<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:20780.wais]
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: IMPROVEMENT THROUGH INTEGRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 21, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-780 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Major R. Owens, New York
California Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Judy Biggert, Illinois John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
John Kline, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Cathy McMorris, Washington Tim Ryan, Ohio
Kenny Marchant, Texas Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tom Price, Georgia John Barrow, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman
Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Chairman Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Judy Biggert, Illinois Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Virginia
Ric Keller, Florida Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Susan A. Davis, California
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New George Miller, California, ex
York officio
John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 21, 2005................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Chairman, Subcommittee on Education
Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce........... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Alexander, Jeffrey, Assistant Head Start Director, Big Five
Community Services, Inc., Durant, OK....................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Barnett, Dr. W. Steven, Director, National Institute for
Early Education Research, New Brunswick, NJ................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Blank, Helen, Director of Leadership and Public Policy,
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Clifford, Dr. Richard M., Senior Scientist, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute, Chapel Hill, NC........ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Moore, Marsha H., Commissioner, Georgia Department of Early
Care and Learning, Atlanta, GA............................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: IMPROVEMENT THROUGH INTEGRATION
----------
Thursday, April 21, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2175. Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Castle
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castle, Osborne, Ehlers, Kuhl,
Woolsey, Hinojosa, Kind, Kucinich, and Davis of California.
Ex officio present: Representative Boehner.
Also present: Representative Holt.
Staff present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member;
Jessica Gross, Legislative Assistant; Kate Houston,
Professional Staff Member; Alexa Marrero, Press Secretary;
Deborah Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator,
Rich Stombres, Assistant Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Ruth Friedman, Minority Legislative
Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich, Minority Legislative
Associate/Education; Ricardo Martinez, Minority Legislative
Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative
Assistant/Education; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority General
Counsel.
Chairman Castle. The Subcommittee on Education Reform of
the Committee of Education and the Workforce will come to
order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on ``Early Childhood
Education: Improvement through Integration.'' Under Committee
Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Woolsey.
Therefore, if other Members have statements, they may be
included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous
consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow
Member statements and other extraneous material referenced
during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing
record. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Chairman Castle. Good morning to our witnesses who are here
today and to everybody in the audience, and thank you for
joining us today for a hearing on ``Early Childhood Education:
Improvement through Integration.'' As Congress prepares to
strengthen and reauthorize the Head Start program, one of our
chief goals is to remove barriers that may impede the
successful integration of Head Start with other programs that
serve to prepare disadvantaged children for success.
When Head Start was created in 1965, it represented the
first coordinated effort to target early childhood health,
developmental, and educational services to disadvantaged
children and families. For many years, Head Start was the only
opportunity many of these children had to get the head start
they needed to succeed in school and in their future.
Head Start is a successful program that has made great
strides in preparing disadvantaged three and 4-year-olds for
school. Head Start programs provide comprehensive services,
such as nutrition, dental screening, parental involvement, and,
importantly, the school readiness skills that can help prepare
children for kindergarten.
We know that a readiness gap persists between Head Start
children and their peers, and that is something we intend to
address during the reauthorization. However, the larger goals
of the program are sound, and we intend to build upon that
foundation to make Head Start stronger.
The topic of today's hearing is how early childhood
programs can be improved through integration. I mentioned
earlier that when Head Start was created in 1965, it was
largely the only early childhood program available. That is not
the case today. About 40 states have established some form of
early childhood education because states recognize that these
services can make a real difference in preparing children for a
successful future. Various local initiatives have also been
launched and today disadvantaged children and families have
access to programs and services from a wide range of sources.
Some of these programs rival or exceed the quality of Head
Start, while others fall short. Head Start is no longer the
only option for early childhood education and we must ensure
that all children are receiving the same quality education. In
this new era, Head Start should be working toward integrating
services with other school readiness programs and not competing
against them.
Last week, we heard from some successful Head Start
programs that have found ways to integrate Head Start with
other early childhood programs. Today, we are going to look at
that concept more closely. We are going to ask what barriers
exist that prevent effective coordination and integration among
programs, and what steps can be taken at the Federal level to
allow Head Start to make the most of other early childhood
programs that share the same goals.
In the last Congress, this Committee passed a bill that
sought to adjust this need. But many of my colleagues and I
acknowledge that there were concerns about our approach. For
this reason, Chairman Boehner and I have pledged to solicit
additional input and consider alternative strategies for
adjusting the inefficiencies, gaps, and overlap in services and
inconsistent quality that often results when bifurcated systems
exist.
In short, we remain committed to the goal of improved
program coordination but are open to alternate routes to that
goal so long as they are effective.
Early childhood education is essential to overcoming the
school readiness gap and preparing disadvantaged children for
success. We believe Head Start could be made stronger for the
children and families it serves if we allow Head Start to work
in conjunction with other effective programs. Today, I hope we
learn more about how this can become reality.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look
forward to your testimony. I will now yield to the gentlelady
from California, the Ranking Minority Member of this Committee,
Representative Woolsey.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Castle follows:]
Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, and thank you for joining us today for a hearing on
``Early Childhood Education: Improvement Through Integration.'' As
Congress prepares to strengthen and reauthorize the Head Start program,
one of our chief goals is to remove barriers that may impede the
successful integration of Head Start with other programs that serve to
prepare disadvantaged children for success.
When Head Start was created in 1965, it represented the first
coordinated effort to target early childhood health, developmental, and
educational services to disadvantaged children and families. For many
years, Head Start was the only opportunity many of these children had
to get the head start they needed to succeed in school and in their
future.
Head Start is a successful program that has made great strides in
preparing disadvantaged three and four-year olds for school. Head Start
programs provide comprehensive services such as nutrition, dental
screenings, parental involvement, and importantly, the school readiness
skills that can help prepare children for kindergarten.
We know that a readiness gap persists between Head Start children
and their peers, and that's something we intend to address during the
reauthorization. However, the larger goals of the program are sound,
and we intend to build upon that foundation and make Head Start
stronger.
The topic of today's hearing is how early childhood programs can be
improved through integration. I mentioned earlier that when Head Start
was created in 1965, it was largely the only early childhood program
available. That's not the case today.
About 40 states have established some form of early childhood
education, because states recognize that these services can make a real
difference in preparing children for a successful future. Various local
initiatives have also been launched, and today, disadvantaged children
and families have access to programs and services from a wide range of
sources. Some of these programs rival or exceed the quality of Head
Start, while others fall short. Head Start is no longer the only option
for early childhood education, and we must ensure that all children are
receiving the same quality education. In this new era, Head Start
should be working towards integrating services with other school
readiness programs, not competing against them.
Last week, we heard from some successful Head Start programs that
have found ways to integrate Head Start with other early childhood
programs. Today, we're going to look at that concept more closely.
We're going to ask what barriers exist that prevent effective
coordination and integration among programs, and what steps can be
taken at the federal level to allow Head Start to make the most of
other early childhood programs that share the same goals.
In the last Congress, this Committee passed a bill that sought to
address this need, but many of my colleagues and I acknowledge that
there were concerns about our approach. For this reason, Chairman
Boehner and I have pledged to solicit additional input and consider
alternative strategies for addressing the inefficiencies, gaps and
overlap in services, and inconsistent quality that often results when
bifurcated systems exist. In short, we remain committed to the goal of
improved program coordination, but are open to alternate routes to that
goal so long as they are effective.
Early childhood education is essential to overcoming the school
readiness gap and preparing disadvantaged children for success. We
believe Head Start can be made stronger for the children and families
it serves if we allow Head Start to work in conjunction with other
effective programs. Today, I hope we learn more about how that can
become a reality.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony. I will now yield to the gentle lady from
California, the ranking minority member of this subcommittee, Rep.
Woolsey.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. In the past, October has always been Head Start
Awareness Month, but given that this is the third Head Start
hearing we have had in 4 weeks, I think we might be trying to
change the month to April.
Chairman Castle. Is that a motion?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, today's topic is so critical and it is
part of what we know to be so important, which is Head Start.
And coordination and collaboration among Head Start and other
early childhood programs is essential to our children receiving
the services they need in order to succeed in school and in
life.
Because I strongly support both Head Start and universal
preschool, I strongly support Head Start's coordination and
collaboration requirements. For example, Head Start grantees
must coordinate with their local education agencies to ensure a
smooth transition between Head Start and kindergarten. Head
Start also funds Head Start state collaboration offices in each
state. These offices are successfully facilitating coordination
of Head Start services with other Federal and state services to
create an early childhood care and education system. They are
required to ensure that Head Start services are coordinated
with health care, welfare, childcare, education, and community
service activities, family literacy services, services for
children with disabilities and services for homeless children,
not a small task. And I am pleased that a number of our witness
will testify today on how well these requirements are being
implemented in the field.
I am also interested in hearing from all of you on how we
could make coordination and collaboration work even better. But
it is critical that we not allow flexibility to coordinate and
collaborate to be a proxy for waiving or lowering standards.
And because I am as straightforward as I am, we do not need
this to lead us into block granting.
Head Start has served for our most vulnerable children and
families so well for 40 years because the standards have
remained high and they have remained comprehensive. We would do
these children and their families a great disservice by moving
away from those high standards. And we know that the great
majority of Head Start programs are successful now without
block granting and would not gain but lose under a block
granting environment.
And, it is important to remember that another way that we
can improve on our early childhood education system is to
increase Federal support for a proven program, such as Head
Start. In other words, if we are going to talk it, let's
support it and let's make sure that we give the Head Start
program what they need because in recent years we have not done
a good job of that. We have barely kept up with inflation even
though we only serve about half of the eligible 4-year-olds.
At other hearings we have talked about the need for
accountability in Head Start. I think we need to hold ourselves
accountable as well.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to
move forward together to reauthorize Head Start, and I look
forward to hearing from our panel of experts. Thank you very
much for coming.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
In the past, October always has been Head Start Awareness Month,
but given that this is the third Head Start hearing we've had in four
weeks, I think you might be trying to change that to April.
Today's topic is a critical one.
Coordination and collaboration among Head Start and other early
childhood programs is essential to our children receiving the services
they need to help them succeed in school and in life.
Because I strongly support both Head Start and universal preschool,
I strongly support Head Start's coordination and collaboration
requirements.
For example, Head Start grantees must coordinate with their local
educational agency to ensure a smooth transition between Head Start and
kindergarten.
Head Start also funds Head Start-State Collaboration Offices in
each state.
These offices facilitate coordination of Head Start services with
other federal and state services to create an early childhood care and
education system.
They are required to ensure that Head Start services are
coordinated with health care, welfare, child care, education, and
community service activities, family literacy services, services for
children with disabilities, and services for homeless children.
So, I am very pleased that a number of our witnesses will testify
to how well these requirements are being implemented in the field.
I also am interested in hearing how we can make coordination and
collaboration work even better.
But, it is critical that we not allow flexibility to coordinate and
collaborate to be a proxy for waiving or lowering standards.
Head Start has served our most vulnerable children and families so
well for 40 years because its standards have remained both high and
comprehensive.
We would do those children and families a great disservice by
moving away from those standards.
It also is important to remember that another way that we can
improve our early childhood education system is to increase federal
support for proven programs such as Head Start.
In recent years, Congress has not done a good job of that. We have
barely kept up with inflation, even though we only serve about half of
the eligible four-year olds.
At other hearings, we have talked about the need for accountability
in Head Start, and I think we need to hold ourselves accountable as
well.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to move forward
together to reauthorize Head Start, and I look forward to hearing from
our panel.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. We do have a very
distinguished panel of witnesses. And I am going to read the
introductions of each of you and then we will turn to you for
your statements. We will start, obviously, and go across the
line.
Marsha H. Moore is the commissioner of Georgia's Department
of Early Care and Learning, known as Bright Start. Ms. Moore
has worked 23 years in state government posts, including
positions with the Department of Family and Children Services
in the Department of Human Resources. As commissioner, Ms.
Moore oversees an annual budget of over $400 million and
manages state programs to improve the quality of Georgia's
early care and education system. She has worked closely with
Governors' offices and legislators in other states, sharing
Georgia's experience in implementing the largest pre-
kindergarten program in the country. Ms. Moore received her
Master of Public Administration degree from North Carolina
College and State University.
Jeffrey Alexander is the assistant head start director for
the Big Five Community Services, Inc. located in Durant,
Oklahoma and serves as president of the Oklahoma Head Start
Association. Mr. Alexander has worked to integrate classrooms
for Head Start in Oklahoma's pre-kindergarten program, which is
one of the largest voluntary universal school readiness
programs in the United States. He is a member of the Durant
Literacy Council board of directors and the Durant Jaycees. Mr.
Alexander earned his bachelor of science degree in accounting
and business administration from Southeastern Oklahoma State
University. And has a master's degree in business from the
Oklahoma City University.
Dr. W. Steven Barnett is a professor of education and
economics policy and director of the National Institute for
Early Education Research at Rutgers University. He is an
authority on the topic of early education. His work includes
research on state pre-kindergarten programs, the educational
opportunities and experiences of young children in low-income
urban areas, the long-term effects of preschool programs on
children's learning and development, and benefit cost analysis
of preschool programs and their long-term effects. Dr. Barnett
earned his Ph.D. in economics at the University of Michigan.
And Dr. Richard M. Clifford is a senior scientist with the
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leading
expert in early childhood policy. He is nationally known for
his work in assessing the quality of early educational
settings, pre-kindergarten program design and functioning,
service delivery and program financing and personnel
preparation. Dr. Clifford is the co-director of the National
Pre-Kindergarten Center and served as principal investigator of
a large-scale study of pre-kindergarten programs in six states
supported by the U.S. Department of Education.
Helen Blank is the director of Leadership and Public Policy
at the National Women's Law Center where she works to expand
support for early care and educational experiences for children
from low-income families. Previously, Ms. Blank served 24 years
as the director of the Childcare and Development Division at
the Children's Defense Fund. Ms. Blank has developed and led
multiple campaigns to protect and expand public investment in
child welfare programs, including Childcare Now, an ongoing
initiative to focus attention on early care and education. Ms.
Blank has authored and co-authored numerous articles and
studies on child care policies, including Working Together for
Children, Head Start, and Childcare Partnerships, Seeds of
Success, pre-kindergarten initiatives, and state developments
in childcare and early education.
Before the witnesses begin, I would like to remind the
Members that we will be asking questions after the entire panel
has testified. In addition, Committee Rule 2 imposes a 5-minute
limit on all questions.
I think all of you understand the light system, which you
have in front of you there. Green for 4 minutes, yellow for a
minute, and when you see the red, start winding down or wind
down.
And with that, we welcome all of you and we look forward to
your testimony. We will just go right down the row, and we will
start with Ms. Moore.
Can you turn on your microphone? I think you have to hit a
button there in the front and maybe get it a little bit nearer
to you, too, so everybody in the room can hear. Thanks so much.
It is funny, I have mine off and it is still on. There is
something wrong with the system right now.
[Recess.]
Chairman Castle. We are back to the beginning, and I
apologize. We will not penalize you, you will have your full
time. And we do appreciate all of you being here, and with
that, we will proceed.
Ms. Moore.
STATEMENT OF MARSHA H. MOORE, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT
OF EARLY CARE AND LEARNING, ATLANTA, GA
Ms. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the
Subcommittee. On behalf of Governor Sonny Perdue and the State
of Georgia, I thank the Members of this Committee for allowing
me to come to speak to you and to testify and have an
opportunity to answer some of your questions.
In 2004, Georgia took a significant step in approving the
early care and education system in our state by creating a new
state department named Bright from the Start: Georgia
Department of Early Care and Learning. The purpose of the
department was to streamline funds and resources and to improve
the early care and education in our state. We also look at it
by putting an emphasis in the system on education and parents
involvement. And the goal is of course to prepare our children
for school.
Georgia's nationally acclaimed and research-based, lottery-
funded universal pre-K program for 4-year-old children is one
of the premier parts of our organization. The organization now
also licenses all childcare facilities in the state, we
administer the Federal food programs, we house the office of
the department--the collaboration office for Head Start, we
administer funds, the quality funds that come to the state to
improve the quality of early care and education in our state,
and we fund and provide support and oversight of the resource
and referral agencies that are strategically placed throughout
the state of Georgia. Another component which we are beginning,
we will be starting to do in July will be the Even Start Early
Literacy Program.
Georgia has a very long and extensive program and a
meaningful relationship with Head Start programs in our state
where both programs have benefited mutually. For 11 years,
Georgia Pre-K Program has worked closely with Head Start in
blending our funds and resources to increase the number of
children who have received high-quality pre-k programs in our
state. We have also blended our funds to ensure that our staff
receive high-quality training and professional development.
Even though we have had a great and wonderful 11 years of
this, we do acknowledge that there are some challenges that the
state of Georgia will have to face and will face in working
with the integration of Head Start programs within our system.
I am going to discuss briefly some of these challenges and how
we are working toward the successful integration of the
programs and will be happy to give some recommendations to
Congress after that.
Georgia's Pre-K Program and the Head Start Programs differ
in the governance structure. Head Start is governed by a local
entity, policy councils, and board of directors whereby parents
take a very active role in the governance of the program.
Georgia Pre-K Program is governed on the state level, through
contractual agreements with our providers of the Pre-K Program.
However, parent participation is an important element of both
of these programs.
In Georgia, parents have a choice of where they would like
to place their pre-K child in a pre-K program. They also have a
choice of volunteering, they are able to volunteer, have parent
conferences, and work closely with the program. State funding
in Georgia follows the child and not the program.
There are also differences in the program's standards in
Pre-K and Head Start, both programs recognize the same elements
of school readiness. Pre-K also, their curriculum is aligned,
the instructional part is aligned with the Head Start
standards. However, there are differences in the extent of the
comprehensive services that Head Start provides their children
and what Pre-K does in our state. There are also differences in
the staff/child ratios.
However, when we do blend our funds with Head Start and
Pre-K we ensure that the Pre-K guidelines are met and we honor
the Head Start performance standards as well and ensure those
standards are followed and those programs we are funding is
blended.
In Georgia, there is a difference between Head Start and
the monitoring system in the Pre-K program. In Pre-K we receive
a visit, a site visit two times a year. For Head Start in
Georgia, it is one site visit every 3 years with of course
self-assessments given every year. The difference is that we
have discovered in Georgia that research is telling us that the
intensive monitoring system that we have in our Georgia Pre-K
Program has a lot of influence on the success of our children,
the outcomes of our children, and the strong curriculum part of
the program and the environment, the high-quality of
environments in our program. That creates an issue because with
Pre-K there is this high level of monitoring, in Head Start
there hasn't been quite as much. And if there is the
integration of these two programs, it is very important that
Georgia will be allowed to give an oversight, a comprehensive
oversight of the Head Start system so that we can ensure
program compliance and the quality of each of the programs that
are delivered.
In Georgia, we are serving right now 71,500 pre-K 4-year-
old children. And with this high number we realize with the
integration of Head Start into our state that there will be an
opportunity for Head Start programs to change the focus of
serving four- and 3-year-olds to serving more 3 year olds in
our state. With that opportunity, we will have more 3-year-olds
in Georgia participating in a high-quality program. And that is
definitely a benefit. But it will be something that we will
have to make adjustments to.
We also must deal with multiple funding streams and how we
meet both of those funding stream requirements and there is
going to be a challenge of the changing belief systems in both
of those programs and there will be some resistance, and we
recognize that.
But I would like to leave with a couple of recommendations
to the Congress, if I may. First of all is to require the
states to work toward a seamless early care and education
system that is beneficial to all. And we also recommend that
the Congress--that states receiving money for the Head Start
and delivering the Head Start programs that we maintain the
high comprehensive services and programs that the Head Start
programs do and that it is blended into our state. We also
require that there is consistent oversight of the programs, and
we further believe that legislation needs to clearly define the
states authority and responsibilities in maintaining program
compliance in all these programs.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moore follows:]
Statement of Marsha H. Moore, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Early
Care and Learning, Atlanta, GA
In 2004 through the visionary leadership of Governor Sonny Perdue
and the bipartisan support of the Georgia General Assembly, Bright from
the Start: Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning was created to
develop and administer a system of early care and education for
Georgia's children from birth to age five. The Department which
combines the mandated responsibilities of several state entities
administers Georgia's Universal Pre-K Program that this year is
providing quality early learning experiences to over 71,500 four year
olds; licenses all child care learning centers, group day care homes,
and family day care homes; administers the federally funded Child and
Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program to feed
eligible children, adolescents, and adults; administers the federally
funded Even Start Family Literacy Program; administers federal quality
dollars earmarked for quality improvements through the Child Care and
Development Fund; houses the Head Start State Collaboration office;
funds and oversees the child care resource and referral system
throughout the state; and administers initiatives to improve the
quality of care children receive in out-of-home child care. The
Department encourages and supports private/public partnerships through
which much of its work is accomplished, and encourages and supports
parental involvement in their children's educational experiences.
The Department's foundation is the successful, lottery funded
Georgia's Pre-K Program, recognized as one of the premier school
readiness programs in the country. The program has operated for eleven
years and has served over 600,000 children through the use of lottery
funds. Research demonstrates that children participating in the Pre-K
program gained on national norms for math problem solving skills,
letter and word recognition, and receptive vocabulary. Research also
tells us that at-risk children who attended Georgia's Pre-K Program
were more ready for kindergarten, more academically skilled,
communicated better, and behaved better than similar peers who did not
attend the program. Support for the program from Governor Zell Miller
through our current Governor Sonny Perdue and from the citizens of
Georgia who have children in our program have been instrumental in the
program's success.
During the past eleven years, Georgia has enjoyed a fruitful
relationship with Head Start that, through the blending of funds, has
made it possible for us to serve thousands of additional children who
otherwise might not have received services and made it possible to
provide joint training to Head Start and Pre-K teachers and Family
Service Workers and resource coordinators. Thousands of children have
received high quality care and educational opportunities because of the
comprehensive Head Start program standards. Because we have on a small
scale demonstrated the power and effectiveness of a partnership between
Head Start and Georgia's Pre-K Program, we eagerly anticipate and seek
the opportunity to administer federal Head Start funds to build on and
streamline a more coordinated early care and education system in
Georgia. However, we recognize and acknowledge challenges that must be
addressed for Georgia to reach its goal of a seamless coordinated
system for its youngest citizens.
One challenge Georgia will face has to do with the differences in
governance of Head Start programs and Georgia's Pre-K Program. Head
Start programs are governed at the local level by policy councils and
boards of directors, which include parents who take an active role in
program administration. In the early days Head Start programs were much
smaller. Today many of these programs operate with multi-million dollar
budgets and large numbers of staff. In contrast Georgia's Pre-K Program
is administered at the state level. Parents can choose the program
where their child will receive services depending on the type of
curriculum and supporting services available. State money follows the
child to whichever private or public program they choose. Georgia's
Pre-K Program recognizes the importance of parent involvement and
participation, but the program does not give parents responsibility to
help administer the program. Because of these differences in governance
between Head Start and Georgia's Pre-K Program, there may initially be
mistrust and concerns relating to program administration. This issue
can be resolved by developing and supporting parent advisory councils
in communities where early care and education services are provided.
Head Start programs are required to meet rigorous program
standards. Georgia's Pre-K Program also requires providers to maintain
high standards. The math and the language/literacy standards of
Georgia's Pre-K Program recently received overall grades of A from the
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Both programs
agree on elements of school readiness, and the instructional portion of
Georgia's Pre-K Program is aligned with Head Start standards. However,
other portions of the Head Start standards are a challenge for many
Pre-K program providers to meet, particularly providers in private
child care settings. Currently, there are other standards in Georgia
that differ. For example, Georgia's staff to child ratios for three-
year-old children is one staff for every 15 children. Head Start
requires one staff for every eight (8) three-year-old children. In
situations where children from Georgia's Pre-K Program and Head Start
program are blended, the Department requires the higher Head Start
standards to be met. Requiring the higher standards continues to be an
obstacle to developing collaborative partnerships between Head Start
and private child care settings in the state. To help overcome this
obstacle and thus encourage partnerships between Head Start and private
child care providers, the Department provides additional training and
technical assistance.
Research indicates that one of the strong components of Georgia's
Pre-K Program is consistent monitoring and oversight of the program.
Georgia's Pre-K Program providers receive at least two site reviews per
year by our Department. In addition to the site reviews, Georgia's Pre-
K Program providers receive high quality training and technical
assistance on an ongoing basis. With the Pre-K monitoring process and
its governance structure, the Department can take appropriate action if
monitoring reveals poor performance. Currently, Head Start programs
receive a site review by outside consultants every three years with
self-assessment reports required on an annual basis. If Georgia is
designated to be a demonstration state, such limited oversight of Head
Start programs would hinder my Department's ability to identify and
resolve issues related to compliance with performance standards.
In fiscal year 05 over fifty percent of Georgia's Pre-K children
were considered economically at risk meaning that they might also be
eligible for Head Start. A more deliberate blending and redirecting of
federal Head Start funds and state Pre-K funds would allow more four
year olds to be served and possibly allow Head Start funds to be
redirected to serve at-risk three year olds in comprehensive high
quality programs. The challenge here is for Head Start to be willing to
change its focus from serving three and four year olds to focusing more
on three year olds.
Managing multiple funding streams may be a challenge for some
states particularly when the state and federal government operate under
different standards and require different initiatives. For example,
Head Start programs are funded at the beginning of the service year,
and periodically additional funding may be sent to programs to focus on
special projects such as technical assistance or a male/father
involvement project. In Georgia, Pre-K programs are funded on a monthly
basis through a contractual agreement with providers. Pre-K initiatives
are determined at the beginning of the year based on need and on money
available after monthly payments and projections are made. This means
that two programs are operated by the state for basically the same
children with different focuses and services provided depending on the
funding received by each program. This creates a somewhat confusing
system with some children with the same needs being treated
differently. Resources and requirements need to be coordinated to
ensure consistency and fairness to all of Georgia's children.
Lastly, another challenge will be the differences in the culture
and philosophy of the Head Start and Pre-K programs. The programs were
created in different historical eras; consequently, each program was
based on a different set of beliefs. To successfully blend the two will
require both programs to adjust those beliefs. And as we know, changing
belief systems is challenging and sometimes met with resistance. Many
Head Start employees have worked with the program for years, and
typically programs operate in well-established community systems. While
Georgia's Pre-K Program may not have the long history that the Head
Start program has, many Pre-K providers are loyal to the principles on
which the program was based. Both programs will have to be willing to
adjust their underlying belief systems in order for the blended model
to work successfully. Georgia's extensive collaborations with Head
Start will help to relieve some of the mistrust and uncertainties, but
it is unrealistic not to expect challenges in cooperation and buy-in to
a comprehensive statewide system. It is imperative that Georgia build
on its tradition of collaboration and past successes while at the same
time provide political support for a smooth transition.
In closing, based on our experience in Georgia, we respectfully
recommend that Congress:
1. require states to develop standards that are at least as
rigorous as the current Head Start program standards;
2. require states to work toward a seamless early care and
education system that includes Head Start in such a way that
collaboration is beneficial to all parties;
3. require consistent program monitoring;
4. clearly define the states' authority and responsibilities in
obtaining and maintaining program compliance.
On behalf of the state of Georgia and Bright from the Start:
Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning, I thank the members of
the House Subcommittee on Education Reform for the opportunity to
provide testimony for your consideration. Georgia wholeheartedly
supports the idea of more effective integration of Head Start and other
school readiness programs, and we applaud Congress's efforts to ensure
that our nation's children and their families receive the most
efficient and effective preschool services possible. We believe that
Georgia is well positioned, with the governance structure and
experience in blending federal and state funds, to help create and
demonstrate a model of an effective system for early care and
education.
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Moore, we appreciate it.
Mr. Alexander?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY ALEXANDER, ASSISTANT HEAD START DIRECTOR,
BIG FIVE COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., DURANT, OK
Mr. Alexander. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today and to share with this distinguished panel the
successes of Oklahoma in its collaborative efforts among
Federal, state and local programs offering early childhood
services.
My main message to you today is that there is nothing about
the current Federal to local Head Start funding structure or
the Head Start performance standards that precludes active and
effective coordination and collaboration among the
organizations and agencies serving young children and their
families.
What the Oklahoma experience demonstrates is that it can be
done and done well within the existing structure. Today,
Oklahoma public schools, Head Start, and childcare programs all
collaborate to meet the needs of our children and working
families. The result is that more children and families are
receiving quality comprehensive services in full day settings.
There are more qualified teachers, more licensed facilities,
longer hours and days of service. The system is locally driven.
Each program must meet the highest standards of the
collaborating partners.
What it takes to make this work are committed and dedicated
personnel in each of the programs. Simply changing the funding
structure isn't going to make otherwise unengaged state
officials more interested in early childhood education and
services. And it is clear that the existing funding structure
is not an impediment to close coordination and collaboration.
In Oklahoma, state and local leaders are working together
to use the Head Start, Pre-K, and childcare funds, both to
improve the quality of the programs and to meet the needs of
working families. At the same time, these partnerships
strengthen programs by putting funds together to bolster
quality and support comprehensive services that would otherwise
not be available.
The Head Start Program performance standards mandate the
comprehensive quality services to be provided to children and
families served by these programs. It is because Head Start
recognizes that at-risk children need a range of services to
become school ready. Therefore, the individualized services
provided by Head Start include those related to education and
early childhood development, such as age-appropriate
instruction in math, literacy, science, art, medical, dental,
and mental health services, nutrition, and parental involvement
in the development of their children.
In order to provide these services, Head Start programs
work with an array of community partners. Let me take you back
home, it is November 10, 2002, 7:25 a.m., the Head Start
director pulls up at the building to find a homeless family on
the door step of the office building, father, mother, and two
small children with everything they have in two handbags. After
meeting the Head Start director, takes these children and their
family to have breakfast. One child is Head Start age-
appropriate so therefore that child is enrolled immediately to
begin receiving services. The second child is first grade level
age so that child is taken to that local public school and
enrolled.
The work with the Community Action Agency in that local
area to get a home for that family. This is on a short-term
basis but for homeless persons. Dad seems to have some type of
disability so they reach out to the mental health services,
which they partner with in that community, and ask for an
evaluation. This is done. Then mom is evaluated and done a OSIB
check, then put to work as a substitute, whether it be cook
aide or teacher's aide to have some funds coming into that
family.
So that is how we partner out there on a daily basis.
Otherwise, that family would not have had any services. Now
today, after that partnership 2 years later, through Head Start
and its collaborative efforts this family is self-sufficient.
Dad has his own computer repair business. I must hurriedly move
on but that takes you to the local level to see and that is
where we have to be is on the local level to see how this
works.
It is this existing structure that works. Can it be
improved upon and strengthened? Of course it can be. Do we need
to change the funding structure to make it work? Absolutely
not. Do we need to provide greater flexibility in terms of the
performance standards?
No. What we do need is funding to make sure we are serving
as many eligible children, such as these in this family, as
possible. We stretch our dollars.
In short, Head Start works. It is a collaborative effort
within the community, state, the school system, and the
providers of Head Start. It gets our poorest children ready to
learn and better prepares them to succeed in school and in
life. We call it Head Start for a reason. If Congress chooses
to dilute the existing performance standards, if we exclude
parental involvement in the Head Start experience, if we try
too hard to achieve collaboration by experimenting with
funding, then we have lost Head Start. This is a program that
prepares our poorest children for school and later life. If we
disregard the foundation and intent of this program, then Head
Start will no longer exist. We cannot allow this to happen.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey Alexander, Assistant Head Start Director, Big Five
Community Services, Inc., Durant, OK
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am
Jeff Alexander, Assistant Head Start Director for Big Five Community
Services, Inc., a Community Action Agency in rural, southeastern
Oklahoma. I have served in this position for the past three years.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and to
share with this distinguished panel Oklahoma's success story in terms
of collaborative efforts among federal, state and local programs
offering early childhood services. I will detail what we have done and
continue to do in Head Start on the local level to maximize benefits,
avoid gaps in service, and create quality, comprehensive systems when
it comes to early childhood programs. Coordination and collaboration is
not a new concept in Oklahoma; my director, Ms. Jackie Watson, has been
collaborating in some form with public school districts and others for
nearly 20 years. She began in a small, rural school in Yuba, Oklahoma,
where, as the Superintendent of Schools likes to say, ``the sun kisses
the earth every morning.'' That collaboration has been expanded and
today includes 18 school districts and four day care facilities,
serving a total of 807 children and families in a five county area.
COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION: A NATIONAL PICTURE
Head Start has a long history of delivering comprehensive and high
quality services designed to foster healthy development in low-income
children. Head Start programs deliver a range of individualized
services in the areas of education and early childhood development;
medical, dental, and mental health; nutrition; and parent involvement
in the development of their children. In order to provide these
services, Head Start programs work with an array of community partners.
All Head Start programs must adhere to the Head Start Program
Performance Standards, which define the services to be provided to the
children and families they serve. The Performance Standards constitute
the expectations and requirements that Head Start grantees must meet.
They are designed to ensure that the Head Start goals and objectives
are implemented successfully, that the Head Start philosophy continues
to thrive, and that all programs maintain the highest possible quality.
The Head Start Program Performance Standards encourage
collaboration and coordination by specifying that all programs must:
<bullet> ``take an active role in community planning to encourage
strong communication, cooperation, and the sharing of information among
agencies and their community partners and to improve the delivery of
community services to children and families.''
<bullet> take affirmative steps to establish ongoing collaborative
relationships with community organizations to promote the access of
children and families to community services that are responsive to
their needs, and to ensure that Early Head Start and Head Start
programs respond to community needs.'' In addition to local elementary
schools, these community organizations include those that provide
health care, family, disability, child protective, and child care
services.
<bullet> ``make specific efforts to develop interagency agreements
with local education agencies.''
<bullet> ``establish and maintain procedures to support successful
transitions for enrolled children and families from previous child care
programs into Early Head Start or Head Start and from Head Start into
elementary school, a Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act preschool program, or other child care settings.''
Head Start program administrators understand the importance of
coordination among their programs, child care programs and other pre-K
and state education programs. Indeed, collaboration with other
community agencies is central to Head Start's mission and service
delivery design because it is fundamental to delivering high quality,
comprehensive services.
Coordination and collaboration is occurring in many states and at
the local level all over this country. In fact, many Head Start
programs provide full day, full year services by leveraging child care
funds to extend their services. Similarly, pre-kindergarten services
often co-locate with Head Start programs to provide extended education
and comprehensive health and nutrition services to a larger group of
children.
Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,
Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledged the extent of
collaboration taking place in testimony before this Committee:
. . .despite its federal-to-local program structure, Head Start
has always recognized that the states play an important role in
the formulation and implementation of policies and initiatives
that affect low-income children and their families.
Partnerships have always been one of Head Start's highest
priorities. These include partnerships with local school
districts--nearly 450 of which operate Head Start programs--and
local governments. . .\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horn, W. (March 6, 2003). Testimony on the President's Plan to
Strengthen Head Start before the Subcommittee on Education Reform,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of
Representatives. Accessed at http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/
108th/edr/headstart030603/horn.htm on April 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Head Start Bureau, in a recent 228-page report, Head Start-
State Collaboration Offices, extensively documents how Head Start
programs are collaborating with states, localities, and private
organizations. In the report, the Head Start Bureau catalogued the
extent of this collaboration by providing summaries of activities for
every state in the country. These partnerships and collaborative
efforts often are facilitated by Head Start State Collaboration Offices
and are intended to:
<bullet> Help build early childhood systems and enhance access to
comprehensive services and support for all low-income children;
<bullet> Encourage widespread collaboration between Head Start and
other appropriate programs, services and initiatives, augmenting Head
Start's capacity to be a partner in State initiatives on behalf of
children and their families; and
<bullet> Facilitate the involvement of Head Start in State
policies, plans, processes, and decisions affecting the Head Start
target population and other low-income families.
COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION: THE OKLAHOMA EXPERIENCE
Head Start programs in Oklahoma have formed partnerships with
community agencies and others to ensure that comprehensive, quality
services are provided to the children and families enrolled in our
programs. Compliance with the Head Start Performance Standards demands
no less of us. For example, Head Start provides family advocates to
help families find needed resources, such as a family medical facility.
A family in need of electricity or other utility can be assured that we
will find a resource in the community to help fulfill this need. In
instances where parents have not completed High School, we work with
institutions or businesses in the community to find classes offering
G.E.D. tutoring. We know a better-educated parent is more likely to
create a stronger learning environment at home. Parents in need of
employment may be referred to the local Workforce Investment (WIA)
office for job training opportunities. These are but a few of the
services we are able to provide through collaborative efforts with
others in the community.
Although state and local level leaders met regularly to identify
and remove barriers to locally-driven partnerships, it was legislation
passed by the State Legislature in 1998 that served as the catalyst for
a strong partnership between Head Start and local school districts.
Legislation passed in 1998 authorizes public school districts in
Oklahoma to provide pre-kindergarten programs to four-year olds and to
receive state funding according to a weighted formula that provides
more funding per child for disabled, bilingual and poor children. This
expanded pre-K program is run by the public schools on a voluntary
basis, through collaborations with Head Start programs and day care
centers.
Oklahoma has made a commitment to program quality and requires all
pre-K teachers to have a college degree and a certificate in early
childhood education. Pre-K teachers must also receive the same
compensation and benefits as teachers in public elementary schools.
These two requirements distinguish Oklahoma's pre-K program from child
care centers in the State. By law, group sizes for Oklahoma's pre-K
program are set at 20 and child/staff ratios cannot exceed 10/1. These
requirements correspond to Head Start program guidelines. The State
does not require use of a specific curriculum but leaves that decision
in the hands of local school districts.
Today, Oklahoma public schools, Head Start and child care programs
collaborate to meet the needs of working families. The result is that
more children and families are receiving quality, comprehensive
services on a full-day, year-round basis. There is a more qualified
staff, more licensed facilities, and longer hours and days of service.
In short, more children are being served with higher quality, more
comprehensive programs. The system is locally-driven but facilitated
and supported by the State. Each program must meet the highest
standards of the collaborating partners. So, for example, Head Start
programs delivering the State's pre-K services must have degreed
teachers. Highly dedicated people at the state and local level make the
system work.
CONCLUSION
The Oklahoma experience demonstrates that it is possible within the
existing structure to have a high degree of coordination and
collaboration among Head Start programs, state pre-k programs and child
care programs. What it takes are committed and dedicated personnel at
each program to make it work. Simply changing the funding structure
isn't going to make otherwise unengaged state officials more interested
in early childhood education and services. And, it is clear that the
existing funding structure is not an impediment to close coordination
and collaboration.
In Oklahoma, state and local leaders are working together to use
Head Start, pre-K and child care funds both to improve the quality of
the programs and to meet the needs of working families. At the same
time, these partnerships are strengthening programs by putting funds
together to bolster program quality and support comprehensive services
that otherwise would not be available.
The quality of Oklahoma's delivery system is in great measure due
to framing our services based on Head Start's exacting program
performance standards. Head Start's Program Performance Standards are
the foundation for quality, comprehensive services. They require
attention to literacy, math, science, arts, physical, social, emotional
and other areas of children development. The Standards are rigorous and
programs are regularly monitored for compliance. They help guide good
teaching and assessment. They should not be sacrificed in the name of
flexibility. The Oklahoma experience is that they work to improve the
lives and school readiness of children. Ladies and gentlemen, Head
Start works!
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
Dr. Barnett?
STATEMENT OF DR. W. STEVEN BARNETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR EARLY EDUCATION RESEARCH, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
Mr. Barnett. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you. I am
Steve Barnett, I am the director of the National Institute for
Early Education Research. We are independent and non-partisan,
and we provide research and analysis on early childhood policy.
Over the past 40 years, we have developed a patchwork quilt
of Federal, state, local, and private programs to serve
children at ages three and four in the United States. We have
made some remarkable progress, 7 in 10 4-year-olds are in some
kind of preschool program, 4 in 10 at age three. Yet despite
this progress, many children still don't attend a preschool
program, including more than half of the three and 4 year olds
in poverty. And many of those who do attend do not go to a
good, effective preschool program. Now as an economist who
studied the returns to high quality programs over the past 20
years, I find that America pays a high price when we fail to
provide these programs with high standards and effective
education.
Across the Nation we are at a point where public preschool
programs really do have serious concerns with respect to
integration and coordination. Head Start serves about 900,000
children, mostly at three and four. State pre-K's now serve
over 740,000 almost all 4-year-olds. Additional children are in
public school programs for children with disabilities. Others
attend private programs that are at least partly paid for with
child care subsidies. These programs for the most part serve,
at least partially and sometimes highly overlapping
populations.
In many ways, this is a good situation. Programs rarely
have enough money to provide a full day of care and good
education. The only way to do that is to combine some of these
programs. So there is a potential for cooperation and
integration to lead to better services for children. However,
this overlapping system we have is also confusing for parents
and providers. There are conflicting regulations, highly
variable services, and uneven coverage. Our studies make this
clear. If you look across the country, for example, you will
see that over the past decade great progress has been made in
the South and Northeast and the West has simply been left
behind in terms of increasing enrollment. Rural kids, and
Latino kids in particular, seem to be under served.
So if we look across the country, we see this picture where
a few states serve all 4-year-olds. By our count, seven states
serve more than half of all of their 4-year-olds between state
pre-K, Head Start, and IDEA. And yet 12 states provide no
preschool--no state preschool program at all. Their standards
vary widely. Some states require a 4-year college degree. Some
states require no college education at all. Only 16 had
comprehensive learning standards, although that is changing
rapidly.
And state funding varies from $1,000 to $9,000 per child.
Only three states come within $1,000 of spending what Head
Start has. The average state funding is only half the Federal
Head Start amount. That is not a basis for cost comparison. And
that is because that is only state spending. The reason we
can't accurately compare costs, a major impediment to learning
how to coordinate and integrate services, is public data
systems don't provide accurate information about spending on
these programs. Many state programs are partly, and in some
cases mostly, funded by local sources where those funds are not
tracked.
So it is nearly impossible to find out how much they spend.
And one of our recommendations, one of my recommendations is
that we develop joint data systems that provide unduplicated
counts and track these funds.
Beyond this, I don't have proven solutions to offer you
today. Yet, I do believe we need to enable state's Head Start
and other Federal programs to jointly develop and test new
approaches, particularly where states are already offering
high-quality preschool programs. There are many options to do
this. I have attached an appendix to my testimony that in fact
details many of the ways collaboration and cooperation already
happen. At least 21 states use Head Start with your state Pre-
K.
In addition, I would offer the following recommendations
for limited experiments where we actually gather information on
whether they work. Give states increased flexibility to use the
Child Care Block Grant, TANF, and other Federal funds for state
pre-K. Give states increased authority over Head Start where
state pre-K standard are high. Require Head Start programs to
maximize participation in state pre-K where they can do this
without diluting their services. Let Head Start and state pre-K
programs essentially trade the services of each other's
eligible populations. Where there are Head Start-eligible
children in areas there are so few of them sometimes it is not
feasible to have a Head Start Program, yet there is a larger
population, make credits available to the families so they can
purchase these services themselves. And finally, as an
incentive for states to have high pre-K standards, provide
supplemental funds to Head Start to meet higher state
standards. For example, allowing Head Start to hire teachers
with BA degrees or to reduce class size. Now no one can
guarantee that any of these recommendations will actually work.
That is why we need true experiments, rigorously evaluated. We
need to look at how do they affect the literacy, math, social,
and moral development, and the health of kids when we do try
these kinds of things to see if they work better.
I have some examples of the issues that arise from my own
state of New Jersey. I want to point out that my comments do
not reflect the views of anyone in state government,
particularly my wife who is the director, she is assistant to
the commissioner for Early Childhood in New Jersey. We have
sought in New Jersey to integrate with a very high-quality
program, Head Start, and childcare and other services. It
hasn't been easy. We have had difficulties with the
requirements for verifying the income of families for childcare
subsidies. We have had Head Start agencies turn over and not
automatically re-engage with the same arrangements they had to
partner in providing services. We have had problems where we
seem to have unfilled Head Start slots over here, Head Start-
eligible children over here being served in Pre-K, and yet Pre-
K-eligible children over here not being served.
There are ways to work that out. And, in fact, the state is
currently working with the Head Start regional office to find
solutions to these problems. So they are working at it.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for taking up this
issue. The nation has been making more headway in expanding
access than it has in improving quality. And yet as an
economist, I think it is important to point out it is not a
good policy to serve goods with public dollars unless you
provide a high-quality, effective education with those dollars.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnett follows:]
Statement of Dr. W. Steven Barnett, Director, National Institute for
Early Education Research, New Brunswick, NJ
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, thank you for the
opportunity to address you today. I am Steven Barnett, Director of the
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers
University. NIEER is an independent, nonpartisan organization that
conducts and disseminates research on early childhood education policy.
I am also a professor of education economics and policy. I wish to
express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for investigating the
potential for improvement of early childhood education through better
integration.
Over the past 40 years a patchwork quilt of federal, state, local,
and private programs has evolved to serve children at ages 3 and 4. We
have made some remarkable progress: 7 of 10 children now attend a
preschool program at age 4 (about the same percentage that attended
kindergarten in 1970); 4 of 10 attend a preschool program at age 3.
Despite this progress many children still do not attend a preschool
program, including more than 1/2 of the 3- and 4-year olds in poverty.
And, many who do go to preschool still fail to get an effective
education. As an economist who has studied the returns to high quality
preschool education for over 20 years, I find that America pays a high
price because public programs for young children have low standards and
too little funding to reach high standards.
Across the nation, public preschool programs have grown to the
point where coordination and integration are important concerns. Head
Start provides for about 900,000 children, 800,000 at ages 3 and 4.
State preschool programs serve over 700,000 children, nearly all of
them at age 4. State pre-K now serves more 4's than Head Start.
Additional children are served in public school programs for young
children with disabilities. Others attend private programs at least
partly paid for with child care subsidies. Most public programs target
highly overlapping populations.
This complex arrangement is generally good. Programs rarely have
enough money to serve all eligible children. Child care subsidy rates
are too low to purchase effective education, and blending programs may
be the only way to obtain education and a full day of child care. There
is potential for better services through cooperation and integration.
However, there is also potential for confusion among parents and
providers, conflicting regulations, highly variable services, and
uneven coverage. NIEER's annual reports on state pre-k and analyses of
national survey data from parents make this clear. There are dramatic
differences among the states and within states. Over the past decade,
the south and northeast rapidly expanded preschool education, while the
west lagged behind. Rural and Latino children appear to have less
access to early childhood education than others.
A few states offer preschool education to all children at age 4,
and others are moving toward that goal. By our count, in 7 states more
than 1/2 of the 4-year-olds were served by state pre-K, Head Start and
IDEA combined in 2002. However, 12 states provided no state funding for
Pre-K in 2002. State early education standards also vary widely. Many
states require teachers to have a BA and specialized training, but
others do not even require a 2-year degree. Only 16 had comprehensive
learning standards, though that has been changing fast. State funding
varied from $1,000 to nearly $9,000 per child, but only 3 states came
within a $1,000 of Head Start spending. Average state funding was only
1/2 the federal Head Start amount. However, it is impossible to make
accurate cost comparisons today.
The reason costs cannot be accurately compared, and a major
difficulty for learning how to better integrate early education
programs, is that public data systems don't provide the needed
information. For example, many state programs are partly funded by
local schools (sometimes with Title I funds), but it is nearly
impossible to find out how much they spend. The federal government
should remedy this problem by supporting the development of joint data
systems that provide unduplicated counts of the children uniquely or
jointly served, the services they receive, and the public expenditures
that support them. The nation knows how much the federal, state, and
local governments spend per child on K-12 education in each state.
Similar information should be available on preschool education.
I don't have proven solutions to offer you today. Yet, the
situation is only going to become more serious, making it essential to
enable states, Head Start, and other federal programs to jointly
develop and test new approaches, particularly where states offer good
universal preschool education. There are many options to be tested from
shifting Head Start resources to younger children to the development of
joint programs pooling state and federal program resources. I have
attached an appendix to my testimony that details existing
collaborative efforts; at least 21 states now use Head Start to serve
7% of their children in state pre-K. My recommendations for approaches
that could be tested in limited experiments are as follows.
<bullet> Give states increased flexibility to use Child Care Block
Grant, TANF and other federal funds for state pre-K.
<bullet> Give states increased authority over Head Start where
state pre-K standards are high and coverage extensive.
<bullet> Require Head Start programs to maximize participation in
state pre-K where this can be done without diluting services and states
are willing to provide needed funds.
<bullet> Credit Head Start and state pre-K for serving each
other's eligible populations when they can meet the requisite
standards. This might be more cost-effective while providing greater
parental choice and competition.
<bullet> Where the Head Start eligible population is too sparse to
support a Head Start program, offer families credits to be used to
purchase equivalent services from providers that meet Head Start
standards.
<bullet> As an incentive for high pre-K standards, provide
supplemental funds to Head Start to meet higher state standards, for
example, enabling Head Start to hire teachers with BA degrees and pay
competitive salaries or to reduce class size.
No one can guarantee that these or any other policy changes will
succeed. Thus, it is vital that the federal government support true
experiments that are rigorously evaluated. This will provide a
safeguard so that policy changes do not lead Head Start and other
programs to lose their effectiveness, and it will ensure that
definitive conclusions can be reached regarding what works. Broad
implementation of policy changes should proceed only after positive
findings.
I have some examples from New Jersey where I reside. My comments do
not represent the views of anyone in state government, including (and
particularly) my wife, Dr. Ellen Frede who is Assistant to the
Commissioner for Early Childhood. New Jersey is implementing the
nation's most ambitious pre-K program for all 3-and-4-year olds in 31
school districts that serve a 1/4 of our children. This program has
sought to integrate child care and Head Start with state pre-K. This
has not been easy. Fro example, we have had difficulties with the
requirements to verify income for child care subsidies. When Head Start
agencies have turned over, agreements have not been automatically
continued leaving districts to face gaps in services. We appear to have
problems with unfilled Head Start slots in some districts while Head
Start eligible children occupy state pre-K slots and other children can
not find places. The state is currently working with the Head Start
regional office to find solutions to some of these problems.
In conclusion, I want to thank you once again for taking up the
cause of improving early childhood education. The nation has been
making more headway in expanding access than in improving quality. Yet,
increasing the numbers of children served with public money is sound
policy only when it also provides an effective education. Whatever you
can do to ensure that more children receive a high quality, effective
preschool education will pay substantial human and economic dividends
far into the future.
Appendix: Current State/Local Collaborations with Head Start
Debra Ackerman and Dr. W. Steven Barnett
Head Start and the States partner in a number of ways already. A
basic overview follows.
State Financial Collaborations
Seventeen states supplement federal Head Start funds in order to
provide over 28,000 slots, wrap-around services, and quality
enhancements. In fiscal year 2003, this supplemental funding totaled
over $177 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0780.001
State-Head Start Preschool Collaborations
In 2002-2003, just under 740,000 children were enrolled in state-
funded preschool initiatives in 38 states. About 7% of the preschoolers
enrolled in these state-funded programs were served in Head Start
programs. At least 21 states used Head Start programs to serve some
state pre-K children (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2004). About
13% of the public schools operating preschool programs reported using
Head Start funds according to an NCES report on pre-K in the public
schools.
State Administrative Collaborations
Every state-as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico-
also receives grants from the Administration for Children and Families
to fund state Head Start Collaboration Offices. The intent of these
grants was to ``create a visible presence for Head Start at the state
level and to assist in the development of multi-agency and public-
private partnerships among Head Start and other interested
stakeholders'' (California Head Start State Collaboration Office,
2005). These offices are also responsible for integrating the efforts
of various state and community organizations in eight key areas:
<bullet> Improve access to health care services
<bullet> Improve the availability, accessibility, and quality of
child care services
<bullet> Improve collaboration with welfare systems
<bullet> Expand and improve education opportunities in early
childhood programs Initiate interactions with AmeriCorps-The National
Service Program
<bullet> Improve opportunities for children with disabilities
<bullet> Improve access to family literacy services
<bullet> Improve collaboration for homeless families (Nevada Head
Start Collaboration Office, 2005).
In order to reach these goals, states have established various
noteworthy partnerships. For example, in Nevada all Head Starts sites
have applications for the state's CheckUp program, a health insurce
program for children from low-income families (Nevada Head Start-State
Collaboration Project, 2005). Pennsylvania has four Technical
Assistance Regional Coordinators. Their background, areas of expertise,
and contact information are available on the state's Collaboration
Project web site (Pennsylvania Head Start State Collaboration Project,
2005). Texas has established a statewide online trainer registry.
Trainers must be approved based on their educational background and
training received in adult education and learning, as well as their
experience working with children and teaching adults (Texas Head Start
State Collaboration Office, 2005). .
REFERENCES
Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2004).
The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool yearbook. New
Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.
California Head Start Collaboration Office. (2005). Overview. Retrieved
April 18, 2005 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/
chssco.asp?print=yes
Nevada Head Start-State Collaboration Project. (2005). Head Start
collaboration-initiatives. Retrieved April 18, 2005 from http:/
/www.welfare.state.nv.us/chiid-care/
headstartlHeadStartInitiative.htm
Pennsylvania Head Start State Collaboration Project. (2005). Technical
assistance. Retrieve April 18, 2005 from http://www.center-
school.org/hsscp/map-ta.php
Smith, T., Kleiner, A., Parsad, B., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (2003).
Prekindergarten in U. S. public schools: 2000-2001.-Statistical
analysis report. Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics, U. S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Statistics.
Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office. (2005). Trainer registry.
Retrieved April 18, 2005 from http://www.uth.tmc.edu/thssco/
careerdev/index.htm
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Barnett.
Dr. Clifford.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD M. CLIFFORD, SENIOR SCIENTIST, FRANK
PORTER GRAHAM CHILD DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, CHAPEL HILL, NC
Mr. Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is
Dick Clifford, and I am a researcher at the FPG Child
Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
And I will start with my disclaimer. I am representing
myself and the work that I do but not the university or any of
the agencies that have supported this work. So these are my
opinions here.
I will not go into all that I do but I have had two large-
scale projects looking at pre-kindergarten in a total of 11
different states in the U.S. and those states together
represent about 80 percent of all of the children who are in
pre-K, state-funded pre-K in the U.S. So a lot of experience
looking at state pre-K efforts.
I also took a leave of absence from the university for a
year and worked in state government in North Carolina when we
were designing and implementing what is known as Smart Start in
North Carolina, a general early childhood initiative. So I had
an opportunity there to look particularly at implementing
programs at the state level, so real time working with Head
Start, Childcare and Early Intervention Services with pre-K
programs, trying to bring those programs together and integrate
services. So I appreciate very much the difficulty of the task
that you are undertaking here and also the importance of it.
In the last decade, we have actually seen pretty dramatic
increases in investments in early childhood services, but we
still have only what I consider to be minimal formal
coordination of efforts across childcare, early intervention of
services of children with disabilities, and preschool programs
with Head Start.
Let me just give you an example from my own current work
relating to Head Start and state pre-K programs. You have heard
today some comments about efforts at the state level to do
coordination and collaboration. Both Head Start and Pre-K
Programs essentially serve the same population. In virtually
every state there is either a sole requirement that low-income
children be served or that is one of the major criteria in the
program, which of course the same is true for Head Start.
One would expect then that there would be very close
cooperation and coordination across Pre-K Programs and Head
Start. In fact, one would think that states would have first
turned to Head Start providers to actually help implement Pre-K
Programs and they may have started that way. But in fact when
we look at the state Pre-K Programs that we have examined, only
about 15 percent of these classes, pre-K classes in the states
we have studied are in Head Start programs. And two of those
states, Ohio and Kentucky, account for most of that 15 percent.
If you look at the rest of the states, we are talking about
5 or 6 or 7 percent. So we failed, at least in our initial
attempts, to try to integrate Head Start and public Pre-K
programs, at least in my opinion.
Then, second, as a state administrator, when I worked in
public government in North Carolina, I found that linking the
Smart Start initiative with Head Start go back into how these
two are coordinated but clearly Head Start is run by the
Federal Government. There is a state collaboration office in
states, supported by the Federal Government, to help with
collaboration between Head Start and other early childhood
programs but still all of the decisions are made through the
Federal Government. The standards are set at the Federal
Government, decisions about which programs to fund, where
expansion will take place for Head Start all happen at the
Federal Government whereas the decisions for childcare, early
intervention, and preschool pretty much are centered at the
state level with some of that delegated down to the local
level.
I would just add in here one other factor, and that is that
schools have become increasingly involved in serving preschool-
aged children. We did a study--survey of data sources at the
Federal level, trying to identify how many children were served
by schools prior to kindergarten entry, and by the turn of the
century about a million children in the U.S. were in schools
prior to their normal kindergarten entry age. And that number,
that million, is about a fourth of the number of 4-year-olds in
the U.S. There are about four million 4-year-olds in the U.S.,
so about one in four children are getting services through
schools prior to school entry. So schools have become a major
player in recent years in the early childhood field.
Just in passing, I would say we are starting a new
initiative at North Carolina that is trying to help look at how
the schools and local providers work together to serve young
children.
OK, in 2003, the Office of Management and Budget estimated
that Federal and state expenditures on preschool and childcare
programs totaled about $24 billion. And I have provided you a
table that specifically looks at North Carolina about the same
time period. We in North Carolina in that same 2002/2003 were
spending about three quarters of a billion dollars a year on
early childhood services in North Carolina for children from
birth up to 5 years of age. And there is no single dominant
provider in that group. Head Start has a large share of that
three-quarters of a billion but nowhere near the majority of
it. No one provider is dominant. The legislature in North
Carolina came back to the state and told us we want to make
sure these funds are being used effectively and efficiently.
Both Governors and states are seeking to make the most
efficient and effective use of the limited resources and are
naturally concerned that the services not be duplicated, that
they are used to maximize the impact on children, and that all
appropriate resources are directed toward this population.
These are goals I know that you share as a Committee.
Now what recommendations? I think I would first say that
the problems with integrating services for young children are
tied more to organizational and structural features than they
are to the specific requirements on the programs, the
individual standards and the technical parts of the
legislation. The problem is that there is no clear message
about who is in charge, what is the relative role, what should
be the relative role of Head Start, childcare, and these other
services that we have talked about?
There are a few states that are trying to address that. You
have heard already from the commissioner of the new department
in Georgia that is trying to bring together a variety of
services in Georgia under a new department there. Massachusetts
is in the process of trying to develop a new department that
will cover all of early childhood services. In North Carolina
right now we are making steps to try to improve the
coordination and collaboration through structural changes at
the state.
But this is happening because states recognize this
problem. I don't see any reasonable alternative to really
collaborating and coordinating than for states to take the
initiative and to make sure this happens at the state level.
So you have under reauthorization of Head Start an
opportunity to offer a few states the option of managing Head
Start program within their state, whether it is called an
experiment, a demonstration or whatever. This should be an
opportunity for states to fulfill this role of providing true
coordination across the different service provider sector.
But there are some dangers in this. The experiments have to
be carried out carefully. You have heard here already that
there is not a problem with state pre-K programs meeting the
Head Start standards so you should maintain the standards. Do
not give up on those standards. There may be some minor ways
that states are allowed some flexibility but the basic core
standards need to be kept in place. States must agree to an
evaluation, as Dr. Barnett said, this won't do us any good
unless we have a very thorough and careful evaluation of the
implementation of this and a major part of that, as he said, is
a sound data collection system that let's us know actually how
many children are being served, how many are getting which
service.
So I applaud your attempts to bring together the various
parts of the early childhood system and to integrate Head Start
into such a larger system. You can help lead us toward a more
rationale system of services for young children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clifford follows:]
Statement of Dr. Richard M. Clifford, Senior Scientist, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute, Chapel Hill, NC
Good morning, my name is Dick Clifford and I am a researcher at the
FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. My testimony represents my own personal views and does not
necessarily reflect the positions of my organization or the various
public and private agencies that support my work. I study young
children and programs to support these children and their families. I
am co-director of the National Pre-kindergarten Center at FPG
(supported largely by the Foundation for Child Development). I served
as Principal Investigator of a large-scale study of pre-kindergarten
programs in 6 states, supported by the US Department of Education, and
am currently co-director of a follow-up study of pre-kindergarten
programs in 5 additional states (with support from the Pew Trusts
through the National Institute for Early Education Research). Together
these 11 states serve about 80% of the children in state sponsored pre-
kindergarten programs in the US. So, I've had extensive opportunities
to see how states are working to improve readiness of children coming
to school. In the 1990's I took a leave of absence from the University
to work in state government in North Carolina to help design and
implement Governor Jim Hunt's major early childhood initiative, called
Smart Start. In this role I had an opportunity to work first hand at
encouraging the various agencies serving young children to work
cooperatively to improve services for all children from birth up to
school entry.
The task you are addressing is a difficult one. Some time ago I was
asked to describe the early childhood services in the US at a
conference in central Europe. I entitled my paper, Parallel Play. I did
this because at the time, our diverse set of service providers--Head
Start, Child Care, Early Intervention for young children with
disabilities, and more traditional preschool programs--each mostly went
their own way with little cooperative effort, occasionally interacting
when there was a problem. That was in the 1990s. Since then governments
at all levels in the US have dramatically increased their investments
in early childhood services, yet we still have only minimal formal
coordination of efforts in most states.
Let me give a single example relating to Head Start and state pre-
kindergarten programs. Both of these programs have as a major goal
improving the readiness of children for school. In most of the states
children who are from low income families, or are otherwise at risk for
school failure, are targeted for services in the pre-kindergarten
programs, just as in Head Start. One would expect that there would be
close cooperation and coordination between these programs. In fact Head
Start providers would normally be thought of as major sources of
provision of services for the state pre-kindergarten programs since
nearly all of these programs use both public school as well as private
service providers to deliver the pre-kindergarten services to target
families. Yet in our 11 states our data show that only 15% of the
classes were in Head Start programs. Only two states had any major
involvement of Head Start in the pre-kindergarten program. The
remaining states had extremely low participation rates by Head Start
providers.
As a state administrator in North Carolina I found linking our
Smart Start initiative with Head Start was quite difficult. As you
know, Head Start is funded and administered by the federal government
through its national and regional Head Start offices in Health and
Human Services. While the federal government provides support for
states for a small office designed to help foster collaboration, these
offices have no authority over the Head Start providers, so all
decisions about expansion of Head Start programs, standards, and all
formal oversight of Head Start is handled through the regional and
national offices. On the other hand, such decisions for child care,
early intervention and preschool programs are mostly made at the state
and local levels. In fact this system makes it very difficult for
states trying to create a more unified system of services for families
with young children to truly coordinate these services.
Another factor is becoming increasingly important in this equation.
More and more schools are involved in providing services to children
prior to the traditional age of entry to kindergarten. In a review we
conducted at the end of the 1990's, we estimated that nearly a million
children were in school-based programs earlier than kindergarten
entrance. Most of these children were starting a year before they would
start kindergarten, that is, they were about four years old. There are
about 4 million children per age group in the US, so this means about a
fourth of all children now are starting school early. So, public
schools have become a new major player in this field.
We are starting a new initiative at UNC-CH that we are calling
First School. In this program we are developing a joint project with
our local school system to establish a model program for children from
about ages 3 to 8 years that will provide a seamless transition from
the preschool period to early school for young children without forcing
very young children into the more traditional and structured school
organization. Building upon this new model of how schools can be
organized to serve younger children we will provide assistance to local
and state agencies struggling with how to fit the needs of very young
children into the traditional school models.
In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that federal
and state expenditures on preschool and child care programs were some
$24 Billion. On the table at the end of my remarks I show the specifics
for North Carolina at about the same time period. You can see that just
for our state, total expenditures from state and federal sources for
early childhood services were in excess of $ 760 Million in 2002-03.
While Head Start is a major source of support of such programs, it is
by no means the dominant source at this point in time. As state
governors and legislators seek to make the most efficient and effective
use of limited resources they are naturally concerned that services not
be duplicated, that funds are used in a way that maximizes the impact
on children and that all appropriate uses of various sources of support
are brought to bear on the issue of helping children come to school
ready to succeed.
It appears that the problems in integrating services for young
children are more tied to organizational and structural issues than to
any one simple set of standards or rules. There is no clear message of
who is in charge or whose job is this anyway. A few states are trying
to address this situation. Georgia has recently consolidated many of
the early childhood services under a new state agency--the Georgia
Department of Early Care and Learning. It is responsible for overseeing
child care and educational services for Georgia's children ages birth
through four and their families and includes the state's large pre-
kindergarten program. Massachusetts is also working to establish a new
overarching agency in charge of all early childhood services. North
Carolina is also looking at ways to improve the overall coordination
and efficiency of service delivery.
The reauthorization of Head Start offers a wonderful opportunity to
offer a few states the option of managing the Head Start program within
their state as part of this overarching early childhood system. Only
states that are far along in the process of developing a true system of
services for young children and their families should be chosen to be
part of this experiment. This experiment should be carried out
carefully and evaluated thoroughly to provide guidance for a long term
plan to assist states in providing the best services for their
citizens. There are a number of key issues that should be considered in
the legislation authorizing such trials. Many of these were covered in
the legislation considered last year, but I would highlight a few.
States chosen must demonstrate that they have the commitment to long-
term system improvement. Formal state plans for implementing the goal
of developing a true system of services must be required as part of the
application by states to participate in the experiment. States must
commit to maintaining or expanding state expenditures. The standards
set for Head Start programs at the federal level should be maintained
or strengthened under the state oversight, although some modifications
of the standards to fit the individual state circumstances should be
allowed. These modifications should not be allowed to have the effect
of weakening the standards. Current Head Start grantees must be
provided with assurances that they will continue to be grantees under
the state oversight with only exceptions for clear violation of
standards or other breeches of contractual requirements. States should
be required to show how they would integrate the Head Start providers
into the overall state plan. States should be required to report
annually on progress in meeting the state plan and to propose any
needed modifications to the plan. States should be required to submit
regular reports on child and family services and their impact.
States must agree to participate in a careful evaluation of the
effort. Currently there are few formal requirements for submission of
data on children and families served or the nature of services. Because
each agency currently has its own reporting system it is impossible to
get a clear picture of how many children are receiving services or how
many services individual children are receiving. As part of the
evaluation of the experiment, a comprehensive data system should be
established providing information on all services received by children
and families under the approved state plan. States in the experiment
would be required to implement use of the data system, with the goal of
eventually requiring the data system for all states.
I applaud your attempts to bring together the various parts of the
early childhood system and to integrate Head Start such a larger
system. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0780.002
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Clifford.
Ms. Blank.
STATEMENT OF HELEN BLANK, DIRECTOR OF LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC
POLICY, NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Blank. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify
today. I am going to address three issues, how local
communities and states are already effectively collaborating,
remaining barriers to collaboration, and how the Head Start
reauthorization can address these challenges. Programs must
address twin goals embedded in Federal policy, they have to
help children enter school ready to succeed, and they have to
help parents work. These goals must be achieved by requiring
programs to meet the highest standards.
Head Start, pre-K, and childcare programs are already
working together in many communities. Their collaborations do
not necessarily provide resources to serve additional children
but they do help programs respond to the needs of children and
families. Most pre-K programs are part day, some operate for
only as few as two-and-a-half hours. Many states combine pre-K
dollars with Head Start funds for a longer day.
In La Crosse, Wisconsin, a Head Start program in an
elementary school enrolls children in the state 4K program for
half a day and Head Start for half a day. Teachers have joint
planning time, share lunch with the children, and funds are
commingled. Other Head Start children in the community are
bused to a pre-K site after their Head Start day.
States are layering Head Start and pre-K dollars to
strengthen components of each program. A California school
district grantee combines Head Start, state pre-K, Title I, and
state First Five Early Childhood funds to create a full day
with comprehensive services. In New Jersey, Head Start programs
use pre-K funds to hire bachelor degree teachers.
In many communities, Head Start is offered in child care
settings. This is especially important in rural communities
where it is challenging to meet Head Start's enrollment
targets. In rural Iowa, Head Start contracts with community
childcare centers and public school programs for Head Start
slots in their existing classrooms because there simply are not
good services in these areas.
Programs are working together to recruit children. States
with the will have demonstrated that they can bring funding
streams together. Maryland and Oregon have formal agreements
that facilitate collaboration. While Illinois includes
collaboration as one of six required components for new pre-K
programs.
While there are countless examples of programs working
together, pre-K, childcare, and Head Start policies, as well as
funding constraints, still create barriers that limit the
quality and duration of services to children and families.
First, state pre-K funding is not stable. Ohio had invested
$100 million in state funds and was reaching every eligible
Head Start child. State funds were replaced with TANF dollars,
which have now been moved out of Head Start.
This lack of constancy has wreaked havoc on programs. Worst
yet, it has left up to 18,000 of Ohio's poorest children
without the benefit of Head Start. While funding for North
Carolina More at 4 Program has grown, it has been at the
expense of the state's early childhood, much-acclaimed Smart
Start program. Most states don't offer children and families
Head Start's comprehensive standards.
A third barrier is the quality of state pre-K programs. A
recent six state study by the Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute found that the quality of pre-K programs
was lower than the quality of Head Start in childcare
classrooms assessed in other studies. It also found that low-
income children made only small gains during the pre-K year.
Florida's recently enacted universal pre-K program only
includes a child development associate credential, not even the
Head Start requirement for AA degrees for teachers, let alone
BA degrees. Programs who are collaborating across the country
believe that one of the most significant barriers to
collaboration is state childcare policies which inhibit us from
putting together a seamless early childhood system. State
waiting lists for childcare assistance are growing. Florida has
over 46,000 children, North Carolina almost 25,000, Texas, over
26,000. Expecting more childcare funds to be used for pre-K
given these waiting lists just does not add up, especially when
only 13 percent of childcare funds are allocated for 4 year
olds.
Eligibility for childcare assistance is based on the
parent's work status. If a parent loses their job or makes a
small step up the pay ladder, the child is still eligible for
Head Start or pre-K but is expelled from child care. This make
programs reluctant to coordinate with childcare funds since the
potential that they will lose childcare funding in the middle
of the year makes it difficult for them to budget. Childcare
reimbursement rates limit collaboration. Some states pay on an
hourly basis. Providers serving Head Start or pre-K children
for a portion of the day must reserve a full time slot for a
child without getting full time reimbursement, yet the program
has to cover its staff and other operating costs for all the
hours it is opened. Low child care rates undermine efforts to
raise the quality of all early childhood programs.
Thirty-seven states currently pay out-of-date rates.
Missouri is not unusual. It bases its rates on what it costs to
pay for childcare in 1991. These rates make it nearly
impossible to hire qualified teachers and in some cases even
purchase books and basic supplies.
Overall, state child care licensing policies leave little
room for quality. In 36 states a teacher can begin to work in
the childcare center with no training in early childhood
development. These low standards are why Head Start performance
standards are so important.
The Head Start reauthorization can strengthen
collaboration. Programs that don't have waiting lists could be
given more flexibility around the children they are serving. If
some states are investing in high-quality programs and reaching
all their 4-year-olds, Head Start programs should be required
to serve 3-year-olds if they are not already doing so. When
parents have their income increased slightly above the poverty
line, Head Start should have the flexibility to serve their
children who still need the benefits of Head Start. This would
ensure that programs that have already invested in classrooms
do not have several empty slots.
Similar to provisions in the Child and Adult Care Food
Program, the reauthorization could include a demonstration that
allowed all children living within a low-income census tracked
school district to participate in Head Start and child care
without individual income eligibility determinations.
While the research is clear on the effectiveness of early
Head Start, Head Start programs could also be given the
flexibility to move down to serve infants and toddlers. Another
way to encourage collaboration is to target a portion of Head
Start expansion funds within states with sizable pre-K programs
and programs that collaborate with child care and pre-K
programs.
The provisions to encourage collaboration included in Title
I of last session's House-passed Head Start bill should also be
maintained and would help us come a long way. These new
incentives and tools for collaboration should be put in place
and allowed to demonstrate that it is possible to increase
collaboration and coordination while retaining the bedrock
principles of Head Start and its ability not only to serve as a
national model for excellence in early education but serve as a
national model of how we can meet the multiple needs of our
lowest income children and families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blank follows:]
Statement of Helen Blank, Director of Leadership and Public Policy,
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Helen Blank, Director
of Leadership and Public Policy at the National Women's Law Center. I
am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on collaboration and
coordination efforts among early childhood programs.
The reauthorization of Head Start should enhance and strengthen
provisions for coordination and collaboration among Head Start, state
prekindergarten, and child care programs in order to achieve critical
national goals related to children and parents. All children should
enter school ready to succeed. Meanwhile, parents should be able to
work to support their children and have the resources they need to be
their children's first teachers. The elements that are most essential
are continued national leadership to ensure that Head Start can stay on
its course of continuous improvement to enable our lowest income
children to achieve their full potential and new investments to ensure
that programs have the resources to do so.
In order to achieve our goals for children, programs must be
required to meet the highest standards. These standards should not be
sacrificed for the goal of flexibility. Head Start standards have been
higher and more comprehensive than other preschool programs. They
require attention to literacy, math, science, arts, physical, social,
emotional and other areas of children's development. The standards are
rigorous. They are regularly monitored for compliance. They guide good
teaching and assessment to improve the lives and readiness of children
and the quality of programs.
In order to achieve our goals for parents, programs must be able to
respond to the needs of those who are working. Part-day, part-year
programs are often inaccessible for parents struggling to support their
children and become self-sufficient.
Over the past several years, there has been a growing recognition
of the importance of a high quality early education experience for
young children with increased investments in state prekindergarten
initiatives in a number of states. Unfortunately, with frozen federal
child care funding, many states have simultaneously lowered child care
eligibility criteria, raised parents'' co-payments, and lowered
reimbursement rates to already low-paid child care providers and as a
result diminished families'' access to early care and education.
Coordination and collaboration are valuable objectives, but also
very, very complex to achieve given the numerous goals that early
childhood programs are expected to meet simultaneously. Head Start,
prekindergarten and child care programs are already working together in
many communities to meet these goals. However, they face numerous
barriers, many of them resulting from state-level policies.
Ongoing Collaborative Efforts
Leaders at the state and local level are already collaborating to
use their Head Start, prekindergarten and child care dollars creatively
both to bolster quality and to meet the needs of working families. Yet,
these collaborations do not always stretch resources so that more
children receive prekindergarten.
Most state prekindergarten initiatives allow Head Start agencies to
be eligible providers. Five state prekindergarten initiatives are
identical or nearly identical to Head Start.
Most prekindergarten programs are part day; some operate for as few
as two and a half hours a day. State prekindergarten dollars are often
combined with Head Start funds to provide a longer day or full year for
children. In some cases, child care dollars are still necessary to
extend the day until 5 or 6 p.m., when parents get out of work.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Virginia
North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Texas and Wisconsin are among
the states where local programs put Head Start and prekindergarten
together. The Massachusetts prekindergarten program, Community
Partnerships for Children, which is designed to strengthen existing
programs serving three-and four-year olds, offers part-day programs
funds to extend their day.
In La Crosse, Wisconsin, one Head Start program operates in an
elementary school. The majority of children in the state's
prekindergarten program (4K) also qualify for Head Start. They are
enrolled in the state 4K program for half a day and Head Start for half
a day. Teachers have joint planning time, share lunch with the
children, and funds are co-mingled. Other Head Start children in the
community are simply bused to a prekindergarten site after their Head
Start day and the only co-mingling of funds is for transportation.
Iowa's Hawkeye Area Community Action Program adds funds from the
state's Shared Visions prekindergarten program in eight classrooms to
enable children to have a longer day. In other classrooms, Child Care
and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds are used to extend the day. A
state program that provides funds to local communities for children
ages birth to five is used in seven other classrooms.
In Central Los Angeles, the University of Southern California pairs
Head Start and state prekindergarten dollars to put together an eight-
hour day for children in one location. In another location, responding
to the lack of facilities in urban areas and the need for care for
parents working long hours or varied schedules, the grantees keep a
facility open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. using Head Start and child care
dollars throughout the day.
In Brooklyn, New York, Builders for Families and Youth and the East
Side House bring together New York State prekindergarten dollars with
Head Start funds to support a longer day.
States are also melding Head Start and prekindergarten dollars to
strengthen components of each program. In many states, state
prekindergarten dollars are insufficient by themselves to ensure a
quality program. Head Start dollars help to raise the quality of
prekindergarten programs and allow programs to provide comprehensive
services.
Iowa's Hawkeye Area Community Action Program adds Head Start
dollars to Shared Visions programs to enable these programs to provide
Head Start's comprehensive services.
A California school district grantee combines Head Start, state
prekindergarten, Title I, and state First Five early childhood funds to
create a full day with comprehensive services.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma Head Start dollars are used in state
prekindergarten programs to support comprehensive services.
State prekindergarten funds are also enabling Head Start programs
to have teachers with a Bachelor's degree in their classrooms,
particularly when the state prekindergarten program requires teachers
to have this credential. Wisconsin, New Jersey, Texas, Oklahoma, and
New York are among states that use this approach. In Oklahoma, the
public school generally hires the teachers who then work in Head Start
programs. Teachers are school employees, and the school district
ensures that the teacher meets all standards and receives the same
compensation as teachers working in schools.
In New Jersey, Head Start programs in Abbott districts--the state's
30 highest poverty districts mandated by the New Jersey Supreme Court
to provide children a high quality preschool education--are eligible
for Abbott prekindergarten funds to enable them to hire teachers with a
Bachelor's degrees.
Programs have also developed joint approaches to recruit children
or ensure that services are not duplicated. In La Crosse, a
Collaboration Committee meets once a month with representatives of Head
Start, child care and prekindergarten programs. If Head Start has a
waiting list, it directs families to the state's prekindergarten
program. Head Start and the public schools also do collective
recruitment and give parents information about all available programs.
In many areas of Washington State, one part of the district is
served by the state's prekindergarten or ECEAP program (which is
similar to Head Start) while the remainder is served by Head Start.
Head Start programs in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Alabama, Michigan, New York, Texas, Washington State, Maryland,
Minnesota, and Iowa have provided children with a full-day experience
and brought Head Start's comprehensive supports to children in child
care by offering Head Start in child care settings. This model is
especially important in rural communities that find it challenging to
meet Head Start's enrollment targets.
In rural Iowa, a Head Start program contracts with community child
care centers and public school programs for part-day Head Start slots
in existing classrooms.
Community Services for Children, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania brings
Head Start to child care classrooms accredited by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The agency
provides funding to help child care classrooms meet developmentally
appropriate requirements, offer comprehensive services to children and
families, and training for child care teachers. Brooklyn's Builders for
Families and Youth and East Side House also have innovative
collaborations with local child care programs.
While most collaboration occurs on the ground at the local level,
several states have formal agreements to facilitate collaboration.
Maryland has an overarching Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at
the state level between the state Department of Education and the state
Head Start Association guiding local MOUs between local Head Start
grantees and the LEAS. Its purpose is for programs to work together
effectively to improve outcomes and provide opportunities from children
birth through five to achieve school success, to promote collaboration
among the parties and their local counterparts and to encourage and
support the development of local and/or regional agreements between
public school systems and Head Start programs. The state MOU involves
joint planning, staff development, curriculum, articulation,
transition, and recruitment.
Oregon's Department of Education and the Regional Head Start office
have a MOU facilitated by the Head Start Collaboration Project to
implement a seamless system for the administration of the state
prekindergarten and Head Start program that involves joint monitoring,
joint guidance and regulation interpretation, coordination and sharing
of training, coordination of calendars and events, coordination of
funding and service areas, joint planning for federal and state
initiatives, and joint problem solving.
Illinois, which recently significantly increased funding for
prekindergarten, includes collaboration as one of six required
components for new prekindergarten programs.
While there are countless examples of programs working together,
there are still barriers inherent in state and federal policies that
limit the quality and duration of services to children.
Barriers to Collaboration in State Prekindergarten Policies
Despite an increase in the number of states that offer
prekindergarten, the bulk of funding is still concentrated in ten
states.\1\ Eleven states have no prekindergarten initiative and others
have very small programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ W. Steven Barnett. Jason Hustedt, Kenneth Robin, and Karen
Schulman. The State of Preschool: 2004 State Preschool Yearbook 28
(2004). Florida enacted a state prekindergarten program in December,
2004.
\2\ Id at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State funding is not always stable. Ohio once made an impressive
commitment to provide Head Start to every eligible child. Its state
Head Start funds gradually were replaced with TANF dollars and
currently the state, after a series of programmatic changes, moved its
TANF dollars out of Head Start. This lack of constancy has wreaked
havoc on programs that had expanded to meet the demand for more Head
Start slots. Worse yet, it has left thousands of Ohio's poorest
children without the benefit of Head Start. While funding for North
Carolina's More at Four program has grown, it has been accompanied by a
steady decrease in the state's Smart Start program which provides
supports for children ages zero to five and their families.\3\ In 2003,
funding for prekindergarten decreased in 21 states.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id at 50.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states do not offer children and families the comprehensive
standards that characterize Head Start. Twenty state prekindergarten
programs do not require that any meals be served to children.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some state prekindergarten is of high quality, there is
significant variability and some state prekindergarten programs have
considerable room for improvement. A recent six-state study by the
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute found that the quality
of prekindergarten programs was lower than would be anticipated, and
quality was lower than the quality of child care and Head Start
classrooms assessed in other studies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Donna Bryant, Dick Clifford, Diane Early, and Loyd Little.
Early Developments: NCEDL Pre-kindergarten Study. (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida, which recently enacted a universal prekindergarten
program, only requires teachers to have a Child Development Associate
(CDA) credential--no higher education at all. In contrast, Head Start
has met the goal that Congress set out in 1998, for half of all Head
Start teachers to have an Associate's degree. Last year's House bill
raised the goal to Bachelor's degrees. The low teacher standards of
many state prekindergarten programs highlight how important it is that,
when facilitating increased coordination, all programs be required to
meet the highest standards.
Barriers to Coordination in Child Care Policies
The crisis in child care funding and low child care standards
create a great danger that coordination will mean lowering standards
rather than raising them. State child care policies are one of the most
significant barriers to collaboration. Many families do not have access
to help in paying for child care because of long waiting lists and/or
low eligibility cut-offs for child care assistance. As of early March
2004, Florida had over 46,000 children on their waiting list, North
Carolina almost 25,000, Tennessee 23,000, Texas over 26,000, and
California over 200,000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See National Women's Law Center, Child Care Assistance Policies
2001-2004: Families Struggling to Move Forward, States Going Backward
(2004), available at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/
childcaresubsidyfinalreport.pdf (last visited Mar. 29, 2005)
[hereinafter Child Care Assistance Policies].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another barrier to coordination is that, unlike, Head Start and
state prekindergarten, eligibility for child care assistance is based
on a parent's work, education, or training status, not the
developmental needs of their children. If a parent loses their job, is
between jobs, or experiences a modest increase in income, their child
while still eligible for Head Start or state prekindergarten, may be no
longer eligible for child care assistance and programs serving their
child can no longer receive those funds. This can make programs
reluctant to coordinate Head Start and or state prekindergarten dollars
with Child Care and Development Block Grant funds, since the potential
they will lose CCDBG funding in the middle of the year, makes it
difficult for programs to budget and to ensure children an undisrupted
learning experience. Since early childhood programs operate on very
tight margins, they do not have the resources to cover the costs that
were previously paid for by child care funds.
California has created another barrier for working parents by
precluding programs from using state prekindergarten dollars with child
care dollars.
Child care reimbursement rate policies also limit collaboration.
Some states pay on an hourly basis, only reimbursing providers for
those hours during which care was provided. This can create a problem
for providers who are serving Head Start or prekindergarten children
for a portion of the day. They must generally reserve a full-time slot
for a child without getting full-time reimbursement. Yet, the child
care program must cover its full staff and other operating costs for
all of the hours it is open.
Low child care reimbursement rates not only limit collaboration but
also undermine the efforts to raise the quality of all early childhood
programs. Thirty-seven states currently pay rates based on outdated
market rate surveys. In some states rates are particularly low Michigan
still bases its rates on 1996 prices and Missouri's rates for
preschool-age children are based on 1991 levels.\8\ These rates make it
nearly impossible to hire qualified teachers and in some cases purchase
books and basic supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall state child care licensing policies leave little room for
quality. In 36 states, a teacher can begin in working in a child care
center with no training in early childhood development. Only 10 states
meet national experts'' recommendations for class size and child-staff
ratios.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Child Care Information Center. (2004). ``Child Care
Licensing Regulations (February 2004): Child: Staff Ratios and Maximum
Group Size Requirements.'' Vienna, VA: National Child Care Information
Center at http://nccic.org/pubs/ratios.odf, compiled from licensing
regulations posted on the National Resource Center for Health and
Safety in Child Care website at http://www.nrc.hchsc.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barriers to Coordination in Head Start Policies
Head Start's eligibility cut-off at the federal poverty level is
lower than all federal and state- funded child care programs as well as
many state prekindergarten programs. This makes it challenging to bring
together children in the same classroom.
Another barrier is the differences in teacher credential
requirements among programs. Half of all Head Start teachers are
currently required to have a minimum of an Associate degree in early
childhood. If this requirement was changed to a Bachelor's degree in
early childhood, it would make it easier for Head Start programs to
collaborate with prekindergarten in those states that required similar
degrees.
Head Start Reauthorization
There are ways within the Head Start reauthorization that
opportunities for collaboration and coordination could be strengthened.
Head Start programs need more flexibility around the population
they serve. If Head Start programs have a waiting list, they need funds
to serve more eligible children. Programs that do not have waiting
lists could be given more flexibility to respond to the needs of
children and families in their communities and to collaborate with
prekindergarten. Given the research about the importance of reaching
children early, if states are committed to investing in high quality
programs for four-year olds, Head Start programs should be required to
serve three-year olds if they are not already doing so.
If more parents have increased their incomes slightly above the
poverty line after they have gone into the workforce, Head Start should
have the flexibility to serve their children who still need the
benefits of Head Start. This would ensure that programs that have
invested considerable resources in establishing quality classrooms
would not have several empty slots. Similar to provisions in the Child
and Adult Care Food Program related to family child care, the
reauthorization could include a demonstration that allowed all children
living within a low-income Census tract or school district to
participate in Head Start without requirements for individual income
eligibility determination.
With the research clear on the effectiveness of Early Head Start,
Head Start programs could also be given the flexibility to move down to
serve infants and toddlers.
Another way to encourage collaboration is to target a portion of
Head Start expansion funds within those states with sizable
prekindergarten programs on programs that collaborate with child care
and prekindergarten programs.
A number of positive changes around state planning, state training
offices that allowed professional development across all sectors of
early childhood, state collaboration grants, joint unified planning on
school readiness standards, strategic plans for outreach included in
Title I of last session's House-passed Head Start bill would also
further enhance collaboration and coordination. Increased teacher
requirements included in last session's bill would greatly increase
collaboration as well. However, this cannot be accomplished without
additional investments to address teacher education and compensation in
order to attract and retain teachers with higher qualifications.
These new incentives and tools for collaboration should be put in
place and allowed to demonstrate that it is possible to increase
collaboration while maintaining the core of Head Start and its ability
to serve as a national model for excellence in early education.
______
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Blank. And I thank all the
witnesses again. And I will lead us off, and I yield myself 5
minutes. I don't know what to really ask here because I want a
solution that could take any one of you 5 minutes to answer. So
you are going to have to sort of help me with your answers.
But the history of what we have done here on this
reauthorization, the history of this is sort of interesting.
Head Start has basically doubled in its funding in the last 10
years, which is maybe 10 percent a year on average. And it is
still to some degree insufficient. It is not block granted and
that has not really been suggested per se. There was a
suggestion of changing departments and that was rejected.
We wrote a bill last year which I think it is fair to say
the first section, which is most of the bill actually, we
pretty well agreed upon which had stricter standards and
certainly Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Miller and others thought those
were all sound ideas. Then we got into the second part, which
was allowing eight states on a pilot basis to be able to do
what has been actually discussed here, to integrate their
programs more than are done now. And that created animosity and
opposition from the Head Start Association and unfortunately
calls for a very divided House of Representatives, even though
we passed it in the House, it never went forward in the Senate
and never became law.
We have to deal with that problem again this year. A lot of
you are sort, in fact all of you I think in one way or another
have touched on the fact that integrating these programs is a
sound idea. There may be deficiencies. Ms. Blank pointed out
that the state funding is not on a regular stream, for example,
and I would agree with that. The quality of state programs
maybe not as good or maybe higher in certain instances. There
are states, like Georgia, which has really done a superb job I
hear, and I believe that in terms of doing this, others perhaps
have not. But, clearly, there are more states now providing at
these age groups, particularly 4-year-olds, than ever did
before.
There seems to be, in my mind, more reason to have some
sort of at least coordination in terms of what we are doing.
But I am befuddled because I am don't know how to write the
legislation that won't upset the Head Start providers who feel
that they want their independence and yet will help us go
further in terms of what we are doing.
Some of you have sort of hinted at the fact that that can
happen anyhow, perhaps it can. But I am interested in whatever
it is that we can do in this legislation to further that. I am
not interested in anything that is going to be destructive of
Head Start. I am a strong provider--a strong supporter of Head
Start in every way we possibly can. But to me we are missing an
opportunity here and, quite frankly, I am not too sure that the
opposition last year, and the young lady on my right was part
of this, was completely on target, at least in terms of the
purpose of what we are trying to do versus where we are today
in Head Start. And I sort of hear all of you hinting at that.
So you may not be familiar with the exact workings because
a lot of you work generally in state programs or whatever but
the exact workings of this legislation or how we can sort of
bridge this gap that exists. But if you have any suggestions
along those lines, I would be interested in hearing them. And
part of it may be you don't need to do anything more, it is
working. I don't know what you want to say, I just would like
to hear from how many I can hear from in the next three or 4
minutes.
Ms. Moore. Thank you. In Georgia, I think the critical
piece is to maintain those standards, those comprehensive
standards. We are fortunate because we have a six and a half
hour program. Our program has very high standards as far as the
instructional part of our program. Also, I think it is
important that we have the same maintenance of effort. That
should be a part of the law as well, to make sure that less
children are not served in high-quality programs but actually
at least we maintain the level of children that are going to be
receiving these services. Over 50 percent of our children at
considered at risk, economically at risk children in our pre-K
program.
So in Georgia, as in many other states, we have children
receiving different kinds of programs and different kinds of
comprehensive services when they are actually the same
children.
So I think if legislation can be very clear to make sure we
don't compromise those high standards and the number of
children we serve that is already being served through Head
Start, that is going to be critical to maintaining the sound
principles of Head Start and ensuring states comply by that.
Chairman Castle. Any other, anybody else want to speak? Dr.
Clifford.
Mr. Clifford. I would just like to add, just to reinforce
my position that we need to try this in states. We need to have
a few states in which we actually try to give the states
authority to bring together all programs that serve children of
this age. I think we will only have this true collaboration and
coordination when the authority is clearly assigned to one
level of government and one agency within state government.
So I like the concept of giving the Governor authority to
designate the lead agency in the state but you have to insist
that that actually happen. You have to follow and evaluate
carefully to make sure that these small number of states that
you give the opportunity to try this are in fact complying with
the intent of the law.
Mr. Alexander. I believe in the state of Oklahoma for
example I have proven, and if you read my written testimony,
that collaboration does work and it is working without taking
away the consistency and quality of reducing the performance
standards. The performance standards must be maintained. That
is our bottom line.
Then, teacher qualification funds, if we could get that to
raise the teacher's salaries, that would work tremendously
across the nation. Maybe raise the income guidelines so that we
can serve more and have opportunity to serve more in a higher
population.
But overall, I believe that these services don't
necessarily need to go to a different state level because when
you go to a state level or any other level besides Federal to
local level, then you may lose funding at some point in there,
that may not reach the needs of those children. That is a major
concern that I have with it having another level in there.
Chairman Castle. My time is--Ms. Blank wants to say
something, I think, my time is going to be up. If I had a
follow-up question, I may ask it later, it would be are you
meeting resistance in terms of the collaborations you are
talking about from the Head Start community at large or if you
are not, how do you coordinate that collaboration and is it a
fact that maybe we don't have to change anything in order to do
this or is that just region by region or whatever.
I think Ms. Blank wanted to say something on my original
question, and then I will go to Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Blank. I think historically, if we look at early
childhood programs at the Federal level, there is an enormous
interest in driving down standards when states have access to
the funds. We saw that in the discussion 2 years ago. We have
certainly seen it in the history of the child care and
development block grant. Remember, we serve the same children
and we barely--Representative Castle, I remember you were
instrumental in saving the minimal standards on CCDBG in 1996.
I think the Head Start performance standards are very, very
important for poor children. I don't think there are other
agencies in communities that provide the kind of support that
Mr. Alexander talked about that Head Start does.
I think there are ways within the reauthorization to
improve collaboration without changing the governance of Head
Start. I don't think the states have yet shown, even the states
that have the biggest investment in pre-K, that they are
consistent in quality. Florida is going to be investing $300
million in pre-K with a very, very low quality program. I don't
think that we are there yet, but I do think that Head Start
programs can be required to collaborate.
I think we could expand and improve the provisions in Title
I of the bill that you worked on last year. And I think we
ought to look at where children are, who needs the services,
and how we can help programs move around to be more flexible in
terms of who they are reaching. And I think that can be done
without changing governance.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Blank. Ms. Woolsey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. I am a total supporter of voluntary universal
preschool and preschool in general, but not instead of Head
Start. I see Head Start as serving a special population and
serving it well, although not everybody who is eligible, as it
should. And I see pre-K for kids like my grandchildren.
My grandchildren have been read to since they were 2 or 3
months old. When they enter kindergarten, they are going to
know how to read, and they already do. It is amazing to me the
opportunities these little children have because of their
parents. I see Head Start as bridging that gap. And I know we
know that is what it is about, so the needier enter
kindergarten ready to learn at the same level as my children
and grandchildren.
So what is my concern with block granting to the states? We
have experience with child care block granting. We have
experience with IDEA. My state of California is good at taking
Federal funds and supplanting with those funds instead of
supplementing. And that is exactly what will happen to Head
Start if we do that. We will take the emphasis, the focus off
of Head Start. We will transfer it to the states, and we will
lose that focus.
That is my fear. That is why I am fighting block granting
and will continue to fight it because I do not trust the
states, including my own. So I am not going to ask a question
on that but I just needed you to know that is where I am coming
from on this.
What we should be doing with Head Start I believe is
looking at the level of education for the Head Start teachers,
the pay. In Oklahoma, I believe, you told us that your
preschool programs pay public school salaries, and for 4 year
degrees. OK, how are we going to start that happening for all
Head Start programs, for the needier, more challenged kids? And
how are we going to expand those programs so that all eligible
children can participate? And which would be more important,
you are going to say more Federal funding, I know that answer.
Which is more important, the 4-year degrees, expanding the
program to all children that are eligible, and/or paying
salaries that show the value of these children that these
instructors are responsible for?
I will start with you, Helen. You don't have to make a
choice.
Ms. Blank. Well, this is a challenging question because the
House-passed bill did not include increases in Head Start
sufficient to cover cost of living and the President's budget
this year doesn't include a cost of living increase for Head
Start. So it is hard to have this discussion to make a choice
when it is not a real choice. It is hard to make a reform this
way.
I think it is important for Head Start to be on a path of
improving qualifications for teachers. About half of states
don't require B.A. degree teachers in pre-K and only 13 require
them to have early childhood specialties. I think it is
important but when we increase the--when Congress increased the
requirement for teachers in the last reauthorization to A.A.
degree, which was critical, they upped the quality set-aside
for Head Start from 25 to 50 percent of new funds and they
added significant funds. And with that funding Head Start was
able to meet the goals of having 50 percent of all teachers.
I think it is very hard because if you want teachers once
they have their degrees to stay in Head Start, to do what
Oklahoma does, they have to compensate them. Oklahoma is very
fortunate because it is a state whose pre-K financing comes
through a school finance formula, it is not general revenue. It
is very hard to choose between quality and quantity. I think
for many years we chose quantity in Head Start and that
weakened the program.
So I don't think we can continually increase the number of
children being served without paying attention to quality.
Maybe states are going to be making this huge investment in
pre-K, although I think 21 states cut their investments in
2003. We could urge them to have high quality and improve Head
Start at the same time and put the programs together at the
local level and serve more children. I don't think you can
choose quantity over quality because in the end you won't be
able to defend the kind of support children are getting. That
is a little round about.
Ms. Woolsey. Can I have one more answer? Let's go to the
other end of the table, because I want to make sure you know
that I am not questioning your dedication. I am from
California, we have had quite an experience with IDEA and
watching what our Governors, not just the current one, have
done on this.
Ms. Moore. Thank you for the opportunity to address this.
In Georgia, we are fortunate. We have spent over $2.4 billion
on Georgia pre-K program because one reason we have the
commitment plus we have lottery and it is supported by lottery
funds. Again, we see that we are continuously serving a lot of
the Head Start children because of the high numbers of children
who qualify for Head Start services. We are finding those
children in our pre-K programs.
We have a very similar program to Head Start, which is
called a Resource Coordination Program which is like the family
service worker. It is not quite as extensive, however we train,
we blend our funds together, and we train these two different
kind of programs that deliver social services to our at risk
population. So we have the benefit received in Head Start and
in our pre-K program.
We have also been able to blend funds so that--Head Start
pays for a 4-hour program. Georgia's pre-K program is a six and
a half hour program. What we have done is blend our funds and
Georgia pre-K program has paid for that two and a half extra
hours where Head Start is paying for the 4 hours. In this past
year, Georgia spent I think it was $720,000 to serve around
4,000 to 5,000 extra Head Start children and that saved
millions of dollars. So that was a benefit of our collaboration
where we do believe we are serving more children, and we are
serving that same population.
Ms. Woolsey. But your funding stream through the lottery is
dedicated to--
Ms. Moore. Yes, it is dedicated to pre-K and Hope.
Ms. Woolsey. So what happens if people actually stop
playing Lotto?
Ms. Moore. Well, actually, when times have been hard in the
state of Georgia, we found that more people are buying lottery
tickets. So I don't know, maybe we are a gambling state. But it
has been to the benefit of education in Georgia, the lottery
has.
Ms. Woolsey. Can the state decide to use those funds in
another way?
Ms. Moore. Well, I think that could happen on the Federal
level for Head Start and for states as well. It takes a
legislative, a change in legislation in order to be able to do
that.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Moore. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Osborne is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be very
brief and I am going to try to ask each one of you a question
and so you will probably have to be brief too to get it in
there, your answer in 5 minutes.
First of all, Ms. Moore, you mentioned some differences
between Head Start performance standards and Georgia state
standards. How does the state resolve those differences?
Ms. Moore. The way we resolve that whenever we blend our
money is that we honor--of course, we expect them to meet the
pre-K guidelines and when they are receiving Head Start funds,
we honor the Head Start requirements. So a program that blends
the funds for pre-K services have to meet those standards and
that is how we have addressed that for our at risk population.
Mr. Osborne. OK, thank you.
Jeff, this is a little bit of a related question.
Evidently, Oklahoma's pre-K program requires teachers to have a
BA degree. And does Head Start require the same in Oklahoma, is
it a uniform standard or what?
Mr. Alexander. Specifically in the collaboration with
public schools, the teacher must have a 4-year degree, in many
cases, in early childhood. Now we are stretching that over into
the Head Start specific centers also. And, yes, in I believe 89
percent, if I am not mistaken, the last I checked, of all
teachers, whether in public school collaborations or in the
Head Start center have their 4 year degree at this point in
time. And so we continue to strive to make that 100 percent.
Mr. Osborne. That is pretty remarkable. I would imagine
that is kind of hard to do.
Mr. Alexander. It is.
Mr. Osborne. Dr. Barnett, I note here that many low-income
parents are choosing to send their children to the state pre-K
program even though they qualify for Head Start in your state.
Why are they choosing to do this? Why are they not choosing
Head Start? And what effect is this having on Head Start
enrollment in New Jersey?
Mr. Barnett. I should start out by saying I don't have
direct data so I haven't interviewed, surveyed parents about
that. I can only make inferences from what we see. New Jersey,
in large part because of the court order, has a program that
entitles three and 4-year-olds in 31 of our districts with the
highest levels of poverty to a high-quality free public
education. The standards for that program are higher than the
standards for any other program in the country, the spending on
that program is twice, more than twice, almost three times the
state average.
So this is very atypical and it also provides, because it
combines services with child care, up to 10 hours a day for a
parent's working year, not just 180 day school year. And we
have small classes, high standards for teachers, public school
levels of pay, which is twice what the average Head Start
teacher would get. These are very, very attractive programs for
parents. You get a good education, you can have your child care
needs met if you work. If you don't, if you don't need the
extended day, there is no requirement to use it. And often the
program will be closer to your home.
Mr. Osborne. Well, I think that answers the question.
Obviously, you are spending a lot more money than Head Start
and it is a more intensive program. I didn't realize that so I
appreciate your answer.
Dr. Clifford, what are some of the child outcomes that you
would expect to see from a better coordinated early childhood
system. I know that Ms. Blank kind of pointed out some of the
ways where there was cooperation and you pointed out there
wasn't a whole lot of cooperation. So I am not sure, maybe you
are both looking at the same problem from different angles. But
what are some of the outcomes that you would expect to see from
better coordination?
Mr. Clifford. Thank you, Representative. To start with your
question about outcomes we expect, we expect a whole wide range
of outcomes, and we have looked at these in our studies,
language, acquisition, mathematical skills, social skills, all
across the board, all areas of development for young children.
Those are the things we expect to see. And we do see those both
in Head Start and in pre-K programs. We have looked at both of
those. And Ms. Blank indicated that there were small gains in
pre-K but I would just say that they are about the same level
of gains in pre-K we see as what the Head Start studies show
for Head Start. So we are not talking about vastly different
gains in these programs.
In terms of collaboration, there are problems from a Head
Start provider's point of view of coming in and operating a
pre-K program as part of the state pre-K effort because they
are worried about serving two different masters here, the state
and Federal regulators, both then are examining them in detail
and it just adds another level of risk for them. So if they can
be clear about who is in charge of early childhood services in
their state, that will simplify and facilitate their
willingness to come and be part of a comprehensive pre-K
program for the entire state.
If I could take 1 second and respond to comments that
Representative Woolsey made, is that appropriate, Chairman?
Chairman Castle. Yes, it is.
Mr. Clifford. I think an issue I have is your comments
about wanting your grandchildren served in pre-K and wanting
also low-income children served in Head Start raises a serious
question for me. In our K through 12 system, the Supreme Court
has ruled that separate and equal is not a viable option. And I
do worry that if we think about Head Start as something other
than part of a single system in the state for serving children,
as we move toward universal voluntary pre-K programs, the Head
Start children will end up not being in those programs and
being systematically separated from their peers who have more
advantages. And I think that has serious long-term problems as
we develop a system of services for all children in our state.
Ms. Woolsey. May I respond, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Castle. A brief response is in order, and then we
will go on to the next Member.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, here is the thing. Head Start is
separate because there is a whole menu that goes along with the
Head Start child that is necessary to bring that child up to
the level of entering kindergarten ready to learn. There are
many kids, for example, who go to preschool, go to child care,
who need to be taken care of and learn day in and day out but
they are starting with a disadvantage.
Head Start bridges that disadvantage. If we lose that, we
will be making a huge mistake. I am not trying to separate kids
out. I think the Head Start kids need a better education than
my preschool grandchildren because they are going to get it at
home too.
Chairman Castle. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding
this hearing today. I want to thank each of our witnesses for
your testimony and your unique perspectives because
conversations like we are having today, hearings that we have
been having in regards to Head Start reauthorization is very
important because I think the verdict is in, the studies are
there, and we know the importance of quality early childhood
education programs and what that means and the difference of
these kids' lives and their performance level once they start
their formal K through 12 education. And yet sometimes we feel
like we are pushing this rock uphill in regards to the real
commitment and the investment of the youth of this country. And
again, it is reflected in what the President was requesting in
his budget in trying to hold Head Start funding level yet
again. They claim they can make up in regards to the quantity
shortfall but only by cutting back on technical assistance and
training program funding, and I don't think that is the area
that we should be going in order to address a potential 25,000
student shortfall with level funding that is proposed in the
administration's request.
And I agree with you, Ms. Blank, we can't get into this
Draconian choice of quantity versus quality because they are
both very, very important.
And there are some model programs throughout the country,
and I am very proud in representing an area in western
Wisconsin that have done a wonderful job in regards to
integration and collaboration efforts. And, Ms. Blank, you
referenced the one Head Start program in my hometown of La
Crosse, Wisconsin, I think is a classic example of how hard
they have worked to integrate.
But what has made that as successful as it has been is how
comparable the standards have been at the local level with the
Head Start programs. And I think what we may see in regards to
the future success of further integration and collaboration is
the temptation for harmonization of standards at the state or
school board level with the Head Start standards. And the
question then becomes are we going to be harmonizing upwards or
downwards?
And I think that is where the concern lies with many of us
on the Committee because if we see this harmonization
downwards, as we are starting to see in various states, that is
going to be a problem. And I think that has been one of the
major stumbling blocks in regards to the reauthorization of
this bill.
And I am not sure how we can go about doing it. I have
introduced legislation the last few years, and I am hoping to
get a little more bipartisan support, that would establish a
Federal incentive grant program for states that want to move
forward with pre-K education opportunities. There is a vast
inconsistency from not just state to state but school district
to school district in regards to offering pre-K, the quality of
pre-K, the level of funding, and the type of people, the
talent, that they are trying to attract into these programs.
And I think if we are going to be successful in enhancing
the quality of these programs, it does come down to economic
consideration. And that is what type of salary you are willing
to pay, what type of training you are willing to provide, what
type of message we are going to send as a nation. Therefore, if
we are going to value the type of investment we need to make
and that is how we are going to best attract the type of talent
that we want to see working with these kids at an early age.
And I just throw it open to any of you, if you have any
type of perspective or response in regards to the harmonization
that we may see continue in regards to the collaboration or the
integration of pre-K and Head Start programs throughout the
country. In some areas they are doing it very, very well, in
some states, and we have heard testimony to that effect today.
But, again, the concern that many of us have in this regard is
whether we may see a weakening of the Head Start standards in a
race to the bottom just to offer the citizens that they are
doing something but maybe it won't ultimately be in the best
interest of these children. Does anyone care to respond?
Ms. Blank. I think that when we talked about it before, I
addressed my concern that once you open this up and you have
lesser standards in states, there is enormous pressure to allow
flexibility that eventually take apart the Head Start
standards. And while they look complex, I think they are
important. There has been some discussion about we don't need
health because children now have access to Medicaid and SCHIP
but we know that access to health insurance for poor children
may not get them services. We have Head Start programs that
drive 100 miles so children can see a dentist or they make sure
that children see providers. There are extra steps that are
really critical and that is why you need the detail and the
performance standards.
And it is difficult in a time of scarce resources not to
create a rush to move more to the middle. And that is not where
we need to be to make sure our children, our poorest children
succeed.
Mr. Kind. And I know you also mentioned the Florida
example, for instance, and what is happening there with they
stepped up in investment but maybe at the expense of the
quality too that is being offered. And we need to work through
this. I think it is vitally important because there clearly has
been a trend that we have seen for some time, and we have an
opportunity with reauthorization of the bill.
So I would encourage you that if you have further thoughts
or suggestions that you get in touch with us and see if there
is some way that we can work this out before it starts moving
along.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kind. Mrs. Davis is
recognized.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to all of you for being here. I wonder if you could talk a
little bit about evaluation and assessment as you see it and
how as we bring, as some programs are brought together in
states how you are pulling out or I guess teasing out in terms
of the data, how we are having at least, where the base data is
and then how we are building on that because part of the
problem that we often have is one of really understanding what
is going on.
And making, if the states in fact are doing some
experimentation with collaboration, whether we know what
accountability measures are in place that are working and which
in fact are not. Because in reality we don't have a lot of
accountability measures, do we, in the Head Start program,
certainly not using the leverage of funding. Programs are
getting funding whether we know a lot about what they are doing
or not. They are setting up their standards but we are not
necessarily pulling out funding because they are not meeting
those standards.
Am I correct in that? Have you seen programs where that is
happening to a greater extent?
Ms. Blank. Well, Head Start programs that are seriously
deficient are de-funded. In the past several years, there have
been close to 150 programs who have lost funding, and there was
a hearing on this several weeks ago. No one wants a program
that is not doing right by children to continue in their
communities and they should be replaced as members agree
immediately.
There is a significant debate and my colleagues, Dr.
Clifford and Dr. Barnett can talk about this as well, around
how we should be assessing children. And there is some concern
with the national reporting system that it is inappropriate.
Head Start programs do assess their children three times a year
to improve teaching practices, and we do an extensive
monitoring of Head Start programs that need some improvement as
has been discussed.
But Head Start has the most exhaustive monitoring of any
Federal system. There are some state pre-K programs that only
do a desktop review. And as you sort of look into how programs
are doing in accountability, I think we need to be very careful
in terms of young children. We don't support testing of older
children until the third grade.
Florida, again, has a very inappropriate provision in its
pre-K program. It starts with very low quality pre-K, does not
do any pre-test of children, and ties funding of pre-K programs
to children's test results. I think we have to be very
cautious, that is something we didn't do in Leave No Child
Behind, as we move on. But there are accountability measures in
Head Start and in some pre-K programs. And I don't know if Dr.
Barnett and Dr. Clifford want to talk more about that.
Mrs. Davis. I think more directing that, not just to Head
Start, but I am talking about a blended system, whatever it may
be, and how that accountability that is in Head Start is you
see being utilized in that way? What leverage would we have as
a Federal program in those particular states that would be
blending those programs? What do you see happening already?
Mr. Clifford. I will take a little stab at that. I want to
say that I completely concur with Ms. Blank's concerns about
the National Reporting System that Head Start uses and I am on
the technical advisory panel for the reporting system. And I
have expressed my concerns about the system. The problem is not
with individual instruments in the system as much as it is with
the way the system is designed so that it actually goes down to
the individual site and assesses progress of children at that
site. It puts the teachers who are doing the assessment or the
other staff members who are doing the assessment in a bind that
says if you tell us kids are not doing well, then we are going
to take your money away.
So it is going to corrupt the system itself so the system
is not going to be an accurate reporter of how well children
do. So let's get that out on the table.
On the other side though, I think there are reasonable ways
of conducting evaluations that look at child outcomes as part
of that, that can be done using a sampling approach to look at
children so you are not doing this with every child and with
the teacher having to assess their own children. And so I think
there are reasonable ways of doing that. Some of the states, a
few of the states that have pre-K efforts are conducting
evaluations. Georgia has been doing an evaluation for 10 years
or more at least I know. North Carolina, we have a very
comprehensive evaluation system for doing that. It is possible
to put these together and have a single evaluation of all pre-K
services and early childhood services in the state to see how
well this system is functioning.
And it is both at the child level but also are we providing
the services that families need so that we should be looking at
our ability to help people engage in the workforce effectively
as well as how well our children are doing. It is possible to
do that comprehensively at the state level.
Mrs. Davis. And the best example of that that you have are
you pointing to Georgia as a state that has a good example of
that?
Mr. Clifford. Georgia has done a lot. I think no state is
adequately currently doing an entire broad thing where they are
looking at the impact on families and the work life of families
as well as children. They tend to focus on the children
themselves.
Mr. Barnett. I actually think there is a relatively simple
formula for what an evaluation would look like. It would tell
you who is served and how that differs under the different
policy regimes, how they are served, what services they get,
and it would tell you about the impacts on the children and
families. How does this impact on children's learning and
development. We can assess that very broadly. If we use
sampling rather than trying to do every child, which doesn't
make sense, sampling you can then take much more care to get
much better measures on children and families.
And you want to follow the money. I think it would be
useful to the Subcommittee to have the results of the current
Head Start outcome study. It would be nice to know what is
happening now. It would also be good to know where the money
goes now. I don't mean that in the sense of anybody doing
anything wrong with it but all of Head Start, it is a Federal
to local program. And one of the advantages of that is surely
that they tailor things to their communities. But they also
make individual decisions about what a director and staff
thinks is best. How much variation is there, what could we
learn from the variation that they have already got, and how
might that help inform states in their work.
One of the things that occurred to me in response to the
Chairman's question was would it be possible to set up a system
in which--a study in which states essentially made proposals
about--rather than the experts from the outside coming up with
proposals for how might states work with Head Start better, let
states make proposals about what they would do where they have
to make the case that this is in fact going to improve services
for kids. It is not going to draw money out of the system.
So from the very start the plan would have to justify that
and then of course the evaluation tells you whether in fact it
actually occurs. There has to be some degrees of freedom for
states or states and Head Start jointly making these proposals
to make some changes or we are simply assuming that whatever we
have now is a perfect mix of services and there aren't any
options for fixing that.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. Did you want to add
something?
Ms. Moore. I would like to, if I may, briefly.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Moore.
Ms. Moore. And just to speak to what Georgia and the
importance of I feel like how we are doing it. First of all, we
have done a sample evaluation of the program for about 10 or 11
years. We have done that. But the other piece of it that is
even more important that we cannot lose is that assessment is
important on an individual child level and for certain reasons.
It is important to be able to identify barriers to learning and
also to guide instruction so we can ensure the child is
receiving the instruction they need to step up to the next
level of learning and ability.
But that can be done in a lot of different ways, ways as
far as portfolio assessment, just teachers being trained on how
to gather information about the child, not for reporting out
information but to guide the instruction for the child to make
sure the child gets the best services the child can receive.
So I feel like you have to really look at assessment two
ways. And sampling can meet that, definitely does meet that
need because it drives policy. We have changed a lot of our
policies in our state based on the evaluation that has been
done. So there are different ways to look at it and be
successful at both.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, I appreciate that, and I certainly
understand that there are different ways to assess portfolios,
et cetera, but I think sometimes we often have a lot more
anecdotal than we have in evaluation and assessment. The
anecdotal is important but for us to justify, what is
frustrating I think is that sometimes we really don't have the
tracking that we need and my interest is in looking at good
models where there is some accountability and you can
demonstrate that people actually act on what they know and what
they find out through those evaluations.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
Mr. Hinojosa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment
the panelists because you all have a very good understanding of
the programs and the difficulties and the challenges that we
have in the reauthorization.
I want to ask my first question to Dr. Richard Clifford,
from North Carolina. Could you please describe how your state
preschool program, Head Start programs and other child care
programs are collaborating to identify and meet the needs of
the limited English proficient children and their families? We
refer to them as LEP students but that is of great concern to
my congressional district, which has a very, very large migrant
population. So I would like to see what Dr. Richard, how he
would answer that. And, second, would like to hear from Jeff
Alexander from Oklahoma to see how you all are handling LEP
students.
Mr. Clifford. I can only give you a partial answer to that.
North Carolina certainly has this as a major concern. In the
last decade, maybe not the most recent, but in the last 10
years, about 3 years ago, we had the greatest increase in the
proportion in the population of Latino, Hispanic/Latino
children in the country, with about a 450 percent increase in
that population over a 10-year period of time.
So it is a major issue. I also have a son-in-law who is
Latino, and so it is a big issue for me personally. We have
worked hard in the state to try to bring together people across
all of these service delivery agencies to begin focusing on
this issue.
But it is one that we are struggling with. The huge growth
in the population has made it difficult for us to have enough
staff who speaks Spanish to adequately serve the population.
And so we need many more Spanish-speaking people.
We have addressed this to some degree through our
professional development system where we have tried to provide
training for people that cuts across the agencies. This is one
area that I think we have done a reasonably good job of making
sure that training opportunities, in-service training
opportunities that are available for one segment of the
population of teachers are available to all staff across all of
the agencies. That is our best response so far. But we have a
long way to go. It is something we have to work on.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, I will respond to that after I
hear from Jeff.
Mr. Alexander. Thank you. In some of our areas where the
migrant has come in, we don't have like a migrant program but
in some of our areas we serve the Hispanic population or other,
Asian, et cetera, by we applied in one area for a specific
grant just for that, the Hispanic community because there was a
large population in one area. That was before my time of
becoming the assistant director in our area, but we continue to
serve that population in that area. And it is a growing need
and we are collaborating with the Workforce Investment Act
Agency in our area to provide a training for our teaching staff
specific for daily conversational Spanish because they may have
one student in a classroom.
Now we also are serving in the Choctaw Nation. That is
another area in which we are working with those Nations to--in
fact, the Choctaw Nation is now collaborating with us, they
received a grant, if I am not mistaken, to provide the Choctaw
language in some of our classrooms because there is that large
variety.
So in a variety of ways--we can address it in a variety
ways, but we are working toward meeting that need in the state
of Oklahoma.
Mr. Hinojosa. I commend you for the statement you made
earlier that 87 percent of your teachers have bachelor's
degrees. That is outstanding and extraordinary. I want to say
that the area that I represent is 80 percent Hispanic. We have
over 100,000 migrant children, that is their home base where I
was born and raised in south Texas. And so we have found ways
in which to address the lack of what Dr. Clifford answered and
that is lack of trained bilingual students--sorry, teachers who
can deal with this growing population that you pointed out to
us.
The University of Texas at Pan American in Edinburgh, Texas
has some of these programs and training programs. The Region
One Education Service Center, which is part of TEA, Texas
Education Agency, located in Edinburgh, also has this kind of a
program. I recommend that you consider talking to them and
seeing if maybe you all can exchange information that would
help you.
The time has come for us to go vote, and I am going to try
to bring to closure my last question, which is for Ms. Blank,
Helen Blank. You recommended that Head Start programs be more
flexible. We know that Hispanic families and rural families do
not have the same access to quality preschool programs as we
have in other states. And I see that in that many of our
teachers get paid minimum wages or slightly higher than minimum
wage, which $5.25 is the minimum wage, so they get paid $6.25
an hour and that doesn't compare with some of our much higher
level quality programs. So how can we encourage or expand Head
Start programs to better serve these populations?
Chairman Castle. Ms. Blank, can you please--
Ms. Blank. Be quick?
Chairman Castle. Yes. And Mr. Hinojosa is correct, a vote
is--
Ms. Blank. I think we can talk about this more later. I do
think giving Head Start programs the flexibility if you don't
have programs in rural areas to do Head Start and they do in
other settings if there is a child care program or if there is
a school to provide Head Start in those settings because if you
give parents certificates, they are not going to find the
quality care either. On how much you pay teachers, that is the
same issue we talked about with Congresswoman Woolsey, we have
to find the resources and it is really essential because you
want people to come into programs and you want them to be able
to stay there once they get some training. And you need the
resources to be able to do that.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. Obviously, the
votes have commenced and we all have to run over to the floor
to do that. But I want to thank the panel for being here today.
I will say very briefly in closing that I am still concerned
about the collaboration issues. We are dealing with two
different animals, I am not saying that in the negative sense
or a pejorative sense, but obviously you have state programs
running a lot of pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, early
childhood programs. You have some other independent programs.
Head Start, though, is a separate entity and in some cases
there is resistance, in other cases there is cooperation.
But the fact that there is not good cooperation concerns
me. I actually agree with Ms. Woolsey in that it is a separate
program and it is aimed at a particular segment of our
population, I think that is very important. But I still think
the coordination is also important. And I also agree with those
of you who say we need more accountability as well. And that
may be different accountability, by the way. There is maybe
extraneous accountability going on right now to be candid.
So I am not totally satisfied that we have answered all the
questions yet, but it is very helpful to hear what you are
saying. And as we get closer with the states doing more along
the lines of early education, along with Head Start, to me that
collaboration is more important than ever. I just hope we can
write legislation that somehow we can all agree on, that we
don't get into a fight over that would be helpful ultimately
for these children who obviously need that. So that is what we
are trying to do and where I am coming from.
And I yield to Ms. Woolsey if she wants to say anything,
but she looks like she wants to run and vote. So we will stand
adjourned. And, again, we thank all of you for being here
today.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>