Infrastructure Investment Begins with CHILDREN Mav Pardee, Children’S Investment Fund

Infrastructure Investment Begins with CHILDREN Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund iStockphoto When the topic is economic development, ricula, cultural competency, and a safe and years of life. Even the terminology changed— most people think about construction of healthful physical environment. from “child care,” a support to help low-in- roads and bridges and the effective function- Community-based nonprofits or small come single parents enter the workforce, to ing of capital markets. That’s why many were businesses operate most early-education and “early childhood education,” which empha- surprised when economist Arthur Rolnick out-of-school-time programs. They exist at sizes child development and learning. of the Minneapolis Fed declared that early the margin of financial viability, especially Simultaneously, a parallel movement childhood development was really economic programs that serve children on public sub- to raise teacher qualifications has emerged, development—economic development with sidy, which are the focus of many efforts to with a growing emphasis on program ac- a very high public return.1 close the achievement gap and reduce health creditation and Quality Rating and Im- Rolnick and economists Rob disparities in America. provement Systems nationwide. The stan- Grunewald and James Heckman reviewed dards generally have four or five quality three carefully controlled studies of high- True Quality levels—for example, curricula, staff quali- quality early-learning programs for children In 1995, the “Cost, Quality and Outcomes” fications, learning environment, family in- from birth to five. From those studies, the study garnered nationwide attention for its volvement, and program management. In- economists calculated high returns for chil- finding that only 14 percent of child-care dependent evaluators do the measuring, dren at risk, and even higher returns to the centers provided a sufficiently high level of and participating providers receive techni- public in reduced spending on special edu- quality to support children’s development. cal support and incentives to improve. cation, social welfare, and health care.2 ( See Twelve percent were rated as poor quality, Unfortunately, scant attention is paid to “High-Quality Early Childhood Education and 74 percent were judged mediocre.3 The the design, layout, and functionality of the Spending.”) report deserves much of the credit for subse- facilities that house the programs. Factors Nevertheless, there is an enormous dis- quent “quality improvement” categories in such as size, density, privacy, defined activ- parity between the value of these programs federal and state subsidized-care allocations. ity areas, a modified open-plan design, tech- and the funding needed to ensure high Over the past decade, policies for child- nical design features, and the quality of out- quality, which generally includes teacher care subsidies have continued to evolve, influ- door play spaces are known to correlate with qualifications, class size, good teacher-child enced partly by brain-development research children’s cognitive, social, and emotional ratios, a supportive emotional climate, cur- showing the critical importance of the first five development.4 Noted Italian educator Loris Communities & Banking 17 Massachusetts Facilities Inventory nationwide. In Boston, reimbursements for Early Childhood & Out-of-School-Time Facilities Percentage Facing Problems early childhood services have fallen from 52 One or more classrooms without windows 20 percent of market rate to 43 percent since the last report in 2009, and a similar rate Elevated CO2 levels in indoor air 22 structure is found statewide.8 Lack workspace for teachers 22 Inadequate heating & cooling of the space 34 First-Ever Report Lack indoor active play space 54 This year, Children’s Investment Fund re- Lack technology for teachers 65 leased “Building an Infrastructure for Qual- Lack classroom sinks 70 ity” on the first comprehensive inventory of Source: Building an Infrastructure for Quality, by Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund, 2011 early-childhood-education and out-of-school- time facilities in Massachusetts.9 It examined Malaguzzi emphasizes that a well-designed at the 75th percentile of market rate, but whether existing learning environments sup- environment is the “third teacher”—an un- those market rates are already artificially port educators’ and policymakers’ educational derstanding that American policymakers depressed through payment of low salaries, goals for children at risk—or whether some have been slow to adopt, especially for pro- minimal benefits, low occupancy costs, and spaces might interfere with running a high- grams serving low-income children. careful spending on other expenses.6 Conse- quality program. The Fund commissioned Use of in-kind space—including be- quently, programs must raise additional re- the inventory to review the effect of physical low-market rentals—is one of the most sources if they hope to achieve the level of space on children’s health and safety, behavior, common strategies for managing operating quality Rolnick and colleagues cite. physical development and cognition, and how costs.5 Low-cost space and difficulty paying A 2010 report by the Urban Institute adult workspace either enhances or impedes for facility improvements highlight a fun- made a link between financial stress and staff effectiveness. damental problem. Public subsidy rates are quality, noting that “classrooms with the First, evidence-based program-facility established by state and federal regulation. lowest observed quality were typically in standards were compiled to measure space Even with the income-based parent co-pay, centers characterized as struggling financial- across three categories: regulatory, profes- rates do not cover the cost. The federal gov- ly.”7 The discrepancy between public subsi- sional, and best practice.10 The inspection ernment recommends setting subsidy rates dy rates and the cost of quality are common protocol measured 268 items that cover regulatory compliance, site elements, the building envelope, mechanical systems, and environmental health, plus a detailed re- High-Quality Early Childhood Education Spending view of children’s activity spaces, adult work space, and outdoor play space. The Welles- Return on investment ley Centers for Women and a team from Boston-based On-Site Insight selected a 18 random sample of 182 sites and made field visits to each to collect data. 16 The inventory found that many sites faced the combined challenges of poor lay- 14 out, outmoded features, and deteriorat- ing conditions. Between 15 percent and 26 12 percent failed to meet current Massachu- setts building-code requirements. And only 10 one program—a center built the preceding year—met all accessibility guidelines. 8 A number of building deficiencies under- mined the quality of teaching and children’s Ratio: Benefits to Costs Ratio: 6 learning, or presented health or safety con- cerns. (See “Massachusetts Facilities Invento- 4 ry.”) Moreover, given widespread childhood obesity, it was discouraging that few sites had 2 appropriate space for indoor active play in in- clement weather. Many outdoor spaces lacked 0 sufficient space for physically strenuous play. Abecedarian Chicago Child Perry Preschool Perry Preschool They also lacked trees or plants. $3.78 Parent Center (at age 27) (at age 40) $7.14 $8.74 $17.07 Another concern was the lack of adult workspace and the absence of appropriate Three Longitudinal Studies technology, impeding the goal of developing a highly qualified workforce and pos- Source: Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation, by Robert G. Lynch, Economic Policy Institute, 2007. sibly undermining other quality-improvement efforts.11 18 Spring 2012 It is true that Massachusetts, like oth- bostonfed.org/commdev/c&b/2008/spring/ er states, has invested significant private Rolnick_early_education_pays.pdf. and public resources in quality improve- 2 “The Science of Early Childhood Development: ment for early care and education and out- Closing the Gap Between What We Know and of-school-time services, particularly for What We Do” (white paper, National Scientific low-income children. But quality—and Council on the Developing Child, Harvard the physical infrastructure to support it— University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007). is critical to fulfilling the state’s aspirations 3 “Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care for these children, and clearly, the resourc- Centers” (technical report, University of Colorado, es to fix problems cannot be found in pro- 1995). gram operating budgets. Children’s Invest- 4 Gary T. Moore, “Ready to Learn: Towards Design ment Fund has therefore begun to pursue Standards for Child Care Facilities,” Education options for improving facility quality, some Facility Planner 32, no. 1 (1994). near term, some longer term. It is working 5 Monica Rohacek, Gina C. Adams, Ellen E. Kisker, with the business community, public offi- Anna Danziger, Theresa Derrick-Mills, Heidi cials, community development organiza- Johnson, “Understanding Quality in Context: tions, and funders to ensure that early care Child Care, Communities, Markets, and Public and education and out-of-school-time pro- Policy” (white paper, Urban Institute, Washington, grams can make improvements. The follow- DC, 2010). ing are among the strategies being pursued: 6 In Massachusetts, full-time preschool teachers earn Ensure that repairs and hazardous on average $33,400, according

Load more