IMPLEMENTING 15 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR HIGH QUALITY: A STATE AND LOCAL POLICY SCAN July 29, 2016 W. Steven Barnett, G.G. Weisenfeld, Kirsty Brown, Jim Squires, and Michelle Horowitz This report was supported with funding provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of the authors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In this report we explore the extent to which states (and several large cities) are positioned to provide high quality preschool education on a large scale. States and cities that are already doing so or that could do so with modest improvements offer opportunities for advocacy to advance access to high quality early education as well as for rigorous research on the outcomes of these programs. Research in such states and cities also could help to identify with more specificity the policies and conditions associated with strong educational outcomes for children. The framework for our assessment of state capacity consists of “15 essential elements” of high-quality pre-K identified by Jim Minervino based on a research review and case studies.1 Minervino concluded that all of these elements must be present to a considerable extent for high quality pre-K to be implemented at scale. From this perspective, each element should not be expected to contribute independently to pre-K effectiveness. We agree. However, we believe that our assessments of the extent to which each element is present in each state will be useful to those concerned with pre-K whether or not they fully agree with this perspective. We assessed 43 states, D.C. and three other large cities with established pre-kindergarten programs. Background: Public Programs and a Focus on Quality In the past 15 years, public spending on preschool programs for children ages 3 and 4 has increased substantially, particularly funding by state and local government. From 2000 to 2013, enrollment in Head Start at ages 3-5 grew modestly, despite population growth.2 Head Start enrollment at ages 3 and 4 remains around 10 percent of the population.3 Over the same period of time, enrollment in state funded pre-K more than doubled, with the greatest growth in enrollment at age 4. From 2002 to 2014, state pre-K enrollment rose from 14 percent to 29 percent of the population at age four and from 3 percent to 4 percent at age three.4 At a minimum, roughly 40 percent of 4-year-olds and 12 percent of 3-year olds now attend public programs. As some school districts and municipalities serve additional children not counted in state and federal programs total public enrollment is somewhat higher. Remarkably, despite the growth in public spending and enrollment, the percentage of children enrolled in a preschool at ages three and four has changed little since 2000, according to the Current Population Survey (CPS).5 Just less than 70 percent of 4-year-olds and a bit more than 40 percent of 3-year-olds attend some kind of preschool program regularly. Although Head Start and most state preschool programs target children in poverty, access to preschool education remains remarkably unequal even at age four where the most public support is available as can be seen in Table 1, below. 1 Table 1. Preschool enrollment (public and private) at age 4 by socioeconomic status (SES).6 Lowest 4th Quintile 3rd Quintile 2nd Quintile Top Quintile Quintile 50% 59% 68% 77% 83% One implication of these numbers is that serious inequality in access has persisted in the face of the expansion of public programs in recent years even though most public programs target lower-income families. This means that there is still a large job to be done with respect to increasing access, especially for the most disadvantaged children. The quality of these programs also remains a concern. The evidence is strong that only high quality preschool programs produce large and lasting gains in child development including academic success.7 Unfortunately, the extent to which quality has increased is unclear. Too many public programs appear to raise quality only modestly, and the quality of public programs is highly variable.8 The evidence on the quantity and quality of programs raises serious questions about public investments in preschool education, including state-funded pre-K. If a major goal is to enhance children’s learning and development in ways that increase later success in school and life, particularly for children from lower-income families, then substantial change is required.9 For preschool to have the desired impacts, public policy will have to better achieve two goals. The first is to provide more widespread and equitable access. The second is to ensure that this access is to high-quality programs. Our report seeks to identify the states and localities currently best positioned to attain these two goals and for each state the barriers and opportunities to attain those goals. Methodology Our process began by selecting states and a few cities for review. We excluded seven states that do not fund a state preschool program. We selected a few major cities that have implemented large-scale public programs that seek to provide high-quality preschool independent of their state’s programs for some time, San Antonio, Denver, and San Francisco. 10 A comprehensive review of all cities is not feasible given the number of cities, and we concluded that it would be too difficult to arrive at judgments about cities that have only recently developed programs. We excluded two major cities that have just begun major expansions--New York and Seattle--as these programs are too new to assess. In total we included 43 states, the District of Columbia, and three cities (listed in Table 2). The review evaluated the extent to which each state- or city-funded preschool program satisfied 15 “essential elements” found to characterize high-quality public preschool programs. In this executive summary, we list all 15 elements and the criteria we used to evaluate state implementation of each element as well as summarizing our findings. For each of the elements we made a judgment as to whether the criteria were fully met, partially met, or not met. Some elements were easily judged based on simple, clear 2 evidence that was readily available--for example, whether at least two adults must be present in a classroom. Others required difficult inferences based on complex evidence with considerable unknowns. In a few instances, we found that we could not determine with any confidence whether the criteria were met. Our summary of results necessarily presents less information and is less nuanced than the report’s full narrative. The full report describes the basis for our findings in individual reports for each state and city. These more detailed descriptions offer additional insights into the extent to which each element is present in a state or a city and, by inference, what may be necessary for that to change. For many states with multiple programs supporting public pre-K, each program was rated separately on a subset of the 15 essential elements within the state’s report: teacher requirements; class size and ration; hours/dosage; two adults in the room; special education and dual language support; child assessment; data driven decision making; and professional development. For each state (or program within a state) the report presents an overview of the state, a table listing our conclusions regarding each element, and the evidence that was the basis for our judgment on each element. The 15 elements are organized into three sections. The first is the “enabling environment” which includes two elements that were among the most difficult to assess: political will and the capacity of preschool’s administering agency to provide vision and strong leadership. The second is “rigorous, articulated early learning policies,” and it has eight elements, most of which were relatively straightforward to judge. The third is “strong program practices” and contains 5 elements. This last group of elements was the most difficult to assess, as they are rated based on actual implementation, and this requires information that is not always available. Each of the 15 essential elements is listed below. Enabling environment 1. Political will including support from political leadership and, more rarely, judicial mandates 2. A compelling vision and strong leadership from early learning leaders Rigorous, articulated, early learning policies 3. Well-educated (BA & ECE expertise) and well-compensated teachers (K-12 pay parity) 4. Adult-child ratio of at least 1:11 5. At least a full school day is provided to ensure adequate dosage 6. Two (or more) adult teaching staff in each classroom 7. Appropriate early learning standards for preschoolers 8. Effective curriculum that has systemic support 9. Strong supports for education of special needs children in inclusive settings 10. Strong supports for dual language learners Strong Program Practices 11. High quality teaching 12. Child assessments that are appropriate and used to inform instruction 3 13. Data-driven decision-making and independent evaluation 14. Professional development (PD) to improve individual teacher performance 15. Integrated systems of standards, curriculum, assessment, PD, and evaluation To evaluate the extent to which each state (or city)10 program had each of the 15 essential elements we reviewed public documents including, but not limited to, official information posted on the websites of state and local government. In addition, we interviewed key informants in each state. In many of the states, leaders in state agencies provided extensive assistance and clarification of our interpretations. Ultimately, the authors alone are responsible for all judgments in this report. Readers are advised to keep in mind that our assessments refer to a particular point in time.