Title I and Early Childhood Programs: a Look at Investments in the NCLB Era

Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 1 POL ICY PAPER

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 Child Care and Early Education Series P a p e r N o . 2

Title I and Early Childhood Programs: A Look at Investments in the NCLB Era

by Danielle Ewen and Hannah Matthews

Introduction young children beginning at A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S birth. Title I of NCLB presents The demographics of the coun- The research and analysis reflected in this an opportunity for schools and try’s young child population are paper were made possible by the generous school districts to increase support of the Foundation for Child changing in several ways, creat- investments in high-quality Development, The George Gund Foundation, ing challenges for school dis- The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur early education initiatives, tricts across the country as the Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard which may have long-term ben- Foundation, and an anonymous donor. number of at-risk young chil- efits for at-risk children. Yet dren increases. At the same Many individuals contributed to this report. implementation of NCLB also We are indebted to the state and local school time, educators are working administrators who took time out of their presents a number of challenges toward meeting new accounta- busy schedules to speak with us. Information that may impact the availability bility requirements established on individual school districts was verified by of resources for early education district personnel and was accurate at the in the No Child Left Behind programs. time of publication. We are grateful to our Act (NCLB). The first compo- colleagues at CLASP, Rachel Schumacher and nent of NCLB, Title I, is the Elizabeth Hoffmann, for their advice and largest federal funding source From 2000 to 2005, the num- input, and to Kristen Darling, who assisted ber of poor children under the with interviews and research for this report. for low-income students. While Thanks also to Steve Thorngate, CLASP’s Title I is widely known as a age of six increased by 16 per- communications coordinator, for his editing 1 funding source for elementary cent. According to the latest support. and secondary education, Title estimates, one in five children We also appreciate the insights of our under the age of six lives in a reviewers, Katie Hamm; Karen Manship and I funds may be used to serve Susan Muenchow, American Institutes for 2 poor family. The growing Research; Jana Martella, National Association number of poor and low- of Early Childhood Specialists in State About the Authors income children is particularly Departments of Education; Adele Robinson, National Association for the Education of troublesome because these chil- Danielle Ewen is Director Young Children; and Fasaha Traylor, of Child Care and Early dren may face a number of risk Foundation for Child Development. Education and Hannah factors during early childhood While CLASP is grateful for all assistance and Matthews is a Policy Analyst that threaten healthy develop- funding related to this paper, the authors at CLASP. ment and learning, including alone are responsible for its content. 2 P O L I C Y P A P E R

low birth weight, stunted The growth in poverty and its as one research-proven method growth, obesity, and lead poi- associated risk factors among of increasing student achieve- soning—each of which is asso- very young children suggests ment. Title I-funded early edu- ciated with physical disabilities, that efforts to reduce the cation programs can also help reduced IQ, and grade repeti- achievement gap should begin improve connections between tion.3 According to the in children’s earliest years. This schools, pre-kindergarten pro- increase in children at risk has grams, child care providers, and

Quality pre-kindergarten is necessary, the potential to impact the Head Start and Early Head but not sufficient, to raise the educational implementation of NCLB, Start programs serving young achievement of all children. which requires schools to children at risk of school fail-

For children to get the most out of improve achievement among all ure; and they can increase and growing public investments in early children—including poor, low- expand the availability of high- learning, we must align standards, income, minority, and ELL stu- quality settings in a community. curriculum, and assessment from pre- dents. In 2007, states received Research demonstrates that kindergarten through kindergarten and into the early elementary grades. $12.8 billion in Title I funds, well-designed and well-imple- which are the main vehicle for mented high-quality early edu- - Foundation for Child Development NCLB’s accountability require- cation programs can improve ments. Federal education fund- outcomes for all children, par- National Center for Education ing was estimated to comprise ticularly those from low- Statistics, nearly half of all approximately 9 percent of total income families and immigrant entering kindergarteners have elementary and secondary edu- families.8 High-quality pro- one or more risk factors— cation expenditures in 2006- grams should support the full defined as having a mother with 2007.7 range of children’s development less than a high school degree, and help parents access neces- living in a family that has While Title I funds can be used sary services for themselves and received food stamps or welfare by local educational agencies their children, such as medical assistance, living in a single- (LEAs) to support the learning and dental care, mental health parent household, or having needs of students in all grades, services, nutritional services, parents whose primary lan- the flexibility of the funds gives family support, and services for guage is a language other than LEAs the opportunity to direct children with disabilities (see English.4 As of 2000, one in 10 funding toward the country’s box on p. 3). Longitudinal kindergarteners in the nation youngest and most vulnerable research on three comprehen- was an English Language children, through high-quality sive early childhood programs Learner (ELL).5 By 2015, it is programs spanning the early with positive impacts on low- projected that children of childhood and early elementary income children into adulthood immigrants will comprise 30 years. Addressing the achieve- found that these programs gen- percent of the country’s school- ment gap through the provision erally began early in the child’s age children.6 Many of these of high-quality early education life and at least by age three.9 children also face economic can have large impacts, and it hardships and significant barri- should be an important compo- To sustain the benefits of early ers to healthy development and nent of education reform. In an education, children must con- school success. era of accountability, local tinue to receive high-quality school districts may look to educational opportunities and Title I-funded early education support services throughout Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 3

childhood. Research points to course of the kindergarten year, should build upon children’s the importance of duration in compared to children in half- earlier educational experiences early education interventions. day kindergarten. Full-day by aligning curriculum, stan- Children who participated in classes also allowed teachers dards, and instruction.13 two model early education pro- more time to focus on activities grams showed increased gains outside of reading and language Despite their promise, high- when services continued into arts, including math, social quality publicly funded early early elementary school. The studies, science, and art.12 To education programs are in short Abecedarian Project provided be most beneficial to young supply. A chronic lack of fund- high-intensity early education children, full-day kindergarten ing has led policymakers to services for children from infancy to age five; a small number of these children con- C L A S P B E L I E V E S T H AT T H E C O M P O N E N T S O F tinued to receive family support H I G H - Q U A L I T Y E A R LY E D U C AT I O N I N C L U D E T H E services into second grade. The F O L L O W I N G :

Chicago Child-Parent Centers Sufficient funding to attract and retain well-trained and qualified started with a three-year-old teachers in formal settings preschool program, family sup- Training and information for all providers, whether informal or port services, and follow-up formal, to address the developmental needs of all children, through school age. While chil- particularly those who may be more likely to experience the risk dren in both programs outper- factors associated with poverty formed their peers who did not Availability of and access to comprehensive services for families participate in either preschool needing them, including developmental screenings and follow-up treatment; child health, mental health, and nutrition services; and program, those who continued access to continuous and ongoing medical care, family support, to receive services during the and home visiting early elementary years saw Parental involvement opportunities for all parents, including increased gains in academic those working full-time and those who may not speak English as achievement over those chil- their first language dren who received fewer years Infrastructure supports to ensure ongoing monitoring and quality of services.10 improvement, technical assistance in all aspects of the program, and program assessment in formal settings Evidence suggests as well that Strategies to help children manage transitions to other full-day kindergarten is another classrooms or programs, including kindergarten important component for local Inclusion of children with special needs in settings with normally communities to build on the developing children, along with supports to teachers and parents to help all children reach their full potential successes and supports that young children have gained in Appropriately serving culturally and linguistically diverse children with bilingual and bicultural teachers and caregivers, 11 early childhood programs. and increasing training opportunities for all caregivers, including Research from the Early cultural competency and strategies for teaching English Language Childhood Longitudinal Study Learners found that children in full-day Responsiveness to the needs of working parents, ensuring that kindergarten had greater full-workday options are available to families needing them— achievement in both reading through planning, coordination, and collaboration with other community, state, and federal programs and mathematics over the 4 P O L I C Y P A P E R

look to a wide variety of feder- also used ongoing conversations Federal and State Funding al, state, and local funding with early education adminis- for Early Education streams to expand the availabili- trators to identify more than For many states and local ty and quality of early educa- 100 schools and districts with school districts, the desire to tion programs, especially for some history of using Title I provide early education pro- children at risk of school fail- for early education programs. grams prior to elementary ure. Among these funding CLASP conducted interviews school is limited by a lack of streams is Title I of NCLB. with more than 30 states and funding. The primary sources districts—including districts of funding for child care and About this paper with increasing Title I alloca- early education for low-income This paper explores the wide tions and others with decreas- children before age of school range of ways in which school ing allocations, and districts in entry are the federal Child Care districts are using Title I funds states with a history of invest- and Development Block Grant for early education through ments in pre-kindergarten and (CCDBG), the federal kindergarten and examines how others in states without such a Temporary Assistance for the implementation of NCLB history—using a survey proto- Needy Families block grant has impacted those investments. col that we developed to under- (TANF), and the federal Early It also makes recommendations stand how schools and districts Head Start and Head Start pro- for LEAs interested in creating are using Title I for early edu- grams (see box on p. 6)—along Title I-funded early education cation, the history of these with state- and locally-funded programs or thinking about investments, and the barriers pre-kindergarten and kinder- how to sustain these types of and flexibility in the law. investments in the face of poli- CLASP interviewed state and garten programs. In addition, cy and funding challenges. local Title I directors, early local school districts may childhood directors, and district choose to use their own federal CLASP spent more than two superintendents and, where Title I funds, or other local years examining strategies to possible, collected financial funds, to provide early child- encourage and sustain Title I information on Title I early hood programs. Title I funds investments in high-quality education investments. In this may be layered with child care early education programs in paper, we discuss: subsidies, Head Start, and state local communities. Our initial I Federal and state funding for pre-kindergarten funding to findings were reported in early education; extend or expand services for Missed Opportunities? The I The opportunity of Title I young children. Possibilities and Challenges of funding for early education; Federal early education Funding High-Quality Preschool I The story behind Title I funding through Title I of the No Child investments in early educa- Left Behind Act.14 Building on tion, through illustrations of The largest federal early educa- the research and analysis in a wide range of models from tion programs have widely dif- Missed Opportunities, CLASP school districts; fering funding levels, eligibility conducted extensive Web-based requirements, and program I How NCLB is impacting research to identify promising standards. Funding for these Title I investments in early models, review local policies programs has been nearly flat education; and and documents, and find local for several years, leading to per- policymakers to interview. Staff I Recommendations for LEAs. sistent shortfalls in program Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 5

capacity and quality. Child care state funds and special taxes. varies.20 Thirty-four states subsidies fall far short of meet- Some local communities sup- require programs to provide ing the need, with less than 14 port early education through vision, hearing, and health percent of eligible children taxation and grants. screenings and referrals or served; in addition, approxi- additional support services. mately 150,000 children have While funding has grown, par- Twenty-three states require lost child care assistance since ticipation in these state pre- programs to provide at least 2000.15 Head Start, the federal- kindergarten programs is limit- one meal to participating chil- ly funded preschool program, ed. Across the country, state dren.21 Eleven states— currently serves only about half pre-kindergarten programs Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, the eligible population of three- serve 20 percent of all four- Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, and four-year-old children, year-olds and 3 percent of New York, North Carolina, while Early Head Start serves three-year-olds.18 While 39 Tennessee, Virginia, and less than 3 percent of eligible states currently have publicly Wisconsin—require local pro- children under age three.16 funded pre-kindergarten, grams to layer funds together Several smaller programs pro- Georgia, Florida, and to fully fund the pre-kinder- vide additional federal funding Oklahoma are the only states to garten program or to extend for early education, including provide universal access to pre- the day, and some of these pro- the Individuals with Disabilities kindergarten for all four-year- grams have reported using Title Education Act, which includes olds, regardless of income or I funds in this way.22 According targeted funding for services for other criteria. Illinois, New to data collected by the infants, toddlers, and pre- York, and West Virginia have National Institute for Early school-age children. policies in place to move Education Research, at least 11 toward universal access to pre- states report the use of Title I State- and locally-funded pre- kindergarten.19 In the remain- funds within their state pre- kindergarten programs ing states, pre-kindergarten eli- kindergarten program, either to Funding for state pre-kinder- gibility is largely targeted to at- create a local match of state garten, however, has grown risk populations, including low- dollars, to provide comprehen- over the last decade. In the income children, ELL children, sive services or support children 2005-2006 school year, states and children with disabilities. with special needs, to extend reported spending about $3.5 Because funds are often limited, the day, or to improve quality.23 billion in state and federal in many areas there are long funds on state pre-kindergarten waiting lists even for eligible State-funded full-day kindergarten initiatives.17 States often layer children. multiple funding sources—such States fund full-day kinder- as TANF, Title I, and Head State pre-kindergarten program garten using a mix of school Start funds—to provide state design and standards vary wide- funding and categorical grants. pre-kindergarten. States also ly. Most programs offer part- Data from the National Center invest their own funds, through day services, averaging 2.5 to for Education Statistics shows school funding formulae, cate- 3.5 hours per day during the that nearly every child in the gorical grants to schools and school year. The availability of United States (98 percent) community-based organiza- comprehensive services—such attends at least a part-day tions, and targeted funding for as health screenings, meals, and kindergarten program before early education from general family support services—also entering first grade.24 6 P O L I C Y P A P E R

M A J O R F E D E R A L F U N D I N G S T R E A M S F O R E A R LY E D U C AT I O N

CCDBG. CCDBG helps families receiving welfare, families transitioning off welfare, and low-income working families. Families receive CCDBG assistance, based on parental hours worked, to pay for the care of their children from birth through 12 years of age; most families also must pay a co-payment. CCDBG allows states a great deal of flexibility in how they design their programs, within minimal federal guidelines. States set income eligibility, payment rates for providers, and family co-payment rates; they also make decisions on investments in initiatives to increase the quality of care. There are minimal health and safety standards, and families may choose any legally operating child care provider. States provide most child care assistance to families through vouchers or certificates, although 11 percent of children served receive assistance through contracts or grants. In 2007, CCDBG was funded at $5 billion in federal funds, with states contributing an additional $2.2 billion.25 More than 1.7 million children received CCDBG-funded child care in 2005; in 2006, a total of 2.3 million children received child care assistance from all sources (including CCDBG and TANF).26

TANF. The $17 billion TANF block grant provides federal funds to states to support a broad range of benefits and services. Child care assistance is one acceptable use of TANF funds; there are no federal standards for child care directly funded by TANF. States are also permitted to transfer up to 30 percent of their annual TANF block grant to CCDBG. In recent years, child care assistance has been the second largest use of TANF funds nationally. The amount of TANF funds used for child care, however, has declined steadily from its peak of $4 billion in 2000 to $3.1 billion in 2006.27 TANF funds may also be used to serve children in pre-kindergarten or other early education programs. In 2004, 22 states reported using some federal or state TANF-related funds for such programs.28

Head Start and Early Head Start. Since 1965, the federal Head Start program has served low-income three- and four-year-old children and their families with comprehensive early education and family support services. A set-aside provides funding for Early Head Start, which provides comprehensive early education and support services for children under age three and for pregnant women. Head Start and Early Head Start programs must meet specific federal Program Performance Standards aimed at ensuring that services focus on the “whole child,” including supports for cognitive, developmental, and socio-emotional needs; medical and dental screenings and referrals; nutritional services; parental involvement activities and referrals to social service providers for the entire family; and mental health services. Head Start Program Performance Standards require that all children receive a complete medical screening after enrollment; staff must work with parents to provide referrals for follow-up treatment, if necessary, and to ensure access to ongoing sources of dental and medical care for their children. Head Start programs may offer part-day (less than six hours) or full-day (six hours or more) services for four or five days a week. Head Start was funded at $6.9 billion in 2007. Approximately 1 million children participate in Head Start and Early Head Start each year.29

Nationally, approximately 60 Most funding for full-day programs, even if the state does percent of all kindergarten- kindergarten comes from not mandate a full-day pro- aged students attend full-day school funding formulae, gram. However, these funds programs.30 However, only although states may differ in may not grow in the same way the per-child amount provided nine states require that school that other school funding does, for a half- vs. a full-day pro- districts offer a full-day kinder- as they may not be linked to the gram.32 States may also provide garten program: Alabama, school funding formula. State targeted funds to local districts, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, based on the eligibility of the and school administrators also Maryland, Mississippi, North district or on risk factors of the report that Title I funds are Carolina, South Carolina, and children and families served.33 used in many districts to West Virginia.31 LEAs may use these funds to provide half- and full-day create full-day kindergarten kindergarten.34 Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 7

C H I C A G O C H I L D - PA R E N T C E N T E R S : H I G H - Q U A L I T Y T I T L E I - F U N D E D E A R LY E D U C AT I O N

The CPC program began in 1967 as a comprehensive educational and family support program for at-risk children from preschool to third grade and their parents. The CPC program was designed to promote the academic achievement of poor children residing in high-poverty neighborhoods within the enrollment areas of Title I schools and to facilitate parental involvement. Components of the original program included parent and community outreach, home visiting, parental involvement activities, comprehensive health screening and services, and a language-focused curriculum. Parent resource teachers and school community representatives led outreach and parental involvement activities. Parental involvement and schoolwide services, including health and nutrition services, continued during the early elementary years. Parents had access to a resource room with activities and tools for educational enrichment of both children and parents. The CPC program featured small class sizes at all grade levels and a curriculum that was aligned across the years from pre- kindergarten through third grade.

The CPC program has been hailed as a model early childhood program, based on positive results from decades-long longitudinal studies of its participants. Children who participated in the CPC early childhood program have shown greater academic performance, greater educational attainment, lower rates of grade repetition, lower rates of juvenile delinquency, and higher employment than their peers who did not attend the CPC program. Children who continued to receive CPC support services into early elementary school demonstrated the greatest levels of academic achievement, as measured by test scores, showing the benefits of coordinated and continuous academic and support services during the elementary years.35

Today, 13 CPC preschool programs operate throughout Chicago; most classes are half-day programs. Most children are enrolled in the program at age three and may receive two years of continuous early childhood services. A kindergarten program—half- or full-day, depending on the elementary school—follows the CPC early education program. (In 2006, 73 percent of Chicago Public Schools’ kindergarteners attended full-day kindergarten.36) Four of the 13 CPC sites have parent resource teachers to facilitate parental involvement. At the remaining sites, the head teacher assumes the duties once held by the parent resource teacher and school community representative. Support services are no longer provided during the early elementary years.37

In 2006, the CPC early childhood program served 1,360 children and their parents in 38 classrooms.38 Chicago Public Schools directs approximately $6 million in Title I funds to the CPC program (approximately 2 percent of a nearly $300 million allocation). Funding for the CPCs was reduced from $15 million in 2004; consequently, eight CPCs were converted to either Head Start or state pre-kindergarten classrooms. As the demographics of Chicago have changed, some neighborhoods where CPCs operated no longer have a concentration of poor children to attend early education programs.39

The Opportunity of Title I used primarily for elementary percent were in kindergarten or Funding for Early and secondary education servic- below.40 Education es, schools and districts can Federal Title I funds are award- decide to use Title I funds for There is limited information on ed to state educational agencies early education beginning at how schools districts use their (SEAs), which then provide birth and up to the age at Title I funds. The U.S. them to LEAs. Once a school which the school district Government Accountability district or school receives its requires attendance in elemen- Office (GAO) estimates that allotment of Title I funds, it tary education. Sixty percent of only 17 percent of all school can prioritize their use based on students receiving Title I-fund- districts that received Title I the needs of the local student ed services in 2003 were in first funds in school year 1999-2000 population. While Title I is through sixth grade. Thirteen chose to use a portion of these 8 P O L I C Y P A P E R

funds to serve children younger including child care centers and health, nutrition, or other social than the age of school entry; Head Start programs.43 Title I services and funds are not “rea- more recent estimates are not can be used to create a new pro- sonably available from other available. Most of these school gram or to expand or improve public or private sources.”47 districts used less than 10 per- the quality of an existing one.44 Title I funds can also be used to cent of their total Title I funds Programs funded by Title I screen children in order to for these youngest children,41 must comply with federal Head identify those at risk.48 although there are exceptions. Start Education Performance According to GAO, while The U.S. Department of Standards. Depending on the almost all school districts fund- Education has estimated that in type of Title I early education ing early education through 2000, $200 million—or 2 to 3 program at the district or school Title I use these funds for edu- percent of Title I funds nation- level, eligibility may be based on cational services, some districts wide—was used for early edu- a child’s residence within the also use Title I funds for chil- cation prior to school entry.42 enrollment area of a Title I dren’s meals, social services, and The Department of Education school or district or may be medical and dental services.49 has not estimated the amount determined by an assessment of Title I funds spent on full- showing the child is at risk of Title I funds may also be used day kindergarten programs. not meeting the state’s academic in conjunction with other early standards.45 education funding in the fol- Many districts have been using lowing ways: Title I funds for their early When using Title I funds for I Head Start: Title I funds early education services, LEAs childhood programs for may expand or extend a must have a plan for coordinat- decades. The longest-running Head Start program if they Title I early education program ing and integrating Title I with are used for children who is the Chicago Child-Parent other early childhood educa- meet the eligibility criteria Centers (CPC), run by the tional services—such as Head for Title I. Chicago Public Schools since Start, Even Start, and other I Even Start: Title I programs 1967—making it the second- preschools—as well as a plan for using an Even Start model the transition of children in oldest federally funded early must integrate early child- these programs into elementary education program in the hood education, adult litera- United States, after Head Start school. Specifically, Title I cy or adult basic education, (see box on p. 7). funds can be used to fund the and parenting education into following components of an a unified family literacy How Title I funds may be used early education program: program and must comply for early education prior to teacher salaries and professional with Even Start program elementary school development (whether or not requirements. Title I-funded early education teachers are in a Title I class- I Other programs: Title I programs may be provided to room), counseling services, funds may be used in con- children from birth up to the minor remodeling, and leasing junction with other existing age at which the school district or renting space in privately programs, including state- provides elementary education. owned facilities.46 Funds can be funded pre-kindergarten Funds may be used in public used for comprehensive services programs, community-based schools or other early childhood if a comprehensive needs assess- child care programs, and settings in the community, ment shows that a child needs CCDBG. Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 9

Title I may fund early education “multiple, educationally related, institutions for neglected or at the district or school level. objective criteria established by delinquent children are also In 2003, the latest year infor- the LEA. . . . With respect to eligible for Title I-funded mation is available, 456,492 preschool children, this deter- services.53 children received Title I-funded mination must be made on the early education services. basis of criteria such as teacher Decision making by schools. Unfortunately, there is no avail- judgment, interviews with par- Title I funds are awarded to able data on the specific ages of ents, and developmentally individual schools by LEAs. these children or on the types appropriate measures of child The decision to fund early edu- of services and programs they development.”51 If there is not cation programs can also be received. While the number of enough money to serve all made at the school level children receiving Title I-fund- children, a child’s family through schoolwide reform ed early education services has income can be considered as a efforts or targeted assistance increased, their percentage as a way of prioritizing eligibility.52 school programs. Most young share of all children who Children who have participated children served in a Title I receive Title I services in Head Start, Even Start, Early early education program increased only slightly, to 3 per- Reading First, or a Title I early receive services through a cent in 2003 (see Table 1). The education program at any time schoolwide program (see Table decision to provide early educa- over the past two years; home- 1).54 tion services using Title I funds less children; and children in can be made either at the LEA level (generally the school district) or the school level. TA B L E 1 . T I T L E I P R E S C H O O L PA R T I C I PA N T S 1

Number of Children Number of Children Total Number Total Number Decision making by LEAs. An in Title I-funded in Title I-funded of Children of Children LEA can use Title I funds for Preschool Programs Preschool Programs in Title I as Percent an early education program that in Public Targeted in Public School- Preschool of All Title I Year Programs wide Programs Programs2 Participants serves all eligible, at-risk children in the district, in a portion 1996 48,354 214,596 264,141 2% of the district, or in particular 1997 49,104 249,903 300,315 2% 50 Title I schools. Children are 1998 41,157 245,455 293,912 2% eligible for these Title I-funded 1999 43,367 265,939 310,995 2% early education services if they live in the enrollment area of 2000 26,315 301,144 329,755 2% the program (i.e., the district if 2001 24,304 338,635 366,534 2% it is a district-wide program or 2002 23,263 381,587 410,292 2% the school in which the program is housed if a school-spe- 2003 19,680 432,312 456,492 3% cific program), and they are Source: U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information, 1996-1997 to 2003-2004. shown to be at risk of not meeting the state’s academic 1 The U.S. Department of Education defines Title I preschool as any program serving children below standards. The assessment of the age of school entry. whether or not a child is “at 2 Total number of children includes children served in private schools and therefore does not equal the sum of targeted and schoolwide programs. risk” must be made based on 10 P O L I C Y P A P E R

I Schoolwide reform program. In I Targeted assistance programs. authorization levels commensu- a schoolwide program, Title Funds can also be used for rate with the law’s accountabili- I funds can be used in con- early education through “tar- ty and other requirements. junction with other federal, geted assistance” programs. Actual appropriations, however, state, and local funds to Schools that receive Title I remained below the authorized upgrade the school’s entire funds and whose low-income levels. Consequently, between educational program.55 A student population compris- 2002 and 2005, there was a $27 school is eligible to institute es less than 40 percent of billion gap between what a schoolwide reform pro- their students may use Title Congress promised for Title I gram if at least 40 percent of I for targeted assistance to of NCLB and what Congress its student population is low individual eligible students.59 provided. After two years of flat income. A school that is eli- Eligibility for a Title I tar- funding, in 2007, Title I gible for a schoolwide pro- geted assistance program is received an increase in funding gram may choose to use Title open to children considered of less than 1 percent ($124 I funds to establish or at risk for meeting a state’s million). Yet, not all states, and enhance early education pro- achievement standards, as consequently not all districts, will receive increases in Title I grams for children below the determined by multiple edu- funding in the coming school age of school entry.56 A Title cationally related, objective year. The distribution of Title I I schoolwide program is criteria established by the funding to states is based on a open to all children living district. complex formula that includes within the attendance area of Still, districts and schools may an annual updating of the num- that school. All schoolwide be constrained by lack of ber of low-income children in reforms must include pro- funding. each state, based on estimates grams to facilitate the transi- It is clear, at least in some dis- by the U.S. Census. Changes in tion of young children from tricts, that federal Title I fund- each state’s share of the number early childhood programs to ing levels and NCLB accounta- of low-income children nation- elementary school and to bility requirements are impact- wide result in changes to annual coordinate with a wide array ing the availability of Title I state allocations (see Table 2 for of federal, state, and local funds to provide early educa- the top 10 losing and gaining services, including Head tion services. While school dis- states).60 Start, violence prevention, tricts have enormous flexibility and nutrition programs.57 in the potential uses of Title I NCLB accountability Schools must also develop, funds, the program’s current requirements in consultation with their funding levels and its require- NCLB created a new set of LEAs, comprehensive plans ments for uses of funds once a accountability requirements, for reforming instruction. school enters “school improve- which have funding implica- When appropriate, these ment status” (see below) have tions for schools beyond the plans are developed in coor- resulted in limited flexibility for resources needed to implement dination with other early affected districts in the last few them. Through annual assess- childhood programs, includ- years. ments, starting in third grade, ing Early Reading First, schools must demonstrate that Even Start, and Head When NCLB was passed, they have made “adequate year- Start.58 Congress provided funding ly progress” (AYP) toward Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 11

state-established student than 60 percent. Schools identi- Additionally, SEAs are required achievement standards in spe- fied for improvement are over- to set aside 4 percent of their cific academic subject areas and whelmingly in urban school total Title I allocation to assist by specific student population districts and have higher pro- schools that are in school subgroups—including racial portions of poor and minority improvement. These funds, and ethnic student groups, students than other Title I however, may only be reserved ELLs, students with disabilities, schools.62 from school districts with and low-income students. If increasing Title I allocations. schools fail to meet progress in If a school is designated as in Due to this provision, in the any of these subject areas or for need of improvement, the 2007-2008 school year, 29 any student subgroup for two school’s LEA must set aside an states will be unable to reserve consecutive years, they are amount equal to 20 percent of the full 4 percent for school placed in “school improve- its Title I allocation to fund improvement. School districts ment” status. If a school that supplemental educational serv- in these states will not receive has been identified as in need of ices and transportation for stu- the full increases they would improvement fails to meet AYP dents who wish to transfer to otherwise expect to receive targets for two more years after other schools. If demand for from the overall increase in being put into the school these services is less than this funding for Title I, because a improvement category, the amount, the school can spend portion of these funds will be LEA can identify corrective the remainder on other services reserved for school improve- actions. If the school continues or carry over the set-aside ment. In Florida, Hawaii, and to fail to meet AYP for five amount to the next year.63 An West Virginia, no school dis- consecutive years, it is put into additional 10 percent, at a min- trict will receive an increase in school restructuring status, imum, must be set aside for Title I funding.65 which involves major changes professional development.64 in the operation of the school.61

In the 2006-2007 school year, TA B L E 2 . C H A N G E I N S TAT E T I T L E I A L L O C AT I O N , 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 S C H O O L Y E A R approximately 20 percent of Title I schools were identified Top Ten Losing States, Top Ten Gaining States, for school improvement. Of by Percent Decrease by Percent Increase these schools, 42 percent had Hawaii 13.8% Wisconsin 30.4% not made AYP for at least four West Virginia 10.0% Indiana 24.8% consecutive years and were in, Florida 9.2% Connecticut 11.5% or were entering, corrective Oklahoma 8.9% New Hampshire 10.5% action or restructuring. As New Mexico 7.6% Illinois 9.9% schools enter the fifth year of Oregon 7.0% Ohio 9.5% NCLB implementation, the Montana 5.7% Maryland 9.3% number of schools in corrective District of Columbia 5.5% Michigan 7.9% action and restructuring is New Jersey 4.9% Kansas 7.9% growing. Between 2005 and California 4.6% Utah 7.6% 2006, the number of Title I Source: Center on Education Policy, Title I Funds – Who’s Gaining and Who’s Losing, schools in corrective action and 2007. restructuring increased by more 12 P O L I C Y P A P E R

Despite the funding challenges, children with the school schools to which the funding school improvement may offer readiness skills needed to be flows. District administrators an opportunity for a district to successful. related strategies and lessons think about the provision of a learned from using Title I for high-quality early education Even with funding constraints early education programs, after program. A school that has and the requirements of which CLASP identified the been identified as in need of NCLB, small and large school following factors that may improvement is required to districts across the country have affect the creation or sustain- write a two-year school been able to use Title I funds to ability of high-quality early improvement plan to identify create and sustain high-quality education programs: and address the academic areas early education programs for I Resourceful school leaders that caused the school to be their young children. CLASP’s dedicated to using Title I identified for improvement, as research identified a wide array funds for early education, well as the interventions it of early childhood programs intends to use to improve these and services supported by Title I Partnerships with other academic areas. NCLB requires I. Schools are using Title I to agencies designed to utilize the strategies identified in the serve infants and toddlers, as the flexibility of Title I funds plan to be “based on scientifi- well as three- and four-year-old to meet the comprehensive cally based research that will children, and to support specif- needs of families, strengthen the core academic ic groups of children, including I Use of data to make the case subjects in the school and ELLs. The Title I early educa- for investments and to sus- address the specific academic tion models that we found vary tain those investments, and issues that caused the school to significantly by district, as do be identified for school their histories. I State policy and funding improvement.”66 Non-regula- changes that influence Title tory guidance from the U.S. I decisions. The Story Behind Title I Department of Education indi- Investments in Early cates that schools are permitted Education Resourceful school leaders to use school improvement dedicated to using Title I funds for early education funds for early education “if the CLASP interviewed early edu- preschool program is a strategy cation and Title I administra- CLASP interviews found that that addresses the specific aca- tors in more than 30 school dis- the use of Title I funds for early demic issues that caused the tricts, including districts with education programs often district or school to be identi- long-term investments and oth- resulted from the leadership of fied for school improvement, ers with short-term invest- a single person within the and if the preschool program is ments, districts with increasing school district—someone who carried out in accordance with Title I allocations and those was dedicated to providing the district’s or school’s with decreasing allocations, and early childhood programs and improvement plan.”67 If a districts in states with a history saw an opportunity when Title school or district has identified of investments in pre-kinder- I funds grew, when state poli- the early elementary grades as garten and those in states with- cies changed and made new in need of strengthening, a out such a history. The stories funds available, or when public comprehensive early education behind use of Title I for early support was in favor of using program could provide young childhood are as diverse as the existing funds in a new way. Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 13

Individual school principals, which includes state pre- guage development; curriculum district superintendents, school kindergarten and special educa- development; and parent edu- board members, and Title I tion preschool services. Title I cation. In 2005, South Bay coordinators often took the funds are primarily spent on Union used approximately lead to push a school district supportive services for three- $75,000 in Title I for early to utilize all available funding and four-year-olds, including education—or approximately streams to provide these language and literacy enrich- 3 percent of the district’s services. ment during the school year; an allocation.

South Bay Union School District, enrichment booster program Fayette County, Georgia Public California during school breaks, which Schools features small group sizes to South Bay Union has been provide attention to those four- Over a decade ago, Fayette using Title I for early education for more than 15 years. In the year-olds most in need of lan- County administrators decided, mid 1980s, South Bay Union was serving approximately 100 TA B L E 3 . O V E R V I E W O F H I G H L I G H T E D D I S T R I C T M O D E L S children through state pre- U S I N G T I T L E I F O R E A R LY E D U C AT I O N kindergarten funds. The superintendent made early education Title I Funds Used for History of Title I Early Education (Percent Investments in an emphasis for the district, District Children Served of Title I Allocation) Early Education despite insufficient state fund- South Bay 80-125 three- $75,000 in 2005 1998 (estimated) ing. The district hired an early Union, CA and four-year- (3%) -present childhood director, a rarity at old children the time, to expand the pro- Fayette County, 100 four-year-old $700,000 in 2005 1991-2006 gram and seek additional GA children in seven (100%) sources of funding. In the late full-school-day classes 1990s, the district expanded the Detroit, MI Approximately 2,800 $13 million in 2006 Unknown- pre-kindergarten program by four-year-old children (9%) present devoting additional general served in Head Start and state pre-kindergarten funds to early education. The classes, which may Title I director at the time include Title I funds noticed that Title I funds were Elk Grove, CA 270 four-year-old $1.5 million in 2006 1992-present not being used for young chil- children (17%) dren and worked with the early McDowell 190 four-year-olds $1 million in 2006 1994-present childhood director to direct County, WV (33%) Title I to early education. The Pittsfield, MA 120 families (home $500,000 in 2005 1970-2007 district has used Title I to sup- visits) of two- to (25%) port its pre-kindergarten pro- three-year-olds; grams ever since. 72 four-year-olds Houston, TX 131 full-school-day $17.4 million in 2006 2004-present South Bay Union houses all of classes in 76 schools (21%) its early education services at Peabody, MA 40 children in 2007 $69,000 in 2007 (14%) 1975-2005, 2007 the district-wide preschool site, Source: CLASP interviews with school district personnel. known as the VIP Village, 14 P O L I C Y P A P E R

based on an analysis of the pay for teacher salaries, materi- fund a wide variety of compre- needs of incoming kinder- als, and transportation for field hensive services and family sup- garteners, to fund early educa- trips. Fayette County adminis- ports. Because Title I can be tion with their Title I funds. trators successfully protected layered with multiple funding They found that low-income these investments using evalua- sources, districts have thought children from targeted areas of tion data clearly demonstrating creatively about how best to the county were behind their that the pre-kindergarten pro- meet the needs of families in peers when they entered gram had positive outcomes. their communities. In some dis- school, so they designed a com- Children who participated in tricts, this means using Title I prehensive program to address Title I pre-kindergarten com- for screenings, assessments, and the needs of these children. monly met or exceeded mini- professional development. Title School personnel credit the mum requirements on first I is often layered with other superintendent for supporting grade state competency tests. sources of funding to expand early education and successfully the hours of early education convincing the school board In the 2007 school year, Fayette programs or the number of and principals that this program replaced its Title I pre-kinder- children served or to provide was a necessary investment. garten classes with Georgia additional services to parents. In 2006, Fayette County had state pre-kindergarten classes, seven four-year-old Title I pre- which each serve 20 children. Detroit Public Schools kindergarten classes in the six With the availability of state Detroit City Public Schools’ elementary schools with the dollars for pre-kindergarten, Department of Early highest poverty rates. Because Fayette is able to direct its Title Childhood operates two early the program did not have the I dollars to provide enrichment education programs: Head capacity to serve all eligible for kindergartners who are Start, serving 765 children, and four-year olds, eligibility was identified as at risk. The state determined by a developmental the state-funded Michigan pre-kindergarten classes remain screening. Each family received School Readiness Programs within Title I schools and thus at least one home visit per year. (MSRP), serving 2,062 chil- continue to serve the district’s Fayette County has a growing dren. Title I is used to extend low-income children. immigrant population and has classes in both programs to a full school day. successfully included some of Partnerships with other these children in its pre-kinder- agencies designed to utilize garten program. In 2006, 12 of the flexibility of Title I funds Families use a single application 15 children in one Title I class to meet the comprehensive for Detroit’s two public pre- needs of families were ELLs. school programs, and the dis- The unique flexibility of Title I trict determines individual chil- Title I-funded classes were full- as a funding source for the dren’s eligibility. Head Start school-day classes and consisted components of high-quality and MSRP teachers are trained of 15 children with a certified early education programs together and can work in either teacher and a highly qualified allows districts to structure pro- setting, depending on need para-professional. Fayette grams and services to meet the each year. All classes use the County used 100 percent of its particular needs of children and same materials and curriculum. Title I allocation for early edu- families in their community. Teachers have a BA and early cation ($700,000 in 2005) to Title I funds can be used to childhood certification. Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 15

Approximately $13 million in funds support an onsite parent poverty in West Virginia, many Title I funds is used for early education component, which low-income families did not childhood education (about 9 may include literacy, ESL, qualify for Head Start because percent of the $141 million GED, citizenship, or parenting they were just over the poverty 2006 allocation). These funds classes, depending on the needs threshold. The district recog- are supplemental and pay for of local families. nized the need for pre-kinder- additional teachers’ salaries, garten services in the commu- materials, and field trips. Elk Grove is a rapidly growing nity and received assistance district, with an average of from the state Title I director Declining district enrollment is eight new students enrolling on the use of Title I funds for a challenge for Detroit and has every day. While lack of class- pre-kindergarten. The program resulted in significant budget room space during the school began with two classrooms in cuts. While Detroit previously day initially led the district to the public elementary schools. served more than 4,000 chil- create the Twilight preschool As parent satisfaction with the dren in early childhood pro- program, the array of services program increased, parents grams, district enrollment has offered to families has resulted began asking for it in all the declined and some elementary in very high rates of parent par- schools. Today, McDowell has schools have closed. The early ticipation. In addition to the 10 Title I pre-kindergarten childhood director told CLASP four-year-old program and classrooms in public schools. In that funding early education adult education programs, addition, Title I funds the with Title I is difficult, given salaries of two teachers who homework help and after- reduced Title I funds. The dis- work in Head Start classrooms school activities are offered for trict rallied this year to support in the community. McDowell older children, thereby coordi- preschool, but the program actively collaborates with Head nating services for every mem- may face future threats. Start providers. They meet ber of the family and creating Successfully protecting the pro- regularly and conduct joint an environment that fosters gram will depend on leadership. trainings and professional parental involvement in educa- development. Elk Grove, California tion. Elk Grove uses $1.5 million in Title I for the Twilight The Elk Grove Unified School McDowell County receives the program, about 17 percent of District serves 830 children in third largest Title I allocation the district’s allocation. three different early education in the state. Title I funds used for pre-kindergarten have programs: Head Start, state McDowell County, West Virginia pre-kindergarten, and Title I. grown from approximately The Title I Twilight program McDowell County Schools $600,000 to nearly $1 million— serves 270 four-year-olds in a have been using Title I for one-third of McDowell’s Title I program that runs from 3:15 to four-year-old pre-kindergarten budget in 2006. 6:15 p.m. It operates in con- since approximately 1995, when junction with the after-school McDowell initiated Title I pre- West Virginia is working program and is supported by a kindergarten in response to toward making voluntary pre- combination of Title I parent parental demand for early edu- kindergarten universally avail- involvement funds and 21st cation services. While able to four-year-olds by 2012, Century Community Learning McDowell County has one of the first year in which all pre- Centers funds. Adult education the highest concentrations of kindergarten classrooms in the 16 P O L I C Y P A P E R

state will be funded through the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Public levels of parental education, Schools school funding formula. As income, whether the parent is a McDowell phases in universal Pittsfield was the first district in teen, and limited English profi- pre-kindergarten, it plans to Massachusetts to use Title I ciency of the child or the par- redirect Title I dollars toward funds for early education. Title ents. A significant share of the staff development in the pre- I supported the district’s early PCHP budget is used for inten- kindergarten program. In the childhood program, including sive staff training. Each home 2007-2008 school year, the pre- the Parent-Child Home visitor receives up to 100 hours kindergarten teachers in the Program (PCHP) for two- and of specialized training each Head Start classrooms previ- three-year olds and a four-year- year. ously funded by Title I will be old pre-kindergarten program funded through the school in two community schools, Fourteen years of data show funding formula. Even as state- from 1970 to 2007. Today, the positive outcomes for children funded pre-kindergarten grows, program continues with local who participated in Pittsfield’s McDowell plans to maintain its funding. commitment to early education Title I preschool. Kindergarten assessments show that children by using Title I to improve the Through the PCHP, families who participated in Title I pre- quality of its program, through receive 92 visits over two years. school (either just as a four- initiatives such as staff profes- Family child care providers car- sional development and a more ing for eligible children are also year-old or earlier in the PHCP intensive parental involvement eligible to participate. Children as well) scored developmentally component, rather than redi- are selected based on several above their age level and, on recting those funds to services eligibility factors, including res- average, more than five months for older children. idency; outcomes on the ahead of their counterparts who Peabody Picture Vocabulary entered Title I elementary Use of data to make the case for investments and to sustain Test; and at-risk predictors, schools without participating in those investments based on interviews with par- the Title I early education pro- ents, including whether siblings grams (see Figure 1). CLASP found that many dis- attend Title I-funded schools, tricts recognize the importance of data collection for tracking Title I investments and student FIGURE 1 outcomes. Districts commonly Average Results of Daberon Screening for Children Entering instituted a Title I early educa- Kindergarten, 1992-2005 tion program based on pub-

e 3.0 lished research of the impor- g ove/

b 2.0 tance of high-quality early al a c i

g 1.0 2.2 experiences and then instituted No Title 1 Preschool data collection and evaluation 0.0 Title 1 Preschool hronolo

methods of their own to cap- c -1.0

er of months a -3.2 ture their children’s experiences b -2.0 elow and create the support needed b Num -3.0 for continued investments in these programs. Difference is statistically significant Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 17

entered college graduated (see FIGURE 2 Table 5). Average Results of Daberon Screening for Children Who Attended Title 1 PCHP Plus Four-year-old Program and Four-year- Through the 2006-2007 school old Program Only, 2005 year, Title I was the primary 15.0 source of funding for the pro- ove

b 12.5 e gram. In some years, the dis- g 10.0 trict combined other local, al a c i

g 7.5 state, and federal funds as well. 10.2 In 2005, the PCHP served 129 5.0

er of months a families and eight family child hronolo b c 2.5 4.9 care providers at a cost of Num 0.0 approximately $2,560 a family. PCHP and four- Four-year-old year-old program program only The PCHP budget totaled approximately $350,000; the four-year-old pre-kindergarten A 2005 analysis found that chil- lege. In 2002, 49 of 56 PCHP was funded at an additional dren who participated in the participants who had graduated $200,000. Title I paid mainly PCHP and the four-year-old high school and were accepted for salaries and benefits for the Title I pre-kindergarten pro- to college were identified; 31 pre-kindergarten program. gram experienced greater gains (63 percent) of those who Depending on the year, than children who participated in only the four-year-old program (see Figure 2). Ninety- TA B L E 4 . L O N G I T U D I N A L S T U D Y R E S U LT S O F P I T T S F I E L D three percent of entering P C H P PA R T I C I PA N T S ( E N R O L L E D 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 0 ) , kindergarteners who participat- AT A G E S 1 7 - 2 2 ed in the PCHP and the four- High School year-old program scored devel- Length of Number Included Graduates Accepted Participation in Longitudinal Dropped Out High School to Postsecondary opmentally above their grade in PCHP Study of High School Graduates Education level, compared to 69 percent of entering kindergartners who Two years 70 11 (16%) 58 (83%) 41 (71%) attended only the four-year-old One year 28 8 (29%) 17 (61%) 9 (53%) program.68 Less than one year 25 11 (44%) 12 (48%) 6 (50%)

Longitudinal studies also show reduced drop-out rates and TA B L E 5 . R E S U LT S O F P C H P PA R T I C I PA N T S F O L L O W - U P increased high school gradua- S T U D Y, AT A G E S 2 3 - 2 8 tion rates for those enrolled in Number identified for study in 2000 49 (87%) the PCHP program (see Table Accepted to college, but did not attend 11 (22%) 69 4). Graduated from two-year college 10 (20%)

Graduated from four-year college 21 (43%)

Subsequent follow-up found Dropped out of college 4 (8%) that many PCHP participants Entered military 3 (7%) went on to graduate from col- 18 P O L I C Y P A P E R

Pittsfield used between 25 and of time. About 72 infants and Washington 30 percent of the district’s total toddlers will participate in the Beginning in the 2007-2008 Title I allocation for early PCHP this school year. The school year, Washington is pro- 70 education. four-year old pre-kindergarten viding funding to expand full- program was expanded from a day kindergarten to the state’s Leading up to the 2007-2008 four- to five-day program, poorest schools. Many of these school year, Pittsfield under- serving 34 children in two districts have already been took a district-wide needs elementary schools. The PCHP using Title I funds in this way assessment. Pittsfield is a school is funded at approximately and will have the ability to district in corrective action. $82,500 and the pre- decide where to redirect these 71 The district reviewed student kindergarten at $200,000. Title I dollars. The state Title I outcome data in all grades— director reports that most including DIBELS assessment State policy and funding changes that influence Title I school districts will be redirect- data for children at the begin- decisions ing those Title I funds to sup- ning and end of the kinder- port other educational services New investments by the state in garten year and expenditures at the early elementary school early education, or incentives for all major grants, including and high school levels. School and efforts by the state to Title I—to determine the opti- districts will have the ability to increase and expand early edu- mal use of all funds. Based on decide whether these funds cation, may influence LEAs to this assessment, the district remain supportive of early invest Title I funds in early made the decision to redirect learning opportunities for education. Title I funds to support read- young children.74 ing, language arts, and math California coaches in schools throughout the district and to no longer use California’s First 5 Commission How Implementation of NCLB is Directly Impacting them for early childhood. has been encouraging districts Title I Investments in at risk of failing to meet AYP to Early Education Due to the early childhood pro- think about expanding pre- gram’s long history and district kindergarten programs through NCLB has caused states and support for the program, the use of Title I funds.72 Using districts to make dramatic Pittsfield was committed to small planning grants and tech- changes in their educational continuing to fund the PCHP nical assistance to districts, First systems. The legislation’s and the four-year old pre- 5 has helped to increase the use impact is being felt in the early kindergarten though local fund- of Title I funds across the state childhood area in several ways. ing, and it reconfigured the for this purpose. Between the Many district officials told programs in several ways. The 2001-2002 and 2005-2006 CLASP in interviews that their location of the PCHP office school years, California districts districts were committed to was physically moved to be part reserving a portion of their supporting early childhood of two community schools, in Title I funds for pre-kinder- through Title I and that those order to facilitate increased par- garten climbed from 30 to 57, investments were well protect- ent involvement in the elemen- and the amount of Title I funds ed. In other cases, funding limi- tary school. Home visits with used for early education servic- tations and other concerns— parents and children will be es rose 76 percent, to $13.5 including NCLB require- conducted for a longer period million.73 ments—have pushed districts to Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 19

cut back or eliminate programs Michigan used unspent Title I Houston Independent School for young children. funds reserved for choice and District supplemental education services Houston’s early childhood ini- In still other districts, we found in the previous year to expand tiative was created in response that the pressure NCLB puts their kindergarten program to to NCLB accountability on school districts to imple- full day.75 requirements. Two recent ment research-based interven- superintendents identified early tions in order to show improve- In 2004, Seaford, Delaware’s education as a priority, deciding ment in their AYP scores meant Title I allocation increased by that to improve student that they were able to make $2 million. The district chose achievement, increased invest- new investments in early child- to use these new funds to ments early in children’s educa- hood programs—particularly in launch district-wide full-day tional careers were essential. the early years of NCLB imple- kindergarten—specifically, by Kaye Stripling, past superin- mentation, when Title I funds doubling the number of kinder- tendent of Houston were growing. While it often garten teachers, which allowed Independent School District comes down to a single for the expansion from half- to (HISD), was committed to resourceful and far-seeing early full-day kindergarten. Title I early education and directed all education champion to sustain also funds one para-educator Title I funds Houston received a commitment to early educa- per school, to help at the from increased NCLB authori- tion in the face of NCLB, the kindergarten level.76 zations toward a new pre- complicated interplay of fund- kindergarten initiative. Public ing, set-aside requirements, and A growing number of states are support for the initiative was competing interests ultimately recognizing the importance of strong, as demonstrated by vot- may tip the balance toward or full-day kindergarten as a strat- ers’ approval of a bond program away from a district’s support of egy to improve student achieve- that included funding to create early education programs. ment and are providing funds several district-wide early to districts for such services. childhood centers in the Increasing investments in Between January and May community.78 early education 2007, Colorado, Utah, Full-day kindergarten in districts Washington, North Dakota, Current superintendent and states Montana, and Indiana each Abelardo Saavedra has contin- One case study report since passed legislation expanding the ued this commitment to invest- implementation of NCLB availability of full-day kinder- ments in early education. The found that the expansion of garten through the provision of district began using Title I for full-day kindergarten has been funding or policy change.77 To pre-kindergarten in 2004 and used by districts as a strategy to the extent that Title I funds are has since more than doubled improve student achievement. currently used for full-day the amount used. In 2005, When districts were able to kindergarten, the availability of Houston began offering a half- find funding for it, full-day new state funding may free up day program to all eligible four- kindergarten proved to be an some Title I funds for other year-olds, and in 2006 it important piece of supporting purposes, including other early expanded it to a full-day pro- young children’s learning. In education programs. gram. Beginning in 2006, the 2004, Harrison Community district reduced individual Schools in Clare County, school Title I allocations; these 20 P O L I C Y P A P E R

funds were redirected to expand resulting in a 34 percent reduc- will serve 20 children each. pre-kindergarten throughout tion in the district’s Title I allo- Peabody uses $69,000 in Title I the district. The full cost of the cation—although the district funds for pre-kindergarten, or pre-kindergarten program is superintendent disputes the approximately 14 percent of its supported by Title I, school Census numbers, as the popula- Title I allocation. funding, and state pre-kinder- tion of free and reduced lunch garten expansion grants. eligible students increased from Additional constraints on Houston uses 21 percent of 52 percent to 60 percent in one early education in the NCLB Title I funds ($17 million) for elementary school. The super- era pre-kindergarten; this amount intendent at the time also In addition to these examples, includes four district-wide early expressed concern that CLASP staff heard stories of childhood centers receiving a Peabody’s growing immigrant other barriers to investments in 79 total of $3 million. population was not adequately early childhood programs cre- counted and that this con- ated by the implementation of A core belief of HISD is that tributed to flawed data showing NCLB. While verification of “the district must begin prepar- a decline in poverty.81 these issues was beyond the ing children for high-school scope of this study, we find that graduation and college’s The second contributing factor the challenges raised are worthy academic demands with a was the process of one of the of further discussion and comprehensive, high-quality two Title I elementary schools research. education that starts in pre- in the district moving into 80 kindergarten.” HISD tracks school improvement status. This I Several policymakers told us children who participate in pre- event triggered a series of that young children often are kindergarten, and the district requirements, which included not in the same school or has already measured improve- using funds that were previously school district by the time ments in these children’s kinder- used for four-year-old services. they take the third grade garten assessments. HISD lead- Once Peabody met its funding tests—the measure used to ers predict improved third grade obligations to the elementary determine whether a school test scores as a result of their school and to the set-aside or district is meeting AYP. early childhood initiative. requirements, there were not Available data show that sufficient funds left over to fund nearly one-fourth of children Uncertainty in Title I funds early education, and the four- under age six in low-income Peabody, Massachusetts Public year-old classes were Schools families (2.4 million chil- eliminated.82 dren) moved in the last In 2006, Peabody Public year.84 Families move for a Schools eliminated its 30-year- In the 2007 school year, old Title I-funded early educa- Peabody’s Title I allocation was variety of reasons, including tion program. Two factors con- increased, and the district rein- better jobs and housing 85 tributed to the reduction of stated one pre-kindergarten opportunities. District offi- Peabody’s Title I funds and class at the Welch elementary cials in areas of high mobility subsequent elimination of the school, due to widespread sup- were concerned that their early education program. First, port for the program from par- schools would not get any a 2003 interim census found ents, teachers, and administra- benefit from an early invest- declining poverty in Peabody, tors.83 Two part-day sessions ment in young children who Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 21

would subsequently leave including Title I funds, were I Build on existing resources their district. fully appropriated. Local in communities, school officials found it diffi- I Another barrier cited was the I Invest in coordinated dis- cult to think about new ways very short timeframes for trict-wide solutions, to use existing funds, arguing success in the NCLB legisla- I Invest in early diagnostic that an investment in young tion. With only two years assessment and program before being put into the children would come at the evaluation, school improvement catego- direct expense of investments I Link vulnerable children and ry, and five consecutive years in older children. families to family supports before a school can be put and health services, and into school restructuring sta- Recommendations for I tus, schools have very little Local Educational Leverage funds from state time to invest in new solu- Agencies and federal sources. tions—even those that may It is clear from our research Build relationships to identify have long-term positive out- opportunities to use Title I that many LEAs are not aware comes for children, such as funds for early childhood early education programs. of the flexibility of Title I funds programs. and the ability they have to use While Title I funds have most I We also heard that the pres- these funds to invest in early recently been flat, there may be sure on individual schools to childhood programs within some growth in the next few make AYP can act as a disin- schools and within their com- centive to partnerships and years, especially as the reautho- munities. While the U.S. rization of the program moves collaborations with other Department of Education has community-based organiza- forward in Congress. Districts published nonregulatory guid- tions serving young children. may find that they have unused ance that clearly demonstrates Individual schools are held funds or carryover funds avail- that this is an allowable use of accountable for the progress able. In both situations, there the funds, the department has may be funds that can be of their students; as a result, not taken a leadership role to directed toward creating or they may be hesitant to give help local districts think about expanding early childhood pro- agencies such as Head Start using the money in this way. grams. Interested school leaders and community-based child Therefore, we offer the follow- should create a plan for imple- care providers (who do not ing recommendations to LEAs mentation that can be put into have to meet the same place as soon as dollars become accountability standards) any as they think about using Title available. They may also find it influence in the instruction I funds for early education pro- useful to build relationships of young children, particular- grams or as they work to sus- with community-based child ly if there has been no previ- tain investments: care providers in advance of ous relationship between I Build relationships to identi- funding opportunities. these different entities. fy opportunities to use Title I funds for early childhood I In some districts, stagnant Champion early education programs, using research and data. funding for NCLB and local investments in schools meant I Champion early education CLASP’s research found that that all available dollars, using research and data, many school officials have not 22 P O L I C Y P A P E R

focused on early childhood pro- often did so as a response to the their community partners can grams and are not well versed needs of the community. work together to plan and in the research supporting Home-visiting programs, implement expansions that both investments in young children. investments in comprehensive build quality and increase At the same time, we found services and professional devel- access for all low-income young that it may only take one opment, and expansions of children and to build new lead- resourceful leader to create a existing programs were funded ers at the local level to help new early education program. because there was a perceived advocate for these investments. For some districts, the first step gap in services and interven- in a plan to use Title I funds for tions. CLASP’s findings, which Invest in coordinated district- wide solutions. early education programs will echo those of GAO, are that be predicated on dissemination school districts are using Title I Title I funds can be used for of the research about the funds in early childhood to pro- schoolwide programs or for tar- importance of caring and nur- vide everything from books and geted programs within schools. turing interactions with adults other materials, to joint profes- They can also be used for dis- on the brain development of sional development opportuni- trict-wide programming, a very young children. Also ties, to salaries and benefits model that seems to work well important is the research on the for teachers, to fully funded for investments in early child- costs and benefits of invest- programs. hood programs. LEAs interest- ments in early education pro- ed in establishing early child- grams such as the Abecedarian School districts interested in hood programs may wish to Project, the Chicago Parent investing in early childhood assess underutilized space, resi- Child Program, and the Perry programs do not have to start dential mobility rates, and exist- preschool program. More by creating a new program. ing community resources and recent analyses of state pre- They can work with the local identify whether families in the kindergarten programs, Head community to identify existing district would be best served by Start, and home-visiting pro- needs and use Title I funds to a common early childhood cen- grams add to this evidence.86 fill in the gaps. This incremen- ter that serves all eligible chil- Ensuring that key leaders in the tal approach offers the opportu- dren. While this may be a par- district have access to this nity for school districts to form ticularly useful solution for information may provide the new partnerships with commu- small or rural districts, large, critical leverage needed to cre- nity-based agencies providing urban districts may also employ ate and sustain early education full-day and full-year child care this model, with several early programs. This research can and early education to low- childhood centers serving the also be used to make the case income families. LEAs will catchment areas of multiple ele- that early childhood invest- want to think broadly about mentary schools. The district- ments are a key piece of school how best to meet the needs of wide model allows the LEA to improvement plans. diverse groups in their districts realize economies of scale, pro- and how to reach out to new vides services to a larger group Build on existing resources in partners, including immigrant- of children than a single-school communities. serving organizations and oth- model does, and can create a CLASP found that LEAs that ers in language-minority com- child-friendly setting in which had invested in early childhood munities. As these small steps to introduce very young chil- programs using Title I funds are successful, districts and dren and their families to the Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 23

school environment. When cre- the benefits to children and to Leverage funds from state and ated as part of a planning the district. The oldest Title I- federal sources. process that includes communi- funded early childhood pro- In several districts that were ty-based early childhood gram, the Chicago Parent interviewed, LEAs were able to providers, district-wide models Child Centers, has also been meet identified community can also serve as an opportunity one of the most widely evaluat- needs by leveraging existing to create new partnerships with ed and is often used as the evi- funds to layer with Title I child care and early education dentiary basis for districts and funds, often through state pre- providers outside the school states around the country to kindergarten programs and system. invest in similar programs. partnerships with Head Start CLASP research found that grantees, child care providers, Invest in early diagnostic when districts had evaluation assessment and program and early intervention pro- evaluation. data, they were able to protect grams. This leveraging requires their investments in early child- knowledge of the community Early childhood experts agree hood programs. and of the requirements of on the importance of diagnostic other programs. It also requires assessment to determine Link vulnerable children and all partners to be willing to whether young children need families to family supports and health services. come to a common table to specific interventions and work together, which may take whether they should receive Low-income children are often substantial time and patience. special education and other in circumstances that may affect services.87 Title I funds can be their ability to learn. Access to an important tool in providing comprehensive services such as Conclusion early screenings for all young health care, nutrition, dental children in a district, through and vision exams, home visit- Using Title I funds for early home visiting family assessing, and transportation can education is not a radical, new ments, diagnostic screenings, improve their odds for success idea. Many schools and districts and assessments of the learning in school. In many communi- have been using these funds to needs of children entering pre- ties, at-risk children may be invest in young children for kindergarten and kindergarten. served in child care, Head Start decades. While the accountabil- These tools can be combined to and Early Head Start, state pre- ity requirements of NCLB have create programs that meet the kindergarten, and other early created new challenges to sus- needs of young children education programs; but these taining or expanding those through access to comprehen- programs may lack the investments, NCLB also offers sive services, direct instruction resources to provide compre- an opportunity and an incentive that is developmentally and cul- hensive support services to to support our youngest chil- turally appropriate, and meet- every child that needs them. dren. Many LEAs are commit- ing high quality standards. LEAs can use Title I funds to ted to supporting early educa- provide these services in com- tion, and several openings and Further, districts can help pro- munity-based settings or in strategies exist that may enable tect the Title I investments they school settings to expand the LEAs to take advantage of the have made in early education availability of high-quality early flexibility of Title I funds to use programs through long-term education programs wherever them to support early education evaluations designed to show children are served. and to support broad educa- 24 P O L I C Y P A P E R

tional goals. Yet, there is Endnotes 8 W. Steven Barnett, Long-Term emerging evidence that the Effects of Early Childhood Programs 1 Ayana Douglas-Hall, Michelle on Cognitive and School Outcomes, requirements of NCLB and the Chau, and Heather Koball, Basic 1995; Russell W. Rumberger and limited funding available are Facts About Low-Income Children Loan Tran, Preschool Participation Birth to Age 6, National Center and the Cognitive and Social putting district policymakers in for Children in Poverty, 2006, Development of Language Minority the difficult position of defund- http://www.nccp.org/ Students, Center for the Study of ing successful early childhood publications/pub_680.html. Evaluation/University of California Linguistic Minority programs. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Research Institute, 2006, http:// Poverty, and Health Insurance lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/ Coverage in the United States: While there are actions that 06_rumberger-tran.pdf; 2006, 2007, http://www.census. Katherine Magnuson, Claudia LEAs can take at present, there gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. Lahaie, and Jane Waldfogel, are also ways in which NCLB 3 Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg “Preschool and School Readiness could be improved to support Duncan,“The Effects of Poverty of Children of Immigrants,” Social Science Quarterly, 87, no. 5 high-quality early education. To on Children,” The Future of Children, 2, no. 2, 55-71; Shiriki (2006): 1241-62; Hannah that end, CLASP has issued a Kumanyika and Sonya Grier, Matthews and Deeana Jang, The Challenges of Change: Learning set of federal recommendations “Targeting Interventions for Ethnic Minority and Low- from the Child Care and Early for reauthorization of NCLB. Education Experiences of Immigrant Income Populations,” The Future Families, Center for Law and They include improved data of Children, 16, no. 1, retrieved Social Policy, 2007, http://www. May 1, 2006 from www.future collection; enhanced language clasp.org/publications/challenges ofchildren.org/information2826/ on transitions between commu- _change.htm. information_show.htm?doc_id=35 nity-based early childhood pro- 5756. 9 Ellen Galinsky, The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Early grams and local schools; sus- 4 National Center for Education Childhood Programs: What Makes taining and supporting local Statistics, Entering Kindergarten: the Difference? 2006. flexibility in use of funds for Findings from The Condition of Education 2000, U.S. Department 10 Arthur Reynolds, Katherine discretionary purposes, such as of Education Office of Magnuson, and Suh-Ruu Ou, early childhood programs; Educational Research and PK-3 Education: Programs and ensuring that joint professional Improvement, 2001. Practices that Work in Children’s First Decade, Foundation for development opportunities are 5 Randy Capps, Michael Fix, Julie Child Development Working available to build knowledge of Murray, Jason Ost, Jeffrey S. Paper, 2006. Passel, and Shinta Herwantoro, child development and appro- The New Demography of America’s 11 D.J. Ackerman, W.S. Barnett, and priate practices with ELLs; Schools: Immigration and the No K.B. Robin, Making the Most of Kindergarten: Present Trends and encouraging SEAs to use their Child Left Behind Act, Urban Institute, 2005, http://www.urban. Future Issues in the Provision of set-aside funds to promote and org/publications/311230.html. Full-Day Programs, 2005; J. support early childhood pro- Walston, J. West, and A.H. 6 Randolph Capps, Michael Fix, Rathbun, Do The Greater grams at the local level; and Julie Murray, et al., Promise or Academic Gains Made by Full-Day increasing funding.88 A long- Peril: Immigrants, LEP Student Kindergarten Children Persist and the No Child Left Behind Act, term strategy to successfully Through Third Grade?, 2005, Urban Institute, 2004, http:// http://www.air.org/news/ create and sustain sound invest- www.fcd-us.org/usr_doc/Promise documents/AERA2005Full-day ments in young children will OrPeril.pdf. percent20Kindergarten.pdf. take efforts and strong leader- 7 U.S. Department of Education, 12 J.T. Walston and J. West, Full-day ship at the federal, state, and Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Summary, and Half-day Kindergarten in the 2007, http://www.ed.gov/about/ United States: Findings from the local levels. overview/budget/budget08/ Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, summary/edlite-appendix3.html. Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 25

U.S. Department of Education, for providing pre-kindergarten to funds used for child care continue National Center for Education all three- and four-year-olds. to fall,” September 6, 2007, Statistics, 2004. 20 Walter S. Gilliam and Carol H. http://childcareandearlyed.clasp. 13 Foundation for Child Ripple, “What Can be Learned org/2007/09/federal-tanf-fu.html. Development, PK-3: A New From State-Funded Pre-kinder- 28 CLASP analysis of FY 2004 state Beginning for Publicly Supported garten Initiatives? A Data-based Education, 2005. Approach to the Head Start TANF and maintenance of effort Devolution Debate,” in The Head (MOE) annual reports. HHS 14 Danielle Ewen, Jennifer Mezey, Start Debates, ed. Edward Zigler provided to CLASP the narrative and Hannah Matthews, Missed and Sally J. Styfco, 477-97, 2004. explanations it received for funds Opportunities? The Possibilities and used in the “authorized under Challenges of Funding High-Quality 21 Barnett et al., The State of Preschool with Title of the No Child Preschool. prior law” and “other nonassis- Left Behind Act, Center for Law tance” spending categories in 22 Barnett et al., The State of and Social Policy, 2005, http:// 2004. States are required to pro- Preschool; Ewen et al., Missed www.clasp.org/publications/ Opportunities? New Jersey’s Early vide narrative explanations of the missed_opp.pdf. Launch to Learning Initiative use of these funds each year when 15 Danielle Ewen and Hannah program requires special educa- they report on TANF spending, Matthews, Families Forgotten: tion, local funding, or tuition to but many do not. State MOE Administration’s Priorities Put supplement the full costs of the reports are available at http:// Child Care Low on List, Center for program; and New York’s target- www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/ ed pre-kindergarten program Law and Social Policy, 2007, MOE-04/index.htm. See also http://www.clasp.org/publications requires a local match for 11 per- Greenberg et al., Using TANF for /2008_budget_child_care.pdf. cent of total funding. Early Childhood Programs. 16 National Women’s Law Center 23 CLASP analysis of information in calculations based on data from Barnett et al., The State of 29 Administration for Children and the U.S. Office of Head Start on Preschool. The states reporting use Families, Office of Head Start, number of preschoolers enrolled of Title I at the local level include Head Start Program Fact Sheet, in Head Start and Census Bureau Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Fiscal Year 2007, http://www.acf. Maine, Maryland, Michigan, data on number of children in hhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/ Nebraska, North Carolina, poverty by single year of age in fy2007.html. 2004. See also Katie Hamm, More Oregon, South Carolina, and than Meets the Eye: Head Start West Virginia. 30 U.S. Census Bureau, School Programs, Participants, Families 24 National Center for Education Enrollment – Social and Economic and Staff in 2005, Center for Law Statistics, Entering Kindergarten: Characteristics of Students: October and Social Policy, 2006, http:// Findings from The Condition of 2000, 2000. www.clasp.org/publications/hs_ Education 2000, U.S. Department brief8.pdf. of Education Office of 31 Education Commission of the 17 W. Steven Barnett, Jason T. Educational Research and States, Full-Day Kindergarten: An Hustedt, Laura E. Hawkinson, Improvement, 2000. Exploratory Study of Finance and and Kenneth B. Robin, The State 25 U.S. Department of Health and Access in the United States, 2003. of Preschool: 2006 State Preschool Human Services, FY 2007 CCDF 32 For additional information, see Yearbook, National Institute for Estimated Allocations, http://www. Early Education Research, 2007, acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/law/ Education Commission of the http://nieer.org/yearbook/. allocations/current/state2007/ States, How States Fund Full-Day 2007allocations.htm. Kindergarten, 2005, http://www. 18 Ibid. ecs.org/clearinghouse/63/10/ 26 Administration for Children and 19 In New York, insufficient funding Families, FFY 2005 CCDF Data 6310.doc. for universal pre-kindergarten has Tables, 2007, http://www.acf.hhs. prevented the program from 33 Education Commission of the gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data being fully implemented. West States, Full-Day Kindergarten: /05acf800/table1.htm; Ewen and Virginia has legislation in place to Matthews, Families Forgotten. Categorical Funding, 2007, provide pre-kindergarten to all http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/ four-year-olds by 2012, and 27 Ewen and Matthews, Families Report.aspx?id=7. Illinois has legislation that calls Forgotten. See also Center for Law and Social Policy, “TANF 26 P O L I C Y P A P E R

34 Education Commission of the U.S. Department of Education 51 Ibid. States, Full-day Kindergarten: A states that districts should work . Study of State Policies in the United with existing child care or other 52 Ibid States, 2005. early education programs to pro- 53 ESEA § 1115(b)(2); U.S. vide Title I services and should Department of Education, 35 Arthur J. Reynolds and Judy A. ensure that the services are pro- Serving Preschool Children. Temple, Extended Early Childhood vided in a setting “of sufficient Intervention and School Achieve- quality to facilitate effective pro- 54 U.S. Department of Education, ment: Age 13 Findings from the gram implementation.”U.S. State ESEA Title I Participation Chicago Longitudinal Study, Department of Education, Information, 2002-2003, 2006. Institute for Research on Poverty, Serving Preschool Children Under 1996; Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. 55 To participate in a schoolwide Title I Non-Regulatory Guidance, Temple, Suh-Ruu Ou, et al., program, the school must serve 2004. “Effects of a preschool and an eligible school attendance area School-Age Intervention on 44 For a full list of how Title I funds in which not less than 40 percent Adult Health and Well Being: can be used for early childhood of the children are from low- A 19-Year Follow-up of Low- programs, see U.S. Department income families, or not less than Income Families,” Archives of of Education, Serving Preschool 40 percent of the children Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Children. According to guidance, enrolled in the school are from 161(8), 730-739. “for the purpose of Title I, a pre- such families. ESEA § 1114. school program is a program of 36 Chicago Public Schools, State of 56 ESEA § 1114(c). educational services for eligible the Strategies: A Report on District children below the age at which 57 ESEA § 1114(b)(1). This list Core and Supporting Strategies, the LEA provides elementary appears to be illustrative and not 2007, http://www.cps.edu/state_ education and is focused on rais- exhaustive. of_the_strategies.pdf. ing the academic achievement of 58 ESEA § 1114(b)(2)(B). 37 Telephone interview with Sonja children once they reach school Griffin, Chicago Public Schools, age.” 59 The eligibility criteria for a tar- August 20, 2007. geted assistance program are that 45 U.S. Department of Education, the child lives in the targeted 38 Office of Early Childhood Serving Preschool Children. assistance school’s attendance area Education, At a Glance, Chicago 46 U.S. Department of Education, and that the child be determined Public Schools, 2006, http:// Early Childhood Initiative, 2000, at risk of failing to meet academic www.ecechicago.org. archived information available at standards. The definition of “at risk” is the same as the one dis- 39 Telephone interview with Sonja www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/ cussed under the LEA section. Griffin, Chicago Public Schools, nupreschool.ppt. ESEA § 1115(a). ESEA § August 20, 2007. 47 U.S. Department of Education, 1115(b)(1). 40 U.S. Department of Education, Serving Preschool Children. 60 Center on Education Policy, Title State ESEA Title I Participation Although the comprehensive I Funds – Who’s Gaining and Who’s Information, 2003-2004, 2007. services language in the statute Losing: School Year 2007-08 Ten percent of Title I participants and the policy guidance only ref- Update, 2007. are in kindergarten, and 3 percent erence targeted assistance are below the age of school entry. schools, a Department of 61 U.S. Department of Education, Education official indicated in LEA and School Improvement Non- 41 U.S. Government Accountability 2004 that Title I funds can be Regulatory Guidance, 2006. Office, Title I Preschool Education: used to provide comprehensive More Children Served, but Gauging services to all Title I-funded pre- 62 U.S. Government Accountability Effect on School Readiness Difficult, school children. Office, No Child Left Behind Act: 2000. Education Should Clarify Guidance 48 U.S. Department of Education, and Address potential Compliance 42 “Good Start, Grow Smart: The Serving Preschool Children. Issues for Schools in Corrective Action Bush Administration’s Early and Restructuring Status, 2007. Childhood Initiative,” http:// 49 U.S. General Accounting Office, www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ Title I Preschool Education: More 63 ESEA § 1116(b)(10). earlychildhood/toc.html. Children Served but Gauging Effect on School Readiness Difficult, 2000. 64 A school identified for improve- 43 If the district or school does not ment must spend not less than 10 have its own facilities to provide 50 U.S. Department of Education, percent of its allocation of Title I these services, guidance from the Serving Preschool Children. Part A funds, for each fiscal year Child Care and Early Education Series, Paper No. 2 27

that the school is in improvement, for young children through age 85 Heather Koball and Ayana toward providing high-quality five. Douglas-Hall. Geography of Low- professional development to the Income Families and Children, school’s teachers, principal, and, as 73 See Preschool Program Reservations, California 2003, http://nccp.org/ appropriate, other instructional publications/pub_572.html. staff. The school improvement Department of Education, plan must provide an assurance http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1 86 A review of the research on home that this expenditure will take /titleIpreschool.asp (updated visiting finds that generally place. §1116(b)(3)(iii). When an January 2, 2007). home-visiting models can have LEA is identified for improve- 74 Telephone interview with Gayle positive outcomes on children ment, it must reserve not less than Pauley, Washington Office of and parents, outcomes that are 10 percent of its Title I Part A Superintendent of Public dependent on the specific goals of funds for high-quality professional Instruction, July 11, 2007. individual home-visiting models. development for instructional staff Heather Weiss and Lisa G. Klein, that is specifically designed to 75 Center on Education Policy, Changing the Conversation About improve classroom teaching. The From the Capital to the Classroom: LEA must continue to reserve and Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Home Visiting: Scaling up with use these funds for this purpose Act, 2006, http://www.cep-dc. Quality, Harvard Family Research during each fiscal year it is identi- org/. Project, 2006, http://www.gse. fied for improvement. LEAs may harvard.edu/hfrp/content/ Telephone interview with Earl include in this 10 percent total the 76 projects/home-visit/conversation. Title I Part A funds that schools Cannon, Seaford School Distirct, pdf. within the LEA reserve for profes- July 11, 2006. 87 National Association for the sional development when they are 77 Education Commission of the Education of Young Children, in school improvement status. States, State Policy Developments, However, the LEA may not Calendar 2007, http://www.ecs.org/ Early Childhood Curriculum, include in the total any part of the ecsmain.asp?page=/html/states Assessment, and Program funds designated to help teachers Territories/state_policy_developments Evaluation Position Statement, who are not highly qualified .htm. 2003, http://www.naeyc.org/ become highly qualified, as speci- about/positions/pdf/pscape.pdf; fied in §1119(l) of the ESEA. 78 Telephone interview with Melinda Catherine Scott-Little, Sharon §1116(c)(7)(A)(iii). Garrett, Houston Independent Lynn Kagan, and Richard M. School District, July 7, 2006. 65 Center on Education Policy, Title Clifford, eds., Assessing the State of I Funds – Who’s Gaining and Who’s 79 Ibid. State Assessments: Perspectives on Losing: School Year 2007-08 Assessing Young Children, SERVE, 80 Houston Independent School Update, 2007. 2003, http://www.serve.org/_ District, State of the Schools 2005 downloads/REL/ELO/ASSA.pdf; 66 ESEA § 1116(b)(3)(A)(i). Annual Report, 2005, http:// www.houstonisd.org/2301/images Barbara Bowman, M. Suzanne 67 U.S. Department of Education, /AR_2005.pdf. Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, LEA and School Improvement. eds., Eager to Learn: Educating our 81 Telephone interview with Nadine Preschoolers, National Research 68 James Shiminski, Parent-Child Binkley, Peabody Public Schools, Council, 2000. Home Program, Pittsfield Public July 11, 2006. Schools, 2006. 88 Danielle Ewen and Hannah 82 Peabody was required to maintain Matthews, Recommendations to 69 Ibid. funding for the elementary school Support High-quality Early in improvement status at 85 per- 70 Telephone interview with James Education Programs Through Shiminski, Pittsfield Public cent of the prior year’s funding Reauthorization of the No Child Left Schools, July 19, 2006. level, 20Section 1116 (b) (10) (D). Behind Act, Center for Law and 71 Telephone interview with 83 Telephone interview with Milton Social Policy, 2007, http://www. Kathleen Latham, Pittsfield Burnett, Peabody Public Schools, clasp.org/publications/nlcb_ee_ Public Schools, August 30, 2007. July 9, 2007. recs.pdf. 72 First 5 California was established 84 Ayana Douglas-Hall, Michelle in 1998, through a statewide bal- Chau, and Heather Koball, Basic lot initiative that directed revenue Facts About Low-Income Children from a tobacco tax to fund early Birth to Age 6, 2006, http://nccp. childhood development programs org/publications/pub_680.html. Head Start Series, Paper No. 1 28

POL ICY PAPER

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 Child Care and Early Education Series P a p e r N o . 2

ABOUT OUR WORK CLASP’s child care and early subsidies, Head Start, pre- education work is dedicated to kindergarten, and other early The Center for Law and Social promoting policies that support education initiatives; and ensure Policy (CLASP) is a national both child development and the these systems can be responsive nonprofit that works to improve needs of low-income working to the developmental needs of the lives of low-income people. parents. CLASP conducts policy all children, in particular infants CLASP’s mission is to improve analysis, research, and technical and toddlers and children in the economic security, assistance to expand access to immigrant families. CLASP’s educational and workforce and resources for high-quality, child care and early education prospects, and family stability comprehensive child care and work highlights state-by-state of low-income parents, children, early education; build effective data where available. For more and youth and to secure equal child care and early education information, see http:// justice for all. systems, including child care childcareandearlyed.clasp.org.

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

1015 15th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

202.906.8000 main 202.842.2885 fax