokita.--the gentlelady's time is expired. She
yields back.
Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that
yourself and the committee chair have seen fit to bring these
fine individuals in for questions today. I think one of the
existential challenges, and I use that word intentionally,
existential, facing America is the denial of a fundamental
entitlement of American birth, and that is the entitlement to
an opportunity.
That happens to manifest itself, I would argue, by virtue
of geography or ones' zip code. Right? It is the belief of this
member that no child based on any external factor is any less
capable of success than another child, and yet we see pattern
after pattern where our children are not failing our schools,
but instead our schools are failing our children. That is that
it is predictable based on zip code, perhaps, that one child is
far more likely to achieve post-secondary degrees than another
by virtue of where they grew up.
And what I have observed, Mr. Chair, members of the panel
is that there are all too many times a reverse correlation
between per people expenditures and outcomes, and that we work
systematically in some sectors to deny parents the fundamental
opportunity to ensure that their children are enrolled in
institutions where there is a high probability of success.
And so I guess I say that to lead into the 2010 HHS study
that was entitled the Head Start Impact Study that concluded
that Head Start, 'had little or no positive effects for
children who were granted access and that for the four year
group compared similarly situated children not allowed access
to Head Start. The program failed to raise cognitive abilities
on 41 measures, specifically language skills, literacy, math,
and school performance. Of the participation all of the
children all failed to improve.'
Alarmingly, Head Start for the three year old group
actually had a harmful effect on the teacher assessed math
ability of those children once they entered kindergarten.
Teachers reported that non-participating children were more
prepared in math skills than those who participated in Head
Start.
So, I think it is fair to say that what we do in this body
should be judged not on its intent, oh, they meant well, but on
its outcomes, and that the outcomes should be determined based
on not how the child does in kindergarten or first grade, but
how they do when they are 22, when they are 32, when they are
42.
So, I would ask first, Ms. Stevens, where parents are
afforded more choices as it relates to the educational
opportunities available to their children do we not see actual
better outcomes in educational and life achievement amongst
those children? In other words, if you are in a failing school
district, but you are afforded the opportunity to go somewhere
else is that child not more likely to be successful then if you
are not allowed to go somewhere else?
Ms. Stevens. My research focus is on the preschool years,
so birth through four. The same principles apply. I think one
of the very important things for us to remember is that there
are millions of children who today are entering full time
childcare as infants. By the time they enter kindergarten, many
children have been in childcare for over 11,000 hours.
What we know is that those hours are having a tremendous
impact on their development. A full day, full year pre-K
program is a little over 1,000 hours for four year olds. And
the science is clear that the most important period of
development actually occurs before children turn four.
A full time Head Start program, again, most of the children
in Head Start are four, some are three. The majority of those
programs are less than a 500 hours. So, again, the science is
making this very clear.
When children are spending 11,000 hours starting in infancy
in particular environments, those are the environments we need
to look at. Unlike K-12 I would suggest that for low income
parents the problem they are facing is actually a lack of
choice because they do not have the resources and they do not
have the information to make good choices.
Mr. Garrett. And so the uniform product that is held out to
individuals who face that lack of choice historically has not
been successful. I guess the easy question is, is there a
better way to do this? And I have only got 35 seconds.
Ms. Stevens. There are some places where probably Head
Start is the best option that children have, and I do not
support taking that away from children when that is their best
option. What we are seeing is a growing number of states who
are stepping up and are providing a broader range of options--
--
Mr. Garrett. So, I have got 15 seconds with absolutely no
intent to be rude. I think the point is that historically and
foundationally by this nation's charter, if you will, this has
been the manifest responsibility of localities and states, and
that if we empower localities and states to endeavor to create
a better product we will find better products than Head Start.
And so what we might be thinking about is how to allow
people at the local level to determine what is best for their
children. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Rokita. I think the gentleman. Gentleman's time is
expired. Gentleman of Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow through
on that, Dr. Stevens. Head Start has different qualities to it
than some other early childhood education programs. It is
actually housed in Health and Human Services because it
provides a lot of other services.
You indicated that would be the best choice for some
parents. Who would benefit better by Head Start than other
early childhood education programs? Dr. Stevens?
Ms. Stevens. Head Start is a funding stream built around a
set of ideas. What is important about that program are the
ideas. There is nothing more magical about it being called Head
Start than fourth grade.
What we know is some fourth grades work very well for
children and other fourth grades do not work well for children.
The principles are always the same. The question is the
implementation, and what we know is that the more hours that
children are in environments and the younger they are the
bigger the impact it is going to be having on their development
and the more important focusing on quality is. So, Head Start
is one way of approaching that.
Mr. Scott. And is the benefit more profound with low income
rather than upper income children?
Ms. Stevens. The research is clear. Why is that? The reason
for that is children in more advantaged environments are, in
fact, getting a great deal of an investment starting in infancy
at home. In terms of the developmental support they are getting
at home.
So, what early childhood programs do and, in fact, what
childcare is doing for better or for worse is supplementing
what is going on at home. So, if what is going on at home is
for whatever reason insufficient, and then children are in poor
childcare environments, you are exacerbating the problem.
Right?
So, the principles are going to be the same and we need to
be focusing on the principles and what those do for children.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Maas, you indicated that your
program is designed to eliminate the achievement gap by 5. What
do you do to try to achieve that goal?
Ms. Maas. Thank you. Yes, so as I said in my remarks we are
really focused on a set of principles that are about starting
early. So, this year Minnesota's legislature opened the
opportunity of early learning scholarships to infants and
toddlers who are in foster care or are homeless or in a child
protection system. Offering, you know, full day, multiple
years. Children who receive scholarships keep them until they
enter kindergarten, trying to ensure continuity for families.
Portability is a very important principle.
So, as families move because of changes in home or location
those dollars follow the child to make sure that they are
stable in a new, high-quality environment. Of course, insisting
on quality. This is a movement that is happening around the
country and in Minnesota as well. What are the ingredients to a
high-quality early care education setting? How can we support
the existing provider base in offering those best practices?
Those are the----
Mr. Scott. Have you evaluated for results? Have you been
able to achieve your goal?
Ms. Maas. We have not been able to achieve our goal. We are
continuously evaluating for results. I think the thing that has
been more elusive is getting all of the ingredients in place at
the same time. So, starting early, stabilizing children in
high-quality programs for multiple years----
Mr. Scott. And do you have long term evaluations of your
initiatives?
Ms. Maas. Yes, so the private sector in Minnesota has
invested about, you know, a $1 million or more over time. In
evaluating we are committed to continuing that evaluation, and
we feed that evaluation back into the programs to improve them.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Does somebody on the panel know about
Part C under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?
Ms. Harris. I am sorry. I did not understand the question.
Mr. Scott. On Part C, can you talk about the importance of
investments under Part C?
Ms. Harris. Yes, they focus on children from birth to
three. They create an individualized family services plan, so
the idea is that, again, you are engaging families as well as
specialists in supporting the development of their children.
And it is a very specific, defined disability in order to
qualify for that program.
Mr. Scott. Do you have early intervention before
disabilities manifest?
Ms. Harris. Yes, so all of the children in Head Start are
screened as soon as they enter the program and assessed ongoing
throughout the year so that we can provide those intervention
services.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's
time has expired. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Let me start first with Ms. Barnes. You know, on older
reports on this subject on hand today we found that those
reports said, 'fragmentation and program overlap can create an
environment in which programs may not serve children and
families as efficiently or effectively as possible.' And that,
'the existence of multiple programs can create an added
administrative cost such as cost associated with determining
eligibility and meeting varied reporting requirements.'
Are we still adding cost to programs in terms of your
latest review? What do you find? Do we still have a variety of
programs that might not be serving children and families as
efficiently and effectively as possible or did we clean all
that up?
Ms. Brown Barnes. Yes, sure. 2012 review was based on 2010
information, but our current one is based on the fiscal year
2015 obligations, and it was 15 billion with the programs that
we are talking about today. Back then there were 12 programs
with an explicit early learning or childcare purpose, 33 that
allow funds to be spent on such activities, and 5 tax
expenditures. So, a little different from what we found this
time which we found in nine explicit purpose programs, 35 that
allow early learning or childcare spending, and three tax
expenditures.
But for this review we actually removed six programs that
were no longer either funded or for various other reasons such
as Race to the Top, Early Learning Challenge, and we added an
additional eight programs that were not part of our 2012 review
such as Preschool Development Grants. So, there are some
differences, to address that question.
Chairman Rokita. Differences? Does that mean better or
worse?
Ms. Brown Barnes. In terms of better or----
Chairman Rokita. Duplication and costs and all that?
Ms. Brown Barnes. We looked at the performance of the
programs on a very----
Chairman Rokita. So, you did not look at duplication or
anything like that?
Ms. Brown Barnes. Not in terms of overall. We do have some
of that. We did identify that in our report. We talk about some
of the programs that do overlap. In terms of duplication, we
identify potential duplication. I can explain some of that.
Some of the programs have a limited requirement for data,
so it is difficult to determine whether there is actual
duplication.
Chairman Rokita. So, there are 44 programs?
Ms. Brown Barnes. There are 44 programs.
Chairman Rokita. And you cannot tell which ones are likely
overlapping or duplicative in nature?
Ms. Brown Barnes. Well, some are overlapping. I gave a
couple of examples earlier----
Chairman Rokita. Yes, that is what I thought.
Ms. Brown Barnes. Yes. Like, Head Start and Preschool
Development Grants. If you are looking at whether they have
similar goals, activities, or target similar populations. Yes,
they both target low income children under 5 and provide slots
for early learning.
Chairman Rokita. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Stevens and Ms. Maas,
today we heard that there are a multitude of federal programs.
Some may be a disservice to the American family, business owner
and tax payer. We have also heard examples of state and local
innovation which are clearly better at meeting the needs of
those involved, in my opinion.
As we look to reform the system is there a better way
Congress should provide assistance to states to make it easier
at the local level? We will start with you, Dr. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. A number of the new programs the GAO report
has identified are, in fact, successful federal efforts to
promote state leadership in this area. Not all states are
equally interested and are committed to early childhood at this
point.
Chairman Rokita. I heard you say that.
Ms. Stevens. There are a number of states that are not only
far ahead of where they were in 1965, they are far ahead of
where the federal government is now. To me, what makes the most
sense is Colorado is one, Minnesota is one, Indiana is one,
North Carolina is one. We have a number of these states.
If we can find ways to leverage federal funds to highlight
and support that state momentum, those states can be very
valuable models for the country.
Chairman Rokita. Are you proposing some kind of incentive
procedure? Do you think we can find ways? That is my question.
What would be the ways?
Ms. Stevens. I have written about one possible approach to
this which would be what I have suggested would be a fairly
small pilot project to give a handful of states, and there is a
number of them represented here, the opportunity for a period
of experimentation where they get money, if the money is held
to high standards.
Chairman Rokita. Interesting. Could you submit that for the
record? You said this is a separate report you did or?
Ms. Stevens. Correct. I can provide that.
Chairman Rokita. Would you mind providing that?
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Chairman Rokita. And I would like to see it entered in the
official record if we could.
My time is expired so I cannot make the rules up here and
then not follow them, unfortunately. So, Ms. Maas, we cannot
get to you to answer that question, and Dr. Harris, same thing.
So, with that, I want to thank the witnesses again for
answering the questions. I do not see any more members to ask
questions, so we will go to Mr. Polis for his closing
statement.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I do want to highlight actually what
our Chair was talking about with Dr. Stevens is the Race to the
Top, Early Childhood Learning Challenge Grant Programs. That
was the program also included in the testimony.
I want to thank Chairman Rokita and our witnesses for
joining us. In particular, those who had to travel, Dr. Harris
and Ms. Maas thank you for coming all the way to our nation's
capital. As our witnesses shared, the science behind the
benefits of early learning is undeniable, and I am glad that
today's hearing really focused around the most effective way to
deliver those services. It is critical that children receive
high-quality early childhood education at the earliest ages.
Dr. Harris, thanks for your good work in Colorado and thank
you for sharing with us the work you are doing at Mile High
Early Learning Center, and the way that you are creatively
using the different federal programs to meet the individual
needs of young learners. She also spoke to the importance and
value of each program and the need to maintain federal support
for these programs.
After today's discussion I want to make sure that we
carefully tread in the area of eliminating duplicative
programs. The GAO report and, obviously, we have not had a
chance to see the new one, but the previous one has not found
significant duplication of early childhood learning programs.
Duplicative means that they overlap, often toward the same
goal. It is not the same as the recommendation that one program
would better replace two.
Overlapping goals, parameters of programs can be adjusted
and sometimes it takes several programs working together to
meet a common goal. But I want to be clear that overlapping is
not the same as a word that is not contained in at least the
prior version of the report, we have not read this one, like
redundant.
It is apparent after learning from Colorado and Minnesota
that there is variation in how states and local governments
determine and successfully create affordable early learning
systems which makes the case there is flexibility in federal
regulations, and if there is a meaningful way to work to
improve that, we certainly look forward to working with our
Republican colleagues to do that.
The Ounce, whose report Ms. Stevens cited in her testimony,
describes the complexity created by state imposed non-federally
mandated regulations. It is important to highlight that these
issues regard compliance not governance or program efficacy or
integrity and those are very different.
Congressional Democrats are thinking through ways to
support high-quality early leaning and whatever we can do to
help states fill the gaps that my home state in Colorado is not
unique, unfortunately, in having.
Early learning, quality childcare not just an education
issue. It is a jobs issue. It is a workforce issue very much in
the purview of this committee's other work. Affordable
childcare and early childhood education empowers workers,
allows people to reenter the workforce sooner and, of course,
equips future generations with the foundational tools that they
need for success in life.
Democrats are currently working on a bold visionary early
learning proposal to allow working and middle class families to
access quality, affordable early learning and care
opportunities, and I strongly believe that support for early
learning is a bipartisan issue, and we look forward to working
with our Republican colleagues.
And I invite my Republican colleagues to work with
Democrats on supporting early childhood education, and I look
forward to working with the Republicans towards this goal.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman and I thank the
witnesses again for your time today. We continue up here to
learn a lot from you and so we appreciate it. We also
appreciate the fact that you are on the front lines of this
issue and at least for two of our witnesses, three, you are on
the front lines with the kids. Right? With the children right
there.
And, again, as I said at the beginning of this hearing, the
children are this country's most important asset in so many
different ways, however you want to define that. So, I really
appreciate and applaud the work that each of you are doing.
Of course, Representative Polis, you have our commitment to
work together on this issue. It is very important. Nothing can
replace a family bringing up a child, especially at those early
years for the environment from where they first start learning,
as Dr. Stevens says.
But with environment today, with working parents, and
everything else going on there certainly is, the science tells
us, right? There is a role for early childhood learning,
childcare, and the differences between those two have been
exposed in this hearing as well, and I think that is a very
important difference and needs to be considered carefully as we
move forward.
We have to make sure as fiduciaries of tax payers' funds,
not our property, their property, that these programs, whatever
adjective you want to assign to them, are being used in the
most efficient way possible. That is our duty. That is what
Congress' Article I powers are.
Those duties will not be suspended here on this
subcommittee, for sure, as long as I am the chairman of it. So,
with that we will take your information, your testimony, and
move forward with legislative policy on this matter.
Seeing no other business before the committee I want to,
again, lastly thank the witnesses, thank the members for coming
today, and I see this committee as remaining adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Mr. Polis follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]