Laura Bornfreund was asked to review the series’ most recent five blogs and identify emerging themes along with their policy implications. She lifts up three issues too often masked, and consequently by-passed, in discussions about the three primary threads comprising ECE’s thorny knot: early childhood educators’ preparation and education, compensation and status, and diversity and inclusion. 

Moving Beyond False Choices‘ second author cohort appears largely to agree that early childhood educators play an important role in young children’s learning and development. Yet these authors also raise issues needing increased attention if early childhood education (ECE) is to unify around more rigorous expectations for higher education degrees and credentials.

Three issues in particular are worth further exploration:

●      the role of family child care providers in the ECE ecosystem,

●      how well higher education programs equip early educators with what they need, and

●      systemic barriers related to race, gender, and class.

Family child care providers: The need for a sector-specific solution

Child Trends recently reported that 97 percent of child care settings are homes, not centers. Of those homes, 27.5 percent are family child care providers who receive payment for their services. This represents approximately 1,037,000 family child care providers as compared to 129,000 child care centers. Yet paradoxically, much of the field’s current discussions and efforts to advance ECE’s workforce are focused on child care centers and public schools.

Jessica Sanger stated in her post that “limited recognition (is) accorded family child care providers given their contribution to ECE’s delivery system,” an assessement confirmed by the above findings. Since family child care providers have responsibility for deepening — and sometimes even providing — the foundation for many children’s future learning, not unlike their colleagues in center- and school-based settings, they are receiving too little recognition for their important role.

It’s no easy task to assist center-based child care educators acquire the knowledge and competencies necessary for meeting young children’s needs. Doing so for family child care providers presents an entirely different scenario given their unique challenges. As Josephine Queen notes for us,

The family child care providers I know tend to be working or lower class, living paycheck to paycheck. This makes attaining a formal education degree financially out of reach for most of us. Some also are single parents and lack resources to pay for child care while attending classes. Plus, running a home-based business means few of us can carve out time to gain the required practical experience and requisite hours needed for degrees since, typically, working in one’s own home child care under one’s own supervision and tutelage is not credit-bearing.

Naming these issues, as Maurice Sykes cautions us, mustn’t be used to cast  blame. Instead, they should alert us to the fact that real challenges exist and underscore that acknowledging them is essential to forging viable solutions for increasing this sector‘s level of education and credentials.

Beyond a Unitary Focus on Higher Education Degrees and Credentials

Once we set the right standards for educational and credential requirements and find effective strategies to assist current and future educators meet them, we’re done, right?

Not so fast.

It’s no secret that too many ECE degree programs leave early childhood educators without the knowledge and competencies for effectively interacting with young children. Amy Rothschild explains that she sought out a non-traditional teacher preparation program because it provided extensive practical experiences linked to observations and insights from experienced early childhood educators. To earn her masters degree, she also took courses at a university, and recounts that, “…the university courses were too often rote. I felt like I was paying the piper, rather than learning the art of teaching or even the nuts and bolts of practice. Everyone seemingly passed with flying colors just by showing up.”

Setting preparation and education requirements and extending supports for those seeking to meet ECE’s expanding expectations clearly is insufficient by itself. In fact, these investments may even be detrimental if not linked with educator preparation programs capable of ensuring

·      early childhood educators know the latest science of child development and early learning, including their connections to practice;

·      are immersed in content areas such as early math and science;

·      have ample opportunities to develop practice skills in a range of settings; and

·      engage in meaningful discussions about challenges children confront as learners.

Systemic Barriers Related to Race, Gender, and Class

Finally, Maurice Sykes calls on us to shift our conversational focus from adults to children when it comes to teacher degrees and compensation. He contends that “Every child needs and deserves a highly qualified, highly effective, and highly competent early childhood educator.” He also reminds us that throughout U.S. history low-income men and women and people of color have successfully attained degrees, leading him to ask, “what’s all the hullabaloo?”

I agree. ECE — and society at large — have obligations to address systemic barriers related to race, gender, and class that promulgate negative assumptions about what early childhood educators and the children whose learning and development they foster can and cannot accomplish. The challenges too many people face when attempting to advance their education need to be alleviated.

Acting on What We’re Learning

And then there’s the ever-present policy question of who’s going to pay for it?

Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education  proposes a price tag of $140 billion, which as Luis Hernandez noted in his post, is a number politicians are unlikely to embrace. Still, this figure at last gives us an estimation of what is needed to develop a competent workforce, inclusive of costs for transforming higher education, supporting degree attainment by ECE’s current workforce, and providing an appropriate level of compensation.

However, while an important part of the equation, increased financing alone won’t ensure every child has well-prepared and highly effective early childhood educators. First, ECE as a field of practice, policymakers, and other stakeholders must learn to value the abiliites of early childhood educators to co-create  innovative, sustainable solutions for attaining more rigorous education and credentials — a viewpoint also articulated by Sherri Killins in an earlier post.

Second, still more effort needs to be directed toward strengthening and aligning early childhood educators’ preparation and education with the field’s expanding knowledge base, growing understanding of essential practitioner competencies, and increasing need for viable clinical experiences. This outcome, though, depends on finding unified agreement for the knowledge and competencies required of early childhood educators, as well as state incentives — including funding —to incentivize preparation programs to change. Additionally, strategies must be developed for overcoming barriers of race, gender, and class that have limited past progress and will inhibit future possibilities.

Only if these three oft-overlooked threads are addressed will ECE be able to unify around more rigorous expectations for higher education degrees and credentials and give every child access to the educators they need and deserve.

* Updated 6/28/18 at 9:48am to correct the number of children in home-based child care settings versus child care centers. The following line was deleted: “This means a majority of children in formal ECE arrangements are in homes, not child care centers.” While there are more family child care settings, the majority of children in formal care are in center-based settings.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Oft-Overlooked Threads Woven into ECE’s Thorny Knot appeared first on Washington Monthly.

In the paper, we call on the field to work together to better coordinate and align early care and education to ensure that efforts effectively support young children’s learning and development.  And, we say it will be important to coalesce around “a shared evidence base and set of evidence-informed policies and practices to improve the quality of the early childhood workforce and to build a professional pipeline for the workforce serving children from birth through age 8, particularly as this period serves as the foundation for the education and development of children as they continue to grow and develop.”
One purpose of this paper is to make a public commitment to work collaboratively to support and guide efforts, rooted in evidence, to improve the early care and education workforce. The individual authors (I am one of them) outline five key actions we commit to taking as we conduct our related work:

1. Continually review the research and lessons from existing national, state, and local efforts and develop coherent guidance for policymakers, program leaders, and care and education professionals.
2. Disseminate and apply the guidance through various mechanisms that match the goal and audience, such as electronic communications, virtual and in-person learning opportunities, and technical assistance for policy development and implementation.
3. Help local and state programs, leaders, agencies, and advocates identify organizations that provide technical assistance (TA) and coordinate these services to ensure they complement and build on each other.
4. Leverage opportunities, as appropriate to their roles, to promote more adequate and sustainable investments at local, state, and national levels in the birth through age 8 workforce and its systems of supports to advance the recommendations found in the Transforming the Workforce Because existing resources are inadequate to support and sustain a high-quality early childhood workforce, these organizations can identify ways to increase effective investments for a thriving field.
5. Engage the early childhood workforce in all of the above activities.

You can find the full discussion paper here. You can find New America’s writing on improving the the birth through age 8 workforce here. And, coming soon is New America’s Transforming the Early Ed Workforce: A Multimedia Guidebook, which will summarize key discussions from the full volume, distill select concepts and ideas, highlight examples of efforts to improve the workforce, and house useful resources and tools for national, state, and local work. Our expected release date is December.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Transforming the Early Childhood Workforce Will Take a Village appeared first on Washington Monthly.

Narrower licenses can allow for more specialization. In other words, less overlap between licenses means teachers of younger elementary-aged children and teachers of older elementary-aged children can be better equipped with the specific content and teaching strategies most appropriate for the children they are working with.

A few state have licensing structures that reduce the overlap between early childhood and elementary. In a new brief out today, One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Need for Specialized Teacher Licenses in the Early Grades*, Sarah Jackson, Natalie Orenstein and I take a look at teacher licensing in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Ohio, and Arkansas. (This brief is a follow up to my paper Getting in Sync: Revamping Licensure and Preparation for Teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and the Early Grades.)

Pennsylvania has reduced the overlap between its early childhood and elementary teaching licenses, offering PreK-4 and 4-8 licenses. South Carolina has long had PreK–3 and 2–6 licenses. Ohio has PreK–3 and 4–9 licenses. And, prior to 2012, Arkansas had teaching licenses that reduced overlap, but the state eliminated them for broader K–6 and 7–12 licenses.Each of these states face a push and pull between designing a system that trains teachers in ways that science shows are best for young children and responding to the needs of a large bureaucratic system that demands flexibility in hiring and classroom demands. In too many cases, the needs of the bureaucracy win out over children’s developmental needs. For example, South Carolina officials recently considered changing to a 1–6 license to address concerns over the lack of flexibility from school districts. But when officials heard the trepidations of early childhood educators and advocates, they slowed the process and decided to discuss all possibilities further.

In Arkansas in 2012, more hiring flexibility for administrators won out. The state did away with the P–4, 4–8, and 9–12 certifications in favor of broader K–6 and 7–12 licenses. The state also added a Birth–K license for early childhood educators. (Teachers certified for K–6 can take additional coursework to earn an endorsement to teach three- and four-year olds.) The state moved back to a broader K–6 license to give principals more flexibility in hiring, which had become a problem for school administrators looking to fill spots in fifth and sixth grade.

A number of outside influences—staffing challenges, teacher shortages, and budget cuts— tend to determine a state’s licensing structures. Administrators often favor broader licensing spans that produce more flexible employees. Educators often acquire the broadest license available so they will be appealing job candidates. Sometimes, licensing structures are changed to satisfy an urgent need such as potential teacher shortages or budget shortfalls. As the recent Education Commission of the States’ K–3 Policymakers’ Guide to Action notes, early grade teachers need to be equipped with strategies for delivering instruction and designing activities in the ways that young children learn best, which is different from older elementary students. For pre-K, kindergarten, and first through third grade teachers to be ready to lay the learning foundation that young students need, specialized training is imperative. Narrower state teacher licensing spans may be one way to help steer preparation programs to equip teaching candidates with the specialized knowledge and skills necessary to meet the needs of  young learners.

*  The paper, “One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Need for Specialized Teacher Licenses in the Early Grades,” was made possible through a K-3 partnership between New America and Education Commission of the States. Education Commission of the States serves as a partner to state policymakers by providing personalized support and helping education leaders come together and learn from one another.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post New Paper on the Need for Specialized Teacher Licenses in the Early Grades appeared first on Washington Monthly.

For the past several years, New America has called on Congress to include early education in a more robust way in a reauthorized ESEA. While there is much to be concerned about in ESSA, there are some good additions when it comes to early education. Below is my take on what ESSA means for the early grades, including changes mentioned in an earlier post, along with a few important updates.Over the next couple of weeks, my other PreK-12 colleagues will provide their takes on the overall Act and specific areas of interest, including what it means for educators and for dual language learners. (Read Conor Williams’ unabashed take here.)

• Title I funds have always been allowed to support children beginning at birth, which could include providing a pre-K program. However, a very small percentage of eligible children are supported with Title I funds prior to kindergarten. This draft bill explicitly states that providing early education programs is an allowable use of funds and encourages planning for transition from pre-K programs to elementary schools.
• The bill includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars (funds to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality educators) can be used for early educators. One way districts can use these funds is by providing programs and activities to increase “the knowledge base of teachers and principals on instruction in the early grades, and strategies to measure whether young children are progressing.” Another is by increasing “the ability of principals or other school leaders to support [educators] to meet the needs of students through age 8, which may include providing joint professional learning and planning activities for school staff and educators in preschool programs that address the transition to elementary school.”

These types of activities are important for two reasons. First, many teachers and especially principals lack preparation on how to set the right expectations for instruction and learning in kindergarten and the early grades. As a result, teachers and principals often lack knowledge of how young children learn best or how intentional play is a powerful instructional tool. So, this language could lead to professional learning for educators on how to improve teaching and learning in PreK-3rd grade classrooms. Second, this language specifically states that staff and educators in pre-K programs can participate in professional learning activities, and seems to open the door to programs located off school grounds that might feed into the elementary school.

While these are all good and important inclusions, they are still just suggested activities in a list of many others. States and districts must choose to prioritize better connecting pre-K and the early grades of elementary school.

• Also included in Title II is a new program that focuses on improving literacy instruction, from birth through 12th grade, embedding parts of Senator Murray’s LEARN Act.
• Finally, the draft bill opens the federal charter school program to early education programs. This means charter schools receiving grants could use federal dollars to add pre-K classrooms. Anda charter school applicant could open as an early education program, offering pre-K only.
• Read my colleague, Conor Williams’, post on what ESSA means for dual language learners.

ESSA also includes a “Preschool Development Grant” program. This is an updated version of the amendment put forth by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) earlier this year. Beyond the name, the program has little in common with the Obama Administration’s Preschool Development Grant (PDG) program that exists now. Under the Administration’s PDG, 18 states have grants to develop or expand access to high-quality pre-K slots for four-year-olds from low-income families. The program requires several quality indicators including full-day pre-K programs and lead teachers with bachelor’s degrees who are paid comparably to K-12 teachers.

The new PDG program, like the Administration’s Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge, is housed in the Department of Education (ED) and jointly administered by the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services. For unclear reasons, ESSA requires the new program to transition to the Department of Health and Human Services and be jointly administered with ED. According to language in the new law, it looks as though current PDG grantees may continue to receive funds in accordance with the terms of their existing grants.

The primary purpose of ESSA’s new PDG program is twofold. First, it aims to help states improve collaboration and coordination among existing early education programs (birth through school entry) in a mixed delivery system (public schools, home-based child care, center-based child care, Head Start, etc.). Second, it strives to smooth children’s transitions from pre-K programs to kindergarten.

Funds for the grants would be awarded to states on a competitive basis. Grantee states would be required to 1) conduct an extensive needs assessment on the availability and quality of existing early childhood programs in the state, 2) develop a plan that recommends collaboration, coordination, and quality improvement activities, 3) maximize parental choice and knowledge about programs within the state, 4) share best practices among early childhood education program providers across the state, and 5) improve the overall quality of early childhood education programs in the state.

The Secretaries can also choose to award renewal grants that would enable states to continue the activities discussed below as well as to create new early education programs as needed. But ESSA prohibits the federal government from requiring any quality indicators for those newly created programs. For instance, under the program, the Secretaries cannot require states to establish full-day programs or certain qualifications and compensation for teachers.

Of course, states still have to apply, and those with a plan for improving quality in a meaningful way will be selected. But, as with most competitive grants, funds will likely go towards states that are already moving in the right direction rather than those most in need of accountability and support. That is, states that aren’t even close to providing the level of quality that children need, especially children from low-income families, won’t have a bar to work towards.

In the new bill, Congress sends mixed messages about early education as an educational program. On the one hand, Congress added important provisions to allow professional development dollars to extend to pre-K teachers and federal charter dollars to support schools in adding pre-K. Congress also reiterated that Title I dollars can be used to support the learning and development of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers from low-income families. But, on the other hand, Congress takes the primary administration of Preschool Development Grants out of the hands of ED and into the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s true that the latter already administers Early Head Start for infants and toddlers and Head Start for 3- and 4- year-olds. But, as we wrote in our Beyond Subprime Learning report in 2014, it would be more effective for Head Start to move into the Department of Education or at least be jointly administered between the two agencies. We see this as a way to recognize Head Start as a public pre-K provider that emphasizes both educational and developmental outcomes while also extending its whole child focus into the K-3rd grades.

Perhaps, though, Congress isn’t being so ambiguous about its feelings on early education. In a tucked away section (pg. 866) of ESSA, there is a “Sense of Congress on Early Learning and Child Care,” which states:

It is the Sense of the Congress that a State retains the right to make decisions, free from Federal intrusion, concerning its system of early learning and child care, and whether or not to use funding under this Act to offer early childhood education programs. Such systems should continue to include robust choice for parents through a mixed delivery system of services so parents can determine the right early learning and child care option for their children. States, while protecting the rights of early learning and child care providers, retain the right to make decisions that shall include the age at which to set compulsory attendance in school, the content of a State’s early learning guidelines, and how to determine quality in programs.

As with K-12, it seems that Congress sees early education as the responsibility of states. But, unlike in K-12, the federal government does provide a large portion of funding for birth-to-five programs and we think such a large investment should come with stronger guidance around how states should be using those funds and what high-quality programs look like.

Ultimately, while I’m happy to see a stronger focus on children’s earliest years in this reauthorization of ESEA, I’m disappointed with the scaled back federal role in the overall law. There is too much flexibility for state and local education agencies and I share my colleague’s agitation about what this means for our nation’s underserved children. Some states will rise to the challenge and do what’s right and support these students. Other states will take an easier route and let students fall further and further behind, shirking their responsibility to help every student succeed.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Every Student Succeeds Act and Early Learning appeared first on Washington Monthly.

Alexander’s support for the amendment is unsurprising given his past laments about the “45 federal programs providing some early learning and child care” and his fear of “a national school board for preschool education.” Since the release of a GAO report that purportedly found wasteful spending and duplicate programs in early education. Senator Alexander has been a proponent of streamlining existing birth-to-5 programs and giving power of coordination to the states, though he does not support additional funding for direct child services.

In some ways the amendment is like the Race to the Top — Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC). It’s focus was on increasing access to high-quality early childhood education programs and improving coordination across those programs. It was intended to help states build infrastructure. RTT-ELC did not directly open new slots for children to attend high-quality programs and it only went to 20 states.

Unlike RTT-ELC, though, there is no real emphasis on helping states to define and identify high-quality programs, improve early learning standards and assessments, or build the knowledge and skills of the early childhood workforce. In fact, the amendment explicitly limits the federal government from “specifying, defining, or prescribing anything related to standards, assessments, systems to determine quality, teacher qualifications, or even the term “high-quality.”

This would be fine if we didn’t know what worked in early education, but research is actually converging on a series of essential elements that make early education work especially well. Certainly some RTT-ELC-winning states could use these hypothetical ELAIG funds to continue their work, but given the limited specificity it’s unlikely to spur new states to take on those same kinds of efforts in a robust way.

For those (like us at New America) who believe that pre-K should be an essential piece of public education, not an add-on, these changes to ESEA are not bold or game-changing. (Read our thoughts on how to strengthen early education in ESEA here.)

That being said, we recognize that it may not be the right time to expect an expansion of pre-K slots and a reconceptualization of public education that starts younger. Certainly coordination is better than nothing and we applaud Murray’s ability to make this happen. Murray’s amendment attempts to help states better align funding from federal, state, and local sources, including across programs such as Early Head Start, Head Start, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and the Preschool Development Grants program. But aligning funds from programs with different requirements (sometimes very different requirements) is no easy feat. Take eligibility requirements for instance. Head Start is aimed at families at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. Free lunch eligibility, under Title I of ESEA, is set at 130 percent of poverty. And the federal government sets child care subsidy eligibility at a maximum of 85 percent of a state’s median income. Additionally, state and local pre-K programs often have their own requirements for family eligibility. (Read more about this issue in our 2014 report, “Beyond Subprime Learning.”)

The amendment does place an emphasis on increasing access to high-quality, birth through kindergarten entry programs for low-income families, especially those living in rural communities. In an era of limited federal funding, prioritizing children from low-incomes is important. And rural communities sometimes get ignored even though they face big challenges when it comes to providing high-quality early childhood education options.

A recent report released by the U.S. Department of Education described a lack of equitable access to high-quality pre-K for all American children. This report was outlined by our colleague, Ebone Williams who explains that although there have been investments in early childhood education, our nation has not kept pace with the need. As Senator Murray said when introducing her amendment, “Democratic and Republican governors and state lawmakers are already making investments in early learning. It’s time for Congress to catch up.”

We agree with Senator Murray that it’s time for Congress to catch up, but think there is a better way to do it. Here at New America, we have called for greater coordination across federal early education programs and state programs, but we have also called for greater federal funding to build states’ capacity to enable high-quality early education programs to serve more children, especially those from low-income families, and to help improve programs that aren’t quite there yet. Without a dedicated funding stream for early learning services, it will be difficult for states to meet the demand for high-quality early learning programs from birth-to-5.

So what’s next for ESEA? The next stop is the Senate floor, but a vote has yet to be scheduled. According to Lauren Camera at Politics K-12, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) plans to “choose from a handful of bills that have strong bipartisan backing for floor action before the current work period ends May 22, including the education bill.” But, of course, it’s not up to the Senate alone, the House must also decide to act. It’s still uncertain whether the Senate and House will come to agreement on a new ESEA that the President would actually sign.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post A Hollow Victory: Senator Murray’s Early Education Amendment appeared first on Washington Monthly.

While the bill does not include a separate title for early education or a dedicated funding stream for high-quality pre-K, there are some steps forward for strengthening early learning, PreK-3rd grade. I will briefly highlight five:

1. As we have discussed before, Title I funds can be used to support children beginning at birth, which could include providing a pre-K program. However, a very small percentage of eligible children are supported with Title I funds prior to kindergarten. This draft bill explicitly states that providing early education programs is an allowable use of funds.
2. The draft bill would require states to demonstrate alignment between their academic standards and “relevant” early learning guidelines. This could lead to better coordination between children’s learning in pre-K programs and in kindergarten.
3. There is language explicitly stating that Title II dollars (funds to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality educators) could be used for early childhood educators. Here is a suggested activity from the bill for how a local school district could use these funds:

Provide programs and activities to increase the knowledge base of teachers and principals on instruction in the early grades, and strategies to measure whether young children are progressing which may include providing joint professional learning activities for school staff and educators in preschool programs that address the transition to elementary school.

I see this as important for two reasons. First, many teachers, and especially principals, lack preparation that sets the right expectations for instruction and learning in kindergarten and the early grades. In other words, teachers and principals are often not taught how young children learn best or how intentional play, is a powerful instructional tool. In addition, elementary school principals are not necessarily taught to view classrooms that might appear chaotic on the surface as well-organized, well-planned environments where significant learning in reading, math, science, etc. can happen. So, this language could lead to professional learning for educators on how to improve teaching and learning in PreK-3rd grade classrooms. Second, this language specifically states that staff and educators in pre-K programs can participate in professional learning activities, and seems to open the door to programs located off school grounds that might feed into the elementary school.

4. Also included in Title II is a new program that focuses on improving literacy instruction birth through 12th grade, embedding parts of Senator Murray’s LEARN Act.
5. Finally, the draft bill opens the federal charter school program to early childhood education programs. This means charter schools receiving grants could use federal dollars to add pre-K classrooms. It also means that a charter school applicant could open as an early education program, offering pre-K only.

These proposed changes are a good start to strengthening early learning in a new ESEA. Read some of our ideas on additional changes that could be made. I also encourage you to read my colleagues’ takes on other proposed changes to Title II and Title III, which focuses on English language learners.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will take up the draft bill on Tuesday. I do not expect this bill to make it to the President’s desk — too many hurdles to get there. Nevertheless, this draft bill provides a new starting place for when ESEA reauthorization comes up again. And it’s not a bad place to be for early ed.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post ESEA Compromise Includes a Few Steps Forward for Early Learning appeared first on Washington Monthly.

An ESEA reauthorization is eight years overdue. No Child Left Behind waivers are the temporary law of the land, and Congress is attempting to find common ground in a mostly partisan process.

Over the past several years, interest in pre-K and other early learning programs has been growing. More and more states, both red and blue, have developed pre-K programs and some states and local communities are thinking about how to better connect and coordinate children’s pre-K experiences and learning with what happens in kindergarten and the early grades.

We believe ESEA could be a vehicle for achieving these goals. In a new brief (that brings these posts together), “Moving Young Learners Forward: How to Fix No Child Left Behind,” I discuss ideas proposed for incorporating a more robust focus on PreK-3rd grades in a reauthorized law and Conor Williams shares his ideas for how to improve the federal government’s education policies for dual language learners.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Moving Young Learners Forward appeared first on Washington Monthly.

In my first post, I discussed a new opportunity to incorporate ways to strengthen early education, PreK-3rd grade, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In this post, I’ll explore a few ideas that would require big changes in the law but could greatly benefit young students.

Generally, early education—and pre-Kindergarten in particular—is relegated to nothing more than mentions in ESEA. There are minimal requirements or incentives, especially since the defunding of Reading First more than five years ago. That left almost no focus in the law on kindergarten through second grade, much less what comes before school entry, other than the allowance of Title I funds to be used for children from low-income families beginning at birth. (But fewer than 3 percent of children receiving Title I funds are under the age of 5.)

First, we suggest writing a new title—jargon for a big part of a law—that focuses primarily on pre-K education, but that could also bring focus to kindergarten and the early grades. A new title could be a home for Preschool Development Grants, the current program first funded by a bipartisan appropriations process more than a year ago. This new funding is helping to build states’ capacities to provide more 4-year-olds from low-income families with high-quality pre-K. Specifically, it supports states that agree to meet certain indicators of quality—things like requiring all pre-K teachers to have bachelor’s degrees and paying those teachers comparably to K-12 teachers. PDG also requires states to offer full-day pre-K, which helps ensure that children have ample time to develop literacy and math skills, play, explore, and interact with other children and adults. The PDG program also requires participating states to develop a plan to connect their newly developed or expanded programs to the K-3 grades.

The challenge with PDG is that it is currently a competitive grant program, which means that only some states’ children are benefiting from these research-based federal incentives. A new Early Ed ESEA Title could make these rules more comprehensive through formula funds to any state that agrees to meet at least the base quality criteria as well as to coordinate and connect what comes before and after. Additionally, requiring states to develop a plan is a weak lever for ensuring that they develop and implement strong, effective plans. A new Early Ed Title could encourage better design and alignment of these plans in accordance with strong early ed research.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and implementation is key. True alignment is complex and federal funding should be allocated for not only the continuation and expansion of pre-K, but also to help make full-day kindergarten a priority for states. In fact, a new ESEA should state explicitly that kindergarten should be provided at the same duration and funded at least at the same rate as 1st grade. Additional federal funds could help states meet this goal and to better connect and coordinate pre-K, kindergarten, and the early grades through:

• standards and assessment at the state level;
• curricula at the local level;
• instructional strategies in the classroom;
• professional development opportunities for educators; and
• data collected across PreK-3rd.

It’s also essential that more attention is paid to K-2nd grades. NCLB brought increased accountability for student proficiency in math and reading beginning in 3rd grade, but the preceding elementary grades have not always gotten their share of attention. The new law also established the Reading First program, which required the use of scientifically based reading programs and had the goal of ensuring children were able to read by the end of 3rd grade. The program was last funded in 2008. Regardless of your take on Reading First, marred by allegations of favored contracts and conflicts of interest, its focus on the early grades was important.

At present, NCLB does very little to encourage states to focus significant resources beyond the tested grades and subject areas. And guess what? This means that states generally don’t spend much money, energy, or reflection on those grades. Right now, most federal incentives are primarily targeted at 3rd grade and above. That’s where NCLB’s famous annual assessments kick in. Schools are held accountable for student achievement in these grades. Elementary schools are not held accountable for what happens in the early grades and pre-K if it is under their purview. Unless principals are playing the long game, they are more likely to put precious resources and effort into the upper elementary grades.

This is a salutary caution for those who believe a new ESEA should give states more flexibility around how they use federal funds. We believe that it is necessary to devote some funding to help states build well-coordinated, high-quality PreK-2nd grades that lay a strong literacy foundation. Doing so would also support children’s background knowledge and vocabulary in English language arts, math, science, geography, and history. And last, but certainly not least, it would foster the development of student’s skills for success, which research has found can benefit students’ academic achievement.

Another complementary way to encourage schools to pay more attention to the earlier years and grades is to rethink the accountability incentives. Earlier this year, Elliot Regenstein and Rio Romero-Juardo at the Ounce of Prevention put out a framework for a new smarter system of incentives and accountability spanning early childhood through 12th grade. It includes multiple measures of professional practice (at the classroom and school level) and child outcomes across the spectrum, giving more weight to certain metrics depending on the grade level.

Source: A Framework for Rethinking State Education Accountability and Support from Birth Through High School, The Ounce of Prevention

How might these metrics be weighted at different grade levels? In children’s earliest years, “child outcomes” might account for 20 percent of the overall score and “professional practice,” including things like classroom observations and school climate, might account for 80 percent. A child outcome for kindergarten could include student attendance or perhaps the use of formative assessment to inform a teacher’s instruction. At 3rd grade through 8th grade, these metrics might be more equal and then at the high school level, graduation rates might get more weight over professional practice metrics.

Regenstein and Romero-Juardo call for schools’ progress on the professional practice metrics to be assessed through external review. While external review is fairly common in birth-to-five early learning programs, that is not the case for K-12 in the U.S.. In many states, external observations or monitoring are required for state-funded pre-K and Head Start programs. Also, as The Ounce makes clear, support for school improvement is a necessary piece of any accountability system.

This type of system would be a clear—and welcome—departure from our current accountability structures. The approach would offer a more holistic view of student learning and success, and would elevate the pre-K through 2nd grades to the same level as currently tested grades. Providing this example of an alternative accountability system as an option for states and allowing them to reserve more funds to build capacity for this kind of system would be a way to allow some experimentation.

I’m sure the smart folks at The Ounce would be more than happy to help state leaders think through the implementation of this kind of new accountability system.

In my last post, I’ll discuss ways to make clearer when pre-K can and should be included in the law and other ways to strengthen teaching and learning PreK-3rd grade.

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Strengthening Early Learning in a New ESEA Part 2 appeared first on Washington Monthly.

Change is on the horizon for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a process which acquired some new urgency when the Republicans took control of the Senate in January. And “change” is really the only way to move things forward. Senator Alexander’s (R-TN) bipartisan partisan approach—where he introduced a discussion draft without conferring with Democrats on the Senate’s education committee —first was going nowhere fast. Last Friday, Alexander and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Senator Patty Murray, announced that their staffs will work together for the next several weeks in an effort to write  a bipartisan bill.

As Lauren Camera over at Education Week notes, many issues remain, including what to include for early education up through third grade. Politically speaking, there is also the big question of whether a more bipartisan bill could actually pass the GOP-controlled Senate and what it could mean for negotiations with the House and its very partisan ESEA reauthorization process. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chair John Kline (R-MN) simply decided to trot back out HR 5, which passed the House along party lines in 2013. He has also declined to hold hearings to discuss the bill. Ranking Democrat, Bobby Scott (D-VA), however, decided that wouldn’t do and held a forum of his own on ESEA reauthorization. Today, the Committee held a mark-up on HR 5. Several changes to the bill were proposed by House Republicans including changes to the Title I formula. (Read more about this on Education Week’s Politics K-12.) It’s worth pointing out that if something like HR 5 ever made it to President Obama’s desk, he would almost certainly quash it with a veto (and without a second thought).

In other words, as much as Congress and the states loathe the current version of ESEA (known as No Child Left Behind), and grumble about the Obama Administration’s waiver regime, it’s still likely that they are going to be stuck with them for a while longer. Thanks for playing. Here’s hoping for a new ESEA in 2017.

Still, for those who have been thinking about and hoping for a reauthorization since 2007, these new bills are an opportunity to think what a new, better ESEA could and should look like. And, because early education is a big priority for Senator Murray — who could very well have the chance to lead reauthorization next time around — now is a good time to think intentionally about how it could and should be included in a more robust way.

Here in the shadow of another (likely) failed ESEA reauthorization attempt, New America’s Early Education Initiative will spend the next few days on a blog series exploring that question. We are taking a broad look across the birth-through-third-grade spectrum, including not only pre-K but also a focus on the K-3 grades. Some ideas have been described before, either by New America or in collaboration with other groups. Some are the ideas of others that I agree are worth further consideration. And some are nascent thoughts that need some further exploration. (Also stay tuned for writing from Kaylan Connally on how a new ESEA could improve educator effectiveness.)

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Strengthening Early Learning in a New ESEA appeared first on Washington Monthly.

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, “Investing in America’s Future,” presents a wide set of education investment priorities, from pre-K through college. This year’s budget narrative underscores the progress states have made for introducing more rigorous college- and career-ready standards, and introduces significant funding increases to support states’ education reform efforts. Echoing previous years’ proposals, the budget request includes $75 billion over the next ten years in mandatory funding for Preschool for All, a proposal to partner with states to provide high-quality pre-K to more low- and moderate-income children. And, in addition to upping spending on competitive grants like Investing in Innovation (i3), School Improvement Grants (SIG), and Promise Neighborhoods, the administration proposes increases to Federal formula grants, including a big hike in Title I and modest boosts in English Language Acquisition and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants.

Current congressional priorities for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), however, underscore how far apart this Republican Congress and the Administration are on education policy. Case in point: many of the programs this budget would grow are completely cut in Senator Lamar Alexander’s draft bill (e.g., SIG, i3, Promise Neighborhoods). While it is far from given that Congress will be able to pass an update to ESEA that the President will actually sign, it seems equally unlikely that Congress will pass a budget by October that resembles this Budget Request for education.

But as in past years, at least some of these proposals will get air time and may even make it into a final budget. At the very least, they signal the President’s vision and priorities for the country. So, on that note, here are our questions regarding the 2016 Budget Request:

• Preschool for All: Once again, the President proposes $75 billion in mandatory funds over 10 years for the Preschool for All program. As part of this initiative, he proposes an expansion of Preschool Development Grants that received $250 million in FY 2014 and FY 2015, funding a competition and 18 winning states. In many cases, though, these were fairly small grants. In FY 2016, the President is requesting an increase of $500 million for this program to expand the number of existing grantees to approximately 40 states. With these new funds, does the Administration also intend to expand existing grant awards to enable the states that won in 2014 to serve more children?

Additionally, Preschool for All would promote access to high-quality full-day kindergarten. This is the third year that the Administration has made full-day kindergarten a priority and, unfortunately, Congress has not followed suit. As we have asked in previous years, does this signal that full-day kindergarten is a stronger priority for the Administration than for Congress?

• IDEA in Early Education: This year the President proposes an increase of $115 million for IDEA Preschool Grants and Infants and Families programs, including $15 million for a new Pay for Success Initiative. The IDEA Grants for Infants and Families would increase the number of children from birth to age three receiving early screenings and intervention services to approximately 340,000. The Pay for Success Initiative would allow states to fund pilot programs that could allow them to determine the best way to expand early screening and intervention services to infants and toddlers who do not qualify for services under Part C of IDEA in their state.  These pilot programs would allow for private and philanthropic investments to expand promising programs via performance-based funding tied to achieving specific outcomes. In other words, investors only get paid if the programs at least meet certain goals. There are currently a few “Pay for Success” (also known as “Social Impact Bonds”) experiments underway.The logic is that early intervention programs decrease the likelihood that a child will need future supports and would thus create cost savings for school districts once a child enters school.  It’s an idea worth further study and exploration, but is this kind of public-private investment a long-term solution for an ongoing need that impacts children during the most malleable stages of development?
• Leveraging What Works, Equity and Outcomes Pilots: In this year’s budget request, the President proposes several spending increases in formula grants including calling for a $1 billion increase in Title I formula funds to assist states and districts in meeting the needs of low-income students. This marks the first Title I increase from the current Administration, and it’s a sizable one. Within Title I, the Administration has  proposed two new pilot programs that provide incentives—through increased funding and flexibility—for school districts to more effectively and equitably use their Federal formula funds.

The first of these programs, Leveraging What Works, would provide $100 million in competitive grants to districts that agree to use a portion of their Title I funds, in combination with state and local resources, to provide evidence-based programming that advances low-income students’ outcomes. But the number and size of districts this bonus money will reach remains unclear. Would the bonus funds go toward districts most in need of them, spurring new local investments in evidenced-based programming for disadvantaged students, or would they go toward those already providing such strong supports on their own? Likewise, how would districts guarantee that the additional funds target students most in need?

The second, the Equity and Outcomes pilot, would entail no additional cost and provide up to 10 districts more flexibility in how they spend Title I funds, exempting them from federal reporting and fiscal requirements, in exchange for demonstrating comparability in state and local funding between high- and low-poverty schools. Grantees would need to report on student outcomes linked to expenditures to demonstrate effective and efficient use of funds.  But what guidance would the Department provide to districts around comparability? And is incentivizing equity through competition between a few districts the best strategy, when equity should be a requirement for all?

• English Language Acquisition Grants: Under the umbrella of increasing equity, the Administration has proposed a $36 million increase in the Title III English Language Acquisition Grants that support state and district efforts to meet the educational needs of English Learners (ELs). Title III has not seen a measurable increase in years and the $773 million proposed likely remains inadequate to the need. The proposal might be a signal that the Administration is (finally) recognizing the growing number of ELs and the pressing need to provide these students with sufficient resources to promote their success. But how does such a modest increase relate to improvements in ELs’ achievement? Would states actually be able to leverage this funding to actually benefit ELs? Or could the $36 million be better targeted to support research on what works for these students or the development of native-language assessments?
• New and Revamped Teacher Quality Programs: The President’s budget includes a new mandatory program, Teaching for Tomorrow, which calls for $1 billion annually over five years for states and districts to apply significant changes in how they recruit, prepare, and seek to retain teachers in the profession. In a budget briefing, the Department indicated that the new program would support states and districts in exploring a variety of human capital models—from those adopted by high-performing countries like Singapore and Finland to those implemented locally in districts like DC Public Schools. But, given this flexibility, what common standards or guidance could the Department provide around such changes? While the program sounds promising, more details are needed to know where a new investment—especially one as large as the proposed boost in Title I funding this year—might lead.

Meanwhile, the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Grant program, which provides grants to districts to develop performance pay systems linked to student outcomes, would expand in scope and funding. Under a new name, Excellent Educators Grants, the Administration proposes $350 million—up from $230 million last year—to help districts and states design and implement comprehensive human capital systems beyond performance pay, from teacher recruitment to development and retention on the job. Given the mixed research on performance pay and the critical need for stronger teacher development and growth opportunities, the expanded program promises to help grow and recognize quality teaching. But, while the Excellent Educators Grants offer a substantial overall increase in TIF funding, is it enough to match the program’s significantly broadened scope? How much would be allocated for each human capital system component?

Lastly, the Administration calls for the replacement and consolidation of three programs—Teacher Quality Partnership, Transition to Teaching, and School Leadership—into Teacher and Principal Pathways, a $139 million competitive grant program that would support improvements in teacher and leader preparation. The proposal echoes the Administration’s 2010 Blueprint for ESEA reauthorization. Grants would be provided to both institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations that partner strategically with districts to strengthen teacher and leader pathways. Considering the Department’s newly proposed regulations for teacher preparation programs, how would this proposal align?

• Education Technology State Grants: Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), schools (and libraries) are well on their way toward meeting the first goal of the President’s 2013 ConnectED Initiative: connecting 99 percent of students to high-speed broadband over five years. The ConnectED Initiative additionally prioritized teacher professional development, highlighting the need to help educators integrate new technologies into their practice. To this end, last year the President’s budget included a new proposal for what was coined the ConnectEDucators Program, which would have provided competitive funding for school districts to support teachers’ use of technology and data in classrooms.

This year’s budget has dropped the ConnectEDucators program name, but has proposed the same dollar figure, $200 million, to go toward  Education Technology State Grants. These grants would also be aimed at increasing teacher supports for implementing technology in the classroom. In this iteration, states would make competitive subgrants to high-need districts to support exemplary models for using technology in the classroom. As with the ConnectEDucators proposal, however, districts could only be awarded grants if they already have sufficient broadband infrastructure. But how would the federal government ensure districts with insufficient infrastructure do not fall farther and farther behind, exacerbating the digital divide? Further, what guidance would the Department offer states to ensure that districts with high needs apply for funding, as well as what qualifies as an exemplary model for using technology in the classroom?

[Cross-posted at Ed Central]

The post Key Questions on President’s 2016 Education Budget – PreK-12 appeared first on Washington Monthly.