Transcript Slide 1
The Center for Public Education Many Happy Returns: School boards and pre-kindergarten Patte Barth, Center for Public Education Federation Presidents’ Retreat August 16, 2008 Agenda • • • • • Why pre-K? School boards & pre-k CPE’s pre-k initiative Making pre-k work Federal advocacy questions Why pre-K? Percent of students scoring in top quartile Poor children start school behind their more affluent peers academically … 80 27 8 27 7 27 6 0 reading math general knowledge Source: NCES, America’s Kindergartners, Class of 1998-99, February 2000 welfare no welfare … and socially Percent of students who engage in prosocial behavior often or very often 78 75 80 67 69 53 43 welfare no welfare 0 accept peer form ideas friendships comfort others Source: NCES, America’s Kindergartners, Class of 1998-99, February 2000 High-quality pre-k is High-quality pre-k IS NOT High pressure Fun – “can I go to pre-K?” Mandatory Concerned with children’s social/emotional/academic development Low-quality/concerned only with access Academic only For all plus more for highneeds children One size fits all Often in diverse settings Only in schools Welcoming to parents too Closed to parents Absolutely voluntary A silver bullet Essential but not sufficient Adapted from Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006 The benefits of pre-k convey to all children 2 Effects of Tulsa Preschool Program on School Readiness by Race & Ethnicity Effect Size (gains) 1.5 0.99 Applied problems 0.98 0.89 0.760.72 0.74 0.52 0.72 0.6 0.38 Spelling 0 White Hispanic Black Source: Cannon & Karoly, Who Is Ahead and Who Is Behind? RAND, 2007. Data from Gormley et al, 2005. LetterWord ID Native American The benefits of pre-k convey to all children Effects of Tulsa Preschool Program on School Readiness by Family Income Effect Size (gains) 2 1.04 Applied problems 0.97 LetterWord ID 0.81 0.65 0.63 0.54 0.45 0.29 0 free lunch reduced lunch non eligible Source: Cannon & Karoly, Who Is Ahead and Who Is Behind? RAND, 2007. Data from Gormley et al, 2005. Spelling Short-term benefits • More likely to score higher on math and reading state tests in elementary school • Less likely to be retained in grade • Less likely to require special education services Sources: High Scopes/Perry Preschool, Abecedarian, Chicago Child-Parent Centers Long-term benefits • More likely to earn high school diploma • More likely to be employed • More likely to earn high wages • More likely to be home owners • Less likely to be a teen parent • Less likely to be involved in criminal justice system Sources: High Scopes/Perry Preschool, Abecedarian, Chicago Child-Parent Centers And it adds up: Gains per $1 invested 18 16.14 7.14 3.78 2.36 0 Meta-analysis SOURCE: CED, 2006 Abecedarian Chicago Centers High/Scope Access to pre-k varies by family income 100 72 1 Percent of 4 year-olds 57 47 13 71 25 44 22 0 lowest 20% middle 60% center-based highest 20% Head Start Source: NCES, Pre:school: First findings, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort Follow up, 2007 Access to pre-k also varies by race & ethnicity 100 Percent of 4 year-olds 60 62 7 61 60 6 50 25 31 19 55 53 37 31 29 0 White Black Hispanic center-based Asian Native American Head Start Source: NCES, Pre:school: First findings, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort Follow up, 2007 School boards and pre-k School board view: Why pre-k 100 75 72 71 45 0 promotes school readiness boosts student achievement narrows gaps SOURCE: NSBA, school board survey 2006 saves $ in longterm School board view: Challenges to providing pre-K 100 79 24 17 14 0 lack of resources finding qualified collaborating with lack of readiness teachers private providers standards SOURCE: NSBA, school board survey 2006 School board view: Impediments to starting pre-K 100 87 58 14 10 9 lack of community interest lack of qualified providers 0 insufficient funds lack of limited publicclassrooms private collaboration SOURCE: NSBA, school board survey 2006, views from districts that do not currently provide pre-k CPE pre-k initiative • Making pre-kindergarten a public priority • Intensifying efforts in partner states: Kansas, Ohio, Texas. We hope to add Alabama and Kentucky • Reaching out broadly to other states and nationally Action in the partner states • Kansas – holding broad-based community meetings, working with the governor, expanding pilot projects • Ohio – outreach to members, making P12 case • Texas – taking lead role in TX early ed coalition, working to expand eligibility Making pre-K work Universal vs. Targeted • Arguments for universal: all children benefit – no one is denied access broader base of support for program • Arguments for targeted: high-needs children benefit the most costs less Mixed delivery vs. Public school pre-k • Arguments for mixed delivery maximize community resources less threatening to private providers • Arguments for public school pre-k less concern about quality control less concern about “backdoor vouchers” Full-day K vs. Pre-K • Arguments for full-day K schools already have the children easier to find certified teachers easier for working parents • Arguments for pre-K readiness gaps are present at age 5 A federal role NSBA’s Pre-K Legislative Committee • Advocates for federal pre-k agenda to include more investment in high-quality pre-k • Includes over 300 NA, FRN and CUBE representatives at present NSBA’s Federal Policy Recommendations • New federal grant program to fund portion of costs to develop and expand voluntary quality preschool programs in local school districts. • Key caveats: – School district participation discretionary – Parent/student participation discretionary – Not at expense of K-12 funding – Doesn’t foster vouchers NSBA’s Federal Policy Recommendations (cont.) • Programs adopt developmentally appropriate early ed standards aligned with state’s K-12 standards. • Require outside pre-k providers to collaborate with local districts. • Encourage states to upgrade teacher certification / licensure systems to include BA & early ed training NSBA’s Federal Policy Recommendations (cont.) • Devote resources to districts to develop / implement joint training and professional development programs for early ed instructors. • Tools / incentives to replicate effective models and improve program quality. State trends in Pre-k Access AND Quality Access • 38 states fund pre-k programs • 22% of all 4-yr-olds enrolled in state pre-k – up from 14% in 2002 • 2/3 of children served are in public school settings Source: NIEER, 2006 & 2007 Access to state pre-k Four-year-olds Top States OK FL GA WV VT TX NY WI SC MD 73% 62% 58% 55% 54% 49% 45% 44% 44% 40% No program AK HI ID IN MS MT NH ND RI SD UT WY SOURCE: NIEER, 2007, includes special education students Pre-k funding by state, FY09 Orange: increase Black: decrease Tan: Flat * inc. HeadStart or local only Blue: Inc, expected White: no state pre-k Gray: no budget Map: Pre-K Now, 2008 More state dollars for pre-k despite pinched budgets # of states increasing pre-k funding Total state pre-k dollars FY 2005 FY 2009* 15 21 $2.9 billion $5.2 billion *Governors’ proposals. Source: Pre-K Now, Leadership Matters, 2008 NIEER’s 10 quality indicators • • • • • • • • • • Early learning standards Lead teachers with B.A. Lead teachers with early ed training Ass’t teachers with CDA Min. 15 hrs PD Max. class size of 20 Min. staff-child ratio 1:10 Health support Min. 1 meal Site visits Source: National Institute for Early Education Research States meeting standards • 2 states – AL and NC -- meet all 10 indicators • 8 states – AR, IL, NJ, NM, OK, SC, TN & WA - met 9 quality indicators Source: NIEER, 2007 Nationally… • 22 states required lead teachers to have BA • 33 states required class size ≤ 20 • 34 states required child/staff ratio 10:1 or better Source: NIEER Yearbook 2007 Pre-K newsletter Visit our website www.centerforpubliceducation questions? For more information … Center for Public Education www.centerforpubliceducation.org or email me Patte Barth, [email protected]