Investing in Early Childhood Development: Evidence to Support a Movement for Educational Change

Investing in Early Childhood Development

This page intentionally left blank

Investing in Early Childhood Development Evidence to Support a Movement for Educational Change

Edited by Alvin R. Tarlov and Michelle Precourt Debbink

INVESTING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

Copyright © Alvin R. Tarlov and Michelle Precourt Debbink, 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published in 2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–7993–3 ISBN-10: 1–4039–7993–6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Investing in early childhood development : evidence to support a movement for educational change / editors, Alvin R. Tarlov and Michelle Precourt Debbink. p. cm. ISBN 1–4039–7993–6 (alk. paper) 1. Early childhood education—United States. 2. Education and state— United States. 3. Child development—United States. 4. Children—Health and hygiene—United States. I. Tarlov, Alvin R. (Alvin Richard), 1929– II. Debbink, Michelle Precourt. LB1139.25.I595 2008 372.210973—dc22

2007028865

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: February 2008 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

This book is dedicated with reverence and gratitude to J. Fraser Mustard, medical educator, biomedical scientist, leader, and friend. From 1982 to 1996 he served as Founding President, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research; from 1996 to 2007 as Head, The Founder’s Network; and since 2004 as Founding Chairman, Council for Early Childhood Development, all in Toronto, Ontario. Over the past 20 years, through countless hours and days of conversation with Fraser, I acquired from his sophisticated understanding of the production of health and the importance of early childhood education to child health and development, the conceptual platform on which my interest in early childhood education and development is based. Alvin R. Tarlov

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

List of Figures

ix

List of Tables

xi

Preface

xiii

List of Contributors

xxi

I The Science 1

2

Building Brain Architecture and Chemistry: A Primer for Policymakers Pat Levitt Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, with Comments by Alvin R. Tarlov

3 The Coproduction of Human Development and Health Alvin R. Tarlov

3 27

41

II Early Childhood Intervention Programs 4

5

6

Effective Early Childhood Programs: Turning Knowledge Into Action Susan Landry

67

Learning from Others: State Efforts to Expand Services and Build Systems of Early Care and Education Kristie Kauerz

85

North Carolina’s Early Childhood Initiative: The Smart Start Story and Its Evaluation Donna Bryant

113

viii 7

Contents The Texas Plan Kay M. Albrecht, Kaitlin G. Guthrow, and Alvin R. Tarlov

131

Contributing Authors: James D. Calaway, Michelle Precourt Debbink, Todd Litton, Carol Shattuck, Jason Sabo, Thomas McIntire, James Strickland, Sandi Borden, Nancy Pechacek Hard, Sandra Lamm, Liz Plaster, and Shona Neigut

III Social Action and Public Policy Issues 8

9

Demographic and Related Economic Transformations of Texas: Implications for Early Childhood Development and Education Steve H. Murdock and Stephen L. Klineberg

159

Can Society Profit from Investing in Early Education Programs? Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson

177

Financing Early Childhood Care and Education Systems: A Standards-Based Approach Anne Mitchell and Louise Stoney

189

11 The Framing of Early Child Development and Education: Lessons from Communications Research Susan Nall Bales

215

Index

237

10

List of Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Two Neurons Connected Interneuronal Communication Synapse Formation Alternate Ways of Raising Young Pups Individual Developing Neurons The Production of Human Development and Health Social Context Social-Health Gradient in Children and Adults Cascading Effects of Enhanced Early Childhood Education and Development: A Life-Course Perspective 6.1 Quality of NC Preschool Child Care 8.1 Projected Percent of Labor Force by Educational Attainment in Texas, 2000 and 2040 8.2 Average Household Income in Texas, 2000–2040 (in 2000 dollars) 8.3 Projected Percent of Households in Poverty by Family Type in Texas, 2000 and 2040 8.4 Average Annual Household Income in Texas and the United States by Educational Attainment of Householder in 2000 8.5 Percent of Persons 251 Years of Age by Level of Education and Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projected to 2040 Assuming 1990–2000 Rates of Improvement in Education 8.6 Aggregate Income and Consumer Expenditures for Population 251 Years of Age in Texas in 2000 and Projected under Alternative Education Levels for 2040 10.1 A Model Early Care and Education System Design 10.2 Funding Aligned with Standards in State Early Childhood System 10.3 Hypothetical Model for Coordinating Standards and Financing Sources in a Tiered (Three-Star) System

7 8 12 18 19 43 47 50 52 120 167 168 168

169

171

172 190 194 204

This page intentionally left blank

List of Tables

6.1 Theories of Change Underlying Smart Start 8.1 Total Population and Percent Population Change in Texas and the United States, 1850–2004 8.2 Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections of the Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity from 2010 to 2040 8.3 Population in Texas <18 Years of Age by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections from 2010 to 2040 8.4 Percent of Population <18 Years of Age in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000, and Projections from 2010 to 2040 9.1 Benefits and Costs of the Perry Preschool Program 9.2 Benefits and Costs of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers and the Abecedarian Program

118 162

163

165

166 181 183

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

A national movement to offer high quality opportunities for every child is being driven by parents and volunteers, teachers and community organizations, philanthropies, churches, the U.S. military, school boards and state governors and legislatures, federal programs, and national associations devoted to children. This book is intended to support that movement by providing the scientific evidence for its efficacy, summaries of past interventions, and expert guidance to emphasize the legitimacy of the efforts and to add momentum to the movement.

Background In 2000, five educational institutions1 in Houston, Texas, established a collaborative initiative for research, education, and public policy formulation concentrated on the social determinants of health and health disparities. The program was named the Texas Program for Society and Health (TPSH). Its headquarters were established at Rice University within the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. An interinstitutional committee of 25 members, drawn from the faculties of the five founding organizations and from community organizations, was convened in 2001 to review selected literature on the social determinants of health. From the large array of individual, social, and environmental factors shown to adversely affect health and health disparities, after two years of study the committee selected early childhood education and development for children aged three and four as having the greatest potential for improving health and reducing health disparities. A high quality education and development initiative for preschool children would likely have a benefit-to-cost ratio more favorable than other interventions the committee examined. At about the same time as the TPSH Committee decided to focus its concentration on early childhood education and development as a means of improving health and reducing health disparities, a new organization was founded to promote access to high quality ECDE services for all children in Texas from birth to age five. The new organization, the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC), is based in Austin,

xiv

Preface

Texas. Its purview is statewide. TECEC’s active coalition now includes 230 community organizations advocating for early childhood education services in their communities and throughout the state. Since 2003, TPSH and TECEC have been close operating partners. TPSH has taken leadership on interpreting research findings and on formulating a comprehensive public policy agenda (“The Texas Plan”; see chapter 7). TECEC takes leadership in organizing and providing information to coalition members for their advocacy work in their communities and with their elected representatives. Further, TECEC provides nonpartisan information to state senators and representatives that might be used in drafting legislation, as well as feedback for legislators from TECEC’s grassroots constituents on issues related to the needs of young children and The Texas Plan. The entire operation has been driven by joint active participation of TECEC, TPSH, and coalition members. For example, in the January through May 2007 Texas State Legislature session, despite a call from the legislative Budget Board to cut $20 million in early childhood education services, these cuts were restored and funding was secured for all three TECEC priorities: $15 million to continue the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM); $18 million for reimbursement rates for providers serving at-risk children; and $2 million to support early childhood education professionals in the field. A two-day national conference titled “A Summit on The Texas Plan: Enhancing Early Childhood Education and Development—Research, Policies, and Strategies” was convened at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in early 2004. The purpose of the meeting was to critically evaluate research results relevant to early childhood education and development in order to weigh for ourselves the evidence regarding (1) the correlations between the brain’s development and the child’s social, emotional, behavioral, linguistic, and cognitive development; (2) to review the body of evaluation research on the effects of ECDE attendance on the outcomes to the child and to society; and to examine several topics related to implementation strategies and to public policies. The conference was the origin of this volume. Almost all of the book’s chapter authors presented their work at the conference.

Conceptual Developments Present a Moment of Opportunity Over the past 15 years, a wealth of fresh concept advancements have been derived from basic biological and behavioral research, from experiences, experiments and evaluations of early childhood interventions, and from advocacy and communications research related to early childhood education and development. This new information, in the aggregate, comprises a higher level of evidence and opportunity for launching more ambitious programs

Preface

xv

for young children with greater confidence that these programs will yield substantial positive outcomes for children at favorable benefit-to-cost ratios. We have selected nine of these concepts for brief presentation here. “Children’s Experiences” (chapter 1) in their own social environment are the principal forces driving the architectural structure and biochemical processes that confer uniqueness and capability to each child’s brain. “Relationships” (chapter 2). Of the great variety of a child’s experiences, those involving continuing personal relationships, especially with parents, siblings, and extended family, but also with neighbors, teachers, and other children are influential in forming the brain’s specific interconnections and in cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and behavioral development. “Child Development, Health Production, and Biological Differentiation Are Interrelated Processes” (chapter 3). Variations within a population in child development (indeed in human development over the life course) and in health are highly correlated and appear to be generated similarly. For example, higher family socioeconomic status (education, job class, and income) is correlated with higher levels of both child development and health, and with variations in the biochemical markers and reactivity related to social status. “All Domains (Physical, Emotional/Behavioral, and Cognitive) of Child Development Can Be Best Nurtured Simultaneously in the Classroom” (chapter 4). Research has provided evidence as to what does and does not work for child development in the classroom. It has been amply shown that all domains of development, such as quantitative reasoning, linguistics, language, social skills, emotional control, concern for others, coping skills and so on, can be learned by children simultaneously in the same learning session. The skills of the teacher in leading integrative learning is critical, and provide justification for improving the training of ECDE teachers and establishing explicit and upgraded standards for their certification and licensure, which should be assessed regularly. “Lessons from the Past” (chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). Two dozen actual ECDE programs implemented in as many states as well as several in planning are described in this volume and elsewhere. Important lessons have been learned. Success of early childhood education programs requires comprehensiveness, including, when needed, family support, jobs, economic support, literacy programs and educational assistance, medical, dental, and nutrition services, acquisition of parenting skills, and so on. The preschool program itself is most successful when the interventions are intensive, with low student to teacher ratios and flexibility in teaching formats, some for the entire class, others for small groups of children, and still others for individual student learning. Regular parental presence and active participation in the school is essential to the child’s learning. “The Challenge of Immigration” (chapter 8). In many areas of the country—New York, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California are examples— the size of the immigrant population may rise to levels over the next three

xvi

Preface

decades wherein it becomes the state’s majority. This possibility, indeed the likely occurrence in some states, carries with it important challenges for early childhood education and development. These include English being the second language of many students, low levels of parental education, intra-family conflicts between assimilation and the wish to retain beliefs and customs of native culture, navigating the political landscape regarding immigration issues in order to provide for these children’s educational needs, and so on. “Benefits and Costs” (chapter 9). Fortunately, over the past three decades, several early childhood education programs have been introduced, operated, and assessed as research projects with comparison groups and longterm follow-up into adulthood. These include Perry Preschools in Ypsilanti, Michigan, Abecedarian in North Carolina, and Child-Parent Centers in Chicago. Specific outcomes, including successful transition into adulthood, work, and family building, have demonstrated favorable social outcomes and cost-effectiveness. That is, over the life course, public investments in early childhood education and development has returned three to four dollars to the individual and to the state on each dollar invested. A 2005 research report from The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, economist Lori L. Taylor and her students using Texas data concluded that each $1 invested in ECDE returned $3.50 to the community. “A ‘Systems’ Approach” (chapters 5, 6, 7, and 10). Several chapter authors have emphasized that success in early childhood education is best achieved within a “systems” structure. The system readily achieves uniformity that is important to adopting standards, assessing all program components, comparing programs across the system, and minimizing intersystem inequalities in funding, access to resources, and child outcomes. Chapter 10 takes the systems approach further by recommending that reimbursement rates to individual programs be tied to how closely the program meets the standards set by the system. “Communications Science: Framing” (chapter 11). Humans construct shorthand interpretations of social/societal/policy choices they favor based on their own experiences, values, and attitudes. These shorthand methods are based on previously constructed images, metaphoric conceptualizations, and simplifying models that can be summoned instantly for their immediate interpretation of social situations and preferred policy choices. The process is referred to as “Framing.” Searching for individual, group, or population frames that support commonly held values is essential for successful public policy advocacy. Several commonly held frames that have been ineffective in gaining support for preschools include child safety (the imperiled child frame); day care (domiciliary care frame without emphasis on learning and development); women’s workforce participation frame (tends to downgrade parental responsibility for child development), and so forth. Two seemingly important values under exploration and development now are centered on (1) community; and (2) the future (chapter 11). This promising duality of frames elevates the role of community in providing an environment of stable and rich experiences and relationships for nurturing young children’s brains and development, all within the cherished concept that children represent the future of the family, community, the nation, and the world.

Preface

xvii

Organization of the Book The book, as its subtitle indicates, is organized under three main headings. 1. The Science, chapters 1, 2, and 3, presents the scientific evidence drawn primarily from the biological sciences of neurobiology, biological chemistry, and endocrinology, the social sciences of psychology, sociology, economics and human development, public health epidemiology, and program evaluation science. 2. Early Childhood Intervention Programs, chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7, presents a broad review of approximately two dozen early childhood education initiatives selected for discussion because of their distinctiveness and originality, and for the lessons to be learned from them. 3. Social Action and Public Policy Issues, chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11, presents possible pitfalls and potentially enabling factors in working toward public and political acceptance and in helping achieve high quality and success in operating an early childhood education and development system. These chapters focus attention on immigration, the leverage capability of standards, the art and science of framing, and the favorable economics of public investments in preschooling.

Purpose and Intended Readership This book is intended to support the movement to offer ECDE opportunities to all children by summarizing and integrating the scientific evidence favoring early childhood education, analyzing the experiences and results achieved in past years by selected ECDE programs, and presenting a wide range of suggestions from the experiences of experts, all to emphasize the legitimacy of the efforts and to add momentum to the forward movement. The book was written to serve as a resource for those in need of information on early childhood education and development in college classrooms where students are becoming teachers; in communities where school boards, parents, teachers, charitable organizations, volunteer and public service agencies, and community leaders are eager to assimilate the knowledge and experiential base behind the preschool movement; and in the working structures of democracy where information is the principal currency in legislative bodies, the media, the business and finance sectors, and in electronic information systems such as the Internet, and among the millions of Americans who have been activated by the efficiency of blog-based communication to become more active participants in vigorous debate in American democracy.

Gratitude We, the editors, acknowledge the obvious by crediting others for advancing this book to fruition. The collective knowledge and experience of hundreds

xviii

Preface

of child developmentalists and other scientists and tens of thousands of early childhood facility owners, directors, and teachers has brought focus to the early childhood education and development movement. The authors of the book’s chapters not only brought their expertise to the undertaking, but also contributed untold hours of professional time to responding promptly, efficiently, and effectively to each request for more. The members of the Texas Program for Society and Health Public Policy Committee, early in their service, identified the high potential of a program for research and policy formulation on young children’s education and development. Special recognition should go to the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition, its founders, executive committee, executive director, and hundreds of coalition members who over the past four years have shared with us their practical experience, knowledge, and deep intelligence about the history, values, and needs of the nation’s children. Jane Geanangel, Program Assistant in the Baker Institute, has worked intelligently, skillfully, tirelessly, and cheerfully on this book since the idea for it germinated. She worked with every author and with the publisher to track the chapter submissions and to correlate the editing and revision process. She directed with wisdom and judgment the process of bringing the book to its final state for submission to Palgrave Macmillan. We are indebted to her. Kathryn Elizabeth Higgins, as a Rice University student and for one year after graduation, worked in our offices on several projects, one of which included producing dozens of computer versions of graphics and tables for several of the chapters. After moving on in her career, she continued to be available on a voluntary basis to revise the graphics and to address a wide range of needs for the overall project. Allen Matusow, Associate Director for Academic Programs of the Baker Institute for Public Policy, who is the William Gaines Twyman Endowed Professor of History at Rice University, has been a consistent champion of the child development program since the first day he learned about it. Through these past years his wise council and enthusiasm for the subject has been a consistent source of encouragement and guidance. Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian, Founding Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, has, by his decisions and support, made the Texas Program for Society and Health an operational reality. He also directed the gathering of funds for this project from Rice University, the Baker Institute, the Sid Richardson Foundation, and the Taylor and Robert H. Ray Endowment Fund. We acknowledge the substantive role played by Barbara Young, receptionist at the Baker Institute, who in spirit, cheer, smile, song, and indefatigable helpfulness made coming to work each day the high privilege and pleasure that it was.

Preface

xix

We thank Ms. Brigitte Shull, Assistant Editor at Palgrave Macmillan during the early stages of the book’s progress, and Ms. Julia Cohen, Associate Editor, during the production phase, for their efficiency, guidance, and encouragement in bringing the book to publication. Alvin R. Tarlov Michelle Precourt Debbink

Note 1. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Rice University, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, and University of Houston.

This page intentionally left blank

List of Contributors

Kay M. Albrecht, PhD, is President of Innovations in Early Childhood Education. She specializes in writing, management consultation, and early childhood professional development. Dr. Albrecht has been a teacher of young children, the director of a nationally accredited early childhood program, on the faculty at four universities, and is the author of the Innovations series of curriculum, development, and training materials and The Right Fit: Recruiting, Selecting, and Orienting Staff. Susan Nall Bales is President and Founder of the nonprofit FrameWorks Institute, which conducts communications research on social issues, and a visiting scientist in the Department of Society, Human Development, and Health at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is a contributing member of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Sandi Borden has served in the roles of teacher, supervisor, director of reading, Principal and Executive Director of Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA) and currently champions children’s needs as Cochair of the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC); Cochair of the Legislative Committee of the Texas Business and Education Coalition (TBEC); and Chair of the State Executive Directors of the National Association of Elementary Principals (NAESP). Donna Bryant, PhD, is a Senior Scientist and the Associate Director of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Research Professor in the School of Education. From 1993 to 2003 she led the evaluation of Smart Start, North Carolina’s statewide comprehensive early childhood initiative. She is currently engaged in studies of professional development and quality enhancement in early childhood settings, social-emotional interventions for Head Start classrooms, and a home visiting curriculum for Early Head Start interventionists. James D. Calaway is currently President/CEO of Calaway Interests, LLC, which he founded after retiring as founding CEO of Center for Houston’s Future. He has served and continues to serve on a number of civic and corporate boards in Houston. He earned a bachelor’s degree in economics

xxii

List of Contributors

from the University of Texas and a master’s degree from Oxford University. Mr. Calaway currently lives in Houston with his wife and two daughters. Michelle Precourt Debbink is an NIH Medical Scientist Training Program Fellow at the University of Michigan, where she is pursuing an MD and a PhD in Health Management and Policy. Her research interests include maternal and child health, social inequalities, and public policy. She earned bachelor’s degrees in Sociology and Policy Studies at Rice University. Greg J. Duncan, PhD, is the Edwina S. Tarry Professor of Education and Social Policy and a Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. Prior to joining the Northwestern faculty in 1995, Duncan served as principal investigator of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics project at Michigan for 13 years. Duncan has published extensively on issues of income distribution, child poverty, and welfare dependence. He is a member of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Cochair of the National Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation, and President-Elect of the Society for Research on Child Development. Kaitlin G. Guthrow, MSSW, Kaitlin Graham Guthrow serves as Executive Director of the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC). Kaitlin has worked on behalf of the children and families of Texas in a variety of settings and, in 2005, received the Advocate of the Year Award from the Texas Association for the Education of Young Children. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from Colby College and a Master’s in Social Work at the University of Texas. Nancy Pechacek Hard has over 25 years experience in the early childhood field as a classroom teacher, owner/director, trainer, program administrator, and the state’s Child Care Administrator. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Southwest Texas State University (now Texas State University) and a master’s degree from the University of Texas. Kristie Kauerz specializes in state-level policy related to early childhood issues. She directed the early learning initiative at Education Commission of the States and worked for former Colorado governor Roy Romer. Having completed doctoral studies in early childhood education policy at Teacher’s College, Columbia University, she is now Early Childhood/P-3 (Preschool to Grade Three) Policy Director for Colorado lieutenant governor Barbara O’Brien. Stephen L. Klineberg, PhD, is Professor of Sociology at Rice University and director of the annual Houston Area Survey (1982–2006). He is writing a book that builds on a quarter-century of survey research to explore public responses to the ongoing economic and demographic transformations. Sandra Lamm has extensive experience in early care and education program administration, research, advocacy and policy development, and has held leadership positions in state and national organizations. She is early childhood coordinator for the City of Fort Worth, Texas.

List of Contributors

xxiii

Susan Landry, PhD, is a developmental psychologist and the Michael Matthew Knight Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center—Houston. She is Chief of the Division of Developmental Pediatrics, Director of Children’s Learning Institute (CLI), and Director of Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education (CIRCLE). Her expertise in biological and environmental influences on children’s development from infancy through school age provides parents and teachers with effective resources for supporting young children’s development. Pat Levitt, PhD, is the Annette Schaffer Eskind Chair and Director of the Vanderbilt University Kennedy Center for Research on Human Development and Professor of Pharmacology, and a widely published developmental neurobiologist. He is a member of the National Advisory Council for Mental Health, and the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, which is dedicated to translating the latest research findings on brain and child development for policy makers and other professionals. Todd Litton, prior to his current position in the financial services industry, directed a nonprofit effort, Preschool for ALL, to increase access to quality preschool for young children across Texas. He currently serves as vice president of the board of Small Steps Nurturing Center (www.ssnc.org), a nationally accredited preschool serving at-risk youth in Houston’s First and Fifth Wards. He earned his bachelor’s degree in English from Duke University, a law degree from the University of Texas School of Law, and an MBA from Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Management. Katherine Magnuson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Affiliate with the Institute for Research on Poverty. She received her PhD in Human Development and Social Policy from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on the influences of socioeconomic disadvantage on children’s development, early childhood education, and child and family interventions for low-income populations. Thomas McIntire, owner of a licensed child care center in Abilene, Texas, is Past President, Texas licensed Child Care Association. Anne Mitchell is the President of Early Childhood Policy Research, an independent consulting firm specializing in evaluation research, policy analysis, and planning on child care/early education issues with government, foundations, and national nonprofit organizations. With Louise Stoney, she cofounded the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance, a learning community on finance reform and system-building for early care and education. Steve H. Murdock, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Sociology at Rice University. He previously held the Lutcher Brown Distinguished Chair in Demography at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He is also the official State Demographer of Texas and was Director of the Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and the Texas State Data Center

xxiv

List of Contributors

at the University of Texas at San Antonio. He is a widely published author on demographic change and its implications for socioeconomic change. Shona Neigut is a graduate student intern from the University of Houston. Liz Plaster, MEd, is a 30-year veteran early childhood professional and President and Founder of Positive Performance, a coaching and consulting firm focusing on emotional intelligence. Her experience as a teacher, mentor, and administrator in settings from public/private school, universities, junior colleges, and the social service arena has given her a broad perspective relating to the challenges and successes of programs that serve young children and families. Jason Sabo is Vice President for Public Policy of United Ways of Texas and the national policy Director of United Way of America’s Success By 6 initiative. Prior to joining United Way, he worked in and around the Texas Capitol as a policy analyst and lobbyist. Prior to his political work, he coordinated dropout prevention programs, directed immigrant literacy programs, and worked as a teacher at the prekindergarten through university levels in the United States and Brazil. Carol Shattuck serves as the President of the Collaborative for Children (CC), a nonprofit organization that works with all sectors of the Houston community to strengthen the early care and education system for young children from birth to age six. Louise Stoney is an early childhood policy specialist and cofounder of the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance. Louise consults with state and local governments, national policy organizations, child advocacy groups and foundations. She has authored numerous reports and articles on early childhood finance, most recently Smarter Reform: Moving Beyond Single Program Solutions to an Early Care and Education System. James Strickland serves as Executive Director of Child, Inc., the U. S. Head Start and Early Head Start Program for Travis County, Texas, which includes Austin, the state capitol. Alvin R. Tarlov, MD, currently is Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago. Prior appointments include Chairman, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago; President, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; professorships at Tufts University and Harvard’s School of Public Health. From 2000 to 2005 he was Director, Texas Program for Society and Health, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University. His interests are in early childhood development and education as influenced by social inequalities and public policies.

I

The Science 1

2

Building Brain Architecture and Chemistry: A Primer for Policymakers Pat Levitt Chidren Develop in an Environment of Relationships The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, with Comments by Alvin R. Tarlov

3 The Coproduction of Human Development and Health Alvin R. Tarlov

3 27

41

This page intentionally left blank

1 Building Brain Architecture and Chemistry: A Primer for Policymakers Pat Levitt

Introduction The remarkable and complex structure of the nervous system reflects its principal role in gathering information from the environment, integrating this information, and allowing an individual to respond in an appropriate fashion. All behavior, from learning and memory to mood and emotion, is mediated through the nervous system. We know that both genes and environment play an enormous role in building the brain. Thus, research tells us that brain architecture, the physical structure and organization of brain cell (neuronal) connections, and brain chemistry, the genes, proteins, and other molecules that assist in brain function, are changed through experience as a child grows and develops. In fact, the brain of a child requires experience to mold brain architecture and to modify brain chemistry to complete the process of development. By nature, therefore, those who study any aspect of the impact of genes or the environment (family, school, parentchild, friend or sibling relationships, learning opportunities, nutrition) on a child’s health and well-being are neuroscientists: educators, developmentalists, psychologists, biologists, and mathematicians alike examine what are arguably the most complex processes known to humans. It is easy to understand why it is necessary for all of us to consider ourselves neuroscientists; each field provides an important perspective for understanding early child development and the tough decisions a society must make about the policies that create a nurturing and supportive environment to provide children with the very best in education, personal relationships, and health. It is essential because the programs we put in place will have a profound impact on the architecture and function of the very organ, the brain, which we know is responsible for our children’s ability to think, learn, and to control mood and emotions. But how can we grapple with understanding the development of functions that are so very complex? We are in luck in terms of understanding

4

Pat Levitt

the impact of policy on brain development because biological mechanisms involved in brain development are conserved across species. In other words, information obtained from research on many different types of animals can be used to understand principles of brain and functional development across species. That is, once biology successfully incorporates a certain way of achieving a particular state, it is far more efficient to maintain that strategy than to evolve a completely new way of doing things for each species. Thus, many of the fundamental biological processes of development that we understand so well in less complex species or organs, such as the interplay of genes and environment on cardiac or respiratory systems, also are used to guide the assembly of brain architecture and function in higher species. There are, as you might expect, some key differences between the heart and the brain in the types of experiences that so powerfully impact development; a child’s environment of relationships will impact brain development, whereas nutrition could affect both heart and brain development. The interactions of a child with his or her environment, including adult caregivers, parents, siblings, and peers, strongly influences the very wiring up of brain architecture that is necessary to bring complex functions “on line.” We are going to discuss some basic neuroscience principles and why we are poised to successfully integrate knowledge of brain development with what society is trying to sort out in terms of public policy regarding early child care and education.

Research Findings Influence Policy Decisions Optimally, evidence-based research is used to develop public health and education policies. Coronary artery disease serves as a great example in which research discoveries have identified specific biochemical processes that turn out to be responsible for creating the diffuse arterial blockage that dramatically increases health risks in adults. These findings, over time, changed our public health policies in terms of how we have dealt with this disease (Steinberg and Gotto 1999). The essential element was the direct link made between high cholesterol, specific “good” and “bad” blood lipoproteins, and the nature of the physical changes in blood vessel structure that place many of us at risk. Even in the face of genetic susceptibility that causes differences in metabolism amongst our population, rational interventions were developed in terms of drugs, diet, and lifestyle (exercise, smoking), all of which directly affect the cells and molecules responsible for creating the disease in the first place. The goal of biomedical research has been to extend this model to other disorders and diseases, but we are just beginning to understand how to translate basic evidence from research into building and maintaining a better brain. Let us use an example of how intervention changed as a function of understanding the brain-based origin of a disorder. Stuttering resonates with me because members of my family and I are afflicted with this speech

Building Brain Architecture

5

disorder. Historically, stuttering was considered to have psychological origins. Even as the modern age of health care emerged in the middle of the twentieth century, the most popular method of intervention in children who stutter was to send them to a psychologist or psychiatrist because of the commonly held belief that stuttering was a problem in emotional regulation. Thus, many therapists believed that stuttering was caused by the child suppressing hostile feelings, typically regarding mom, and somehow, if the psychiatrist or the psychologist could get the child to talk about this, the speech disruption would go away. Clinical research began to investigate the possibility that, because stuttering runs in families, there might be a genetic underpinning to the disorder that affects a basic brain function, the motor aspects of speech formation. This transition to a more biological concept had an enormous impact on intervention, in which generations of children treated by psychiatrists and psychologists transitioned to treatment by speech therapists. Evidence now points to an inherited component of stuttering; people who stutter inherit genetic differences that make them more likely to express disrupted speech. Moreover, there is new evidence that brain architecture is different between people who stutter and those who have fluent speech (Buchel and Sommer 2004). The cerebral hemispheres, which contain the cerebral cortex—the structure responsible for controlling sophisticated functions, typically are asymmetrical in structure, with size and structural differences between the left side, where the speech and language areas are located, and the right side. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a method that allows scientists to view, noninvasively, brain structure in children and adults, show that the differences normally present between the left and right sides are absent in individuals who stutter (Rosenfield 2001). We do not know yet whether this difference in brain architecture causes stuttering, is an effect of the experience of abnormal speech development, or even whether the difference is causal at all. However, because there is such a tight correlation between brain structure and function, the differences are likely to be important. The very fact that stuttering has a basis in atypical brain architecture helps interventionists in their efforts to design better ways of effective treatment. We can think about this example in terms of appreciating the enormous complexity of brain architecture and brain chemistry, and how early experiences in the life of children influence both. One challenge of understanding, and even defining, the most critical features of positive child development is to determine how the relationships between a child, the family, and the community influence brain development. These relationships define the experiences that will influence how the child will learn, manage stress, and control their emotions, not only during their formative years, but also for the rest of their lives. Development is a building process that will have longlasting impact on how well the systems it creates will function (Seckl 1998). Early severe stress, even before birth, can contribute to higher risk in adults for having cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure (Couzin 2002).

6

Pat Levitt

While the symptoms of these diseases, which are so heavily impacted by stress, can be managed by medication and other interventions, imagine the economic savings if we could simply reduce the incidence of severe stress in pregnant women, thus reducing the number of adults that require chronic medical care. We have made great progress in describing the biological events and mechanisms that underlie brain development and we know a lot about the development of both cognitive and social-emotional behavior. Thus, we now possess two parallel streams of knowledge that, when integrated, will allow us to understand the most relevant features of a child’s environment (experiences drive the flexibility of brain development) that influence the biological events contributing to the building of brain networks (hard-wiring in brain development), which are the bases for neural communication that underlies function. This is a challenge that scientists from different fields are tackling.

The Basics of Intra-Brain Communication1: Neurons, Synapses, and Circuits The nervous system communicates through networks of brain cells— neurons—that interconnect with each other in highly specified patterns to form brain circuits. This is not unlike a computer circuit board, which carries and stores information across networks. Yet, brain circuitry is far more complex and communication between neurons occurs via molecules, known as neurotransmitters. Some are very familiar such as dopamine, the neurotransmitter that is lost in Parkinson’s disease. The brain even has its own internal opiate chemicals, similar to morphine, which mediate pain. Each neurotransmitter is packaged by neurons into individual packets (vesicles) and released when neurons are “activated.” Release of the packets of neurotransmitter occurs at a specialized junction, called the synapse, which forms between neurons during brain development. The neurotransmitter can either activate (excitatory neurotransmitter) or shut down (inhibitory neurotransmitter) the next neuron in line in the circuit. Keep in mind that each neuron in the brain may receive thousands of bits of converging information from many neurons. The challenge for the neuron is to make sense out of an immense amount of information and formulate a response by virtue of activating or inhibiting the next neurons in the circuit. The neuron has a highly specialized architecture that allows it to receive thousands of bits of information, integrate the input and then send a coherent message down the line. The neuron separates these functions into three architectural components: the dendrite, the soma, and the axon (figure 1.1). The dendrite is responsible for receiving information from thousands of synapses, called its input. Each neuron may have thousands of dendritic processes, like branches on a tree, in order to accommodate the massive

Building Brain Architecture

7

Dendrites Soma

Axon Synapse

Synapse Spine

Figure 1.1 Each neuron is compartmentalized into processes (dendrites) that receive information from many other neurons, a cell body (soma) that integrates information, a process (axon) that sends information and connections between neurons (synapses) that mediate communication. Enlargement of synapses illustrates the terminal ending of the axon as a swelling that contacts specialized structures on dendrites, the spines, that increase the surface area to allow a dendrite to form thousands of synapses.

amount of information coming from other neurons. In fact, dendrites develop additional specialized regions, called spines. Like thorns on a rose bush, spines protrude from the main shafts of dendrites to create even more space for the neuron to be able to handle more synapses. The number and appearance of spines provides important clues regarding the health and function of a neuron and how well a circuit may function. For example, in certain disorders, such as the neurodevelopmental disorder Fragile X syndrome, a common cause of mental retardation, spines are abnormally shaped and fail to mature during childhood (Zoghbi 2003). We know that such an abnormality of the dendrites’ architecture is indicative of poor synapse formation and communication. On the other hand, experiments in animals have shown that exercise or an “enriched environment (see below) can actually change the shape and even the number of spines on certain types of neurons involved in the memory systems of the brain. The correlate to better spine structure is better function.

8

Pat Levitt

The soma, or cell body, is responsible for integrating all the information that arrives from the input on dendrites and spines; remarkably, it achieves this far better than any supercomputer. Once the neuron has made sense out of an enormous amount of information, it needs to send that information to the next neurons in the circuit. It does this through a very long nerve process known as the axon. In fact, while each neuron has many dendritic processes, it only has one axon, which can branch in a highly complex fashion to send information to many different parts of the brain. Axons end as terminal swellings, synapses, that make connections with thousands of other neurons’ dendrites. It is easy to see how complicated the circuitry of the brain is when you begin to think about this organization from the perspective of billions of neurons. In order to understand how brain circuitry functions, and what kinds of experiences impact how the brain is built during development, it is essential to gain an appreciation for the chemicals that are principally responsible for interneuronal communication. Neurotransmitters are produced by each nerve cell and come in various forms (figure 1.2). Some neurotransmitters, known as excitatory neurotransmitters, stimulate neurons and some, known as inhibitory neurotransmitters, shut down neuron activity. We also have a third kind of chemical, the neuromodulators, which are responsible for adjusting the excitatory or inhibitory signal, in a sense, like turning the volume up or down on a stereo. All neurotransmitters are released at the synapse and cross a gap, called the synaptic cleft, to bind to a specialized

Transporter G

G

Figure 1.2 Neurons communicate by using chemical neurotransmitters. These are packaged in vesicles at the terminal of the axon and are released to bind to postsynaptic receptors (+, –, +/–) located on a dendrite of the next neuron in the circuit. Neurotransmitters may be excitatory (filled circles); when they bind to a postsynaptic receptor (+), they activate the cell electrically (upward deflection). Neurotransmitters also may be inhibitory (bars); when they bind to their postsynaptic receptor (–), they shut down the cell electrically (downward deflection). A third type of neurochemical is known as a neuromodulator (triangles), which binds to a receptor and can modify (increase or decrease) the neuron’s response to an excitatory or inhibitory neurotransmitter. Neurotransmitters are inactivated in the cleft (gap between neurons) by binding to their transporter protein and being taken back up to be repackaged and used again.

Building Brain Architecture

9

protein, the neurotransmitter receptor, which sits in the dendritic membrane on the next neuron in the circuit, the postsynaptic neuron. The binding of the neurotransmitter to its receptor is the trigger for the postsynaptic neuron to respond. The neuromodulators are very important because they are the class of neurotransmitters that interacts with drugs with which we are most familiar—psychostimulants such as amphetamine, cocaine, and methylphenidate, opiates such as morphine and heroin, and antidepressants such as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). Neurotransmitter action is stopped by proteins at the synapse, called transporters, that take up the transmitter from the synaptic cleft and repackage it for use again. SSRIs, for example, block the action of the serotonin transporter protein, leaving more serotonin in the synaptic cleft to bind to a serotonin receptor. Drugs are effective clinically because they actually change brain chemistry. Because of this very property, however, drugs may also be dangerous. Health care professionals and scientists in the drug addiction field deal with this fact routinely, but it also has been a conundrum, in a different way, for pediatricians and child psychiatrists; while drug therapy may be necessary for controlling certain behavioral disorders, experiments in animal models tell us that drugs may impact adversely long-term brain development and function (Stanwood and Levitt 2001). We do not know the precise impact in children, because drug efficacy is generally tested in adults and the dose then modified for use in children. Yet, it is important to emphasize leaving a child’s behavioral disorder untreated by drugs could actually be worse than using drug therapy. After all, the abnormal behavior itself can have a negative influence on brain architecture and chemistry (see below) and on child development. Brain communication systems are comprised of neural circuits and the neurochemicals (neurotransmitters and related receptor and transporter proteins) that are used to send messages across the complex architecture of the brain. It is important to emphasize that there is plenty of neuroscience research showing that both brain chemistry and architecture can change through experiences, both positive and negative (Knudsen 2004; Knudsen et al. 2006). Such influences during development result in modifying brain communication systems. This is a difficult concept to understand for both scientist and layperson alike. It is straightforward to explain how a drug like cocaine could disrupt the chemical balance of certain neurotransmitters in the brain. We know that experience, too, can affect brain function by changing brain chemistry and, of course, this change can be either positive or negative. This phenomenon of chemical or structural change is termed plasticity—the ability to be modified. Positive experience can improve the way our synapses function, but severe, negative experiences can result in significant disruption of synaptic communication. Defining the biological underpinning of the well-known phenomenon of experience-dependent brain development remains a great challenge (Munakata et al. 2004). How does experience influence the process of brain development? How does experience affect the architecture and chemistry of

10

Pat Levitt

the brain and are the changes permanent? As much as we like to think about the positive experiences that can have permanent effects (e.g., learning a foreign language as a child), we know that negative changes in the chemistry and architecture of the brain during development, without intervention, also will have permanent outcomes. Finally, because brain development occurs over many years, birth through adolescence, how does the same experience differ in its impact on brain development when it occurs at different ages? In other words, what may be very influential at one age may have little impact at another time in a child’s life. This will be discussed below.

Hard-Wiring in Brain Development Brain growth, development, and maturation begin early during gestation in utero and continues beyond puberty (Levitt 2003). The formation of the brain and its circuitry involves a complex sequence of biological events that have been the intense focus of scientists from the late 1800s. The essential biological elements of brain development have been identified and include neuron production (proliferation), movement (migration), differentiation (specialization), synapse formation (connectivity) and pruning (reorganization), and the formation of insulation around axons, known as myelination (Levitt 2000). The forerunner of the brain is the neural tube, which upon appearance at five weeks of gestation, already is specialized and rapidly becomes regionally distinct, developing into a forebrain that becomes the large cerebral hemisphere, and a midbrain and hindbrain that become the brain stem and spinal cord. Each region contains different specialized circuits, but these circuits are broadly interconnected and do intercommunicate. The majority of the neurons that adults end up with are produced in the first trimester. One of the key findings of the twentieth century was the discovery that the neural tube contains populations of proliferating cells, which divide many times before producing mature neurons. Once a cell exits the proliferative cell pool and becomes a neuron, it loses its capability to divide and to produce more neurons. This feature allows the brain to utilize unique genes that encode the special properties of the different neuron populations and to control the number of neurons that eventually will be produced. It does, however, severely limit the ability of the brain to repair itself after injury. Neurons are produced in one place in the tube and have to move, typically long distances, to reach their final location in the developing brain. Neurons are guided to their final position by specialized cells, known as radial glia, and by chemical cues that provide directions for them as they traverse a complex terrain. In a sense, neurons must navigate territories in which thousands of other neurons are moving and they require directions to make sure they reach their appropriate final locations. The process is far from random. The brain allocates specific numbers of neurons to regions of

Building Brain Architecture

11

the brain that will perform functions such as movement of our body parts, somatic (body) sensation, hearing, vision, learning and memory, speech, and even the control of stress, mood, and emotion. Neuroscientists also have discovered that during the process of neuron production, more neurons are made than are retained in the mature brain. This is a natural process in which the brain overproduces neurons to ensure that every circuit has sufficient numbers to function properly. Some fraction of the neurons will eventually be eliminated, in a process known as “naturally occurring cell death,” through struggles with other neurons as they compete for nurturing chemicals, known as trophic factors. These chemicals are produced in limiting quantities. In some brain regions, approximately 50 percent of the neurons that are initially produced normally may be eliminated. The disruption of the elimination process may be just as detrimental to circuit function as not having enough neurons. Neuron production, migration, and the initial building of the major pathways (axon highways) that carry neuronal projections between brain regions occur in utero over just a few months during the first and second trimester, and we know that these events are governed mostly by genetic information (which of course still can be disrupted by a poor environment, such as exposure to toxins, viruses, or malnutrition). Once neurons form the major projections between brain regions, constructing the brain communication systems, the building of specific synapses continues to occur over a far longer period of time, extending into toddlerhood (figure 1.3).

Flexible Brain Development: Experience Drives Specificity Neuroscience research has shown that the experiences a child has with his/her environment have their most profound effects on the process that organizes and specifies synapses as they are constructed. But like overproduction of neurons, the brain builds many more synapses than it needs in adulthood. Unlike neuron production, however, the child’s experiences within his/her environment can have remarkable effects on synapse formation and pruning. Thus, the goal of brain development before birth is to produce a framework of neural circuits that are ready to receive and interpret information and to remodel into a mature system based on experiences that occur after birth. During the last trimester, the building process begins with a remarkable increase in the rate of synapse formation (figure 1.3). Although we have good knowledge of when the peak of synapse formation occurs in different areas of the brain, we know most about this process in the cerebral cortex (Huttenlocher and Dabholkar 1997; Bourgeois et al. 1999). In calculating the rate of synapse formation during the phase extending from the third trimester to about 3 years of age, 40,000–100,000 synapses are added each minute in order to reach the peak of well over one hundred billion synapses.

Birth

Pat Levitt

th Dea

er ty Pub

Tod dler

ter ime s d tr Thir

trim este Sec ond

Firs t trim

este

r

r

Density of Synapses

12

Figure 1.3 Curve illustrates the timing of synapse formation in the human cerebral cortex. The x-axis refers to time, and density of synapses is depicted on the y-axis. Synapse formation accelerates rapidly in the third trimester of pregnancy and increases to approximately the age of three (toddlerhood). There is an extended period during childhood when synapse number is stable, and there is a decline that begins just before puberty and is complete during the postadolescent period.

Until recently, it was thought that it might take hours to erect an individual synapse, but experimental evidence demonstrates that synapses can be disassembled and newly assembled in just a few minutes. This requires the coordinated assembly of hundreds of molecules to form the organized, highly specialized synaptic structure unique to neurons. Think about the organization and energy required to take stacks of bricks, wood, and other building materials to erect a house. If you have a plan, you can get it done, and each neuron not only knows how to build a synapse, but it has the capacity to utilize incoming information to modify these synapses when necessary to create better functioning circuits having extraordinary individual specificity and population variability. Approximately 40 percent more synapses are produced in the cerebral cortex by toddlerhood than the final number in the adult. These eventually undergo a process of removal, termed pruning, beginning in late childhood and extending through the complex period of puberty. The nervous system thus is constructed so that after birth, the experiences of a child are part of the biological process of sculpting the architecture and changing brain chemistry in a purposeful fashion. However, it is perhaps the least understood of neurodevelopmental events in the sense that we do not know the precise biological mechanisms that govern how experience changes brain chemistry and architecture. Yet, we know that it does. Why does the brain utilize the strategy of experience-dependent maturation of neural circuits? Neuroscientists believe that rather than using an entirely predetermined,

Building Brain Architecture

13

hard-wired architecture, the brain initially establishes a framework of circuits through genetic mechanisms, which includes exuberant components that expect, that is really depend upon, experience to drive the process of sculpting specific brain circuitry. Arguably, developmental plasticity of brain wiring—its ability to change due to the influences of experience— places us in a position to adapt and thrive. The danger, of course, is that bad experiences can be just as powerful as positive experiences in modifying brain architecture and chemistry. But not everyone responds identically to the same experience. We know children who seem to be resilient and some who are far more at risk. Experimental data indicate that both genes and early environmental factors (e.g., malnutrition, infection, opportunities, and challenges in learning, depth of exposure to language, interpersonal interactions, and so forth) can introduce differences amongst individuals in their initial brain architecture (Knudson 2004) as well as in later synapse formation, with regard to how they respond to a particular experience (ibid.).

Human Brain Architecture Is Organized to React to the Complexities of Our World We know that brain architecture is organized into different areas that take responsibility for mediating functions such as hearing, vision, touch, movement, memory, and so on. It is not the case that each recognizable area does this in isolation, but rather the circuits are built to integrate the essential information needed to perform a function well. The cerebral cortex provides a wonderful example of the collaborative nature of our brain wiring. The cerebral cortex is the brain region that expands most dramatically when comparing different mammals, expanding almost thousandfold in surface area between a typical experimental animal model, like the mouse, and humans. This expansion occurs both in size and in complexity. In mice, about two-thirds of the cerebral hemisphere is dedicated to vision and body sensations, such as touch and pain. In humans, these functional regions represent only about 15 percent of the total size of the cortex. More than two-thirds is dedicated to higher cognitive capabilities, such as language, integration of information from many systems (termed multimodal cortex), complex memory functions, as well as the control of mood and emotion. Working memory provides a great example of how circuits need to work together. This type of memory is like our own personal notepad. A region in our frontal lobes serves to keep information close by, online so to speak, so that we can recall the most relevant facts at a moment’s notice while we are performing another function. For example, when dialing a telephone, we hold the number in working memory to perform the task, while keeping the thoughts of whom we are calling, and even why we are calling, at the forefront. Imagine the thousands of times daily that we tap into our working memory system and the circuitry needed just to do such a seemingly simple task.

14

Pat Levitt

The areas of higher function have so much dedicated brain architecture because we must integrate enormous amounts of remarkably complex information. This circuitry provides the biological basis for our ability to do things so well. For example, when we are performing a specific cognitive task like reading, we must integrate a lot of specific information, like eye movements, letter recognition, the distance that we hold the book from our eyes and even our state of emotion at the moment. We understand the differences in how well we read at leisure, in contrast to being under pressure for a test. The ability (or inability) to perform these functions in an orchestrated fashion (through well-defined brain circuits) affects the quality of the “output,” or performance. We can see different brain areas in action using noninvasive methods that require the subject only to lie in a magnet for a few minutes. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) monitors changes in brain activity by measuring increases or decreases in blood flow (Szpir 2005). One can visualize changes in specific regions of the cerebral cortex when an individual performs a task. Moving a limb activates motor cortex areas, while reading a sentence (silently) will activate numerous visual centers. Read aloud and the language/speech centers will also light up. Listen passively to music and the hearing (auditory) cortex will activate. Changes in brain activity can even be seen when memory tests are performed. The differences in activity in the fMRI image represent the activation of brain circuits. The activation is mediated by neurotransmitters that transmit information faithfully across circuits that connect different functional brain regions. Performing tasks during a natural period of remodeling of synaptic connections (child development) permanently changes brain chemistry and architecture, leaving mature circuits that are ready to perform functions efficiently and effectively for the lifetime of the individual.

Early Experience and Brain Development: Getting It Right Brain development, particularly brain wiring, is influenced by experience. It is important to keep in mind that not every circuit changes in response to a particular experience to the same degree, or even during the same time period (Knudsen 2004). The time period during development, either before or after birth, during which a particular experience can modify brain development is known as a sensitive period. Unfortunately, this developmental time period has been confused with the concept of a finite critical period, during which experience changes a particular aspect of brain development irreversibly—in a sense, the closing of a window of opportunity to influence brain architecture and function. First, it is important to emphasize that the brain does not have a single sensitive or critical period for all circuits. These periods are defined by specific biological characteristics of the neurons that are receiving a particular

Building Brain Architecture

15

type of information from the environment and, thus, there are many periods of sensitivity. Second, few critical periods have been identified by scientists. A critical period is that time frame after which an intervention is not able to reverse the effects of a prior environmental experience. One of the betterunderstood critical periods is the powerful filial imprinting of ducklings to the call of a mother duck (Knudsen 1999). The newly hatched ducklings need only be exposed to the specific call of the mother for minutes, resulting in their responding to that call for the remainder of their lives. If one unnaturally exposes the ducklings to the male call during the time period when they normally would hear their mother’s, subsequently they will not respond to the mother’s quack, even if exposed over and over again. This period is thus critical in the sense that the brain connections responsible for hearing and responding to their main caregiver are “cemented” into place through this brief experience and cannot be reversed. Of course, this makes sense in terms of survival of the species. Typically, the mother duck sits on the eggs to hatch them and hers is the first call the ducklings hear and to which they would want to respond appropriately. We know of only a few examples of critical periods in human brain development, related mostly to the development of sensory systems. If a child is born with cataracts, or some ocular occlusion in one eye, there will be a period of time when intervention to remove that occlusion will allow the visual system to develop binocular acuity, and the trajectory of visual development will eventually become normal (Zetterstrom et al. 2005). If, however, the intervention is not performed by a certain period of time, the ability of the circuits to change to a normal binocular architecture is lost. The so-called window closes. There is widespread misinformation about human critical periods. As noted above, the peak of synapse formation occurs by the age of three, and thus some have reasoned that the period from birth to three must be a “critical period for experiences that will shape brain architecture for a lifetime. Neuroscientists, however, have not defined critical periods for changing human brain structure and chemistry. In fact, what we mostly hear about, and what we really understand, are sensitive periods—the time during development when a specific manipulation changes brain architecture and function. What is clear from the research is that the effectiveness of an intervention varies over time; that is, there appear to be optimal and suboptimal periods in the responsiveness of brain circuitry to experiences that change them.

Timing Matters In policy terms, the cost to implement an intervention or a specific experience to induce brain changes and functional improvement may differ dramatically over time. For example, if a particular intervention is applied

16

Pat Levitt

during a time period when sensitivity is minimal, there may be little positive change; more extensive, time-consuming approaches to induce the desired alteration would be needed. That is, it may take a lot more time and energy to effect a change. In contrast, an intervention during a welldefined sensitive period may have robust effects that are long-lasting, with minimal cost. This is a very complex concept; we know that brain circuitry of infants is ready for experiencing the needed stimuli to establish positive social-emotional relationships. But the same nervous system is not prepared to learn how to read as an infant. Rather, other circuits, such as those responsible for holding a child’s attention or even hearing differences between sounds, need to mature before one can teach a child how to read. Yet, from post-toddler to first or second grade, children can readily tune their brain circuits that will provide the necessary skills to read for a lifetime. It is not that an older child, nor even an adult, cannot learn how to read, but the effort it takes is simply enormous and the reading skills developed may never reach the level that could have been achieved with better experiences earlier in life. Think about something as familiar as learning how to swing a golf club properly. It is easy to pick out of a crowd those who enjoyed the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of this very challenging sport earlier in life, when motor circuits are at their best for learning new behaviors, compared to those who picked up the equipment for the first time as adults. Moreover, the challenges of retraining someone who initially learned poor skills are immense. Thus, the changes to brain architecture that occurred during the initial learning period may not be optimal and, as such, plasticity becomes more difficult to induce with advancing use. The examples noted above illustrate the conundrum for which we only understand the most general aspects of experience-dependent brain development in humans. Yet, an integration of fundamental rules governing brain development and behavior is essential as we hope to understand more definitively how experiences change brain chemistry and architecture. Keep in mind that there are likely to be a diversity of positive early experiences that influence brain development. Thus, while general principals will be the same, the specific nature of the early experiences necessary to impact socialemotional and cognitive development will vary; one size need not fit all.

How We Feel about a Subject Influences How We Think about It We tend to think about early experience influencing individual brain structures and functions, but the key may be in recognizing a child’s reliance on the brain to integrate different types of emotional and cognitive information in order to function well. A simple exercise illustrates this point.2 Ten nouns, such as tree, flour, dog, cottage, travel, turkey, apple, blue, fish, and window, are listed on paper and given to three people. One person is asked to count

Building Brain Architecture

17

the total number of vowels in the words, a second person is asked to memorize the list of words, while the third is asked to rate each word according to its meaningfulness to him/her, that is each word’s capacity to evoke pleasant memories. The three papers are then collected. Which of the subjects do you believe would be able to remember the most words after one minute? The person asked to count vowels does dreadfully, remembering on average four to five words. The person asked to memorize the list does reasonably well, recounting an average of seven to eight words. It is a surprise to most that the person asked simply to rank the words on this list that are most important to them typically recalls a similar number of words as the individual who was asked to memorize the list. Most importantly, if each person is asked to recall the words two to three days later, only the person who ranked the words for their personal importance would remember a reasonable number. Why would emotional value help in what seems purely a memory task? If you ask someone to memorize something on a short-term basis, our brain does reasonably well in performing the task. But our brain is built to integrate information, to give meaning to complex thought, and it does best when motivation is high. Think about the struggles a teenager may have with calculus, contrasted with how easily he or she might write about the complexities of the Civil War as a history buff. The difference is not necessarily about being a “natural” in one subject or another but, rather, the emotional “valence” or meaning of a particular task to the person performing the task. Our motivational state is controlled by emotions and our ability to interact with our environment. It follows logically that the experiences of infants and young children will influence not only the construction of both cognitive and emotional brain circuitry, but also the ability to integrate information across these two critical areas of human behavior. The interacting circuitry forms the necessary substrate later in life for healthy cognitive, social, and emotional performance.

Neuroscience Experiments Demonstrate the Powerful Influence of Early Experience on Brain Architecture, Chemistry, and Function There are a number of examples of how early experience can impact brain architecture. Greenough (University of Illinois) and colleagues pioneered studies using a simple experimental design (Greenough et al. 1985; 1987). Most laboratory rodents used for biological experiments are raised in a cage with bedding in a box in a room full of three or four hundred similar cages (figure 1.4A). However, animals can be raised in a far more complex, or enriched, environment (figure 1.4B). If one thinks about the natural environment of a rat or mouse out in the field, it is certainly far more complex than just sawdust and a bottle of water in a box. In fact, one might think of the “normal” environment of a laboratory rat as deprived or isolated and the more enriched environment as ethologically normal.

A

B

Figure 1.4 A standard cage (A) of rats in laboratory settings with bedding and water bottle, and so-called enriched environment (B) cage that provides opportunities for complex sensory and motor experiences. (Illustration after Kolb 1995.)

Building Brain Architecture

19

Greenough and his team raised one group of rats in a deprived environment and another group of rats in an enriched environment with lots of toys, ladders, tunnels, and other objects to stimulate activity. They then asked a very simple question: “Can a difference in the environment—normal versus deprived—in which a pup is raised impact the architecture and function of neurons? Remarkably, such a difference resulted in a dramatic increase in the enriched environment rats in the number of dendrites on neurons of the cerebral cortex (figure 1.5). Moreover, the numbers of dendritic spines, the specialized areas that receive input via synapses, also were increased, reflecting an enhancement in the number of synapses that develop compared to those in the isolated, deprived, normal laboratory environment. Perhaps most surprising, one can document the robust changes in neuronal architecture with as little as one week of exposure to the enriched

Enriched

Isolated

Figure 1.5 The architecture of individual developing neurons in the cerebral cortex is modified through experience. Golgi-impregnation was used to stain individual neurons. The neuron imaged from the cortex of a rat raised in the enriched environment has many more branches of its dendrites compared to a neuron imaged from the rat raised in isolation in a standard laboratory cage. The enlargements illustrate the large increase in dendritic spines on the neuron from the enriched rearing (Greenough 1985, 1987).

20

Pat Levitt

environment. These structural changes not only occur rapidly, but they are present permanently in the adult. In another example from the neuroscience research laboratories of Meaney (McGill University) and Plotsky (Emory University) and their colleagues, they demonstrated the power of early experience on brain architecture and chemistry to influence emotional and physiological response to stress in laboratory rats later in their lives (Liu et al. 1997; Champagne et al. 2003). There are natural differences in the attentiveness of mother rats regarding care of their pups after birth defined as “high care” moms and “low care” moms. Their studies showed that the female pups born to a high care mom became high care moms themselves and the female pups born to low care moms became low care moms themselves. An interesting intervention was designed wherein low care or high care pups were crossfostered to high care or low care moms respectively. When the pups grew up and had their own litters, the pups exhibited maternal care similar to their foster moms rather than their biological mothers. There are genetic differences that may account for some of the basic differences in maternal care of the two types of rats, but clearly the early experiences with the high care or low care mother, either biological or foster, is sufficient to change the pups’ behavior as adults. This switch in maternal care must occur during the first week after birth in order to be effective (sensitive period). These scientists also have studied the changes in brain chemistry, structure, and other behaviors that result from this experimental manipulation. By measuring the stress hormone cortisol in adult rats exposed to a severe, but brief, stress experience, it is remarkable that the pups raised with low care moms responded adversely (high and sustained serum cortisol levels) to stress, whereas the pups raised under a high care environment exhibited much better (lower cortisol levels, returning to baseline more quickly) stress responses. Somehow, the early experience of being with the high care mother permanently changes the brain structure responsible for both learning and memory and stress response. There are greater numbers of synapses in the offspring born to the high care mom and when one examines the cross-fostered pups, the experience transforms the low care connectivity into high care connectivity. Thus, the long-term behavioral changes have brain architecture and chemical correlates.

Effects of Powerful Experiences in Early Childhood on the Child’s Social-Emotional Development Are there similar examples in humans? Pollock and Kistler (2002) (University of Wisconsin) and colleagues did a remarkable experiment with young children who had experienced severe physical abuse. They assessed the ability of the abused children to recognize different types of emotions in faces, comparing their performance to children experiencing typical rearing

Building Brain Architecture

21

environments. Feature recognition of faces is a particularly important talent that humans exhibit because our ability to “read” emotions correctly determines much of the way we respond in social and family situations. Imagine the difference in the way in which a child responds to an adult if he or she believes the adult is angry compared to if they believe the adult is sad. The team designed a series of faces that transformed gradually over multiple images from one type of emotion to another. For example, a row of 11 faces was shown so they gradually transitioned from happy faces to fearful faces in a continuum or from happy to sad, angry to fearful, or angry to sad. Children were asked to describe the emotion in the person’s face in each picture. In a horizontal panel, typical, normally developed five- or six-year-old children will identify approximately half the faces as one emotion and the other half as the second emotion. A child deviating from this ratio of 50:50 has a problem in recognizing facial expressions properly. For Happy-Fear and Happy-Sad transitions, there is virtually no difference in the ability to distinguish the emotions by children who have been exposed to severe abuse and typical children. The Anger-Fear and Anger-Sad transitions, however, were strikingly different. The children exposed to violence continue to identify anger for approximately threequarters of the panels, a point when children raised in the absence of violence clearly recognize the emotion as fear or sadness. This means that for children exposed to severe violence and abuse, anger is a dominating emotion that they see in faces. Placing this in the perspective of early experience and brain development, it makes sense. The children exposed to severe abuse have powerful negative experiences during periods that are sensitive to developing normal relationships. Like the young rat exposed to an enriched environment, the impact of a severe negative experience can be just as powerful in changing brain function. And we know that changes in brain function are directly linked to changes in brain architecture and chemistry. Keep in mind that for the typical child, a single experience is not likely to have profound, long-lasting effects on brain architecture and chemistry. The developing brain is set up to respond to those experiences that are the most meaningful and those that occur over and over again.

Putting Principles of Brain Sculpting (Plasticity) to Work for Child Development The examples noted above fit well with what neuroscientists have known for a long time regarding the influences of experience on developing brain architecture and function. Nobel Laureates David Hubel and Torsten Weisel (1965) demonstrated this in the developing visual system more than 40 years ago (Hubel et al. 1977). The experimental evidence has been mounting in all functional domains and, of course, as discussed previously,

22

Pat Levitt

the particular experience that influences a brain circuit and defined function, and the timing of when the experience is most influential in that regard, is specific to that circuit. Indeed, the developing brain, from birth, must sort out the multitude of environmental stimuli with which it is bombarded in order to complete the biological process of refinement. That is, there must be some control over what is most relevant and powerful in changing brain architecture. There is evidence from experiments in animals and humans that there are two essential elements for successful sculpting: intense practice trials coupled with a high motivational (positive) or salient (survival) state. In other words, the experience must be meaningful to the individual for it to have its greatest biological effect. High motivational state combined with intensive experiences has been defined as the “principal rule of cortical plasticity” (Buonomano and Merzenich 1998). While we are just beginning to understand the relevance of this concept for the development of social-emotional functions, the validity of the concept with respect to learning, memory, and motor function has been appreciated for years. There is a brain-based rationale for having children out on the soccer field for hours after school each day practicing specific skills repeatedly. Those who develop better skills may be more highly motivated or have a physical structure that makes the repetitive experience all the more valuable for influencing brain development. However, not every child can be, or wants to be, a sports star! From an early age, Tiger Woods engaged in intense practice over and over, but in listening to him describe his experience as a child, he was highly motivated to spend that time on the practice range and golf course. All that practice would not have had nearly the same impact had he been forced to work that hard with little motivation. The positive emotions of motivation place our circuits in a state that is ready to learn—to be modified—much like remembering the words on a list simply by ranking their meaning to you personally or, conversely, like the child who had been subjected to repetitive abuse becoming disposed to anger interpretations, as they are motivated to simply survive. This concept has been used recently for devising a practical solution to a difficult cognitive problem: dyslexia. It is a paradoxical disorder, in a sense, afflicting individuals with major difficulties learning to read, but who otherwise may have strong cognitive skills, such as reasoning, problemsolving, concept formation, and critical thinking. Yet, persons with dyslexia often have difficulties in rote memorization and rapid word retrieval. That is because dyslexia is caused, in part, by auditory processing—an inability to distinguish sounds. We are most efficient at learning to read and to recognize letters by hearing them. Interventionists reasoned that if the auditory system of a child who is dyslexic cannot distinguish sounds, and thus confuses sounds and letters, perhaps providing the sounds in a different way, can retrain the auditory system, that is, induce plasticity to enable the circuits to distinguish sounds. In other words, provide the sounds to the child in a way that can be distinguished, by slowing down the sounds. An

Building Brain Architecture

23

intervention system was designed to incorporate three principles of neuroscience and experience: (1) heavy, intense schedule of trials; (2) series of trainings over successive days; and (3) create a high motivational state for the child (Tallal et al. 1998). Under such training conditions, improvement of function is robust and all indications suggest that the improvements in functions are sustained. Brain plasticity is remarkable.

Concluding Remarks: Brain Science Provides Useful Guidance to Enhance Early Childhood Development There is great enthusiasm for taking concepts learned from neuroscience research and utilizing the information in the field for practical purposes, in this volume in the context of early child development. Keeping in mind the limitations of basic research, the emerging concepts are most valuable when used to inform practical and effective interventions and even for developing public policies that will foster a positive, nurturing environment for children. Beyond what has been discussed here, there are many more examples, in both animal models and humans, where experience, defined as the environment in which a child (or experimental animal) grows up, has a profound effect on architecture and chemistry of the brain. We no longer need to be anecdotal in our application of principals of brain science to policy, but by no means do we know everything. There are several guiding concepts that are important to keep in mind. These are articulated well in a series of monographs written by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child3 (see chapter 2). We know that as a child’s brain develops, the primitive circuits expect certain kinds of experiences to influence the biological process of building brain architecture. We know that changes induced by positive or negative experiences may not be temporary; such plasticity cannot simply be ignored for a later time when intervention may be extremely difficult and expensive to administer, or not even work at all. The brain is built to make sense of our environment. Our developing circuits learn how to place the incoming information in a meaningful context by impacting emotional and motivational states. These states, in turn, influence how well we learn, manage stress, and handle adversity as older children and adults. Understanding the biological processes that are part and parcel of what we call the “sensitive period, a period of time over which experience influences how children’s brains are developing, should help inform the best use of our resources to help children develop and grow successfully.

Notes I would like to thank Ms. Melanie Bridges, Graphic Arts Director of the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, for producing the illustrations. Core graphics support was provided

24

Pat Levitt

by NICHD P30HD15052. I am grateful to Dr. Kathie Eagleson and Harla Levitt for critical reading of the manuscript. I thank my colleagues on the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child for stimulating discussions that influenced the content of this chapter. 1. A single source for basic facts about brain organization, neurotransmitters, and specific functions can be obtained from the Society for Neuroscience publication titled “Brain Facts: A Primer on the Brain and Nervous System,” published in 2006. 2. The exercise was suggested by Dr. Robert Greenleaf, Brown University. 3. These concepts are articulated well in a series of working papers written by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (www.developingchild.net); #1—Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships. #2—Children’s Emotional Development Is Built into the Architecture of Their Brains; #3—Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain; #4—Exposure to Toxic Substances Damages Brain Architecture. Working Paper 1 is reprinted in chapter 2 of this volume.

References Bourgeois, J. -P., P. S. Goldman-Rakic, and P. Rakic. (1999). Formation, elimination, and stabilization of synapses in the primate cerebral cortex. In The new cognitive neurosciences, 2nd ed., ed. M. S. Gazzaniga, 45–53. Cambridge: MIT Press. Buchel, C. and M. Sommer. (2004). What causes stuttering? Public Library of Science: Biology 2: E4–E6. Buonomano, D. V. and M. M. Merzenich. (1998). Cortical plasticity: From synapses to maps. Annual Review of Neuroscience 21: 149–186. Champagne, F. A., D. D. Francis, A. Mar, and M. J. Meaney. (2003). Variations in maternal care in the rat as a mediating influence for the effects of environment on development. Physiology and Behavior 79: 359–371. Couzin, J. (2002). Quirks of fetal environment felt decades later. Science 296: 2167–2169. Greenough, W. T., J. E. Black, and C. S. Wallace. (1987). Experience and brain development. Child Development 58: 539–559. Greenough, W. T., H. M. Hwang, and C. Gorman. (1985). Evidence for active synapse formation or altered postsynaptic metabolism in visual cortex of rats reared in complex environments. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (US) 82: 4549–4552. Hubel, D. H., T. Weisel, and S. LeVay. (1977). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 278: 377–409. Huttenlocher, P. R. and A. S. Dabholkar. (1997). Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. Journal of Comparative Neurology 387: 167–178. Knudsen, E. (1999). Early experience and critical periods. In Fundamental neuroscience, 2nd ed., ed. L. R. Squire, F. E. Bloom, S. K. McConnell, J. L. Roberts, N. C. Spitzer, and M. J. Zigmond, 556–573. San Diego: Academic Press. ———. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 1412–1425. Knudsen, E. I., J. J. Heckman, J. L. Cameron, and J. Shonkoff. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (27): 10155–10162. Kolb, B. (1995). Brain plasticity and behavior. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Levitt, P. (2000). Development of the vertebrate nervous system. In Neuroscience secrets, ed. M. Wong-Riley, 46–57. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus. ———. (2003). Structural and functional maturation of the developing primate brain. Journal of Pediatrics 143: S35–S45.

Building Brain Architecture

25

Liu, D., J. Diorio, B. Tannenbaum, C. Caldji, D. Francis, A. Freedman et al. (1997). Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal responses to stress. Science 277: 1659–1662. Munakata, Y., B. J. Casey, and A. Diamond. (2004). Developmental cognitive neuroscience: Progress and potential. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 122–128. Pollak, S. D. and D. J. Kistler. (2002). Early experience is associated with the development of categorical representations for facial expressions of emotion. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (US) 99: 9278–9283. Rosenfield, D. (2001). Do stutterers have different brains? Neurology 57: 171–172. Seckl, J. (1998). Physiologic programming of the fetus. Clinical Perinatology 25: 939–962. Stanwood, G. D. and P. Levitt. (2001). The effects of cocaine on the developing nervous system. In Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience, ed. C. A. Nelson and M. Luciana, 519–536. Cambridge: MIT Press. Steinberg, D. and M. J. Gotto. (1999). Preventing coronary artery disease by lowering cholesterol levels: Fifty years from bench to bedside. Journal of the American Medical Association 282: 2043–2050. Szpir, M. (2005). Watching the brain at work. Scientific American 293: 61–62. Tallal, P., M. M. Merzenich, S. Miller, and W. Jenkins. (1998). Language learning impairments: Integrating basic science, technology and remediation. Experimental Brain Research 123: 210–219. Weisel, T. N. and D. H. Hubel. (1965). Extent of recovery from the effects of visual deprivation in kittens. Journal of Neurophysiology 28: 1060–1072. Zetterstrom, C., A. Lundvall, and M. Kugelberg. (2005). Cataracts in children. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 31: 824–840. Zoghbi, H. (2003). Postnatal neurodevelopmental disorders: Meeting at the synapse? Science 302: 826–830.

This page intentionally left blank

2 Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, with Comments by Alvin R. Tarlov Everywhere throughout the United States serious discussions are being held in search for the political and financial means to greatly expand the capacity and quality of early childhood development and education (ECDE) programs. A principal factor propelling this movement forward is clear evidence from the sciences of brain and child development that interventions in early childhood development and education can have a substantial benevolent and lasting effect throughout the life course of children and families. Significant portions of this volume are devoted to the scientific evidence. In 1997–1998 the Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development was convened by the Board on Children, Youth, and Families, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, of the National Academy of Sciences. The committee’s purpose was to evaluate, integrate, and interpret the scientific evidence related to early childhood development. The committee’s report, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, was published in November 2000 (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). It is no exaggeration to refer to it as a “landmark.” From Neurons to Neighborhoods has effectively translated the sciences of brain and early childhood development into a coherent national agenda to initiate a transformation to a higher plane the opportunities open to children for success in learning and in life. In several areas of the committee’s report in the year 2000 (see 411–412, “The Challenge of Educating the Public”) emphasis is given to the importance of communicating to the broad public for the purposes of strengthening parenting skills for child development, reshaping the mission and quality of preschools, and adoption of public policies to improve the social and learning contexts for children. Two years later, in 2002, the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child was founded “. . . to bring sound and accurate science to bear on public decision making affecting the lives of young children.” The progenitor ideas for the National Scientific

28

Alvin R. Tarlov

Council are clearly evident in Neurons to Neighborhoods. To be sure, 8 of the National Scientific Council’s 13 members had been members of the National Research Council—Institute of Medicine Committee that produced From Neurons to Neighborhoods.1 The National Scientific Council was initially housed at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University. In July 2006 the council moved to Harvard University as an embedded part of the Center on the Developing Child, a newly established, cross-school initiative designed to pursue an integrated, interdisciplinary research, education and public engagement agenda focused on child health, learning, and behavior. Financial support for the council’s work is provided by the Buffett Early Childhood Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pierre and Pamela Omidyar Fund, the McCormick Tribune Foundation, the Johnson and Johnson Pediatric Institute, and an anonymous donor. A major mechanism by which the council brings scientific findings forward for public education and for use in public policy formulations designed to strengthen early childhood education and development is by periodic publication and dissemination of Working Papers that are available freeof-charge from the council’s website www.developingchild.net. Up to this time, four Working Papers have been completed, while others are in various stages of preparation. With the council’s consent, Working Paper 1 is reproduced in this chapter in full. Each Working Paper is organized into five sections: (1) The Issue; (2) What Science Tells Us; (3) Popular Misrepresentations of Science; (4) The Science-Policy Gap; and (5) Implications for Policy and Programs. In addition to the Working Papers, the NSCDC regularly produces other written materials in readable form for nonspecialists. These include summary reports such as “The Science of Early Childhood Development,” as well as Science Briefs and Perspectives, short articles summarizing scientific results on issues that are key to understanding the process of early childhood development. The issues include the social environment that exerts such a powerful influence on child development, the brain’s growth and maturation that is tied closely to early childhood development, and public policies and other interventions to enhance children’s education and development (more on selected Perspectives later in this chapter). All of these materials can be read, downloaded, and printed at www.developingchild.net. The central importance to favorable early childhood development of positive and rich experiences and relationships in the child’s social environment is the focus of Working Paper 1. Wholesome relationships with their parents are especially important, but also critically important are relationships with other family members, caregivers, teachers, other adults, and peer children. The wholesome relationships in a challenging environment rich in opportunities for repetitive as well as new experiences promote the brain’s development in young children. Early development of the brain becomes the foundation upon which continuing human development and progressive capability expansion can be built over the lifespan. These are the subjects of chapter 1

Child Development and Relationships

29

by Levitt in this volume, in the National Scientific Council’s Working Paper 1 that is reproduced in this chapter, and in three of the council’s Perspectives pieces that will be referred to toward the end of the chapter.

Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships National Scientific Council on the Developing Child Working Paper Number 1, 2004

The Issue Healthy development depends on the quality and reliability of a young child’s relationships with the important people in his or her life, both within and outside the family. Even the development of a child’s brain architecture depends on the establishment of these relationships.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Growth-promoting relationships are based on the child’s continuous giveand-take (“action and interaction”) with a human partner who provides what nothing else in the world can offer – experiences that are individualized to the child’s unique personality style; that build on his or her own interests, capabilities, and initiative; that shape the child’s self-awareness; and that stimulate the growth of his or her heart and mind. Young children experience their world as an environment of relationships, and these relationships affect virtually all aspects of their development – intellectual, social, emotional, physical, behavioral, and moral. The quality and stability of a child’s human relationships in the early years lay the foundation for a wide range of later developmental outcomes that really matter – self-confidence and sound mental health, motivation to learn, achievement in school and later in life, the ability to control aggressive impulses and resolve conflicts in nonviolent ways, knowing the difference between right and wrong, having the capacity to develop and sustain casual friendships and intimate relationships, and ultimately to be a successful parent oneself. Stated simply, relationships are the “active ingredients” of the environment’s influence on healthy human development. They incorporate the qualities that best promote competence and well-being – individualized responsiveness, mutual action-and-interaction, and an emotional connection to another human being, be it a parent, peer, grandparent, aunt, uncle, neighbor, teacher, coach, or any other person who has an important impact on the child’s early development. Relationships engage children in the human community in ways that help them define who they are, what they can become, and how and why they are important to other people.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 In the words of the distinguished developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner: . . . in order to develop normally, a child requires progressively more complex joint activity with one or more adults who have an irrational emotional relationship with the child. Somebody’s got to be crazy about that kid. That’s number one. First, last, and always.

30

Alvin R. Tarlov

What Science Tells Us Nurturing and stable relationships with caring adults are essential to healthy human development beginning from birth. Early, secure attachments contribute to the growth of a broad range of competencies, including a love of learning, a comfortable sense of oneself, positive social skills, multiple successful relationships at later ages, and a sophisticated understanding of emotions, commitment, morality, and other aspects of human relationships. Stated simply, establishing successful relationships with adults and other children provides a foundation of capacities that children will use for a lifetime.14, 15, 16, 17 ●

●

●

●

The initial emotional duet created by mother and baby – with their complementary interweaving of smiles, gestures, and animated vocalizations in social play – builds and strengthens brain architecture and creates a relationship in which the baby’s experiences are affirmed and new abilities are nurtured. Children who have healthy relationships with their mothers are more likely to develop insights into other people’s feelings, needs, and thoughts, which form a foundation for cooperative interactions with others and an emerging conscience. Sensitive and responsive parent-child relationships also are associated with stronger cognitive skills in young children and enhanced social competence and work skills later in school, which illustrates the connection between social/emotional development and intellectual growth. The broader quality of the home environment (including toys, activities, and interactions within the family setting) also is strongly related to early cognitive and language development, performance on IQ testing, and later achievement in school.12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Young children also learn a great deal from each other. They learn how to share, to engage in reciprocal interactions (e.g., taking turns, giving and receiving), to take the needs and desires of others into account, and to manage their own impulses. Just being around other children, however, is not enough. The development of friendships is essential, as children learn and play more competently in the rapport created with friends rather than when they are dealing with the social challenges of interacting with casual acquaintances or unfamiliar peers. 27, 28 The warmth and support of the caregiver in a child care setting also influence the development of important capabilities in children, including greater social competence, fewer behavior problems, and enhanced thinking and reasoning skills at school age. Young children benefit in these ways because of the secure relationships they develop in such settings, and also because of the ways in which the caregivers provide cognitively stimulating activities and support for developing positive relationships with other children. Unfortunately, the generally poor quality of care provided in many child care arrangements in the United States does not support these benefits because of high caregiver turnover, poorly designed programs, or inadequate preparation of staff. Current research also suggests the additional risk that a greater amount of time in out-of-home care during infancy may be associated with greater disobedience and aggression by the time children enter school.12, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 Relationships are important to school adjustment. Children who develop warm, positive relationships with their kindergarten teachers are more

Child Development and Relationships

●

●

●

●

31

excited about learning, more positive about coming to school, more selfconfident, and achieve more in the classroom. Relationships with peers also are important. Children who experience greater peer acceptance and friendship tend to feel more positively about the school experience and perform better in the classroom. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Children have different ways of interacting with their peers. Some are gregarious, others are too shy to get involved (although they want to), some need time to “warm up,” and others are not as interested in being sociable. All of these variations fall within a normal range, and it is essential to differentiate among the many potential reasons (both biological and environmental) that a young child may have limited or difficult interactions with others. Playing cooperatively, making friends, and sustaining friendships over time are not always easy. Any child with severely limited peer involvement is at considerable risk for significant adverse developmental consequences.39, 40, 41, 42, 43 Secure and stable relationships with caring adults assure that young children are adequately nourished; protected from dangerous illnesses, exposure to toxins, and hazards that can lead to preventable injuries; provided preventive health check-ups; protected from excessive stress; and afforded predictable daily routines that convey a sense of security. These influences contribute significantly to healthy brain development and depend upon the care and support provided by individuals in the community as well as in the family.12, 44 Young children are highly vulnerable emotionally to the adverse influences of parental mental health problems and family violence. One of the most extensively documented of these vulnerabilities is the negative impact of a mother’s clinical depression on her young children’s emotional development, social sensitivity, and concept of themselves, effects that have been demonstrated in both developmental research and studies of brain functioning. Young children who grow up in seriously troubled families, especially those who are vulnerable temperamentally, are prone to the development of behavioral disorders and conduct problems.45, 46, 47, 48 Animal studies have shown that the quality of the mother-infant relationship can influence gene expression in areas of the brain that regulate social and emotional function and can even lead to changes in brain structure. The nature of the relationship also can have long-term influences (into adulthood) on how the body copes with stress, both physically and emotionally.15, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

●

Science indicates that the quality of early parent-child relationships can be strengthened, but successful interventions are more difficult to achieve when relationships are significantly troubled or disturbed. Preventive interventions also can produce a variety of positive outcomes, depending on the extent to which the knowledge and skills of the staff and the quality of the implementation are matched to the magnitude of the challenges being addressed.12, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

Unfounded Assertions in the Name of Science As the public’s appetite for scientific information about the development of young children is whetted by exciting new findings, the risk of exaggerated or misleading messages grows. Within this context, it is essential that scientific fact be differentiated from popularly accepted fiction.

32

Alvin R. Tarlov ●

●

●

There is no definitive scientific evidence that the influence of relationships is more important at one stage of a child’s life compared to another. It would be more accurate to say that the impacts of relationships continue throughout the lifespan but the nature of those impacts varies by age and developmental status.4 There is no credible scientific evidence to support the claim that multiple close relationships with different caregivers (within or outside the family), especially early in a child’s life, interfere with the strength of the young child’s primary relationship with his or her parents. In contrast, science indicates that young children can benefit significantly from secure relationships with other nurturing and reliable adults whom they trust, while their attachments to their parents remain primary and central.13 There is no scientific evidence to support the belief that frequently rotating relationships with large numbers of adult caregivers provide valuable learning opportunities in the early years of life. Quite the contrary, although young children certainly can establish healthy relationships with more than one or two adults and learn much from them, prolonged separations from familiar caregivers and repeated “detaching” and “re-attaching” to people who matter are emotionally distressing and can lead to enduring problems. Although the importance of sustained, reliable relationships within the family is well understood, the need for stable and predictable relationships in child care settings is acknowledged less frequently, and the disruptive impacts of the abrupt changes related to high caregiver turnover are too often disregarded.64, 65

The Science-Policy Gap The importance of mother-child relationships is old news. The importance of other family relationships (with fathers, siblings, and grandparents) is semi-old news. The impact of these relationships on the development of the brain is new news. And the important influence of relationships outside of the family – with child care providers, peers, teachers, neighbors, and other adults and children in the community – is even newer, because these individuals are often valued more for what they do than for the meaning of their role in the life experience of very young children. Greater understanding of what science tells us about the importance of a range of relationships for early childhood development leads us to think about many areas of policy and practice in a new light. ●

●

“Quality” in early child care and education, for example, is often defined in terms of adult-child ratios, group size, physical facilities, and, more recently, cognitively oriented curriculum. But “quality” is perceived differently when we view child care as a prominent feature of the environment of relationships in which young children develop. The importance of ensuring that relationships in child care are nurturing, stimulating, and reliable leads to an emphasis on the skills and personal attributes of the caregivers, and on improving the wages and benefits that affect staff turnover.12, 66, 67, 68 Parental leave policies in the United States currently provide parents of young children with few options. A maximum of only three months of unpaid leave

Child Development and Relationships

●

33

are assured for parents of newborns, and these policies cover only about half of American workers. Of those who are eligible for leave, only those who can get by without earned income can afford to take it, and less than half the workforce even has this option without risking loss of their job. These policies seem highly problematic when viewed in relation to extensive scientific evidence of the vital importance of establishing a strong and healthy motherinfant bond beginning in the early months of life. They elicit even greater alarm when viewed in the context of concerns about the potential adverse effects on very young babies of early and extended experiences in out-of-home child care arrangements of highly variable quality.69, 70, 71 For mothers receiving welfare support under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), federal rules require that states impose work requirements of 30 or more hours per week. Although modifications are permissible, about half of the states do not exempt mothers of children less than 12 months of age, and some states permit mandated maternal employment beginning a few weeks after a baby’s birth. When viewed as an adult-oriented employment policy, TANF can be a subject for reasonable debate. But when examined from a child-oriented perspective, it reflects a wide gap between what we know about the importance of early family relationships and what we are doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation’s most vulnerable young children.72, 73

Implications for Policy and Programs The science of early childhood development is sufficiently mature to support a number of well documented, evidence-based implications for those who develop and implement policies that affect the health and well-being of young children. Five compelling messages are particularly worthy of thoughtful consideration. ●

●

●

When considered within the context of a child’s environment of relationships, the concept of school readiness is not exclusively a matter of fostering literacy and number skills but must also include the capacity to form and sustain positive relationships with teachers, children, and other adults, and develop the social and emotional skills for cooperating with others.66, 74 , 75 When viewed as an important part of a child’s environment of relationships, early childhood education must strive to involve young children in reciprocal learning interactions with teachers and peers rather than isolated “preacademic” work, and it should capitalize on children’s natural interests and intrinsic drive to learn, rather than follow an adult-determined agenda. Stated simply, young children learn best in an interactive, relational mode rather than through an education model that focuses on rote instruction.76 Extending the length and coverage of leave currently provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act would provide the critical necessities of time and economic security that are required for parents to develop the nurturing relationships with their children that are essential to healthy development. Much can be learned from other industrialized nations that promote greater parental choice and child well-being by providing subsidized parental leave for those who wish to stay at home with their babies, and affordable, decent

34

Alvin R. Tarlov

●

●

quality, early care and education for the children of those who choose or are compelled to return to work.71, 76 In the absence of consistent evidence that maternal employment intrinsically helps or hurts most children, science has little to add to the ongoing political debate about whether paid work should be a mandated requirement for mothers on public assistance. Nevertheless, emerging data that suggest that maternal employment in the first six months of an infant’s life may be associated with later developmental problems, and concerns about the potential adverse impacts of extended out-of-home child care experiences on young children’s social development and behavior, require thoughtful public discussion. Each raises serious concerns about the potential harm of mandated maternal employment and the limited availability of affordable, high quality child care, particularly for the already vulnerable babies of low income women on public assistance. It is time for society to weigh the evidence carefully and fashion a more thoughtful policy for parents in the workforce, particularly for those who earn low wages.12, 77, 78 Traditional child welfare approaches to maltreatment focus largely on physical injury, the relative risk of recurrent harm, and questions of child custody, in conjunction with a criminal justice orientation. In contrast, when viewed through a child development lens, the abuse or neglect of young children should be evaluated and treated as a matter of child health and development within the context of a family relationship crisis, which requires sophisticated expertise in both early childhood and adult mental health. The regularized referral of suspected cases of child abuse or neglect from the child welfare system to the early intervention system would assure appropriate developmental and behavioral assessment and treatment as needed. Child abuse prevention strategies that emphasize both the developmental needs of children and the importance of community-based supports for families provide another clear example of how we can close the gap between science and practice for our most vulnerable young children.12

References 1. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 2. Collins,W.A., & Laursen, B. (1999). Relationships as developmental contexts. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 30. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 3. Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships: Beyond attachment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 4. Reis, H.T., Collins, W.A. & Berscheid, E. (2000). Relationships in human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. 5. Dawson, D., & Fischer, K.W. (Eds.) (1994). Human behavior and the developing brain. New York: Guilford. 6. Panksep, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience. New York: Oxford. 7. Bornstein, Marc (Ed.) (2002). Handbook of Parenting (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 8. Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (Eds.) (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York: Guilford.

Child Development and Relationships

35

9. Cochran, M., Larner, M., Riley, D., Gunnarsson, L., & Henderson, C.R., Jr. (1990). Extending families: The social networks of parents and their children. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10. Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 11. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. 12. Shonkoff, J.P., & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 13. Thompson, R.A. (1998). Early sociopersonality development. In W. Damon (Ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.) Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3, (5th Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development. (pp. 25–104). New York: Wiley. 14. Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment: Theory and evidence. In M. Rutter & D. Hay (Eds.), Development through life. (pp. 373–402). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 15. Thompson, R.A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford. 16. Thompson, R.A. (2000). The legacy of early attachments. Child Development, 71, 145–152. 17. Waters, E., Kondo-Ikemura, K., Posada, G., & Richters, J.E. (1991). Learning to love: Mechanisms and milestones. In M. Gunnar & L. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 23. (pp. 217–255). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. 18. Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M. Rock, S.L., Ramey, C.T., et al. (1989). Home environment and cognitive development in the first three years of life: A collaborative study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Developmental Psychology, 25, 217–235. 19. Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., & Rock, S.L. (1988). Home environment and school performance: A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of environmental action. Child Development, 59, 852–867. 20. Estrada, P., Arsenio,W.F., Hess, R.D., & Holloway, S.D. (1987). Affective quality of the mother-child relationship: Longitudinal consequences for children’s schoolrelevant cognitive functioning. Developmental Psychology, 23, 210–215. 21. Gottfried, A.W., & Gottfried, A.E. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development. New York: Academic. 22. Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.I., Howes, C., Kagan, S.I.,Yazejian, P., Byler, J., Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (2000). The children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 23. Pianta, R.C., Nimetz, S.L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263–280. 24. Kochanska, G., & Thompson, R.A. (1997). The emergence and development of conscience in toddlerhood and early childhood. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values (pp. 53–77). New York: Wiley. 25. Thompson, R.A., Meyer, S., & McGinley, M. (in press). Understanding values in relationship: The development of conscience. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 26. Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 191–195.

36

Alvin R. Tarlov

27. Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J.G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th Ed., pp. 619–700). New York: Wiley. 28. Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6, 111–135. 29. Lamb, M.R. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates. In W. Damon (Ed.), & I.E. Seigel & K.A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4, Child psychology in practice. (5th Ed., pp. 73–134). New York: Wiley. 30. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71, 958–978. 31. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002). Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 133–164. 32. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten? Child Development, 74, 976–1005. 33. Pianta, R.C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 34. Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79. 35. Ladd, G.W., Birch, S.H., & Buhs, E.S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400. 36. Ladd, G.W., Kochenderfer, B.J., & Coleman, C.C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103–1118. 37. Ladd, G.W., Kochenderfer, B.J., & Coleman, C.C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68,1181–1197. 38. Pianta, R.C, & Steinberg, M. (1992).Teacher-child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. In R.C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives. New Directions for Child Development, 57, 61–80. 39. Dunn, J. (In press). Children’s friendships: The beginnings of intimacy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 40. Fox, N.A., Henderson, H.A., Rubin, K.H., Calkins, S.D., & Schmidt, L.A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of life. Child Development, 72 (1), 1–21. 41. Kagan, J., Reznick, J.S., & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology of behavioral inhibition in children. Child Development, 58, 1459–1473. 42. Rothbart, M.K., Ahadi, S.A., & Hershey, K.L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 31–39. 43. Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., Nelson, L.J., Cheah, C.S.L., & Lagace-Seguin, D.G. (1999). Peer relationships in childhood. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (4th Ed., pp. 451–501). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 44. Gunnar, M.R., Brodersen, L., Nachmias, M., Buss, K., & Rigatuso, R., (1996). Stress reactivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 29, 10–36. 45. Dawson, G., & Ashman, D.B. (2000). On the origins of a vulnerability to depression: The influence of the early social environment on the development of psychobiological systems related to risk of affective disorder. In C.A. Nelson (Ed.), The effects of early adversity on eurobehavioral development. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 31 (pp. 245–279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Child Development and Relationships

37

46. Dawson, G., Frey, K., Panagiotides, H., Yamada, E. Hessl, D., & Osterling, J. (1999). Infants of depressed mothers exhibit atypical frontal electrical brain activity during interactions with mother and with a familiar, nondepressed adult. Child Development, 70, 1058–1066. 47. Shaw, D.S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E.M., & Nagin, D.S. (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 189–200. 48. Shaw, D.S., Owens, E.B., Giovannelli, J., & Winslow, E.B. (2001). Infant and toddler pathways leading to early externalizing disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 36–43. 49. Champagne, F.A., Francis, D., Mar, A., & Meaney, M.J. (2003). Variations in maternal care in the rat as a mediating influence for the effects of environment on development. Physiology and Behavior, 79, 359–371. 50. Meaney, M.J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 1161–192. 51. Liu, D., Diorio, J., Tannenbaum, B., Caldji, C., Francis, D., Freedman, A., Sharma, S., Pearson, D., Plotsky, P.M., & Meaney, M.J. (1997). Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to stress. Science, 277, 1659–1662. 52. Leiderman, P. (1981). Human mother-infant social bonding: is there a sensitive phase? In K. Immelmann, G. Barlow, L. Petrinovich, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral development (pp. 454–468). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 53. Caldji, C., Tannenbaum, B., Sharma, S., Francis, D., Plotsky, P.M., & Meaney, M.J. (1998). Maternal care during infancy regulates the development of neural systems mediating the expression of fearfulness in the rat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95 (9), 5335–5340. 54. Coplan, J.D., Andrews, M.W., Rosenbaum, L.A., Owens, M.J., Friedman, S., Gorman, J.M., et al. (1996). Persistent elevations of cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of corticotropin-releasing factor in adult nonhuman primates exposed to early-life stressors: Implications for the pathophysiology of mood and anxiety disorders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93, 1619–1623. 55. Liu, D., Diorio, J., Day, J.C., Francis, D.D., & Meaney, M.J. (2000). Maternal care, hippocampal synaptogenesis and cognitive development in rats. Nature Neuroscience, 3(8), 799–806. 56. Sanchez, M.M., Ladd, C.O., & Plotsky, P.M. (2001). Early adverse experience as a developmental risk factor for later psychopathlogy: Evidence from rodent and primate models. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 419–449. 57. Sanchez, M.M., Hearn, E.F., Do, D., Rilling, J.K., & Herndon, J.G. (1998). Differential rearing affects corpus callosum size and cognitive function of rhesus monkeys. Brain Research, 812 (1–2), 38–49. 58. Shonkoff, J. & Meisels, S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of early childhood intervention. (2nd Ed.) New York: Cambridge University Press. 59. Brooks-Gunn, J., Berlin, L.J., & Fuligni, A.S. (2000). Early childhood intervention programs: What about the family? In J.P. Shonkoff & S.J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd Ed., pp. 549–587). New York: Cambridge University Press. 60. Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002) Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6 (1), 42057. 61. Currie, J. (2000). Early Childhood Intervention Programs: What do we know? Working Paper from the Children’s Roundtable: The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC: http://www.Brookings.org/es/children/docs/currie2000000401.htm.

38

Alvin R. Tarlov

62. Gomby, D.S., Culross, P.L., & Behrman, R.E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations – Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9, 4–26. 63. Thompson, R.A. (1995). Preventing child maltreatment through social support: A critical analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 64. Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 671–687). New York: Guilford. 65. Howes, C.H., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust. New York: Teachers College Press. 66. Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Carr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475–496. 67. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269–306. 68. NICHD Early Child CareResearch Network (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 116–125. 69. Kamerman, S., & Kahn, A. (1995). Starting Right: How America Neglects its Young children and What We Can Do About It. NY: Oxford University Press. 70. Waldfogel, J. (1999). The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18 (2), 281–302. 71. Waldfogel, J. (2001). International policies toward parental leave and child care. The Future of Children, 11(1), 99–111. 72. Duncan, G., & Chase-Lansdale, L. For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform and the Well-Being of Children and Families. New York: Russell Sage. 73. Huston, A.C. (2002). Reforms and child development. The Future of Children, 12(1), 59–77. 74. Pianta, R.C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1997). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflection in children’s school adjustment. Development and Psycholopathology, 9, 63–79. 75. Stipek, D. (2004). The Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. 76. Waldfogel, J., Higuchi, Y., & Abe, M. (1999). Family Leave Policies and Women’s Retention After Childbirth: Evidence from the United States, Britain, and Japan. Journal of Population Economics, 12, 523–545. 77. Han, W., Waldfogel, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (in press). The Effects of Early Maternal Employment on Children’s Later Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes, Journal of Marriage and the Family. 78. Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W., & Waldfogel, J. (in press). Maternal Employment and Child Cognitive Outcomes in the First Three Years of Life. Child Development.

The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has on its website reports of interviews with several scientists who have made signal contributions to knowledge related to brain and child development. Each brief communication has been condensed into about four pages crafted in common nonscientific language, and is referred to as Perspectives. They present accessible information that can become practically useful to parents, preschool and other teachers, the media, and to the public policy formulation process. Three Perspectives have been selected for mention here because they reinforce and supplement knowledge on the importance of rich experiences

Child Development and Relationships

39

and wholesome relationships as emphasized in Working Paper Number 1 reprinted in this chapter. In the 2006 interview with neurobiologist Eric Knudsen, titled Early Influences on Brain Architecture, emphasis is given to early childhood as the period of development during which the brain is most capable of making and remodeling neuronal connections and circuitry (plasticity) specifically to meet the challenges of present and future life most effectively. Knudsen explains that children are born having a wide range of genetic potential capability in each area of brain functioning. How much of that range is actually developed and available for use throughout life is dependent on the richness of opportunities and relationships experienced during early childhood. Plasticity continues into late phases of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, but at a progressively declining rate, requiring greater effort, and yielding results over a more narrow range of the original potential. A 2006 interview with developmental psychologist William Greenough, titled Rich Experiences, Physical Activity Create Healthy Brains, reports on Greenough’s experiments with animals (rats) in his laboratory. He has studied the effects on the brain of a variety of circumstances including spare compared to enriched experiences in their environments, or in circumstances that permit only modest physical exercise compared to a more robust physical regimen. Results showed that an enriched environment generated an enriched brain having more dendrites and synapses, more glial cells that support the architecture and functioning of neurons, and more capillaries that deliver blood to the brain. Further, these enriched animals exhibited more complex behaviors and were better problem solvers. When physical exercise was added to the enriched environment, the cognitive, behavioral, and brain tissue effects were further enhanced. The added effects of exercise appeared to be predominantly in promoting new capillary growth. If the enriched experiences were withheld until the animals were adolescent or later, some effects were seen but the overall effect progressively diminished with age and became very small in elderly animals. Greenough’s findings again emphasize the principle that in childhood development optimal environmental circumstances are more effective and cost-effective in promoting positive development when begun in early childhood, and decline progressively with age. A 2006 interview with neuroscientist Pat Levitt, titled How Early Events Affect Growing Brains, concentrates on the impact of negative social environmental experiences such as child abuse or neglect on the developing child in early childhood. Stress generating experiences, when repetitive, change the neurochemistry of the brain and, if continued, lead to structural changes in the brain’s architecture. Levitt emphasizes, as do Knudsen and Greenough, that it is far preferable economically and in terms of effectiveness to try to enhance social and emotional development in young children at risk than it is to try to remedy the consequences later in their lives. The full reports of these three interviews and more can be accessed and retrieved at www.developingchild.net.

40

Alvin R. Tarlov

Biological and behavioral scientists have advanced the knowledge of brain development to a point whereby practically the entire panoply of early childhood development can be correlated to a specific area of the brain’s structural, chemical, and functional development. Notably, the development of children’s brains is driven by the interaction of genes with the relationships and experiences of the child in early development. Thus, differences among children, and adults, extend toward infinity. The whole story provides strong new information for enhancing the effectiveness of preschool programs. The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child provides a continuing synthesis of new knowledge with old, helping gain a heightened appreciation of the importance of relationships and experiences, the significance of the brain’s “plasticity” over a lifetime, “sensitive periods” that are optimal intervals of the brain’s readiness to acquire a specific new capacity, and onward. What will be learned next, and beyond?

Note 1. Three chapters in this volume have been authored by individuals connected to the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child: Chapter 1, Pat Levitt, council member; chapter 9, Greg Duncan, council member; and chapter 11, Susan Bales, contributing member.

References National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004a). Children’s emotional development is built into the architecture of their brain. Working Paper Number 2. Retrieved June 8, 20005, from http://www.developingchild.net/pubs/wp.html ———. (2004b). Young children develop in an environment of relationships. Working Paper Number 1. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www.developingchild. net/pubs/wp.html ———. (2005). Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain. Working Paper Number 3. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://www. developingchild.net/pubs/wp.html ———. (2006). Early exposure to toxic substances damages brain architecture. Working Paper Number 4. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from http://www.developingchild.net/ pubs/wp.html Shonkoff, J. P. and D.A. Phillips, eds. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

3 The Coproduction of Human Development and Health Alvin R. Tarlov The concepts described by Levitt in chapter 1 and by National Scientific Council on the Developing Child in chapter 2 can be depicted thus: relationships and experiences

brain development

child development

human development

The formulation evokes optimism because it suggests that the developmental process can be deliberately guided. We should be able to shape experiences within the family and school to purposefully optimize child and human development. The formulation of experience-induced consecutive developments sketched above originated in the child development and neuroscience fields. The formulation should now be broadened to include new knowledge developed in other fields. Of high importance is recognition that the production of child development and human development are closely correlated with the production of health. Social context, especially when it generates and sustains inequalities in social advantage, exerts a powerful influence on the cogeneration of development and health. Further, social context induces adaptations in biological regulatory processes that appear to be antecedent to the more apparent changes in development and health. Research and public policy formulations will yield a broader range of interventional possibilities if multiple concepts from diverse disciplines are integrated into an inclusive unifying and coherent framework. Working toward that integration is the intent of this chapter.

A. Multiple Conceptual Frameworks Should be Integrated The production of human development and health is complex and affected by a large number of factors embedded in a viscous organizational matrix

42

Alvin R. Tarlov

of social, economic, cultural, and political systems that interact and resist change.1 A more comprehensive integrated framework is needed to capture the complexities if more realistic multidimensional programs to improve the opportunity for children to successfully develop, learn, grow, and thrive are to be developed. For example, an intervention that concentrates only on a single dimension, such as teaching parents about the importance to their children’s development of good intra-family relationships, is unlikely to yield more highly developed children. Likewise, a focus only on the classroom, the teacher, and the parents, although benevolent to the cause of child well-being, in the long run will be insufficient to fulfill the ambitions of early childhood initiatives in the United States. Multidimensional policies are needed to upgrade family functioning. Economic development and good jobs must be generated to promote family income and pride. A large contingent of highly qualified teachers must be trained and supported. Elementary and secondary schools, and colleges for the later years of education and development, must be more appropriately funded and of high quality. A bright future vision for children must evolve and become attainable throughout their development, education, and preparation for independent life. The multidimensional interventions must be coordinated, well-funded, and sustained. Aday and colleagues (2005) have provided an interesting empiric and applied example of how multiple conceptual frameworks can be integrated in pursuit of improved health, reduced health disparities, and community economic development. The authors have intersected environmental, housing, and a wide variety of other contextual factors that influence health with environmental-economic-human-community development principles within broad coalitions of business, medical practice, public health, other public agencies, and public policy initiatives in the Rural Economic and Community Health (REACH) project in West Texas. A multidisciplinary approach to early childhood developmental policy requires examination of and attention to various frameworks in an integrated model. Beginning with the neuroscience and developmental science model “relationships-brain-child-human development,” additional conceptual frameworks should be overlaid to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the production of human development and health. Such a concept is sketched in figure 3.1.

A-1. Conceptual Framework 1: The Parallel Production of Human Development and Health For any given socioeconomic group, say lower middle class, the average levels of child development and child health achieved are similar; that is, similar levels of development and health but somewhat lower than that of the middle class. For higher socioeconomic groups, both improved development and improved health are achieved compared to the socioeconomic

Human Development and Health Influences ("Determinants")

Relationships Experiences

Social Context

Circumstances of Living

43

Life Course Brain Development

Child Development

Variations in Human Development and Health

Socio-psycho-biological Translation

Biological Adjustments within the Body

Consequences

Figure 3.1 The Production of Human Development and Health Conceptual frameworks: Proposed mechanisms by which circumstances of living that are external to the body enter the body and are converted into adaptive biological processes that affect in sequence brain development, child development, human development, and health over the life course.

groups below it. Indeed, parallel levels of human development and health are observable throughout the entire hierarchical structure of a general population and at all stages of the life span. This is exemplified in children by the association of lower cognitive test scores with higher rates of school absenteeism due to illness, in adolescence by the association of lower rates of encounters with the criminal justice system with low rates of asthma, and in middle and later years by the association of higher cognitive and linguistic capacities on average with lower rates of cardiovascular and other diseases (Keating and Hertzman 1999; Power and Hertzman 1999; Mustard 2000; Case, Lubotsky, and Paxson 2002; and Case, Fertig, and Paxson 2005). Extending the linkage to the life course, van der Gaag (2000) at a World Bank Conference, “Investing in our Children’s Future,” presented his concept in text and figures of the linkages between variations in early childhood development and predictable variations in adult education, social equality, social capital, and health. The association of development and health might be coincidental. Or the association could owe to superior development providing the resourcefulness or access to education, information, and services that are instrumentally related to health improvement through either self-help or access to expert services. Or, it could be that the fundamental influences of poor or delayed development in children are the same influences that render those individuals more susceptible to almost all diseases. In any case, observational data allows a tentative assumption that development and health have common origins. For instance, initiatives that provide high quality early childhood education and development for children

44

Alvin R. Tarlov

in the years from birth to age five are likely to yield high health status both at the time of the initiative and into adulthood. Corroborating evidence from other fields, as laid out in this chapter, supports the concept of a common genesis for development and health. This area of knowledge is underdeveloped, yet has important relevance for families, child program design and assessment, medical care, education, research, public understanding, and public policy.

A-2. Conceptual Framework 2: Direct Influences (“Determinants”) Five general categories of factors directly influence population development and health. They are genomics, health behaviors, medical care, physical environment, and social context. By common custom, these factors have been labeled “determinants,” but that is a misnomer. Each of these factors interacts with all of the others. The interactions result in positive and negative feedbacks, cancellation effects, enhancements, synergies, and so forth. None of the categories of influence acts autonomously or is solely determinant. They are highly interdependent. For example, gene activity is highly dependent on environments, both physical and social. Medical care produces variable results, partly because of genetic variations in a population, differences in health behaviors (diet or tobacco smoking as examples), variations in the physical environment (particulate matter and noxious chemicals in patients having asthma), and partly because lower socioeconomic groups respond less favorably to medical care. In this chapter the term “determinants” will be avoided in favor of “influences.” The five categories of influence will be summarized. A-2a. Genomic Influences. To what extent can variations in child development and in health status be explained by genetic inheritance? In this section we will address the role of genetic inheritance in health production for which there is substantial data. In a later section of this chapter, “Conceptual Framework 3: The Gradient: Inequalities in Development and Health are Generated in Large Part by the Social Context,” the role of genetic inheritance with respect to the “gradient” will be addressed. McKusick (1998), at Johns Hopkins University, has prepared the twelfth edition of his catalogue of all genetically related disorders. The catalog includes mapping information on more than 4,000 genes of known function, and information on specific point mutations responsible for more than 700 genetic disorders or neoplasms. Most of the genetic disorders occur infrequently, but some are both high frequency and threaten health, for example, sickle cell anemia. Weatherall, at Oxford University, has analyzed data on the frequency of genetic diseases, the health burden on populations, and the clinical load on medical practitioners and hospitals for 30 years. When Weatherall began his work only single mutant gene disorders were known. Single mutant genes

Human Development and Health

45

have been found in 4.5–14.0 per 1000 population (0.4–1.4 percent of the population). Chromosomal abnormalities (0.7 percent of the population) account for another type of inherited disorder wherein an extra chromosome is inherited, such as XXY in Down’s Syndrome, or a piece of one chromosome breaks off and becomes attached to another. Common disorders such as diabetes mellitus and some other chronic conditions have been discovered to be genetically transmitted by a distinctive combination of a number of normal genes on normal chromosomes, referred to as polygenic inheritance, that predisposes to the disease when these combinations of genes interact with environmental factors. Congenital malformations that include cleft lip and congenital heart disease might affect 2 percent of the population, and some proportion do have a genetic basis (Weatherall 1991). Mitochondrial DNA inheritance, somatic mutations in cancer, and others have revealed a fuller range of possibilities for genetic inheritance. It is possible that research may attribute substantial influence on development and health to gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in the decades ahead. For the time being, it seems safer and more theoretically sound to conclude that genes and their inheritance play a larger role in the production of health and disease than originally thought. Accurate modern conceptualizations of the production of development and health must include genomic influences as a portion of the model, and as will be explored in part A-5, the interplay of genetics and socioenvironmental context may have a large influence on the biological production of health and development. A-2b. Health Behaviors. Rose and Marmot (1981), using British male data, and Lantz, House, and colleagues (Lantz 1998), using U.S. male and female data, reported that about 12–20 percent of the differences in mortality (the gradient) across their samples were attributable to differences in health behaviors. The health behaviors referred to included diet, body mass, exercise, tobacco use, alcohol intake, and untreated high blood pressure. This percentage, although less than what was thought 25 years ago, is not trivial. A-2c. Medical Care. The effectiveness of medical care in the production of human development and health has been a contentious issue. Thomas McKeown and Ivan Illich, writing throughout the 1960s and 1970s, voiced great skepticism (McKeown 1976; Illich 1976; McKeown 1979). When the British adopted the National Health Service in 1948, they fully expected that provision of universal access to medical care would surely reduce or eliminate inequalities in health. In 1980, the Black Report was published, and reported “. . . despite more than thirty years of a National Health Service expressly committed to offering equal care for all, there remains a marked class gradient in standards of health. Indeed, that gradient . . . in certain respects has been becoming more marked” (Townsend and Davidson 1982). Fogel, an economic historian, concluded that technological improvements in agriculture and in other organized productivities, not medical care, were

46

Alvin R. Tarlov

responsible for the doubling of life expectancy and the 50 percent increase in body size since 1700 (Fogel 2004). Bunker and colleagues undertook a critical review of outcomes data from clinical trials of medical and surgical interventions in diseases that account for most of the mortality in the United States (Bunker, Frazier, and Mosteller 1994). They estimated that 16 percent of the life expectancy gain in the twentieth century was due to beneficial results of medical care. Bunker reported that the percent attribution to medical care appeared to be greater than 16 percent in the decades toward the end of the twentieth century (Bunker 1995). He hypothesized that medical care might be shown to be more effective if changes in functional capacity over time is substituted for morbidity and mortality as the major indicator of medical care’s effect (Bunker 2001a, 2001b). The effect on children of lack of access to medical care is more certain. Failure to vaccinate against common infectious diseases, failure to detect hearing, vision, and development defects, and lack of attention to remediable mental health problems play a large role on a population basis in delays or failures in learning and development. Children’s vulnerability to these health problems is greater in families of low socioeconomic status. The impact of unattended to health problems on early childhood education is largely due to inability to concentrate or fully participate in school, absenteeism, delayed socialization, the potential for permanent functional losses, and so forth (Landry 2005). A-2d. Physical Environment. Limited data indicate that environmental effects can impact population health. Some studies show a modest increase in all-cause mortality in areas with greater exposure to particulate matter (Samet et al. 2000; Gamble and Lewis 1996). Data does not exist to estimate the population health effects of toxic contamination of air, water, and soil. The direct effects of radioactivity on health and mortality at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were measured, and some estimates have been made at Chernobyl and environs. Increasing use of nuclear energy in the face of increased energy demands may elevate this threat. These toxicological concerns, in addition to toxic effects of the chemicals from mining, manufacturing, and farming, represent only a portion of physical environmental impacts on health. An ecological framework2 would also posit that human health is impacted not only by toxicities, but also by the ecological changes caused by human forces such as population growth and consumption, reduced natural space, and so forth. These pressures can change environmental conditions from climate to weather to disease spread (Rapport, Costanza, and McMichael 1998). One can easily forecast that the coming threat not only to human health and development but also to the ecology of all living things will be large. At this time the effects on population health of contamination and ecological changes, although dramatic on an individual case basis, do not have a large impact on populations as a whole. The future threat, however, is vast.

Human Development and Health

47

ls

e nc na

d oo

y mil Fa

Economy

Proximal

In e q u a l i t i e s

Sch oo

lic Ser vices Pub

Neigh bo rh

Institutions

Go v

ork W

B e li e f s

s de

er

At titu

A-2e. Social Context. Social context includes all elements of social organization, that is, governing institutions, public services, politics, business, the economy, law, history, culture, faith, ideology, business practices, education, work, income, income distribution across the population, hierarchical class structures, attitudes toward race and ethnicity, social and material inequality, wide disparities in social advantage, and so forth. In brief, individuals, friendships, families, schooling, work and social order are enveloped every minute of every day in the social context. Figure 3.2 is a simplification. In it a series of progressively larger concentric spheres envelop the population (families, i.e., mothers, fathers, children). The proximal sphere refers to the immediate surroundings of the family such as other families, interpersonal relationships, schools, work, neighborhood features (such as average family income), and so on. The intermediate sphere is comprised of regional characteristics such as governance, provision of public services, public health measures, medical care access and quality, the regional economy, jobs, inequalities and the like. The distal sphere includes the overall characteristics of the society as a whole such as its history, culture, governance, laws, business practices, tax codes, redistributive policies, attitudes toward race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth.

Intermediate Distal/ Macrosocial Figure 3.2 Social Context Spatial location of social context, that is proximal, intermediate, and distal, are positional relative to individual and family operations in everyday living.

48

Alvin R. Tarlov

The sphere outlines are dashed to convey porosity and interaction among components within and among the spheres. As an example, national tax codes set in the distal sphere influence the intermediate level economy, availability of public services, the accessibility and quality of public health and medical services, and the profile of social inequalities in the region, and at the proximal level the availability and quality of work, neighborhood characteristics, socioeconomic norms, the material well-being of the family including income, assets, home-ownership, and security. The social context is a complex, pervasive, highly interactive system that confers specificity and identity on each population socioeconomic group, even at the neighborhood or block level. An interesting concept, the “fundamental cause explanation” to help explain how social context creates gradients in social disadvantage-advantage and in health, has been developed by Link and Phelan (1995). They posit that resources such as money, power, prestige, mobilizable social connections, and knowledge that are distributed unequally in society can be activated flexibly to advance health, prevent disease, secure top medical care and other advantages, and so on. The unequal availability of these resources establishes and perpetuates gradients in social advantage and gradients in health, disease, disability, and death. Their work on this causal mechanism is continuing (Phelan and Link 2005). In some ways the social context is fluid, but in others it is viscous and resistant and places a drag on change. Planning to improve child education, development, and health requires understanding the dynamics of the social context and adopting strategies to overcome the large resistances to social change not only of the classroom but also of other large forces whose relevance to child education may not be readily apparent, such as wage levels, family support services, housing, transportation, and medical and nutrition services. Multiple targets for coordinated intervention must be selected at different levels (spheres) within a well-financed and sustained strategy. Child development and health do not stand alone in their own context. Underestimating the resistance power of social context is a common reason for failure of social policy. Only crude estimates can be made of the relative force of each class of influence on population development and health. The social context is perhaps among the most powerful of the influences. Social context has been a principal focus for research on health and development during the past 25 years. Its mechanism for affecting development and health appears to be through effects in creating, sustaining, and reinforcing social inequalities and disadvantage, which will be examined next.

A-3. Conceptual Framework 3: The Gradient: Inequalities in Development and Health Are Generated in Large Part by the Social Context A-3a. Adults. The modern era of advanced research on health disparities was forwarded substantially by the Whitehall Study in the United Kingdom

Human Development and Health

49

in the 1970s. In 1978, Marmot, Rose, and colleagues reported on a 10-year longitudinal study of a cohort of 17,000 civil servants (children were not included in the study) (Marmot 1978). The civil servants were classified based on their job into four socioeconomic groups: administrators that included agency ministers and other top executives; professionals such as statisticians, epidemiologists, and analysts; clerical staff; and others that included housekeepers, groundskeepers, messengers, and the like. All of the civil servants were fully employed and had unrestricted access to insured medical care under the National Health Service. Health status and health behaviors were reported at each visit to their physician. Coronary heart disease relative risk (probability of having a heart attack), for example, varied fourfold with job classification in the Whitehall Study (Rose and Marmot 1981). The least skilled workers (Others) were at greatest risk while the top ministers and executives (Administrators) were at least risk. The fourfold gradient did not simply define the top compared to the bottom, but there was a continuing gradient of risk across the four job classes. In other words, population health varied systematically with social position. Another important finding was that health behaviors explained only a fraction of the risk in each job class (see Section A-2b, this chapter). A-3b. Children. Case and colleagues (2002)3 at Princeton University have studied health in children. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics they discovered a gradient relationship between family income and children’s and adults’ health status, reproduced in Figure 3.3. They also studied the presence or absence of 14 different medical conditions that afflict children. Higher family income was associated with progressively better health status and lower rates of disease. In poor families, the health of children worsens with age and on average those children enter adulthood with lower socioeconomic status, poorer health, and fewer years of education relative to children of higher income families. Other findings of note are that children from higher income families seem to have less severe chronic disease and less reduction in years of education associated with disease compared to poor children. Case and colleagues in a recent publication (2005) show that the incomehealth gradient seen in adult populations has antecedents in childhood. Their work demonstrates that the socioeconomic status-health relationship begins early in life (observable in zero–three-year olds), and continues to be observable and have a lasting impact over the entire life course. Later in this chapter (section A-4), this work by Case and colleagues will be discussed further. A-3c. Summarization of the Gradient. The “gradient” defines the slope of the relationship when the distribution of health status across a population is plotted against the distribution of social status in the same population.

50

Alvin R. Tarlov NHIS

NHIS Ages 9–12

2.25

Ages 13–17

Health Status (1=excellent 5=poor)

2.00 1.75

Ages 55–64

3.0

2.0

1.5

1.5 9 10 In(Family Income)

11

Ages 13–17 Ages 25–34 8

PSID 2.2

Ages 65+

2.5

Ages 4–8 Ages 0–3

8

Ages 35–44 Ages 45–54

3.5

9 10 In(Family Income)

11

PSID Ages 4–8

30

Ages 24–34 Ages 34–44

Ages 9–12 2.6

1.8

2.2 1.8

Ages 0–3 1.4

1.4 9

10

11

In(Family Income)

Ages 9–12 9

10

11

In(Family Income)

Figure 3.3 Social-Health Gradient in Children and Adults The gradient in children and adults. Population health (assessed as either excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor by parent for children, and by adult for self) varies directly with family income; that is, higher family income consistently associated with better health in all age categories. Source: A. Case, D. Lubotsky, and C. Paxson. (2002). Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1308–1334 [1311].

Work by dozens of scientists from many of the industrialized nations on several continents confirms and expands the gradient work using alternative indicators of social position, development, and health. Similar gradients were discovered using job class, income, assets, education, social class, or by other measures of inequalities. Further, the gradient was reproduced using almost all health status indicators; that is death or prevalence rates for almost all diseases; disability rates; school or work absenteeism; functional status measures; infant mortality; and so forth. What is the causal direction of the relationship between socioeconomic status and health? For decades the causality/reverse causality issue has lingered in debate, undecided. House and colleagues (2005) have studied the issue. They used data from the American’s Changing Lives Study (ACL), a nationally representative longitudinal study of 3,617 adults 25 years and older when first interviewed in 1986. They studied changes in health status (functional limitations), and death, related socioeconomic status and significant life events such as job loss, financial problems, disease, and injury. Using initial health status and income in 1986, they predicted health trajectories from income, and income trajectories from health, over the next 15 years. They concluded, “. . . although some of the association observed

Human Development and Health

51

in ACL between income and health may (and must) reflect effects of health on income, the vast bulk of the association is a product of the strong and consistent impact of income on health over follow-up periods ranging now up to 15 years” (House et al. 2005). The unequal distribution of development and health in a population is not a result of bad luck. To a major extent it is driven by the systematic unequal distribution of social advantage/disadvantage associated with hierarchical social arrangements. The social status-health gradient is a universal feature of all industrialized economies, although the steepness of the gradient varies when nations or even U.S. states are compared. Steeper gradients (e.g., in the United States) signifying greater inequalities in health are almost uniformly associated with poorer overall average health of the entire population when compared to nations with gentler gradients (e.g., Japan or Sweden). What about genetic inheritance of the other component of the gradient, social status? Most genetics scholars would agree with the carefully laid out arguments of Holtzman (2002), who concluded that the roots of social status differences do not lie in our genes. In sum, although it is probably correct that genetic inheritance does affect development and health to some extent, and that disordered development and health can influence social position to some extent, the influence of genetic inheritance on the gradient is not large and cannot come close to explaining the large inequalities in social advantage seen in all economically developed nations.4

A-4. Conceptual Framework 4: Life Course: Variations and Continuities in the Production of Development and Health In previous sections, population differences in human development and health were shown in part to be due to differences from one population to another, or among subgroups of a single population, in the human genome, health behaviors, medical care, the physical environment, and the social context. Another factor that imposes additional diversity is the life course. Mustard (2000) in Canada was among the earliest to point out the obligate interdependence over the life course among brain development, child development, learning, behavior, and health. The previously cited presentation by van der Gaag (2000) points out the parallel life-course developments of health and social capital. Figure 3.4 illustrates the life-course effects using a cascade metaphor. The graphic depicts a progression of positive developmental outcomes throughout life, assuming a successful early childhood education and development experience prior to kindergarten and high quality subsequent schooling through primary and secondary education. The headwaters at the top form with newborns when visible human dissimilarity is perhaps the least. The downstream flow traverses successive phases of child and adolescent development when variations in the social context, life experiences, and relationships produce the infinite diversity of

52

Alvin R. Tarlov Birth to Age 5

Ready for Kindergarten Successful start in school Fewer behavioral problems

Childhood

More rewarding interpersonal relationships More successful learning Less tobacco and drug use

Adolescence

Less delinquency, truancy Less juvenile justice encounters

Early Adulthood

Higher high school graduation rates Higher entrance to and completion of college

Adulthood

Higher inventory and flexibility of job skills Better jobs More durable family life

Overall

More upward social mobility Greater engagement in civic life

Better Health And Well-Being Figure 3.4 Cascading Effects of Enhanced Early Childhood Education and Development: A Life-course Perspective Assuming successful early childhood education and development and continuing quality schooling thereafter, a progression of positive developmental and health outcomes builds throughout the lifespan. Success appears to build on prior successes in a cascading (cumulative) fashion.

human beings that is a cardinal feature of the species. As diversity defines greater and greater individual characteristics, the cascade widens until it becomes the open archipelago of adulthood with the cascade’s greatest expanse of differences in human development and health. Success at each level in this flow depends on each individual’s prior experiences and successes in development, education, and life. A disturbance in one part of the flow can limit an individual’s downstream potential in another part. Differences between groups in level of preparedness for kindergarten are an instructive illustration. For example, consider two populations that as adults have lost their jobs in an economic downturn. An opportunity is presented to both groups to acquire a new set of job skills. Group A individuals entered kindergarten years ago with a foundation of past experiences and relationships that helped them become successful and confident learners. On average they progress through the challenges in subsequent education and development, and are able to acquire new skills better suited to the new economy, and are the first to be rehired. Thus, Group A on average

Human Development and Health

53

resumes earned income, contributes to the economy, pays taxes, retains family stability, resumes active life in the community, and is more likely to enjoy good health and a positive sense of well-being throughout work life and into retirement and the later years. Group B individuals, however, begin school not ready for kindergarten, and will, on average, experience lack of success as learners, become disinclined to embrace the learning environment as a mechanism to avoid failure and humiliation, adopt behavioral problems, make fewer friends, move into delinquency, and so forth down the cascade. Job retraining does not “take” in Group B, family income and assets disappear, family breakup may follow, and Group B on average may be committed to a lifetime of minimum wages, or to dependence on public funds. Generally, Group B on average compared to Group A will develop chronic disease earlier, will experience disability of a more severe degree, and will live a shorter life. Another fact of the cascade should be emphasized. Interventions to promote child development and health are more effective, and more cost effective, the earlier in the cascade they are applied (Reynolds et al. 2002; Carneiro and Heckman 2003; Reynolds, Ou, and Topitzes 2004; Knudsen et al. 2006). The most cost effective and successful interventions are in the zero–five age group, the prekindergarten phase of early childhood development that prepares children for successful entry to kindergarten, producing a return to the individual and to society of up to seven to eight dollars for each one dollar invested (Heckman 2006). Investments later in childhood and adolescence still yield a positive return but at a reduced rate. Even job retraining yields a return, but at a still lower rate. Part, but only part, of the decline in return on investment when the intervention starts later in the life course is owing to fewer remaining years of life for earnings. Life-course concepts help explain the commonality of the production of both human development and health, and help to understand a crucial component of the origins and continuity of social inequalities, development, and health. What happens to children in their early years can and will stay with them through adulthood and into old age, feeding into both their developmental and health status. On a population level, these longterm effects contribute to the creation and maintenance of inequalities and the social-health gradient. Cohen and colleagues (2004) demonstrated an effect of childhood SES when they instilled the common cold virus into the nasal passages of 334 healthy volunteers, ages 18–54. By a variety of laboratory measures they then assessed each individual’s resistance to viral infection (immune response), infection itself (viruses recovered from nasal secretions), and illness (the presence of the common cold). The results showed that low family socioeconomic status, especially during the period from in-utero to the age of two, was associated with decreased resistance to upper respiratory infections in adulthood, decades later. The higher risk was not averted by either higher family SES during adolescence or higher SES in adulthood.

54

Alvin R. Tarlov

Evidence had been uncovered previously from studies of adult cardiovascular disease and some other conditions suggesting an independent effect of early childhood circumstances on health much later in the life cycle. The experimental studies of Cohen and colleagues (2004) demonstrate more definitively that family disadvantage at specific stages of childhood but not at other stages confers vulnerability to adult disease much later in life regardless of the state of social advantage/disadvantage achieved at that later time. This point has great fundamental importance to the dynamics of health production over the life course, and to public policies to improve population health by nonmedical means. Case and colleagues (2005) recently reported their results on the interactions among being poor, health status, investments in skill development, income, and social class. Children born into poor families had: during childhood, poor health; during adolescence and adulthood, fewer investments made in their education and job skill development; and as adults poor health, lower income, and became identified as being in a lower social class. Their analyses suggest that poor health as children led initially to poor health and lower income as young adults, and also that poor health prenatally and in early childhood (independently of other factors) had a detrimental effect on health (and income, and social class identity) in middle age. The authors suggest that health may be one of the mechanisms by which intergenerational transmission of economic status occurs. Lu and Halfon (2003) at University of California Los Angeles contributed conceptual clarity in search of the elusive explanation for poorer birth outcomes of black infants compared to white infants. They hypothesize that black women accumulate health vulnerability as a consequence of unfavorable, hazardous social circumstances experienced over the life course from their birth to the time they conceive. The cumulative nature of health vulnerability, they propose, creates biological circumstances that are unfavorable to normal growth of their fetus and to term delivery. Their cumulative health vulnerability builds on the concept of “weathering” advanced by Geronimus (1996). Their life course and social context perspectives have potential for explaining racial disparities in early childhood development and health, and for formulating public policies. Perhaps maternal and child health approaches have been too narrowly construed as targeting stand-alone risk factor reductions during pregnancy. Lu and Halfon (2003) conclude, “Eliminating disparities [in birth outcomes] requires interventions and policy developments that are more longitudinally and contextually integrated than currently prevail.” When a life-course framework is incorporated into a development and health production model, a more nuanced and practically useful understanding of the coproduction of development and health, and the design of more effective and economically efficient public policies and interventions will result. Good schools for three- and four-year-olds is an example of social synergy through the life-course cascade that can yield gains in education and development, improved population health, a more skilled and flexible labor force, productivity enhancement, and improved economic development.5

Human Development and Health

55

A-5. Conceptual Framework 5: Sociobiological Translation: The Connecting Link Between Social Inequality and Variations in Human Development and Health Social inequality and disadvantage are social states whereas human development and health have major biological components. If the relationships between social disadvantage and development and disease are causal, the translation of disadvantage might be mediated at least in part by biological adjustments to social circumstances. Variations along the continuum of social advantage/disadvantage might be systematically proportional to variations in the level of biological adjustment, and thus establish a socialbiological gradient. Indeed, there is much evidence in humans as well as in apes and monkeys for adjustments in the resting state of several physiological regulatory processes according to social status (Blum 2002; Boyce 2004, 2005; Brunner 2000; Cacioppo et al. 2002; Cohen 2004; Gunnar et al. 2001; Gunnar and Vasquez 2001; Lupien 2000; McEwen 2002; Suomi 2000, 2004, 2005; Sapolsky 1993, 1995; Sapolsky, Romero, and Munck 2000; Shively 2000). These include cortisone, a major product of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activation in response to stress, fear, and other emergent contingencies; epinephrine and nor-epinephrine as products of the central nervous and adrenal medullary systems responsible for regulating blood pressure and the output of blood from the heart to all organs; immune globulins produced by the immune system that are critical in defense against infections; five-hydroxy-indole acetic acid, the major metabolite of serotonin in the brain that regulates affect, temperament, anger, aggression; fibrinogen, the key ultimate reactant in blood clotting that is crucial for repairing tissues, reacting to inflammation, and for maintaining a sensitive balance between the blood’s fluidity and its tendency to clot (in coronary artery atherosclerosis, for example); and a number of other hormones including testosterone, prolactin, oxytocin and the regulatory systems in which they operate. McEwen (2002) has postulated that the damaging effects of long-term stress are mediated through a mechanism he has termed allostatic load. Allostasis is the normal adaptive mechanism for maintaining physiological stability under circumstances that are stressful. The body’s allostatic systems include those previously mentioned, that is, autonomic nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system, the immune system, and so forth. If stressful circumstances are encountered repeatedly, or chronically, the appropriate adaptive systems and the organs they serve will suffer fatigue under the allostatic load. Ultimately, the “worn out” organs and systems become weak, and disease—such as cardiovascular disease and heart failure—ensues. Seeman and colleagues (1997, 2004) combined eight measures of increased activity of allostatic systems in adult humans and derived a rough composite physiologic measure of allostatic load. During a three-year follow-up, people who at the start had higher levels of allostatic activity

56

Alvin R. Tarlov

were more likely to develop overt cardiovascular disease, and declines in cognitive and physical functioning. The evidence is suggestive, but not yet definitive, that an elevated resting cortisol level in disadvantaged baboons (Sapolsky 1993) and human beings (Lupien 2000; Gunnar et al. 2001; Gunnar and Vasquez 2001) is causally related to poorer health outcomes in individuals of lower social rank. Allostatic physiologic processes are facts of primate physiology, and the allostatic load concept advanced by McEwen is biologically plausible. In investigations in other academic fields, Geronimus (1996) has applied the term “weathering” (wear and tear) to help explain the lower health status in African Americans compared to non-Hispanic whites; Lu and Halfon (2003) apply the weathering idea to explain the higher incidence of low birth-weight infants born to African-American mothers. Weathering and allostatic load may refer to the same pathophysiologic mechanism. Weathering may be a life-course perspective on the biological translation of life events into health variability or disease vulnerability. Continued investigation of McEwen’s hypothesis is eagerly awaited. The findings noted above seem to be regulatory adaptations in reaction to adverse or threatening circumstances related to social position. The lower the social position the greater is the adaptive response. As more studies are reported, and especially as life-course perspectives are applied, many of these adaptations appear to be initiated in childhood, or even in infancy when maternal-child attachment bonds fail for one reason or another. Moreover these adaptations appear to become permanently embedded in the biology of the individual, or at least remain stable over time. The origins in evolution of these adaptations to social context, their transmission genetically, the increasing light developing on gene-social context interaction, and the evident appearance of biobehavioral predilection to developmental and health trajectories in young children aged two and three are reshaping in fundamental ways the concepts of development and health. New research findings are remarkable for their relevance to child development, adult capability, health, and public policy. The physiological departures from normative levels in numerous reactive regulatory systems have been discovered in infants, children and adults, and in both men and women although with some quantitative differences. The adaptations occur in many if not all the major regulatory pathways, as a generalized regulatory alert in each individual. There is extraordinary similarity in physiological responses to social position in man, apes, and new world monkeys, suggesting a homologous beginning in our common ancestral past in distant evolutionary history. The evidence suggests that the physiologic reactivity is generally an up-regulatory response to social circumstances that are unwelcome to the individual. For many decades, an inference has been advanced in genetics that gene action is affected by environmental circumstances (Lewontin 2000). The inference of gene-social environment interaction can be accepted as a biological principle, as demonstrated by Suomi (2004, 2005). In his richly

Human Development and Health

57

designed lucid experiments in rhesus monkeys, Suomi showed that the inheritance of a variant of the serotonin transport gene resulted in highly inheritable, inappropriate, impulsive aggression and low levels of central nervous system serotonin in those monkeys that had experienced insecure attachment bonds to their mother. These monkeys were shown to be incompetent in reproductive behavior and usually died prematurely owing to the wrath of other members of the troop. In contrast, in experiments in which the rearing histories of newborns were manipulated so that strong and secure attachment bonds were formed with their mother, despite inheriting the same aberrant gene, both the lower serotonin levels and the impulsive aggressive behavior were averted. The Suomi experiments demonstrate that gene-environment interactions, in this case where “environment” refers to the social context within the family and troop, can substantially modify gene expression, developmental trajectories throughout the life span, behaviors, biological pathways, and health outcomes. W. T. Boyce has had a long interest in psychobiological origins of violence in both human and rhesus macaque monkey youths. In a recent (2004) study of two- to four-year-old children in childcare settings, and monkeys in a primate research center, he discovered: (1) both young children and young monkeys form dominant and subordinate social hierarchies; (2) subordinates, both children and monkeys, demonstrate exaggerated cortisol and autonomic nervous system reactivity in reaction to challenge; (3) subordinates exhibit higher rates of chronic medical conditions in children and higher rates of violent injury in monkeys; and (4) in both children and monkeys the combination of reactivity to stress, the level of stressors in their bodies, and social position (dominance or subordinate position within their group) are predictive of health status. The appearance of dominatesubordinate positional arrangements among two-, three- and four-yearold children in preschools and in young monkeys in their troupe that are predictive of health outcomes is striking both for the similarity in both primate species (monkey and man), and for its resemblance to the social position→biological reactivity→health relationship in adults. Is it possible that the trajectory of adult development and health has its origins in the social organization, development, and health of childhood? Boyce and Ellis (2005) have pushed forward the frontier of biologic reactivity to stress by incorporating into their models the social context in which the stress is experienced. This yields a sharply different concept of stress reactivity than previously thought. They title their model biological sensitivity to context (BSC). Although gene inheritance does play a role, they posit that early developmental experiences (context) interact with the genome to establish plasticity of the stress response system. Each individual calibrates his system to match the environment experienced in childhood. Early childhood exposure to either an extremely protective environment or to an extremely stressful environment results in heightened reactivity, with most children not at the extremes having adopted lower (normative) levels of stress reactivity. According to their model, the social context of an

58

Alvin R. Tarlov

experience (supportive or stressful) can mitigate or compound the potentially damaging health consequences of stress in children. Their hypothesis gains preliminary support from an empiric analysis in a companion paper (Ellis, Essex, and Boyce 2005). Their work further illustrates the importance of the early years, and contributes conceptual wealth to the application of life course and biological perspectives to understand the full dimensions of human development and health production. A hypothesized mechanism by which social context, social status, and advantage/disadvantage influence development and health can be summarized. Experiences of inequality in a social context are received by the sensory systems (visual, auditory, smell, touch) and transmitted to the mind. In this conceptualization the major routes to development and health pass through the mind, the body’s command, and control center. In the mind the information is interacted with memory and processed into emotional states, coping and adaptation responses, stress, and so forth. The state of mind is then converted to signals that modulate or activate the body’s physiological allostatic regulatory systems as discussed in the previous paragraphs. Once activated, these systems send messages chemically, or through the nervous system, to various organs (the heart, adrenal glands, lymph nodes, and so forth) where each organ activates its response. Over time, if the signaling is maintained, even if of low amplitude, allostatic fatigue sets in, or the adaptations in the organs might set the circumstances for either protection from or vulnerability to disease, or for either successful or delayed development. The results of measurements of key chemical actors in several regulatory systems that vary with social position in man and in some other animals should be accepted as confirmed and reliable facts. The research results are compatible with a mechanism by which social position is translated into variations in development and health. Still, that mechanism remains a hypothesis, not proven knowledge. It seems reasonable, nonetheless, to expect that the translation of variations of social advantage/disadvantage into systematic variations in the biology of development and of disease protection-vulnerability takes place. A causal explanation for variations in the production of population development and health is in process of being revealed, sooner than might have been expected.

B. Prospectus Much progress has been made down several long roads of discovery toward a more complete understanding of the array of factors that influence the production of human development and health. Substantial awareness has been generated regarding inequalities in American society, and how, when operationalized, the inequalities create starkly obvious divisions in the distribution of advantages and disadvantages, including sharp and substantial differences in human development and health.

Human Development and Health

59

Likewise, some progress is being made in probing public policies for their likelihood to improve education, human development, and health, strengthen human capital formation, and reduce inequalities. The British overhauled their tax code in 1997 with the stated intention of achieving a less unequal distribution of net (disposable) income. With seven tax years of information completed it is clear that the aim is being accomplished (Marmot 2004). It appears that an improvement in health is also detectable, a modest improvement but in a salubrious direction. In the United States, celebration on July 30, 2005, of the fortieth anniversary of medicare was accompanied by the remarkable statistical revelation that while the health of the U.S. population overall ranks in the lowest quartile of the nearly 30 economically developed nations of the world, the health of the U.S. senior population has risen since the 1960s to now have one of the highest average life expectancies in the world (Blumenthal and Morone 2005). Public advocacy and political engagement related to expanding high quality educational opportunities for three- and four-year-old children to help prepare them to become more successful learners in kindergarten and beyond is vibrant in most states. In the United States public policies are receiving more critical scrutiny from this movement as well. The knowledge advances, as well as the public policy attention, have been generated by research that in total has been vigorous, high quality, and often conducted with practical applications in mind. The research has generated interest among a remarkable diversity of academic disciplines, each with their own knowledge paradigms that ultimately either have to be reconciled or utilized to generate new ideas of how development and health production works. The involved fields include epidemiology, health, human development, sociology, demography, psychology, economics, statistics, medicine, physiology, neuroscience, public health, philosophy, epistemology, genetics, evolutionary biology, and others. From these paradigms, several conceptual frameworks have been formulated. Some of these frameworks include the coupling of child experiences to brain development; the major influences (“determinants”) on population health; the common path of human development and health; the interrelationship of social context, inequalities, and disadvantage; the incomplete understandings derived from genomics, yet the rich understandings that stem from social-genomic interactions; and so on. A theory for the production of human development and health will require the integration of conceptual frameworks: the factors that influence population development and health; inequalities in development and health generated by the social context; life-course manifestations of social inequalities; and sociobiological translation. These frameworks need to be operationally unified beyond their present states both in research and in public policy creation. We propose that they now be incorporated into a unified model that will be more revelatory in research and more directive for policymakers. For public policy formulations, the unified model

60

Alvin R. Tarlov

will help design comprehensive, effective programs to replace individually limited and underpowered interventions with broader gauged initiatives required for social change to sharply enhance child and youth development and education. The model could be called the production of population health and development model. Research of the last 30 years has uncovered a complexity of hundreds of interacting social, political, economic, and biologic variabilities that in totality will be shown to funnel into an integrated and coherent human development and health production system. The history of scientific discoveries suggests that today’s complexity will be revealed by further research to be startlingly beautiful in its simplicity. A cautionary word concerning an unfulfilled potential of the early childhood development research is warranted here. The focus of this chapter has been on the mechanisms by which health and child development have become unequally distributed (the gradient) across the strata of U.S. society. The social-health development gradient should not be looked upon as a contrast between the poor and the well-to-do. Rather, the gradient is continuous from the poor, lower middle, middle, and upper middle classes to the richest. Although the health deficit is greatest among the poor, the aggregate health burden is likely to be greatest in the middle classes because of the sheer size of the population in those categories. Early childhood development research, and especially ECDE advocacy, policy, and program development, has concentrated on children from poor homes and has underinvested in the underdeveloped potential of other groups. This has led to two unfortunate consequences. First, it tends to underemphasize or overlook the education and development deficits throughout the entire social gradient. Second, it tends to lead some state and federal legislators to develop statewide programs targeted only for the children of poor families rather than for all children in a universally available opportunity.6

Notes 1. Child, indeed human, development and health are influenced by hundreds of factors on multiple levels of daily living that comprise a complex web of interactions. Summarization and brevity are pursued in this chapter to favor understandability of the overall concepts. The references cited provide more detailed information. 2. Rapport et al. (1998) present a graphical representation of the interplay of ecological factors and population health that clearly illustrates the concept. This ecology-population health relationship can also be extended to child and human development. 3. The author is grateful to Peter Mieszkowski, Greg Duncan, and Katherine Magnuson for bringing the Case et al publication to my attention. 4. For readers who wish more information on social context and the gradients in development and health, several books are recommended (Bunker, Gomby, and Kehrer 1989; Evans, Barer, and Marmor 1994; Amick et al. 1995; Wilkinson 1996; Blane, Brunner, and Wilkinson 1996; Marmot and Wilkinson 1999; Adler et al. 1999; Kawachi, Kennedy, and Wilkinson 1999; Tarlov and St. Peter 2000; Berkman and Kawachi 2000; Davey Smith 2003; Marmot 2004; Wilkinson 2005).

Human Development and Health

61

5. For more detailed information on the richness of research on life course, the reader is referred to a special issue (2005) of the Journals of Gerontology (see reference list in this chapter under Zarit, Pearlin, and Hendricks). 6. Portions of this chapter, sections A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5, appear with modifications and shortening in another publication on a different topic that will also appear in 2008: Tarlov, A. R. (2008). Health production: A common framework to unify public health and medicine. In The contested boundaries of American public health, ed. J. Colgrove, G. Markowitz, and D. Rosner. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

References Aday, L. A., ed. (2005). Reinventing public health: Policies and practices for a healthy nation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons (Jossey-Bass). Adler, N. E., M. Marmot, B. S. McEwenand, and J. Stewart, eds. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations: Social, psychological, and biological pathways. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 896. Amick, B. C. III, S. Levine, A. R. Tarlov, and D. C. Walsh, eds. (1995). Society and health. New York: Oxford University Press. Berkman, L. F. and I. Kawachi, eds. (2000). Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press. Blane, D., E. Brunner, and R. Wilkinson, eds. (1996). Health and social organization: Towards a health policy for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge. Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the science of affection. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Blumenthal, D. and J. Morone. (2005). Waiting for another L. B. J. New York Times, July 30, 2005, Op-Ed page. Boyce, W. T. (2004). Social stratification, health, and violence in the very young. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1036: 47–68. Boyce, W. T. and B. J. Ellis. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionarydevelopmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology 17: 271–301. Brunner, E. (2000). Toward a new social biology. In Social epidemiology, ed. L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi, 306–331. New York: Oxford University Press. Bunker, J. P. (1995). Medicine matters after all. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians 29: 105–112. ———. (2001a). Medicine matters after all: Measuring the benefits of medical care, a healthy lifestyle, and a just social environment. Nuffield Trust Series 15. The Nuffield Trust for Research and Policy Studies in Health Services, London, England. ———. (2001b). The role of medical care in contributing to health improvements within societies. International Journal of Epidemiology 30: 1260–1263. Bunker, J. P., H. S. Frazier, and F. Mosteller. (1994). Improving health: Measuring effects of medical care. The Milbank Quarterly 72: 225–258. Bunker, J. P., D. S. Gomby, and B. H. Kehrer, eds. (1989). Pathways to health: The role of social factors. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Cacioppo, J. T., G. G. Berntson, R. Adolphs, C. S. Carter, R. J. Davidson, M. K. McClintock et al., eds. (2002). Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carneiro, P. and J. Heckman. (2003). Human capital policy. Working Paper 9495, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved April 2005 from http//www.nber.org/papers/w9495 Case, A., A. Fertig, and C. Paxson. (2005). The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. Journal of Health Economics 24: 365–389.

62

Alvin R. Tarlov

Case, A., D. Lubotsky, and C. Paxson. (2002). Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. American Economic Review 12: 1308–1334. Cohen, S., W. J. Doyle, R. B. Turner, C. M. Alper, and D. P. Skoner. (2004). Childhood socioeconomic status and host resistance to infectious illness in adulthood. Psychosomatic Medicine 66: 553–558. Davey Smith, G. ed. (2003). Health inequalities: Lifecourse approaches. Bristol, England: Policy Press. Ellis, B. J., M. J. Essex, and W. T. Boyce. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary-development theory. Development and Psychopathology 17: 303–328. Evans, R. G., M. L. Barer, and T. R. Marmor, eds. (1994). Why are some people healthy and others not? The determinants of health of populations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Fogel, R. W. (2004). The escape from hunger and premature death, 1700–2100: Europe, America, and the third world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gamble, J. F. and R. J. Lewis. (1996). Health and respirable particulate (PM10) air pollution: A causal or statistical association? Environmental Health Perspectives 104: 838–850. Geronimus, A. T. (1996). Black/white differences in the relationship of maternal age to birth weight: A population-based test of the weathering hypothesis. Social Science and Medicine 42: 589–597. Gunnar, M. R. and D. M. Vasquez. (2001). Low cortisol and a flattening of expected daytime rhythm: Potential indices of risk in human development. Development and Psychopathology 13: 515–538. Gunnar, M. R., S. J. Morison, K. Chisholm, and M. Schuder. (2001). Salivary cortisol levels in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Development and Psychopathology 13: 611–628. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312 (June 30): 1900–1902. Holtzman, N. A. (2002). Genetics and social class. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56: 529–535. House, J. S., P. M. Lantz, and P. Herd. (2005). Continuity and change in the social stratification of aging and health over the lifecourse: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal study from 1986 to 2001/2002 (Americans’ Changing Lives Study). Journals of Gerontology, Social Sciences, Series B 60B (Special Issue II, October): 15–26. Illich, I. (1976). Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. New York: Pantheon Books. Kawachi, I., B. P. Kennedy, and R. G. Wilkinson, eds. (1999). The society and population health reader: Volume I, income inequality and health. New York: New Press. Keating, D. P. and C. Hertzman, eds. (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations. New York: Guilford Press. Knudsen, E. I., J. J. Heckman, J. L. Cameron, and J. Shonkoff. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (27): 10155–10162. Landry, S. H. (2005). Effective early childhood programs: Turning knowledge into action. Houston: University of Texas-Houston and Rice University, 21–30. Retrieved from http://www.uth.tmc.edu/circle/publications.htm and www.tecec.org Lantz, P. M., J. S. House, J. M. Lepkowski, D. R. Williams, R. P. Mero, and J. Chen. (1998). Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally-representative prospective study of U.S. adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 1703–1708. Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple Helix. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Human Development and Health

63

Link, B. G. and J. C. Phelan. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Extra Issue): 80–94. Lu, M. C. and N. Halfon. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes: A life-course perspective. Maternal and Child Health Journal 7: 13–30. Lupien, S. J., S. King, M. J. Meaney, and B. S. McEwen. (2000). Child’s stress hormone levels correlate with mother’s socioeconomic status and depressive state. Biological Psychiatry 48: 976–980. Marmot, M. (2004). The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company. Marmot, M. and R. G. Wilkinson, eds. (1999). Social determinants of health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marmot, M., M. Rose, M. Shipley, and P. J. S. Hamilton. (1978). Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32: 244–249. McEwen, B. S. (2002). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. In Foundations in social neuroscience, ed. J. T. Cacioppo, G. G. Berntson, R. Adolphs, C. S. Carter, R. J. Davidson, M. K. McClintock et al., 1127–1140. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McKeown, T. (1976). The modern rise of population. London: Edward Arnold Publishing. ———. (1979). The role of medicine: Dream, mirage, or nemesis? 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. McKusick, V. A. (1998). Mendelian inheritance in man. A catalog of human genes and genetic disorders, 12th ed. 2 vols. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mustard, J. F. (2000). Early child development and the brain: The base for health, learning and behavior throughout life. Paper presented at the World Bank Conference, “Investing in Our Children’s Future,” April 10–11. Washington, DC. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004a). Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships. Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://www.developingchild.net/reports.shtml Phelan, J. C. and B. G. Link. (2005). Controlling disease and creating disparities: A fundamental cause perspective. Journals of Gerontology, Social Sciences, Series B 60B (Special Issue II, October): 27–33. Power, C. and C. Hertzman. (1999). Health, well-being, and coping skills. In Developmental health and the wealth of nations, ed. D. P. Keating and C. Hertzman, 41–54. New York: Guilford Press. Rapport, D. J., R. Costanza, and A. J. McMichael. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13 (10): 397–402. Reynolds, A., S. Ou, and J. Topitzes. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development 75: 1299–1328. Reynolds, A., J. A. Temple, D. L. Robertson, and E. A. Mann. (2002). Age 21 costbenefit analysis of the title I Chicago child-parent centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24: 267–303. Rose, G. and M. G. Marmot. (1981). Social class and coronary heart disease. British Heart Journal 45: 13–19. Samet, J. M., F. Dominici, F. C. Curriero, I. Coursac, and S. L. Zeger. (2000). Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987–1994. The New England Journal of Medicine 343 (24): 1742–1749. Sapolsky, R. M. (1993). Endocrinology alfresco: Psychoendocrine studies of wild baboons. Recent Progress in Hormone Research 48: 437–468. ———. (1995). Social subordinance as a marker of hypercortisolism: Some unexpected subtleties. In Stress: Basic mechanisms and clinical implications. Annals of

64

Alvin R. Tarlov

the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 771, ed. G. P. Chrousas, R. McCarty, K. Pace, G. Cizza, E. Sternberg, P. W. Gold et al. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Sapolsky, R. M., M. Romero, and Munck. (2000). How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory and preparative actions. Endocrine Reviews 21: 55–89. Seeman, T. E., B. H. Singer, J. W. Rowe, R. I. Horwitz, and B. S. McEwen. (1997). Price of adaptation—allostatic load and its health consequences: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Archives of Internal Medicine 157: 2259–2268. Seeman. T. E., E. Crimmins, M. H. Huang, B. Singer, A. Bucur, T. Gruenewald et al. (2004). Cumulative biological risk and socio-economic differences in mortality: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Social Science & Medicine 58: 1985–1997. Shively, C. A. (2000). Social status, stress and health in female monkeys. In The society and population health reader: Volume II. A state and community perspective, ed. A. R. Tarlov and R. F. St. Peter, 278–289. New York: New Press. Suomi, S. J. (2000). Early development in monkeys. In The society and population health reader, Volume II. A state and community perspective, ed. A. R. Tarlov and R. E. St. Peter, 131–142. New York: New Press. ———. (2004). How gene-environment interactions shape biobehavioral development: Lessons from studies with rhesus monkeys. Research in Human Development 1: 205–222. ———. (2005). How gene-environment interactions shape the development of impulsive aggression in rhesus monkeys. In Developmental Psychobiology of Aggression, ed. D. M. Stoff and E. J. Susman, 252–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarlov, A. R. and R. F. St. Peter, eds. (2000). The society and population health reader: Volume II. A state and community perspective. New York: New Press. Townsend, P. and N. Davidson, eds. (1982). Inequalities in health: The Black Report (15). Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. van der Gaag, J. (2000). From child development to human development. Presentation to the World Bank Conference Investing in our Children’s Future, April 10–11. Washington, DC. Weatherall, D. J. (1991). The new genetics and clinical practice, third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R. G. (1996). Unhealthy societies: The afflictions of inequality. London: Routledge. ———. (2005). The impact of inequality: How to make sick societies healthier. New York: New Press. Zarit, S. H., L. I. Pearlin, and Hendricks, eds. (2005). Health inequalities across the life course. Journals of Gerontology, Social Sciences, Series B 60B (Special Issue II, October): 1–140.

II

Early Childhood Intervention Programs 4

5

6

7

Effective Early Childhood Programs: Turning Knowledge Into Action Susan Landry

67

Learning from Others: State Efforts to Expand Services and Build Systems of Early Care and Education Kristie Kauerz

85

North Carolina’s Early Childhood Initiative: The Smart Start Story and Its Evaluation Donna Bryant The Texas Plan Kay M. Albrecht, Kaitlin G. Guthrow, and Alvin R. Tarlov

113 131

This page intentionally left blank

4 Effective Early Childhood Programs: Turning Knowledge Into Action Susan Landry Reprinted here are 2 chapters of a 10-chapter 104-page booklet published in 2005 by Susan Landry titled Effective Early Childhood Programs: Turning Knowledge into Action. Dr. Landry is Professor of Pediatrics and Chief of the Division of Developmental Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The booklet is based on a review and synthesis of 320 scientific publications and on Dr. Landry’s extensive research and personal experiences in early childhood classrooms and research settings as observer, teacher, early childhood developmentalist, and program evaluator. The booklet is intended to be a simply stated, nontechnical, practical guide for preschool teaching based on practices that have been shown by research to be effective. The entire Landry booklet can be downloaded free of charge in color from Dr. Landry’s website http://www.uth.tmc.edu/ circle/ or from the website of the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition, http://www.tecec.org. The sciences of brain development, child development, health production, and learning converge in the curricula for three- and four-year-old children in preschools. This chapter is the only location in this book where some of the specifics of teaching and learning are presented. The two Landry chapters have been selected for inclusion here because they illustrate the extent to which scientific knowledge has been translated for practical applicability in classrooms. Inferences can be drawn from these chapters regarding the skills that must be acquired by future preschool teachers. To some extent those inferences can inform the reader about issues related to accreditation of teacher training programs, adoption of uniform standards that define the optimal formal education and continuing training and professional development of ECED teachers, their salary and benefit structures, licensing, and setting standards for child outcomes in each of the child development domains. Landry Chapters IV, V, and VI focus on the specific instructional programs for preschools. Only chapters IV and V are reprinted here because of space limitations. The following diagram attempts to summarize the essences and interrelatedness of all three chapters.

68

Susan Landry PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTION Chapter IV INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENTAL DOMAINS Physical Development Social and Emotional Development Cognitive Development

Chapter VI CONTENT ● ● ● ● ● ●

language building literacy building math building social/emotional development physical development general knowledge

Chapter V INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES ● ● ● ●

read aloud teacher directed child directed flexible groupings 1-on-1 small group large group

Chapter IV Developmental Domains: Intertwined and Linked in Children’s Growth Rather than consider cognition and emotion as distinct domains . . . it is that cognition and emotion are part of the whole.104 For some time, supporters of early childhood interventions have debated about the appropriate level of focus on academics at the preschool level. Contention surrounding this issue centers around the amount of emphasis that should be placed on cognitive issues relative to negotiating the hurdles of early social and emotional development. Those in each camp worry that an overemphasis on one area will compromise development in the others. For example, opponents of academics in preschool fear that rigorous academic exposure may hurry or stress a child at the expense of emotional health or social development. Proponents of academics in preschool worry that an overemphasis on socioemotional development will leave children unprepared for school. However, research indicates that children’s primary developmental domains—physical, social/emotional, and cognitive—have such complex interrelations that developmentally appropriate practices should no longer take an “either/or” focus. On the contrary, developmentally appropriate practices give adequate attention to all the primary areas of early development, adjusting emphasis to fit a child’s developmental status.105 Increasingly, experts in human development and education have come to recognize that physical, social/emotional, and cognitive elements of early

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

69

childhood are inextricably interrelated facets of development.106 These facets often are referred to as “developmental domains,” and cumulatively constitute the construct of school readiness. That is, school readiness requires solid development in not only the cognitive domain but in all the major developmental domains. In fact, socioemotional development and academic learning have a far more complex, interrelated relation than was previously understood. School readiness is a product of all the environments in which children learn and grow—families, early child care settings, schools, neighborhoods, and communities. The belief that social skills benefit from cognitive development is strongly supported by growing evidence of pervasive cognitive influences on social skills and the power of interplay between cognitive stimulation and social engagement to produce compelling transformations. Interdependent, multidirectional relations exist among the developmental domains—physical, socioemotional, and cognitive. These synergistic relations imply not only that mastery in one domain enhances development in the others but also that problems in one area can delay or indefinitely postpone development in other areas. An example from the area of early motor developments includes infants’ first success at crawling and walking. Once acquired, a new ability to move at will greatly increases the kinds of experiences infants can have, which then affects their cognitive development, their sense of themselves as active and mobile agents, and their perspective on the world around them.107 In another example, a complex cycle of developmental interactions emerges as children’s ability to use language influences their ability to establish social relationships, which, in turn, leads to differences in social skills that support or impede further language development. Understanding the implications of the meaningful links among developmental domains is essential for high-quality early learning and development.

Physical/Motor Development Learning is inextricably tied up in action—even simply performing motor skills actually alters brain function.108 Esther Thelen, a well-known professor of psychology and cognitive science, calls the developmental relationships “an inextricable causal web of perception, action, and cognition” in which “knowing develops from doing.”109 Her implication is that the ability to “do,” and thus to learn, relates directly to mobility and motor skills. In fact, the motor developmental domain influences many aspects of children’s success in cognitive, perceptual, and social development that casual observers might not consider. As early as 1950, Piaget’s theory of intelligence proposed that representational thought develops from overt activities with objects during infancy.110, 111 Since then, numerous infant studies show that execution of specific motor skills provides a critical foundation for corresponding perceptual abilities. Relatedly, studies of children with cerebral palsy indicate

70

Susan Landry

that restrictions in movement are associated with lower IQ and general mental development,112 implying a more fundamental role of sensory feedback in perceptual development and adaptation than might seem intuitively obvious. As a more specific example, when infants first develop mobility, usually by creeping or crawling forward, they begin to code location by using stationary landmarks rather than themselves as a reference point.113 That is, this perceptual-cognitive ability to recognize the self as having the potential to change locations and large, inanimate objects as more reliable sources of information about where self and other objects are positioned in space seems to develop, at least in part, in response to the development of self-generated locomotion. This chain of developmental progress that begins with mobility, however, may influence aspects of development beyond this perceptual- cognitive shift in perspective taking. Children born with spina bifida with associated hydrocephalus show extreme delays in self-generated mobility and, among other learning differences, also tend to have more difficulty with reading comprehension despite relative intact abilities in vocabulary, listening comprehension, and functional literacy.114 One skill that appears to help typical to strong readers is the ability to maintain the perspective, including the visual perspective, of the protagonist in literature.115, 116 While current research cannot yet define the precise nature of these interrelations, it is certainly likely that delays in independent mobility provide a compromised foundation for a perceptual cognitive ability (mature perspective-taking for spatial orientation) that later plays a role in a complex verbal ability to comprehend literature. This and other evidence indicates that the execution of motor skills actually alters brain development.117 Such findings support the idea that physical activity not only enhances the development and practice of gross motor skills but also the development of subtly associated cognitive functions. Activities to develop physical skill and refine motor development can be included in early childhood education and development environments through games and group play. Rhythmic, stability, locomotor, and manipulative skills are important and can be addressed in a number of ways. Most importantly, though, these activities should make a meaningful link with social, emotional, and cognitive development. Physical activity not only promotes cognition but also can enhance a child’s social skills and self-esteem through group participation.

Social/Emotional Development What, how, and how much children learn in school will depend in large part on the social and emotional competence they developed as preschoolers.118 Several of the factors identified in a recent paper by Huffman, Mehlinger, and Kerivan as causal risk factors for early school problems can be described as factors that reveal compromised relationship skills: difficulties establishing

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

71

and maintaining relationships with important early caregivers and peers.119 The timely development of emotional security and age-appropriate social skills are certainly helpful in supporting children’s relationship skills and thus also greatly facilitate children’s ability to participate more fully and successfully in learning experiences. These early, preacademic successes also lay groundwork for more positive attitudes toward the school experience that continue influencing children’s social and academic behavior as they progress to higher levels of education. In its careful review of neuroscience and developmental science, Neurons to Neighborhoods calls attention to just the kind of important role children’s earliest experiences and relationships play in developing their later propensities in feeling and impulse management as well as in their social interpretation and responses. The abilities to regulate the self and relate to others in turn influence a child’s ability to fully benefit from educational experiences.120 There are specific kinds of early academic experiences for which children with inadequate socioemotional development are particularly at risk. Children who “act out” antisocially also participate less in classroom activities, receive less instruction and less positive feedback from teachers, do more poorly on academic tasks, and are at greater risk for delinquency and dropping out.121 These kinds of studies may elucidate the reasons why, even over and above factors such as cognitive skills and family background, children’s display of socially disruptive behavior predicts academic adjustment in first grade.121 These findings highlight the importance of establishing early childhood programs that support all aspects of children’s development. Since coping skills enable children to overcome challenging tasks in any domain, they represent an important step in social and emotional development. In fact, 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that at least half of their students have difficulty coping with the transition to school.122 Preschool and child care teachers also identified, in a study by Arnold, McWilliams and Arnold, disruptive behavior as the single greatest challenge in their work and, further, that they perceive an increasing number of children to be disruptive and aggressive in their classes each year.123 These and similar issues can be ameliorated or corrected with appropriate attention to social and emotional development in the preschool years. Additional ideas for attending helpfully to early social and emotional development come from the literature on the kinds of early skills that appear to make disruptive behavior less likely. In order to support optimal social/ emotional development, early childhood teachers must know what social and emotional skills preschool children should be developing at this stage. As summarized in “Ready to Enter,”121 children who have a more optimal transition into the school environment tend to be able to identify the true emotions of themselves and others, have prosocial skills that support more positive interactions, manage negative emotions that inevitably arise from daily challenges of the preschool environment, enjoy learning, and work effectively on their own within the structure of the classroom.124 The skills

72

Susan Landry

identified here often are interrelated. For instance, while children need to be competent at recognizing and tolerating the full range of emotions, they also will increase their positive interactions—and thus their opportunities for further development of prosocial skills—if they particularly share positive emotions with their peers.125 In addition, children who accurately recognize distress in others and then react prosocially rather than antisocially to that distress are more likely to have social success.126, 127 Some of these skills can be directly taught, and all are best supported by sensitive teaching and child care practices that also encourage supported involvement of the child in resolving his or her own difficulties. It is important to remember that as children’s social skills increase, their opportunities to build language and cognitive skills through interactions with others are greatly enhanced. Supporting these kinds of social skills is a process that benefits from other developmental domains and components that deserve emphasis in high quality early childhood classrooms. For example, children’s language competence tends to influence their ability to identify emotions, and close, responsive teaching is easier when student–teacher ratios are kept to manageable levels. Reading is another activity carried out in quality early childhood settings that easily can turn into a social learning situation when parents and teachers take the time to ask about the emotions and social situations of the characters. These kinds of interrelations between competence in one area of early childhood development and another support the central premise of this chapter. That is, when early classrooms include appropriate attention to the full range of skills important to this period of development, the individual skill areas are actually enhanced, not diminished, by the presence of instructional time in the other areas.

Cognitive Development If preschools are to help all children achieve their promise . . . then teachers must believe in all children as learners.128 The authors of Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers assert that young children are better able to learn than has been acknowledged in current practice and that good educational experiences in the preschool years include integrating more “academic” topics from letters to counting.129 Neglecting the cognitive domain can result in academically underprepared children who fall behind early in school and cannot catch up. When unprepared children repeatedly fail at early academic tasks, they tend to lose motivation and persistence, and eventually the “unwilling” or “delayed” child is left behind by the system. Positive early learning experiences, however, contribute to lifelong learning characteristics such as curiosity, persistence, and independence, which improve a child’s ability to succeed in school and have positive implications for broader measures of life adjustment and success. Even very young children are able and motivated to learn cognitive, language, and literacy concepts appropriate to their level of understanding. Early classrooms best capitalize on this eagerness to learn

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

73

via a combination of child-directed discovery and direct instruction from teachers about basic preacademic concepts in vocabulary, language, and numeracy.130 In order to fill this need, early childhood educators should choose intellectually challenging content that connects with young children’s abilities and interests. This does not entail “dumbing down” K—12 standards and curricula.131 Rather, research-based resources provide a wealth of information on which concepts and skills have the greatest impact on later learning and will create the most enjoyment for preschoolers.132 In addition, there are specific cognitive concepts children particularly benefit from mastering at these early ages. The broad areas that quality cognitive curriculum should include to provide age-appropriate instruction include areas of oral language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, and basic mathematical skill preparation. Each domain involves concepts that are well within the learning abilities of the preschool child and which can easily be made exciting and interesting to this age group. Within the oral language domain, preschoolers need to build vocabularies that inform them about the world, use language to construct relationships and categories, and solve problems. In fact, research has revealed positive correlations between differences in oral language skills and later differences in reading.133, 134 However, the nature of this relation differs depending on the age of the child. Specifically, for early readers and prereaders the relation is indirect and unidirectional where there is a more specific, significant relation between vocabulary and phonological sensitivity (a component of phonological awareness), which in turn strongly predicts early decoding skills.135, 136, 137 For older children, the relationship between reading and language is more direct and bidirectional. That is, children with strong language or semantic skills are better able to comprehend what they are reading,138, 139, 140, 141 and those who read well more often develop larger vocabularies and conceptual and factual knowledge bases.142 Preschool competence in phonological awareness—the ability to use the sounds in words to process spoken language—involves developing a sensitivity to, ability to manipulate parts of, and ability to use sounds in words. The components of phonological awareness are phonological sensitivity (e.g., identifying rhymes or distinct syllables at young ages), phonological memory (e.g., immediate recall of verbally presented information), and phonological access (e.g., remembering which sound is associated with a letter or word). Research suggests that phonological awareness develops stability during the late-preschool period143, 144 and constitutes a powerful predictor for early reading and spelling.136, 137, 144 Adequate early print knowledge requires a demonstration of the knowledge of the units of print (letters, words), ability to translate print to sound and sound to print (i.e., associate the letter with the sound), and basic comprehension of book and print concepts. Even simple knowledge of the alphabet at school entry is a remarkably strong predictor of eventual reading achievement,145 though part of the power of recognizing letters may

74

Susan Landry

come from the role this skill appears to play in supporting growth in phonological sensitivity.143 146 Interventions that teach children both phonological sensitivity and letter knowledge appear to have more powerful effects on reading outcomes than those that target letter names alone.147, 148 Young children will be better prepared for beginning math concepts in school if they leave preschool with an understanding that numbers can show how many, describe order, and be used for measurement. The earliest geometry concepts involve simply recognizing shapes and knowing how to begin talking about how to represent objects, directions, and locations in the world and the relations among them. Preschool levels of data analysis include an ability to understand how to classify, represent, and use information to ask and answer questions. Finally, the earliest foundation for algebra can be found in preschoolers understanding that patterns help us recognize relationships and can be extended to make generalizations. Research already exists documenting that preschoolers can and generally do understand a great deal about these early mathematical principles. For example, studies suggest that children begin to integrate counting knowledge with an understanding of arithmetic and even “invent,” strategies to operate on objects by four years of age.149, 150 Researchers also are beginning to understand something about the individual differences among preschoolers regarding who does and who does not master these early mathematical concepts. For example, middle-income children outperform low-income children on verbal math-related problems but not on similar nonverbal problems,151 and all children perform better on nonverbal mathematically relevant problems until about 6 years of age.152 However, as investigations about early process in acquisition of mathematical skills are more recent, little has been examined as yet regarding the role these early skills play in predicting competence in later, more complex mathematical abilities. Early care settings must address the interdependency of physical, socioemotional, and cognitive domains in order to provide high-quality, developmentally appropriate care. Parents and educators should be aware of and use the interrelationship of the domains to organize children’s learning experiences in ways that help children develop optimally in all areas and that make meaningful connections across domains. In essence, because the domains are so interconnected, it is not whether a particular domain, such as cognitive skills, should be introduced to a child, but how, when, and in what context.153 The most effective and appropriate approaches to early learning and development will engage children in all three domains in a way that is both meaningful and enjoyable for preschool-age children.

Chapter V Elements of a Preschool Education: Practices for Engaging Children in the Developmental Domains and Assuring School Readiness Key concepts involved in each domain of preschool learning must go hand in hand with information and skill acquisition.154

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

75

A key to developing effective practices for promoting school readiness is the integration in the classroom of five key elements, each known to be important to young children’s learning and development. While each adds to a teacher’s ability to build a strong foundation for children’s learning, their influence when combined into an integrated and comprehensive whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The five elements that are key to effective preschool programs are: 1. Consistent use of a Responsive Interaction Style to support learning, 2. Content that builds cognitive and social skills known to predict school readiness, 3. Planning that takes advantage of recent brain research for the development of memories, 4. A balance of teaching strategies, and 5. Flexible groupings of children for learning activities including one-to-one, small groups and large groups.

Responsive Interaction Style The sociocultural theory provides an excellent framework to guide teachers in their efforts to support young children’s learning.155 A hallmark of this theory is the importance it places on the child’s ability to learn at higher levels with specialized support, referred to as scaffolding, from more competent others (e.g., parents, teachers) than occurs when children attempt to learn on their own. When the responsive interactions occur, young children’s social and cognitive skills are placed on more positive trajectories.156 A considerable number of studies have examined teacher behavior and their interactions and relationships with children.157 The resulting literature supports the teacher’s anecdotal assertion: The way in which teachers interact with young children affects the children’s social and emotional outcomes either negatively or positively depending on the quality of the interactions. In light of this, the National Center for Children in Poverty, along with numerous other institutions, recommends a policy of quality early childhood care and learning experiences marked by classrooms with warm teachers and a predictable, stimulating atmosphere.158 Responsive interpersonal relationships with teachers nurture young children’s dispositions to learn and their emerging abilities. Good teachers acknowledge and encourage children’s efforts, model and demonstrate behaviors, create challenges and support children in extending their capabilities, and provide specific directions or instructions. Children are eager and excited to learn, and encouraging this excitement generates positive results in learning new vocabulary, letter names and sounds, and number and science concepts. In fact, close teacher-child relationships in child care are related to greater phonemic awareness and better language, communication, and math skills, as well as more positive attitudes and perceptions, better social and thinking skills, and fewer problem behaviors.159, 160

76

Susan Landry

Responsive and appropriate interactions that scaffold children’s learning require: • • • • • •

Sensitivity to a child’s level of understanding, Responses contingent on a child’s signals, An ability to maintain and build on a child’s focus, Rich oral language input, Avoiding excessive restrictions on behavior, and Providing choices and adapting to a child’s changing needs.161

By vigilantly observing and evaluating children’s needs and happiness in their environment and by providing responsible and responsive care, a teacher establishes a warm and caring environment that helps the child feel comfortable and facilitates the learning process. An effective teacher needs to show respect for each child’s individuality.162

Responsive Interactions: Warm, Sensitive, and Contingent on Children’s Signals Early childhood educators set the tone for every interaction that occurs within their classrooms; it follows, then, that cultivating a warm, caring atmosphere will allow children to explore and discover their world without fear of punishment or ridicule. In creating this environment and bolstering children’s self-esteem, a teacher makes huge strides in helping a child to achieve school readiness. Teachers can cultivate responsivity and warmth in their interactions with children when they: • Listen and respond with warmth and sensitivity to children’s feelings, ideas, and opinions; • Use positive language that builds children’s self-esteem; • Show respect for each child’s individuality; • Help children learn self-control by supporting emerging emotional coping skills; • Offer varied opportunities for children to make choices and decisions; • Give oral directions after using an established signal to gain children’s attention, making sure children understand what is being required of them; • Encourage children to manage their behavior by setting up a supportive environment (room arrangement, management charts, etc.); • Establish classroom rules that are clear, simple, and developmentally appropriate; • Use creative problem solving in all parts of the curriculum; and • Use the problems that naturally occur throughout the day to model a constructive problem solving approach.163

A responsive style needs to be combined with an effective plan for teaching the content critical to school readiness.164

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

77

Responsive Style + Content Plan A working knowledge of the major cognitive and social areas of development, which was discussed in Chapter IV, should serve as a guide for the planning of preschool curricula. The remainder of this chapter will provide more details about the type of instruction comprising the content plan, and Chapter VI will provide greater detail on what is included as content. A content plan needs to take advantage of opportunities to build multiple areas of learning (i.e., math, social, language) within a single lesson, activity, or experience. For example, in an effective “read aloud,” the teacher builds vocabulary and background knowledge as she highlights characters or key concepts in the book. Her questioning promotes language expression as the children attempt to describe their thoughts about the book. The “give and take” among the children and their ability to cooperate as she requests that they wait their turn and listen to each other’s responses supports their development of social competence. As the book may be about early math, science, history, or literacy (i.e., alphabet book), the read aloud activity builds learning in any one of these important areas. Of course, the children’s ability to learn from this multidimensional activity is dependent on the teacher’s use of the key components of a responsive style as previously described in this chapter. In this example, the children’s learning can be advanced to a greater extent within this teacher-guided book reading activity than it can in an independent activity, such as a child looking at a book on his or her own. This only occurs, however, if the teacher’s reactions are contingently responsive to the child’s signals, incorporate rich and appropriately paced language input, are used in ways that build on the child’s focus of attention, and are warm and supportive. Thus, when the content areas known to predict school readiness are presented in this responsive style, children make large strides, and the level of achievement necessary for school readiness can occur.

Responsive Style + Content + Planning That Effectively Builds New Memories Before outlining general ways to build language, literacy, math, and social skills, the teacher can better assure that children learn—build knowledge that sustains—through effective planning and implementation of activities that provide new information. Time Windows, a theory that describes how memories develop,165 can guide planning in the early childhood classroom. This theory suggests that children learn a new concept (e.g., the name and characteristics of a novel animal) if they have repeated experiences with the concept that occur in close proximity in time. One might imagine a child hearing for the first time about a rabbit. This might occur during a science or a read aloud activity. In the first exposure,

78

Susan Landry

the child hears and sees that this long-eared soft animal is called a rabbit. Touching the rabbit helps the child remember rabbits are soft. Time Windows suggests that this new vocabulary word and its connection to an animal with long ears, a fluffy tail, and soft fur will be more likely to “stick,” or be processed and integrated, in the child’s mind if the child has multiple related exposures or experiences with rabbits that occur close in time to the first exposure. This approach allows a memory to develop and become solidified. Without repeated exposures that occur close in time, the emerging memory fades. As early childhood teachers plan the activities across a day, week, and month, attention to this theory should support more effective teaching. The use of rich themes (i.e., underwater sea life, things that fly, gardens, or construction) makes it easier to build repeated related experiences for children. For example, when a child learns about a garden across many days and related but varied activities, they begin to make connections between the tools needed to plant in a garden, the flowers and vegetables that go in gardens, gardening clothes (gloves, hats, boots), and the purpose of soil, nutrients, sun, and water. It’s easy to see from this example how much fun a teacher can make learning about gardens. With thoughtful intentional planning, new vocabulary skills are promoted. As children think about the beginning letters and sounds in the new words, they are exposed to literacy, and math occurs as they count out the seeds they will plant. Of course, social/emotional skills are supported as they share their garden tools with their classmates, take turns digging or describing plants, laugh together as they make up silly alliterations or sing rhyming songs (e.g., Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?). This approach assures effective learning, in part, because it incorporates the three ‘P’s:166 • Purposeful • Planful • Playful

With attention to the three ‘P’s, teachers always will ask “What is the purpose of this?” before they put an activity in their lesson plan. The answer should be: • It builds one or more of the skills necessary for school readiness, • It expands and builds on children’s current level of understanding, and • It encourages the understanding of new information that has direct links to what children will need to succeed in kindergarten.

After meeting these criteria careful planning occurs. This includes: • Selection of fiction and nonfiction books for group readings and their placement in the centers so that new knowledge is encouraged;

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

79

• Selection of activities that take advantage of the overlap among language, literacy, and math skill domains; • Identifying fun phonological awareness games to use when transitioning children from one activity to another; and • Being sure books, materials, activities, games, and conversations are engaging and playful.

Implementing Effective Plans + A Balance of Teaching Strategies Two teaching strategies that often are contrasted are “direct” and “indirect” instruction. Direct, or explicit, instruction often has been discouraged in early childhood settings because it is frequently associated with high structure or with scripted approaches. This is unfortunate, as explicitly, or directly, instructing children about the meaning of new words or how something works is an important aspect of supporting young children’s learning. Rather than assume that this more explicit form of instruction equates with a “skill and drill” approach, early childhood teachers can observe and determine those times when children will benefit from directly instructing them about interesting new areas. Given the young age and limited attention span of three and four year olds, this type of instruction needs to be relatively short and encourage child participation through questioning, the use of “hands on” materials, and physical movement. Indirect instruction has been interpreted in numerous ways. To some it means that children have the freedom to choose what they want to do. With this interpretation, children often spend a lot of time in a variety of centers, exploring the materials on their own or with other classmates. Sometimes those centers look the same across the year, or they might be refreshed with new materials. For some teachers, guided instruction of children’s efforts in the centers is included in their interpretation of child-directed learning. In this case, the teacher would observe and comment on conversational topics or actions with objects or make links between the child’s play and a literacy or math concept. Although this is an effective way to scaffold children’s learning, many teachers do not perceive that they have a role in children’s explorations and play. In a descriptive study examining early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices of their role in children’s play, most saw themselves as observers and there only to keep children safe.167 Of the 65 teachers in the study, only four saw play as an opportunity for making connections with literacy, and as few as 15 viewed it as a time to promote thinking. The teachers’ role in children’s play and exploration of materials has been described as “multifaceted,” including being an organizer of the environment, facilitator, a manager, and a scribe. As more teachers accept this range of roles, child directed learning should enhance the teacherdirected activities to provide the best balance for school readiness.168 Just as a teacher must ask questions about the purpose of teacher-directed activities, the purpose and manner with which child-directed activities

80

Susan Landry

occur must also receive attention, careful planning, and teacher involvement. While striking a balance between teacher- versus child-directed learning is quite logical, early childhood classrooms that achieve this balance are the exception rather than the rule. In child-directed approaches, the teacher may establish learning centers that incorporate books and materials that assure children will have repeated exposure to concepts (i.e., information) the teacher has previously shared. The teacher-directed activities may lead to child-directed learning. The direction, however, could be reversed such that children’s explorations and observations may lead to the teacher setting up an experiment or a math task to build on the children’s interest. The important point is that it is not one versus the other approach, but a balance of the two in ways that complement one another.

Incorporating Flexible Groupings + Balanced Strategies + Effective Planning + Content + A Responsive Style The fifth key element is the inclusion of different types of groupings (oneon-one, small group, large group) of children across the day. Children receive higher-quality relations with teachers when there is a smaller teacher-to-child ratio.169 This may occur because the teacher is more likely to respond sensitively to children’s signals, including their attempts to verbalize, when she is interacting with smaller numbers of children. As preschool classrooms often have as many as 20 children, it is challenging for teachers to provide this individualized responsiveness. However, for activities such as “read alouds,” small groupings of children are more likely to encourage children’s “talk” than large group readings. The presence of a teaching aide or an assistant teacher often allows for more opportunity to use flexible groupings of children. With a team teaching approach, one teacher can work with a small group of children, while the other teacher moves around the centers scaffolding the learning of the other children or possibly carrying out an activity with them in a large group. It is important that all children benefit from participation in flexible groupings. One-on-one: • Provides the teacher the opportunity to individualize instruction and meet special needs.

Small groups: • Allows children more opportunity for talking, • Provides the teacher opportunity for scaffolding, and • Encourages hands-on activities and child discovery.

Large groups: • Builds a sense of community, and • Sets the stage for the introduction of theme, information about new concepts, and review.

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

81

Notes 104. National Research Council Committee on Earl Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, ed. Bowman, B. T.; Donovan, M. S.; and Burns, S. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), 48. 105. Raver, C. C., and Knitzer, J. “Ready To Enter: What Research Tells Policymakers about Strategies To Promote Social and Emotional Readiness Among 3-and 4-YearOld Children.” National Center for Children in Poverty policy paper (2002). 106. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. From Neurons To Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, ed. Shonkoff, J. P., and Phillip, D. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. 107. Thelen, E., and Smith, L. B. A Dynamic Systems Approach To the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994. 108. Thelen, E., and Smith, L. B. A Dynamic Systems Approach To the Development of Cognition and Action. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), 222. 109. Thelen, E., and Smith, L. B. A Dynamic Systems Approach To the Development of Cognition and Action. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 311. 110. Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence In Children. New York: Norton, 1952. 111. Piaget. J. The Construction of Reality In the Child. New York: Basic, 1954. 112. Abercrombie, M. L. J. “Some Notes On Spatial Disability: Movement, Intelligence Quotient, and Attentiveness.” Developmental Medicine in Child Neurology 10 (1968): 206–213. 113. Berenthal, B. T.; Campos, J. J.; and Barretto, K. C. “Self-Produced Locomotion: An Organizer of Emotional, Cognitive, and Social Development In Infancy. In Continuities and Discontinuities in Development, ed. Emde. R, and Harmon, R. (New York: Plenum, 1984), 175–210. 114. Dennis, M., and Barnes, M. A. “Oral Discourse After Early-Onset Hydrocephalus: Linguistic Ambiguity, Figurative Language, Speech Acts, and Script-Based Inferences.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 18 (1993) 639–652. 115. Rall, J., and Harris, P. L. “In Cinderella’s Slippers? Story Comprehension From the Protagonist’s Point of View.” Developmental Psychology 36, no. 2 (2000): 202–208. 116. Black, J. B.; Turner, T. J.; and Bower, G. H. “Point of View In Narrative Comprehension, Memory, and Production.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979): 187–198. 117. Byers, J. A. “The Biology of Human Play.” Child Development 69 (1998): 599–600. 118. The Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network. A Good Beginning: Sending America’s Children To School With the Social and Emotional Competence They Need To Succeed (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center, 2003), p. v. 119. Huffman, L. C.; Mehlinger, S. L.; and Kerivan, A. S. “Risk Factors For Academic and Behavioral Problems At the Beginning of School. In Off To a Good Start: Research On the Risk Factors For Early School Problems and Selected Federal Policies Affecting Children’s Social and Emotional Development and Their Readiness For School. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center, 2000. 120. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. From Neurons To Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, ed. Shonkoff, J. P., and Phillips, D. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

82

Susan Landry

121. Ladd, G. W., and Burgess, K. “Charting the Relationship Trajectories of Aggressive, Withdrawn, and Aggressive/Withdrawn Children During Early Grade School.” Child Development 70, no. 4 (1999): 910–929. 122. Cox, M. J.; Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.; and Pianta, R. C. “Teachers’ Judgments of Problems In the Transition To Kindergarten.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly (in press). 123. Arnold, D. H.; McWilliams, L.; and Arnold, E. H. “Teacher Discipline and Child Misbehavior In Day Care: Untangling Causality With Correlation Data.” Developmental Psychology 34, no. 2 (1998): 276–287. 124. Raver, C. C., and Knitzer, J. “Ready To Enter: What Research Tells Policymakers About Strategies To Promote Social and Emotional Readiness Among 3-and4-Year-Old Children.” National Center for Children in Poverty policy paper, 2002. 125. Denham, S. A.; McKinley, M.; Couchoud, E. A.; and Holt, R. “Emotional and Behavioral Predictors of Peer Status in Young Preschoolers.” Child Development 61 (1990): 1145–1152. 126. Denham, S. A. “Social Cognition, Social Behavior, and Emotion in Preschoolers: Contextual Validation.” Child Development 57 (1986): 194–201. 127. Eisenberg, N; Fabes, R. A.; Shepard, S. A.; Murphy, B. C.; Guthrie, I. K.; Jones, S.; Friedman, J.; Poulin, R.; and Maszk, P. “Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Prediction of Children’s Social Functioning From Regulation and Emotionality.” S 68 (1997): 642–644. 128. McGill-Franzen; A.; Lanford, C; and Adams, E. “Learning to Be Literate: A Comparison of Five Urban Early Childhood Programs.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002): 443–464. 129. National Research Council. Eager To Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers Executive Summary, ed. Bowman, B.; Donovan, M. S.; and Burns, M. S. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), 1–2. 130. Reid Lyon. “The Critical Need for Evidence-Based Comprehensive and Effective Early Childhood Programs.” Testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, July 17, 2003. 131. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. Early Learning Standards: Creating the Conditions For Success. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2002. 132. Neuman, S.; Copple, C; and Bredekamp, S. Learning To Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2001. 133. Bishop, D. V. M., and Adams, C. “A Prospective Study of the Relationship Between Specific Language Impairment, Phonological Disorders and Reading Retardation.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 31 (1990): 1027–1050. 134. Pikulski, J. J., and Tobin, A. W. “Factors Associated With Long-Term Reading Achievement of Early Readers.” In Cognitive and Social Perspectives For Literacy Research and Instruction, ed. McCormick, S.; Zutell, J.; Scharer, P; and O’Keefe, P. Chicago: National Reading Conference, 1989. 135. Senechal, M., and LeFevre, J. “Parental Involvement In the Development of Children’s Reading Skill: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study.” Child Development 73 (2002): 445–460. 136. Storch, S. A., and Whitehurst, G. J. “Oral Language and Code-Related Precursors To Reading: Evidence From a Longitudinal Structural Model.” Developmental Psychology 38 (2002): 934–947.

Early Childhood Intervention Programs

83

137. Lonigan, C. J.; Burgess, S. R.; and Anthony, J. L. “Development of Emergent Literacy and Early Reading Skills in Preschool Children: Evidence From a Latent Variable Longitudinal Study.” Developmental Psychology 36 (2000): 596–613. 138. Gillon, G., and Dodd, B. J., “A Prospective Study of the Relationship Between Phonological, Semantic, and Syntactic Skills and Specific Reading Disability.” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 6 (1994): 321–345. 139. Mason, J. M. “Reading Stories To Preliterate Children: A Proposed Connection To Reading.” In Reading Acquisition, ed. P. B. Gough; L. C. Ehri; and R. Treiman (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992), 215–243. 140. Snow, C. E.; Barnes, W. S.; Chandler, J.; Hemphill, L.; and Goodman, I. F. Unfulfilled Expectations: Home and School Influences On Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. 141. Mason, J. M. “Reading Stories To Preliterate Children: A Proposed Connection To Reading.” In Reading Acquisition, ed. Gough, P. B.; Ehri, L. C.; and Treiman, R. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992), 215–243. 142. Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. “Tracking the Unique Effects of Print Exposure In Children: Associations With Vocabulary, General Knowledge, and Spelling.” Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (1991): 264–274. 143. Burgess, S. R., and Lonigan, C. J. “Bidirectional Relations of Phonological Sensitivity and Prereading Abilities: Evidence From a Preschool Sample.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 70 (1998): 117–141. 144. MacLean, M.; Bryant, P.; and Bradley, P. “Rhymes, Nursery Rhymes, and Reading In Early Childhood.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33 (1987): 255–282. 145. Wagner, R. K.; Torgesen, J. K.; Rasotte, C. A.; Hecht, S. A.; Barker, T. A.; Burgess, S. R.; Donahue, J.; and Garon, T. “Changing Relations Between Phonological Processing Abilities and Word-Level Reading As Children Develop From Beginning To Skilled Readers: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study.” Developmental Psychology 33 (1997): 468–479. 146. Adams, M. J. Learning To Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. 147. Stevenson, H. W., and Newman, R. S. “Long-Term Prediction of Achievement and Attitudes In Mathematics and Reading.” Child Development 57 (1986): 646–659. 148. Bradley, L., and Bryant, P. Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1985. 149. Siegler, R. S. “The Development of Numerical Understandings.” Advances In Child Development and Behavior, ed. Reese, H. W., and Lipsitt, L. P. New York: Academic Press, 1982. 150. Starkey, P., and Gelman, R. “The Development of Addition and Subtraction Abilities Prior to Formal School In Arithmetic.” In Addition and Subtraction: A Cognitive Perspective, ed. Carpenter, T. P.; Moser, J. M.; and Romberg, T. A. (1982), 99–116. 151. Jordan, N. C.; Huttenlocher, J.; and Levine, S. C. “Differential Calculation Abilities In Young Children From Middle- and Low-Income Families.” Developmental Psychology 28 (1992): 644–653. 152. Levin, S. C.; Jordan, N. C.; and Huttenlocher, J. “Development of Calculation Abilities in Young Children.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 53 (1992): 72–103. 153. R. A. Marcon. “Differential Impact of Preschool Models on Development and Early Learning of Inner-city Children: A Three-Cohort Study.” Developmental Psychology 35 (1999): 358–375. 154. National Research Council. Bowman, Barbara T; Donavan, M. S.; and Burns, M. S. Eager To Learn: Executive Summary (Washington, DC: National Acadamy Press, 2000), 4.

84

Susan Landry

155. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press, 1978. 156. Landry, S. H.; Smith, K. E.; Swank, P. R.; Assel, M. A.; and Vellet, N. S. “Does Early Responsive Parenting Have a Special Importance for Children’s Development or Is Consistency Across Early Childhood Necessary? Developmental Psychology 37, no. 3 (2001): 387–403. 157. National Research Council. Bowman, Barbara T; Donavan, M. S.; and Burns, M. S. Eager To Learn: Executive Summary (Washington, DC: National Acadamy Press, 2000), 4. 158. Raver, C., and Knitzer, J. Ready to Enter: What Research Tells Policymakers About Strategies To Promote Social and Emotional School Readiness Among 3- and 4-Year-Old Children. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 2002. 159. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S.; Burchinal, M. R.; Clifford, R. M.; Culkin, M. L.; Howes, C.; Kagan, S. L.; and Yazejian, N., “The Relation of Preschool Child Care Quality To Children’s Cognitive and Social Development Trajectories Through Second Grade.” Child Development 72, no. 5 (2001): 1534–1553. 160. Burchinal, M. R.; Peisiner-Feinberg, E. S.; Pianta, R.; and Howes, C. “Development of Academic Skills From Preschool Through Second Grade: Family and Classroom Predictors of Development Trajectories.” Journal of School Psychology 40, no. 5 (2002): 415–436. 161. Landry, S. H.; Swank, P. R.; Smith, K. E.; Gunnewig, S. B.; and Assel, M. A. “Enhancing Cognitive Readiness for Preschool Children: Bringing a Professional Development Model To Scale.” White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive Development, Washington, DC. July 2001. 162. CIRCLE Preschool Early Language and Literacy Trainer’s Manual. University of Texas-Health Science Center at Houston, 2002. 163. Ibid. 164. Landry, S. H. Even Start Research-Based Early Childhood and Parenting Education Professional Development: Making Meaningful Changes In Program Design. Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 2004. 165. Rovee-Collier, C. “Time Windows In Cognitive Development.” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 147–169. 166. CIRCLE/TeachScape Web-based Professional Development Program. Classroom Management Course (2004). 167. McLane, J. B., and Spielberger, J. “Play In Early Childhood Development and Education: Issues and Questions.” In Topics In Early Education: Playing For Keeps, vol. 2, ed. Phillips, A. St. Paul, MN: Red Leaf Press, 1996. 168. McLane, J. B. “‘Does not,’ ‘Does too.’ Thinking About Play In the Early Childhood Classroom.” Occasional paper no. 4, Herr Research Center, Erikson Institute, 2003. 169. Howes, C. “Children’s Experiences In Center-Based Child Care As a Function of Teacher Background and Adult–Child Ratio.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1997): 404–425.

5 Learning from Others: State Efforts to Expand Services and Build Systems of Early Care and Education Kristie Kauerz Early care and education (ECE) has deep historical roots in the United States. Infant schools, day nurseries, and kindergartens emerged as early as the 1820s to address both children’s social welfare and educational needs.1 State involvement in early care and education has exploded over the past 40 years as many states have invested energy, creativity, leadership, commitment, and resources in the field. During the 1960s and 1970s, the period in which the federal government launched and expanded Head Start, states’ efforts primarily focused on program and policy development for poor children. During the 1980s and 1990s, spurred by changing workforce patterns and the proliferation of scientific studies of brain development, many states focused on addressing the early care and education triad of affordability, quality, and availability. In short, over the past decades, an abundance of policies and programs for young children and their families have emerged in most states. Because they were most often targeted to specific populations, these programs and policies are often uncoordinated, unsystematic, and redundant. In response, today, as the twenty-first century unfolds, “building a system” of early care and education has become a national catchphrase. States are now looking for ways to coordinate and align programs and policies that have traditionally been incongruent and categorical. Building statebased systems benefits parents, early learning programs, and policymakers. Indeed, “systems make the pieces function; they are what enable tax dollars to yield returns and what congeal highly disparate, idiosyncratic, and episodic efforts. Systems eliminate redundancies and maximize efficiencies” (Kagan and Neuman 2003). More practically, an early care and education system enables states to provide targeted programs and services to their most at-risk families and young children while building an overall vision and plan for all of the state’s young children to have voluntary access to affordable and high-quality early learning experiences.

86

Kristie Kauerz

While no state can claim a fully comprehensive early care and education system, stakeholders can learn from—and capitalize on—other states’ individual and incremental successes. This chapter will provide examples of what states are doing now to address the needs of young children and their families as well as what states are doing to build comprehensive systems of early care and education for the future.

Defining Early Care and Education An analysis of the history of child care and early education in the United States highlights a clear division between “child care” and “early education” programs. Historically, “child care” is a term applied to programs with the primary goal of protecting the health and safety of children who require custodial care by adults other than their own parents for a temporary period of time; child care historically served low-income and at-risk children.2 In contrast, “early education” is a term used to describe programs focused on academic skills, learning and, more recently, school readiness. Increasingly, however, as states emphasize quality and accountability, the distinctions between child care and early education are disappearing. Indeed, “adequate care involves providing quality cognitive stimulation, rich language environments, and the facilitation of social, emotional, and motor development. Likewise, adequate education for young children can occur only in the context of good physical care and of warm affective relationships” (National Research Council 2001, 2). Because of historical differences in program goals, it is important to be clear about the terms used in this chapter: “early care and education” is used interchangeably with “early learning.” Both terms refer to the full scope of early childhood care and education settings that children encounter prior to mandatory school attendance, 3 including child care, family child care, preschool, prekindergarten, Head Start, nursery schools, and kindergarten. With the current proliferation of, and media attention to, state prekindergarten programs, the common early learning policy parlance in the United States primarily focuses on preschool programs for three- and four-year olds. This focus should not detract from the fact that a truly comprehensive system of early care and education services must also embrace infants and toddlers (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2000) and extend from birth through age five.

Defining a System of Early Care and Education Over the past decade, researchers and advocates have begun to come to consensus on what are the core components of a system of early care and education, how they might be financed, and how they might be implemented (Bruner et al. 2004; Gallagher, Clifford, and Maxwell 2004; Kagan and Cohen 1997; Kagan and Rigby 2003). For purposes of this chapter, the

Learning from Others

87

components of a system of early care and education have been divided into two categories: those components that young children experience directly during their time spent in early learning programs; and those components that are more distal from children’s daily experiences, but provide critical system infrastructure and support for young children’s learning and development. In the first category, that which addresses program components experienced directly by children, are four key components of an early care and education system: 1. A commitment to high-quality teaching that specifies explicit criteria for the qualifications of all adults working with young children, provides a system of professional development that provides ongoing opportunities for continuing training and education, and requires teaching staff to be licensed; 2. Dedication to program quality that offers a wide range of proven approaches to meet the social, emotional, cognitive, language, and developmental needs of young children; 3. A standards and accountability component that focuses on goals and results for children and includes appropriate measures to assess progress toward the accomplishment of those outcomes; 4. Family engagement as partners in their children’s early care and education.

In the second category—the infrastructure that supports the functioning of the system—are five additional system components: 1. A permanent, legislatively mandated, state-level governance structure that is responsible for early care and education programs; 2. Full funding so that all families desiring early childhood services can access them at a rate commensurate with their ability to pay; 3. An informed and supportive public that understands the importance of the early years and invests and acts accordingly; 4. Alignment with kindergarten to provide continuity of developmentally appropriate learning for young children; 5. Alignment with other child- and family-serving systems including primary schools, health, mental health, dental health, nutrition, adult literacy, job services, and family income support.

There are no tradeoffs between these program and infrastructure system components. One component without the others will not be sufficient to ensure a high-quality system of early learning. Indeed, to varying degrees, each component is dependent on the others. For example, ensuring that a well-qualified professional teaches every child requires a well-financed system. Similarly, an effective accountability system depends on an effective system of professional development that ensures high-quality teaching. The system components are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. This interconnectedness, however, does not preclude states undertaking initiatives that specifically target one component or another. Each initiative and each effort is a building block in the construction of a system.

88

Kristie Kauerz

The remainder of this chapter will address each of the components of an early learning system, providing a brief overview of the importance of each. This overview will be followed by an analysis of crucial challenges and opportunities that all states face—or will face—as they tackle policy change in each arena. Each section will conclude with a synopsis of significant, exemplary, or promising state efforts to address the system component. This should by no means be considered a comprehensive compendium of state efforts, but is meant to offer a glimpse at state innovations and efforts. The chapter closes with a review of two states’ efforts to create a comprehensive vision and a long-term plan for a comprehensive early learning system.

Program Components Experienced Directly by Children 1. High-Quality Teaching and Professional Development Teaching quality is one of the central components of an early learning system that children experience directly. Indeed, “it is through caring, committed, and competent early childhood professionals that young children and their families experience the excellent curriculum, the appropriate teaching strategies, the thoughtful assessment practices, the supportive services, and the effective public policies” (Hyson 2003). A system of early care and education requires mechanisms to attract, prepare, encourage, and retain an adequate supply of qualified staff and to create the kinds of working conditions that make a career in early care and education satisfying, respected, and financially attractive. The knowledge and skills of caregivers are among the most critical factors in determining how much a young child learns; teachers who are trained in early care and education are more responsive to the needs of children and better equipped to help children succeed (National Research Council 2001; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2000). Unfortunately, the early learning field is plagued by high teacher turnover, low pay, and a lack of meaningful career paths. In most states, early childhood teacher education is a patchwork of preservice and in-service requirements and opportunities; often there are varied state and local requirements across types of programs, auspices, and roles. For example, policymakers face the daunting challenge of aligning the standards and support for teachers across child care, prekindergarten, and Head Start. Many early learning professionals who work with young children—especially in child care programs—are not required to hold any degree or certification (LeMoine 2004). Some states require teachers in state prekindergarten programs to hold at least a bachelor’s degree; other states only require a Child Development Associate Credential (CDA) (Barnett 2003). To bring together these notions of a high-quality early learning teaching force will require substantial policy support including a system of professional development, innovative educational programs, and compensation

Learning from Others

89

and benefits commensurate with the expectations of college graduates. The following paragraphs provide brief overviews of exemplary state efforts to do so: • Professional development is central to high-quality teaching. Such a system establishes minimum levels of preservice and in-service education and coordinates course and degree offerings across institutions of higher education and other providers of continuing education. Connecticut’s Charts-a-Course (CCAC) is supported by the state’s Departments of Social Services, Education, and Connecticut Community Colleges. CCAC provides a training program in child development that offers accessible and affordable workshops to providers in all settings statewide. The program covers the core areas of knowledge that are important to caring for young children and meets the training requirements for a Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential. CCAC has also developed a career ladder that helps early learning professionals plan their training, education, and career development goals. The career ladder provides seamless articulation of levels and training, with each level delineating the necessary training from entry-level to advanced degrees. In addition, members of Connecticut Charts-a-Course have access to state-financed scholarships for training or education and career counseling. • Because many early learning professionals lack paid release time and substitute caregivers during work hours, they face obstacles to attending traditional college classes. Further, especially in rural areas, many early learning personnel have limited access to campus-based classes. To address these barriers, many states are expanding innovative educational programs that provide a range of nontraditional modes of learning that allow early learning professionals to satisfy licensing and/or additional education requirements. Such programs include distance-learning courses (e.g., correspondence courses, video conferencing, Web-based correspondence). North Carolina’s Project CONTACT (College Opportunity Networks and Technology Access for Child Care Teachers) developed for-credit distance training courses for early learning professionals across the state, enabling them to earn college credits from work, home, a college campus, or a community base. A subsequent effort, Project IMPACT (Improving and Maximizing Professional Development Access and Consultation for Teachers), integrates distance education with intensive onsite mentoring and consultation to ensure hands-on learning experiences. Many state and local partners collaborated on both projects, including the state’s Division of Child Development; the state’s Community College System and local community colleges; the North Carolina Partnership for Children and local Smart Start partnerships; Child Care Services Association; and Fayetteville Technical Community College. The state’s distance-learning projects have shown to be effective models for students to learn and apply course content. Further, participants report developing strong professional and personal networks of peers in the early learning field. • Efforts to retain providers by boosting their compensation/benefits aim to address high staff turnover. Early care and education programs are much more successful at retaining skilled staff when their wage scales are comparable to those in other fields that require comparable levels of education and training. The state of California provides matching funds to counties that implement local Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES)

90

Kristie Kauerz programs. The CARES model uses wage incentives and supports to encourage early learning providers both to remain employed at their program, because continuity of care is important for children’s development of healthy relationships, and to stay in the professional field so that the investments in training stay in the field. The program emphasizes the need to provide training and supports to caregivers along the entire continuum of care (from informal family, friend, and neighbor caregivers to teachers with advanced degrees). Participants are put on career pathways to attain additional education and degrees as well as advancement on the Child Development Permit Matrix, the statewide professional development system for teaching and administrative staff. Forty-six counties implement locally adapted variations of CARES, but participants’ stipends are usually indexed to the amount of training they complete during their period of participation.

2. Program Quality Program quality is another component that young children experience directly—from classroom arrangements that ensure basic health and safety to the ratio of children to adults to the incorporation of diverse materials that encourage play and cognitive learning. Program quality is also manifest in the balance between individual and group activities, as well as indoor and outdoor activities, for children; the design of the learning space, including appropriate table and shelf height; and the curricular merging of social and emotional development with cognitive development. Since the publication of the report Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (Helburn 1995), dramatically showing the majority of early childhood care in the United States to be of low quality, many states have launched initiatives to raise the quality of children’s learning environments. Many program quality efforts have been supported by federal funds, in part because the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) requires states to spend a minimum of 4 percent of their annual allocation on quality improvement efforts. In the FY 2004-05 State CCDF Plans, 39 states reported using these federal dollars to support compliance with state licensing and regulatory requirements; 18 states targeted funds for quality improvement grants directly to school-based and community-based programs (National Child Care Information Center 2004). States’ program quality efforts have traditionally included efforts to increase the number of programs that achieve accreditation from a national accrediting body (e.g., National Association for the Education of Young Children; National Association for Family Child Care). In 2005, 30 states reported having statewide tiered reimbursement systems in which the state pays higher rates to those early learning programs that meet higher standards than the state’s licensing regulations (National Child Care Information Center 2005). In most of these states, there is one reimbursement rate for those programs that meet basic licensing requirements and a second, more generous rate for those programs that have achieved accreditation. State efforts to improve program quality have become more sophisticated over the past 10 years. In addition to the above-mentioned efforts to

Learning from Others

91

enforce facility licensing, to provide one-time infusions of grant money to upgrade and improve equipment, or to reward accredited programs, many states have begun instituting comprehensive quality improvement initiatives. Commonly known as Quality Rating Systems (QRS), these statebased efforts assess, improve, and communicate to the public the level of quality in early learning settings. In addition, rather than simply discerning between basic licensing compliance and national accreditation, Quality Rating Systems often have multiple levels of quality that provide a steppingstone approach to quality improvement. In 2004, 10 states (Colorado, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont) reported having a QRS in place (National Child Care Information Center 2005). Three notable state efforts include the following: • Oklahoma’s Reaching for the Stars Initiative reflects the need for states to provide attainable increments of quality improvement. Reaching for the stars was originally designed to have three levels of quality: one star, two star, and three star. One star programs meet minimum licensing requirements and receive no additional reimbursement from the state. To discourage minimal program quality, as of 2003, the state does not authorize new subsidy payments to programs that hold one star status. The two star level emphasizes improvements in teacher qualifications, training, and wages. Three star programs must hold national accreditation. After two and a half years of implementation and based on interviews from the field, an additional quality level—one star plus—was added because it was too difficult for programs to meet all of the two star requirements without any new funding. The one star plus level gives programs an incremental rate increase for two years. The Early Childhood Collaborative of Oklahoma is conducting a longitudinal evaluation of Reaching for the Stars and has found significant improvement in the quality of child care since the program’s inception. In 2002, 40 percent of children receiving center-based subsidized child care were attending one star programs. By April 2004, this percentage had improved to only 4 percent of children and approximately 42 percent of licensed child care facilities had reached a one star plus or higher level. • Pennsylvania’s Keystone STARS quality initiative is a four-star rating system that is notable because of the annual merit awards that are given to programs that successfully—and successively—increase quality. Many early learning programs use these merit awards to increase teacher compensation. To facilitate continuous improvement, the Keystone STARS program provides Standards, Training, Assistance, Resources, and Support (STARS). STAR 1 is relatively easy to obtain and is given to those programs that meet minimum licensing regulations; STAR 4 is awarded to those programs that have achieved quality comparable to National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation requirements. Quality standards for each STAR level are set for (a) staff qualifications, professional development, and compensation; (b) the learning environment; (c) partnerships with family and community; (d) administration; and (e) continuous quality improvement. Technical assistance and support grants are provided to centers to help them achieve the next STAR level. For example, a small child care center (defined

92

Kristie Kauerz as caring for up to 45 children) that achieves STAR 1 receives an annual support grant of $1,750. The center is eligible to receive the STAR 1 award for two years; after that, the program is expected to improve to the STAR 2 level. Upon achieving STAR 2, the small center is eligible to receive an annual support grant of $2,250 and, upon reaching STAR 3, an annual support grant of $3,000. In addition to support grants, programs (both centers and child care homes) may receive annual merit awards based on their STAR rating. Again using the example of a small child care center, the annual merit award ranges from $6,000 for a STAR 2 rating to $13,500 for a STAR 4 rating. In 2005, of Pennsylvania’s 9000 regulated early learning programs, approximately 15 percent of them participated in Keystone STARS. • Colorado’s Quality Rating System, Qualistar, is unique because it is the first in the nation to merge a comprehensive quality improvement system with the state’s network of child care resource and referral agencies. The result of this merger is an initiative that not only benefits early learning providers and programs, but also empowers parents to identify and select higher quality early learning programs for their young children. The patented Qualistar four-star rating system assesses the quality of early learning programs in the areas of classroom environment, parent involvement, staff credentials, staff to child ratios, and accreditation. This assessment takes place over a one-month period of time, and is completed annually. Such an intensive analysis helps to ensure that each early learning program’s quality is consistently and continually high and not merely a one-time achievement. Programs not only receive a quality rating, but also receive technical assistance and resources that encourage continuous quality improvement. The merger with the state’s resource and referral network enables families to easily find information about early learning locations, costs, hours of operation, care philosophies, and whether or not they have received a quality rating.

3. Standards and Accountability There is significant growing interest among state policymakers to implement results-based systems for children. Results-based accountability strategies shift the focus of government’s role in early care and education from simply expanding services and improving quality to actually measuring the effectiveness of those services. Accountability includes a broad range of efforts by which state legislatures, governing boards, fund donors, parents, business leaders, and other stakeholders are made aware of the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of particular programs and initiatives. Two federal standards-based efforts have prompted many states to develop results-based accountability initiatives in early care and education. The 1998 reauthorization of Head Start launched the dissemination and use of the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework, a document that defines 100 specific expectations for attendees’ skills, abilities, knowledge, and behaviors. Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush announced his administration’s Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood initiative that required states to develop “voluntary early learning guidelines” in language and early literacy skills in order to receive Child Care Development Funds (CCDF).

Learning from Others

93

Many states have responded to these federal efforts by establishing voluntary statewide early learning standards that define what young children should know and be able to do not only for language and literacy learning, but also across all domains of children’s development (see Susan Landry’s chapter in this volume for an in-depth discussion of the importance of intertwining physical, social, emotional, and cognitive domains). According to a survey conducted by SERVE (Scott-Little, Kagan, and Frelow 2003), more than half the states have developed or are developing child-based outcome standards that define at least one developmental domain for some age range prior to kindergarten entry. The way in which states are using these standards for accountability purposes varies considerably and includes such purposes as informing curriculum and instruction, improving program quality, and providing a basis for instructional assessment. Some states have developed comprehensive accountability systems that include mechanisms to collect data that gauges children’s progress in meeting the standards. These states have also established appropriate safeguards so that the collected data are not used to label, track, or stigmatize young children, but are used to hold programs accountable for providing developmentally appropriate learning opportunities. According to the SERVE survey, no state is currently assigning consequences (e.g., reduced funding) based on the performance of children within a program on these assessments; rather, states provide technical assistance and other resources to help improve early learning programs and their ability to nurture and support children’s growth and learning. Increasingly, states are working to align their early learning standards with their K-12 education standards. The following initiatives exemplify how two states have built standards and accountability into their early care and education efforts: • The Washington State Early Learning and Development Benchmarks were completed in 2005 and are intended to (a) promote reasonable expectations and practical strategies for parents and others who care for and teach young children to support their learning and development; (b) to contribute to a unified vision for the early care and education system in Washington State; and (c) to create a continuum of learning that links early development to later success in school and life by aligning the benchmarks with Washington State’s K-3 education standards. The benchmarks cover all domains of early childhood development as defined by the National Education Goals Panel (Goal 1 Technical Planning Group 1995): physical well-being, health and motor development; social and emotional development; approaches toward learning; cognition and general knowledge; and, language and literacy and communications. In addition, the benchmarks provide goals and indicators of development for children from birth to kindergarten entry. The broad scope of these standards makes them an appropriate resource for parents and early learning providers alike. They were developed not for specific use by any particular program, but to support the growth and development of young children who are in their own homes, others’ homes, in licensed child care, early intervention

94

Kristie Kauerz programs, Head Start, state-funded prekindergarten programs, or in public or private preschools. The use of the benchmarks is entirely voluntary. • The Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR) is a comprehensive accountability system that incorporates standards, assessment, and instructional guidance to provide parents, teachers, and early childhood providers with a common understanding of what children know and are able to do before entering the formal K-12 school world. The MMSR provides a framework of desired child outcomes that helps early learning teachers in public schools, child care settings, Head Start, and nursery programs move children toward meeting the expectations. Integral to the MMSR is an assessment component based on the Work Sampling System in which teachers continually assess children’s learning and progress in the context of the classroom. The assessment system does not rank students nor provide “grades.” Rather, the child’s teacher and family use the assessment information to ensure that the child receives the support and guidance necessary to meet the state’s early learning standards. The MMSR is designed to support students’ learning in seven areas: social and personal development; language and literacy; mathematical thinking; scientific thinking; social studies; the arts; and physical development. In addition to early learning standards and assessment, the Maryland Model for School Readiness also incorporates staff development, instruction that is aligned with the standards and assessments, and regular communication with families. Data analysis describing the school readiness skills of incoming kindergarteners, based on aggregated data from the MMSR assessment, are annually presented to the state legislature, the State Board of Education, and other state and local stakeholders.

4. Family Engagement Families are, of course, young children’s first and most important caregivers, teachers, and advocates. Children are inextricably interconnected and interdependent with their family and, therefore, recognize (albeit perhaps subconsciously) when their family is fully engaged in the learning process. As such, the quality and effectiveness of programs for young children are contingent upon the degree to which families’ needs are met and to the degree to which families understand, demand, and are engaged in highquality early care and education in both the child’s own home and in early learning programs. To have healthy, enthusiastic, and engaged children, it is important to have healthy, enthusiastic, and engaged families. The demographic composition of the United States is becoming increasingly diverse at the same time that society is becoming more high-tech and more fast-paced. The coexistence of these two trends exacerbates the mobility, stress, and isolation of families with young children. To support the diversity of families and to engage them in the learning and development of their young children, states are undertaking a variety of initiatives that not only aim to enhance the family’s home learning environment, but also connect families to their children’s early learning programs and to their communities: • Parents as Teachers (PAT), originally developed in Missouri in 1981, is now an international early childhood parent education and family support program

Learning from Others

95

that serves families throughout pregnancy until their child enters kindergarten. Currently, there are more than 3300 PAT programs around the world. The program is designed to support child development and enhance school achievement by providing parent education to families. Parents as Teachers is a universal access model, recognizing that all families from all socioeconomic levels, and from rural, urban, and suburban communities can benefit from support. While family participation is voluntary, parents can choose to take advantage of services that include personal home visits from certified parent educators, group meetings with other parents, developmental screenings for their children, and connections with other community resources. Most PAT programs are provided to families free of charge; federal funds (e.g., Early Head Start, Even Start), state, local, and private funds all provide financial support to PAT programs. Independent evaluations in Missouri show that significantly more PAT parents took an active role in their child’s education and that PAT children were significantly more advanced in language development, problem solving, and social development at age three than comparison children. In addition, evaluations show substantial cost savings to school districts because PAT children had fewer placements in special education, fewer grade retentions, and less remedial education. Several states—including Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma—provide state support to Parents as Teachers. • Kentucky’s Early Childhood Parent Leadership Initiative is an exemplar of how one state encourages the involvement of families with their children’s early care and education programs. Central to the establishment of strong relationships between families and programs are the early learning professionals who work collaboratively with parents to support positive child outcomes. One key effort of the initiative is the Starting Strong Institute, a joint venture between the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence and the University of Kentucky Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute. The institute provides materials and programming that support direct training of, and assistance to, both parents and early care and education professionals so they can work effectively together to improve the overall quality of the early learning setting and to support children’s growth and development. Quality improvements are based on Kentucky’s standards for both center quality and child learning. The institute is a 3-day (18-hour) course of study over 5 weeks that emphasizes effective parent involvement in early care and education and family-professional partnerships. Parents and center directors attend as a team and are expected to implement a project, designed during the training, at their centers that involves other parents and improves child learning/development and program quality. Teams receive mentoring and support as they implement their projects.

The previous four sections—high-quality teaching, quality programs, standards and accountability, and family engagement—highlight those components of an early learning system that children experience in their daily interactions with parents, other family members, teachers, and other children. The following sections address system elements that are more administrative, that function as policy infrastructure for all programs, and that are more distant from children’s daily learning activities.

96

Kristie Kauerz

Infrastructure Components that Support the System 5. Governance The field of early care and education is characterized by multiple policies, programs, and players at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, there are programs and funding streams to support child care for lowincome working parents, to offer comprehensive health and learning services for low-income children wand their families. Indeed, in fiscal year 1999, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report showed that 69 federal programs provided or supported education and care for children under age five (GAO 2000). Nine different federal agencies and departments administered these programs, though the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services operated most of them. In addition to federal investment and involvement, states have multiple policies and programs that serve young children, too. For example, many states now have state-funded prekindergarten, home visiting, family support, child nutrition, and other programs. Coordination of these various efforts is needed in order to ensure that services are not duplicated, quality standards are set and adhered to across all early care and education programs, children are not falling through the cracks, and limited resources are being used efficiently. In recent years, more than 30 states have established governance bodies designed to give greater priority to children’s issues and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of programs that serve children and families. These governance bodies not only can create mechanisms for coordinating decision making at the state and local levels, but also can temper the ever-changing, often flipflopping, policies and priorities caused by change in political leaders. The latter is increasingly important as term limits for elected officials become more prevalent across the nation. In Texas, two private sector groups— the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC) and the Texas Program for Society and Health—have proposed that a public-private governing commission be established to oversee the development, operation, and financing of an early childhood education and development system for all three- and four-year old children in the state. Chapter 7 in this volume describes their proposal. Many states have created short-term, nonpermanent commissions, gubernatorial children’s cabinets, and other cross-agency collaborative bodies. In general, these bodies have little direct authority to change policies; instead, they are convened to be persuasive bodies that can use the power and influence of their members to raise the profile of children’s issues within state government. Further, many of these short-term commissions and governor’s children’s cabinets lack durability; they are endorsed only as long as the current political leaders are in office. Recently, a handful of states have begun to craft more durable governance bodies that have meaningful authority to coordinate programs,

Learning from Others

97

funding, data systems, planning, and standards. For example, • In 2005, the Maryland General Assembly passed, and Governor Robert Ehrlich signed into law, a bill establishing a new Division of Early Childhood Development within the Maryland State Department of Education. This required transferring certain programs from the Office for Children, Youth, and Families and from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Education. Specifically, the Division of Early Childhood Development took on responsibility for licensing, registering, and monitoring family child care homes and child care centers. In addition, the new division now provides oversight to the Child Care Resource Network, the Family Support Centers Network, and the Child Care Credential. The Child Care subsidy program remains in the Department of Human Resources. This is a notable effort because the state chose not to create an entirely new department but to reorganize programs serving young children and their families in a new division under an existing department. The rationale for housing the Early Childhood Development Division within the Department of Education was, in part, based on the department’s long-held goal that all children arrive at school with the skills and competencies needed to succeed in life. Furthermore, the department has responsibility for ensuring educational achievement for all children under the No Child Left Behind Act and the legislature believes that early childhood programs can more easily be aligned with K-12 education goals if housed under the same state agency (“An act concerning education—child care administration and office for children, youth, and families and Maryland family support centers network—transfer to state department of education” 2005). An Early Childhood Development Advisory Council, established in state law to guide the division, does not have direct policymaking authority but suggests priorities to the State Superintendent of Education. • In 2004, Georgia changed its governance structures for early care and education by elevating the status of an existing government entity—the Office of School Readiness, an independent office reporting directly to the governor—to give it its own departmental status. This new department, Bright from the Start: Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning, assumes the responsibilities of the Office of School Readiness, the Georgia Child Care Council, and the Child Care Licensing Division of the Office of Regulatory Services in the Department of Human Resources. As such, it is the state agency responsible for overseeing child care and educational services for Georgia’s children from birth through four and their families and for administering nutrition programs for children and adults. The Department of Early Care and Learning oversees Georgia’s Prekindergarten Program for 4-year olds; licenses approximately 3,000 child care centers and group child care homes; registers over 5,000 family child care homes; administers 2 federal nutrition programs (the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program); houses the Head Start State Collaboration Office; implements the Standards of Care Program and Homes of Quality Program to enhance the quality of child care provided to infants, toddlers, and 3-year olds. In addition, the department administers the federal Even Start family literacy program; funds and partners with the child care resource and referral agencies; collaborates with Smart Start Georgia and other entities to blend federal, state, and private

98

Kristie Kauerz monies to enhance early care and education; and distributes federal child care development funds. As a separate state department, the administration of early care and education is distinct from the administration of kindergarten. • In 2004, the Massachusetts General Assembly established a new state department and accompanying independent Board—the Department and Board of Early Education and Care. Combining the functions of the Office of Child Care Services (except for licensing of residential group care facilities and adoption and foster care placement agencies) with those of the Early Learning Services Division at the Department of Education (except for kindergarten, mental health, and autism grant programs that serve school-age students), the new department consolidates all early care and education services into one streamlined agency. The department began operations in July 2005. The creation of the department is part of an overall plan to develop universal access to voluntary, high-quality early childhood education, delivered through a mix of public and private providers, for all preschool-aged children in Massachusetts. The department prioritizes the needs of low income families by administering child care subsidies; it licenses more than 12,000 child care and early education facilities that serve over 220,000 children statewide. In addition, it oversees the development of a kindergarten readiness assessment system and a comprehensive evaluation of early education and care programs. The department also manages a workforce development system that supports the education, training, and compensation of the early education and care workforce, including all center-based, family child care, infant, toddler, preschool, and school-age providers. In order to ensure continuity of expectations and leadership across the full education continuum, from birth through postsecondary, Massachusetts’s Commissioner of Early Education and Care serves on the state’s Board of Higher Education and Board of Education.

6. Funding and Finance One of the most difficult, challenging, and sometimes intractable barriers to state efforts to build a system of early care and education is the identification (or creation) of stable and adequate sources of funding. The funding and finance of early learning programs and services is foundational to guaranteeing and expanding access, increasing quality, raising compensation, and ensuring affordability for families with young children. Often, states cobble together multiple funding streams from both public and private sources to provide early care and education. Despite multiple funding sources, families pay the largest share—approximately 60 percent—of the total expenditures for early care and education in the United States (Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 1997). In the accountability climate that is prevalent today, most states are faced with the competing demands of controlling tight budgets, improving services for children and families, and not further burdening families with the costs of early learning programs. While no state fully funds a comprehensive system of early care and education, thereby providing universal access and affordability to all children from birth to school entry, some states are using a variety of innovative approaches to finance their efforts on behalf of young children. Some states

Learning from Others

99

have expanded the allowable use of existing public resources; Oklahoma is a notable example: • Since 1998, Oklahoma has offered a prekindergarten program to every fouryear old whose parents wish to enroll him/her. Funding for this voluntary, universally available program is provided with state funds through the K-12 school funding formula. In effect, this puts prekindergarten for four-year olds on equal footing with any other grade level in public education. School districts that provide prekindergarten programs include four-year olds enrolled in prekindergarten in their count of students to the state (known as the average daily membership); the state provides funding to districts based on this count. The funding amount varies depending on whether schools offer a halfday program (2.5 hours/day) or a full-day program (6 hours/day). Not surprisingly, the vast majority of participating children are served in public schools, but some school districts collaborate with child care centers, Head Start sites, and other community-based organizations to provide prekindergarten programs. Because funding is included in the statewide K-12 school funding formula, any reductions to the funding amount must be considered as part and parcel of any overall decreases to the state’s education budget. The state has phased in this funding approach since 1980, first providing state funds for a pilot program, then expanding to include all Head Start-eligible four-year olds, then expanding to universal access.

Other states have devised ways to generate new revenue to support early care and education. The examples provided below—California’s sin tax and Georgia’s public lottery—are seen as controversial by some voters and policymakers. In both cases, it can appear that the government is urging people to smoke and gamble frequently. Outside of the inherent issues of government morality, research shows that low-income individuals are heavier smokers and heavier purchasers of lottery tickets. As such, these funding strategies may be seen as regressive and putting undue burden on the lower classes. Further, additional concerns have been raised that lottery profits and sin taxes do not represent additional dollars for education, but simply replace general fund dollars that would have been spent on education. These arguments are not inconsequential and should be considered carefully. Nonetheless, as the California and Georgia examples below illustrate, these funding approaches have great potential for infusing early care and education with large sums of money over the long-term. • California’s Proposition 10: Children and Families Initiative (“Prop 10”) is a ballot initiative approved by the voters of California in 1998. The initiative generates funds for promoting, supporting, and improving child development for children up to five years of age. These funds are generated by a stateimposed tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Cigarettes are taxed at the rate of $.50 per pack and other tobacco products, including cigars, at a rate approximately equal to $1 per box. The initiative created both a state-level commission and county commissions to oversee the disbursement

100

Kristie Kauerz

and management of funds. Prop 10 does not prescribe specific programs or eligibility requirements, but allows local communities to spend the funds on communication, education, child care, health care, parenting, social services, and/or research to support children prenatally through age five. The taxes took effect on January 1, 1999 and generate approximately $700 million annually. Twenty percent of the collected revenues are allocated to the state commission for statewide efforts including a public education campaign, educational materials and training, technical assistance for the local county commissions, education and training of child care providers, and research and development. The other 80 percent of revenues is allocated to the counties based on the number of births in each county. Before disbursing any funds locally, the county commissions must develop strategic plans, with extensive public input, to determine how best to meet local needs. The proposition has no “sunset” provision, so it remains in effect unless rescinded by the voters through another ballot initiative. Changes to the initiative may be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. • Georgia’s Prekindergarten Program began as a pilot program in 1992, serving 750 at-risk 4-year-old children and their families at 20 sites, using three million dollars from state funds. During the 1990 gubernatorial election, Governor Zell Miller proposed the idea of the Georgia Lottery for Education, the proceeds of which would be used to supplement—not supplant—existing educational programs. In addition to the development of a voluntary preschool program, Governor Miller supported a college scholarship initiative and an effort to increase and improve technology in schools. Georgia voters passed the referendum in 1992 and lottery tickets went on sale in 1993. In 1993–1994, the first lottery funds were utilized to provide prekindergarten programs for more than 8,700 at-risk 4-year olds. Today, funded by lottery revenues, Georgia offers its prekindergarten program free to all four-year-old children regardless of parental income. Each quarter, the lottery commission transfers 35 percent of net lottery proceeds to an education account from which the state legislature makes appropriations for each of the three priority areas. Since its inception, the Georgia Lottery for Education has generated more than $7.6 billion for education. In the 2004–2005 school year, the lottery transferred nearly $270 million to the prekindergarten program to provide services to 70,000 children. Approximately 60 percent of these children were served in child care centers or other community-based organizations; the other 40 percent of children attended programs run by public school systems.

7. An Informed and Supportive Public Children grow up, learn from, and engage in the communities around them. Creating a public understanding of the critical importance of the early childhood years and the need for high-quality programs and services that support young children and their families is essential. Communities that understand and embrace the potential of the early years for promoting children’s later success in school and in life can better influence and inform public policy decisions. Public communication and public will efforts can create mechanisms through which both parents and the general public engage in efforts to influence institutions, legislation, and workplace policies to meet the educational and developmental needs of young children.

Learning from Others

101

Most states now have not-for-profit child advocacy organizations that collect, analyze, and distribute information on the well-being of children in order to influence policymakers and the public. The ultimate goal of these advocacy organizations is to pinpoint problems and to mobilize supporters and influence decision makers to work toward solutions. Some notable state efforts include the following: • Led by Voices for Illinois Children, the Start Early public awareness campaign was launched in 2000 with private grant support. The primary goal of the campaign is to build public support for investing in quality early childhood education. One of the central strategies of the campaign, an extensive media effort, was based on two statewide polls and a series of focus groups. Using this public feedback, paid ads aired on television and radio—and additional ads were used on billboards and in newspapers—focused on improving early education by providing more and better training opportunities for providers. One of the most popular TV spots included two babies talking to each other from their cribs, bemoaning the fact that they were being understimulated to learn by people who lacked adequate training in brain development and early childhood education. The television ad campaign resulted in an increase in public support of 12 percentage points during the 18-month period between the first poll and the second poll. The specific question was about which age group the respondent felt should be the top priority for new education funds. The state saw support for early childhood grow from 33 percent to 45 percent and saw it emerge in the minds of the voters as an important component of public education. Subsequent radio ads focused on the need to preserve child care from budget cuts and to invest in early learning even in tough fiscal times. Since the public campaign launched, the Illinois legislature has begun to take meaningful steps toward improving and expanding preschool and other early childhood programs. In addition, surveys show that an increasing number of Illinois voters agree that state government should do more to improve the quality of early childhood programs. • In 2003, the Connecticut Early Childhood Alliance, a consortium of Connecticut organizations and individuals committed to improving developmental outcomes for young children, adopted a public goal that states, “All children born in Connecticut beginning in 2004 will enter kindergarten healthy, eager to learn, and ready for school success.” With this ambitious goal, the Ready, Set, Grow . . . CT Kids! campaign was launched. Ready, Set, Grow does not deliver early childhood services; rather, its purpose is to generate a greater sense of priority for early childhood issues among policymakers. The campaign’s strategy is one of grassroots support and the belief that when thousands of private citizens express their support for a goal, both state-elected and locally elected policymakers will listen and act. To do this, Ready, Set, Grow recruits individuals from across the state to endorse and engage in the goal of school readiness. The campaign aspires to enlist one adult who publicly supports the goal of “all children ready” for every Connecticut child under the age of five. In 2005, approximately 6.5 percent of the state’s population—or 221,000 residents—were under the age of five. The campaign does not take a position on specific legislation but provides research results and data so that individuals who choose to may express their opinions to the state legislature and other policymakers.

102

Kristie Kauerz

• The Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ) is unique in that it operates a Children’s Legal Resource Center to meet the growing demand for information on legal issues affecting children and children’s rights. Attorneys respond to inquiries from parents, children, service providers, educators, attorneys, judges, court staff and volunteers, and others. The Children’s Legal Resource Center provides information and assistance, publications, and training to parents and others working with children. The Association for Children of New Jersey is a statewide nonprofit advocacy organization for children and families. Beyond the Legal Resource Center, much of ACNJ’s work centers around creating public forums to promote awareness of the well-being of children and issues related to children. The Association for Children of New Jersey is funded primarily through foundation grants and donations to support specific projects; it accepts no government monies for advocacy.

8. Alignment with Kindergarten Often, the public’s notion is that early care and education ends when children enter kindergarten. Many people and policymakers draw a sharp distinction between the care and learning opportunities that children receive as one, two-, three-, and four-year olds from those they receive once they turn five. Kindergarten, though, has long served as an important transition year during which children continue to learn fundamental skills—physical, social, emotional, and cognitive—that prepare them to be engaged students in first grade and throughout their education. A growing body of research has begun to address the importance of kindergarten as an integral part of young children’s early care and education. The work of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) during the 1990s is best known for its work outlining the wide range of abilities and experiences upon which a child’s readiness for school rests (Goal 1 Technical Planning Group 1995). Lesser known, but equally important, NEGP also outlined the importance of schools being ready to support young learners (Shore 1998). Unfortunately, kindergarten shares some characteristics with the early learning field: it is not a guaranteed experience for many children, when programs do exist they are often only offered for a half-day, and parents often pay expensive tuition for their child to attend a full-day program. Indeed, at present, only nine states mandate that districts offer a full-day kindergarten program (Kauerz 2005). Central to the notions of Ready Schools and overall school readiness is the inclusion of high-quality kindergarten as part of states’ overall visions for a system of early care and education. Some states have begun to do so: • Arizona is actively incorporating kindergarten in its overall plans for a highquality early childhood education system. In 2004, Governor Janet Napolitano outlined a five-year School Readiness Action Plan to support the learning and development of Arizona’s youngest children. The goal is to ensure that all Arizona children begin first grade safe, healthy, and ready to succeed. Currently, the state only requires that schools provide voluntary half-day kindergarten. As part of the broader School Readiness Action Plan, the governor

Learning from Others

103

proposed legislation to change the state’s funding for full-day kindergarten by counting kindergarten children as “1” instead of “1/2” in the school funding formula. By so doing, school districts would have a greater incentive to offer full-day kindergarten classes to children. This proposal was based on research that shows that children who attend full-day kindergarten are better prepared to succeed in first grade and beyond. In 2004, the state legislature passed a budget that included $25 million in new state money to implement full-day kindergarten in schools with 90 percent or more of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch. The intent is to phase in full-day kindergarten in all schools statewide by 2010. • In 2003, Hawaii was the first state to define school readiness in state statute: “Young children are ready to have successful learning experiences when there is a positive interaction among the child’s developmental characteristics, school practices, and family and community support.” Shortly thereafter, the state’s School Readiness Task Force developed the Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment (HSSRA). The instrument is unique in that it was designed not only to assess children’s readiness for school, but also to assess whether schools are prepared to receive and support young children. Kindergarten teachers complete one portion of the assessment, providing information on the skills and abilities of the children in their class as a whole. Elementary school principals complete a second assessment, describing their schools’ key policies and practices that support children in kindergarten and the primary grades. The results provide a school profile indicating strengths and needs in five areas: (1) transition practices from home/preschool to kindergarten (e.g., written transition plans, orientations for incoming kindergartners); (2) communication with families (e.g., multiple approaches to share information with families, including home visits, newsletters, phone calls, parent workshops); (3) parent involvement (e.g., involves parents as volunteers, hosts parent workshops on child development); (4) school improvement in early education (e.g., provides kindergarten teachers with professional development in early childhood education); and (5) kindergarten classroom practices (e.g., includes teacher-directed, child-initiated, active, quiet, large group, small group, and individual activities in the daily schedule). This is not a high stakes assessment. Rather, areas of strength are to be celebrated and continued while the areas of weakness can be addressed with focus and intention so that elementary schools are more ready to support entering kindergartners. The composite results of the school readiness assessment give state policymakers and funders a baseline from which to gauge the impact of early childhood education and elementary school efforts to support successful early education experiences for young children.

9. Alignment with Other Child- and Family-Serving Systems As evidenced by the popularity, longevity, and prevalence of broad-based programs such as Head Start, early childhood educators have long recognized the importance of addressing the comprehensive learning and development needs of young children. Not only must children’s health, mental health, and nutritional needs be met in order for them to fully engage in the world around them, but the children’s family and community resources

104

Kristie Kauerz

(e.g., parental employment, income, and poverty) are critical contributors to children’s overall development (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2000). Increasingly, state policymakers are coordinating and aligning policies that address the services and programs that support not only children’s education, care, and health, but also children’s families, neighborhoods, and communities. Strong linkages between early care and education, physical health, mental health, dental health, family support, adult basic education, job training, and income support services should become standard in all states. Some states have begun to make progress in this direction: • Vermont’s Children’s Upstream Project (CUPS) links networks of state and regional networks focused on early childhood issues with mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, and public health agencies. CUPS focuses on providing early intervention, screening, and consultation services for young children, birth to age six, who have—or are at risk of developing—mental health problems. At the state level, CUPS developed competencies for early learning providers in young children’s mental health and funded a consortium of higher education institutions to offer training on early childhood mental health to families and early learning providers. At the local level, services vary depending on local needs. For example, mental health providers conduct home visits and mental health consultation is provided to child care programs, Head Start centers, and preschool classrooms. The program’s name derives from the allegory about children being thrown into a river, one after another. Well-meaning rescuers try to save each child as he floats downstream, but no one thinks in a preventive manner and goes upstream to find out who (or what) is throwing the children in the water in the first place. • West Virginia’s Family Resource Networks engage families in community decision making and priority setting. These networks do more than offer parent education and encourage parents’ active participation in their children’s early care and education. Rather, the networks are community-based organizations charged with service coordination, needs and resource assessment, planning, community mobilization, and evaluation. The networks are comprised of families who are consumers of services, service providers, and community members who work together to better meet the needs of children and families in their local area. Since 2002, the Family Resource Networks have tracked measurable standards to evaluate their performance statewide. There are six expected outcome areas: (1) Community members are aware of local and state issues that affect children and families; (2) Community groups work together to identify and address local issues using relevant information; (3) Local partners work together to maximize community investments; (4) Local partners coordinate existing community services to maximize benefits to families; (5) Local services and programs are provided in a way that respects and supports families; and (6) Families have opportunities to impact decisions that affect them. Based on these evaluation standards, the state now has data that show, for example, that between July and December 2004 Family Resource Networks sponsored 2,076 people across the state were involved in community priority-setting meetings, $12.5 million was raised in public and private funds to support community programs, and 1214 family members received

Learning from Others

105

child care, transportation, or stipends so they could participate in community planning efforts. • All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education to administer Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start). Even Start was designed to help break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and low literacy levels in low-income families. Funding for Even Start flows from the federal government through state education agencies that then make subgrants to local projects; all services are provided locally. In 2003–2004, there were 1200 local Even Start projects. Grantees support family literacy services for parents with low literacy skills or who have limited English proficiency and who have young children under the age of seven. Programs serve families that are the most economically disadvantaged and have the lowest adult literacy levels in the nation: more than 85 percent of participating families are at or below the federal poverty level and 44 percent of participating parents have not gone beyond the ninth grade. These families engage in four key activities related to family literacy: (1) adult basic education and literacy education and/or instruction for English language learners; (2) interactive literacy activities between parents and children that transfer educational concepts and values into the home and the family; (3) parenting education that supports parents in being their children’s primary teacher; and (4) age-appropriate early childhood education to prepare children for school success.

The bulk of this chapter has highlighted state efforts to improve and support specific elements of the early care and education system. While this perspective focuses on the critical elements of early care and education, it may obscure the fact that many states are taking a comprehensive approach to policy change on behalf of young children and their families. The following pages provide brief overviews of two notable state efforts: Colorado’s work to strengthen local communities’ system-building efforts and California’s work to establish a unified and coherent vision for education reform from preschool through postsecondary. The Texas Plan is a blueprint for building a comprehensive early childhood education and development system for all three- and four-year-old children. It is a plan, not yet implemented, that came out of the private sector. The plan is described in chapter 7 of this volume. Further, Donna Bryant’s Chapter 8 in this volume, describing North Carolina’s Smart Start initiative, provides an in-depth review of yet another state’s long-term commitment to building broad and deep early learning policy change.

Two Case Studies: Comprehensive System Building A. Colorado’s Community Consolidated Child Care Pilots: Locally Driven System-Building During the late 1990s, in response to federal welfare reform and trends to devolve decision making, as well as in response to the rapidly increasing focus on children’s early brain development and the importance of high-quality early learning experiences, the state of Colorado initiated an

106

Kristie Kauerz

innovative effort to support local communities in their efforts to build highquality systems of early care and education. In 1997, the Colorado General Assembly created the Colorado Community Consolidated Child Care Pilots (“the Pilots”) in 12 communities. In 1999, additional legislation increased the number of communities to 17, serving 30 of the state’s 64 counties and encompassing 73 percent of the state’s under age five population. Some Pilots serve a single county; others serve multiple counties; one Pilot serves a portion of a large, urban county. The boundaries of the Pilots were selfdetermined by local stakeholders. The intention behind the establishment of the Pilots was to create local laboratories for exploring, defining, and implementing the critical components of a system of early care and education. By statute, the Pilot communities are asked to • improve coordination between the local, county, state, and, where possible, federal resources (both financial and technical) to create a seamless system of early care and education; • ensure collaboration among public and private stakeholders in the delivery of early childhood care and education services; • partner with K-12 education stakeholders to ensure linkages between early childhood education, kindergarten, and grades one–three; • include program components that expand the quality of early care and education programs; and • be responsive to the needs of working parents, especially providing support for low-income parents to become economically self-sufficient and to remain employed.

Selected through a competitive process, each Pilot recognizes the importance of high-quality comprehensive services for young children’s success in school and throughout life. Further, each Pilot recognizes the complexities of the multiple levels of funding and regulations, coupled with competing priorities for service provision and expansion. The Pilots recognize that building a comprehensive, high-quality early care and education system must not happen by chance, but by intentional and thoughtful planning and coordination. To guide their efforts, each Pilot established a local early childhood council whose responsibilities include assessing community needs, focusing planning and activities around those needs, and implementing policies and programs that will not only meet the local needs, but also inform the state’s overall system-building efforts. In addition, the local councils create annual plans that are submitted to the state, oversee the budget of the council, and raise funds to support the council’s work. Most Pilots have either part-time or full-time staff. The Colorado Departments of Education and Human Services partner to administer the program. The majority of the funding for the Consolidated Child Care Pilots comes from the federal Child Care Development Fund. Pilot

Learning from Others

107

communities apply for funding support annually, basing their funding requests on local strategic planning, community needs, and resource gaps. Annual funding to the Pilots ranges from $30,000 to $100,000. Locally, these stateappropriated funds are often matched or supplemented by additional funding from local public agencies, private foundations, and others. The funds are used to pay for local coordinator positions, professional development for early care and education providers, a variety of program quality improvements, mental health services, family support services, and other local priorities. The statewide initiative has one full-time staff. The Early Childhood State Systems Team—with representatives from the Department of Education, Department of Human Services, the Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado School Readiness Commission, Colorado Association of Resource and Referral Agencies, and other state early childhood organizations—provides leadership and technical assistance to the Pilots. After several years of existence, the Pilot communities, in partnership with the state partners, established a Pilot Coordinating Committee that brings the coordinators of each of the local Pilot communities together monthly for training and networking. In addition to the grants and ongoing technical assistance from the state, the authorizing legislation allows Pilot communities to request waivers to any state law, rule, or regulation that presents barriers to their efforts to provide comprehensive services for children and their families. A collaborative team of representatives from state agencies reviews all waiver requests and determines whether or not a waiver is actually needed and whether to actually grant the waiver. The Pilots report that the most significant impact of the waivers is increased local flexibility. At least two waivers have become state law, thereby improving every community’s ability, not just the Pilots’ ability, to meet the early learning needs of young children. In addition to their ongoing efforts to define and build comprehensive systems of early care and education at the local level, the Pilots are priority communities for exploring and incubating innovative initiatives on behalf of the state. For example, in 2002, Colorado took a bold step forward to link early learning reform efforts with K-12 education reform efforts. With the passage of Colorado’s School Readiness Act (HB1297), the state intends to provide high-quality early learning programs for children in neighborhoods that feed into state-defined low-performing elementary schools in order to attain higher achievement scores on the schools’ third grade standardized tests that are part of the Colorado Student Achievement Program (CSAP). The School Readiness Program provides grants and technical assistance, over a three-year period, to state-licensed early learning facilities (child care centers, prekindergarten programs, Head Start centers, family child care homes) in which 50 percent or more of the children are from low-income families. These facilities must be located in neighborhoods that feed into elementary schools that have been determined to be low-performing by the statewide accountability system. Initially, only Pilot communities were eligible to apply for these School Readiness grants.

108

Kristie Kauerz

Colorado’s Consolidated Child Care Pilots have taken great strides toward defining a system of early care and education and better understanding the barriers and obstacles that hinder system-building efforts. In addition, Colorado serves as an example of the interconnectedness of a state-level system and local-level systems and the importance of engaging stakeholders in intentional and ongoing collaboration.

B. California’s Master Plan for Education: Comprehensive Planning In 1999, California’s General Assembly passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, outlining its request for the creation of a new Master Plan for Education (developed in 1960, the original plan focused on higher education and is credited as the genesis of California’s premier statewide system of postsecondary education). California’s effort is unique in that it creates a far-reaching framework to guide educational policy over the next 20 years for all levels and all aspects of public education. The state legislature recognized that, to be responsive to Californians’ needs and the demands of the increasingly technological and information-driven society, the state needed a comprehensive and coherent education system in which all sectors, from prekindergarten through postsecondary education, are aligned and coordinated into one integrated system. Rather than beginning with a focus on improving systems and bureaucracies, the Master Plan began with an uncompromised commitment to promoting student achievement and the ability to learn for a lifetime. Fundamentally, California’s legislature asked for a plan that ensured that all of the state’s education policies, practices, structures, and financing would support learners and their acquisition of the knowledge and skills that enable them to be successful throughout their lifetimes. The legislature appointed a Joint Committee to oversee the work that, in turn, solicited the input and expertise of hundreds of people both in the state and across the nation. Working groups were convened to review long-existing policies and deeply entrenched assumptions about education under the broad umbrella topics of school readiness; student learning; professional personnel development; governance; workforce preparation and business linkages; emerging modes of delivery, certification, and planning; and finance and facilities. These working groups presented full reports to the Joint Committee and their recommendations were embedded into the state’s overall plan. The School Readiness Working Group made an overarching recommendation to reorganize the California Department of Education into divisions reflective of children’s developmental groupings: a birth to grade 3 division (primary), a grades 4 to 8 division (elementary), and a grades 9 to 12 division (secondary). In addition, the Working Group made 14 specific recommendations to the Joint Committee: 1. Fund high-quality programs for all low-income infants and toddlers and enhance developmental screening in the earliest years of life.

Learning from Others

109

2. For the two years leading up to kindergarten entry, provide universal access to formal preschool programs that offer group experiences, standardsbased curricula, and individualized transition plans to kindergarten. 3. Require kindergarten attendance for all children; phase in full-school-day kindergarten; and align preschool and kindergarten standards, curricula, and services. 4. Require “Ready Schools” plans to build on the gains that children have made during their early years. 5. Establish accountability and mandate professional development to ensure effective placements of children in inclusive and appropriate early childhood education programs with suitable child-adult ratios for children with disabilities and other special needs. 6. Require the use of child learning and development goals supported by individualized learning plans and uniform program standards for all publicly funded licensed and license-exempt programs. 7. Enact Omnibus Early Childhood Development legislation that raises standards for early childhood educators and funds a professional development system that prepares, supports, and guides the compensation of all adults who care for and educate preschool-age children. 8. Enact legislation to create an accountability system (including program evaluation) that ensures that public investments in early care and education result in improved school readiness and, over time, improved achievement. 9. Combine all existing state and federal child care and development programs into one early education system under the Department of Education. Devolve decision making regarding planning and resource allocation to county superintendents of schools. 10. Develop and fund a per-child allocation model of financing early care and education sufficient to meet the new system’s quality standards and organizational infrastructure requirements. 11. Improve the availability, quality, and maintenance of early education facilities. 12. Enact legislation that will allocate resources to establish a network of neighborhood-based School Readiness Centers that gives all families access to essential services to meet children’s developmental needs. 13. Provide stable and continuous health care for children and pregnant women, develop a statewide system for issuing health and development “passports,” and expand insurance coverage. 14. Provide incentives for paid family leave and employer/workplace familyfriendly policies.

To reinforce how each level of the education system impacts and is interdependent with other levels, the recommendations in the Master Plan specific to early care and education, K-12, adult education, and postsecondary education are separately listed only when necessary to address unique features of each level of the education system. Otherwise, the recommendations are organized according to four critical areas of the entire education system in the state: access, achievement, accountability, and affordability. Not only does this conceptual organization emphasize the common features across all levels of education, but it also puts early care and education on

110

Kristie Kauerz

equal footing with K-12 and postsecondary education. Rather than dividing education into independent systems, California’s Master Plan unites all levels of education under a single vision. The plan offers specific recommendations on what priorities should be pursued and it delineates the functions, responsibilities, and authority that should reside with state-level entities, and those that should be delegated to regional and local entities. Even with this specificity, California’s Master Plan for Education is just that—a plan only. However, the plan’s framework provides a comprehensive foundation from which policymakers can develop and pursue legislation, constitutional amendments, and budget and regulatory changes to begin a phased implementation of the recommendations.

Conclusion States’ efforts to build comprehensive systems of early care and education are, obviously, works in progress. No state really has a fully comprehensive system that addresses all children from birth to school entry. Certainly, no two states’ efforts are the same. Both the lack of a “single system” in any state and the lack of full replication of efforts across states is not surprising given the federal system of government in the United States. There is not— and probably should not be—a one-size-fits-all approach to early care and education. States have different populations, different resources, different priorities, and, therefore, different emphases and efforts around components of an early learning system. What states do share in common, though, is the need to address all of the system components. All states must develop initiatives to improve children’s daily experiences by focusing on high-quality teaching, quality early care and education programs, accountability, and the engagement of families. Similarly, all states must pay attention to the more distal, but foundational, administrative, and infrastructure components that support a durable and coordinated system of programs and services. These elements include a state-level governance structure, funding, an informed and supportive public, and alignment and coordination with kindergarten and other child- and family-serving systems. An effective and efficient system of early care and education requires that states pay attention to all of these components. Not even one component can be forgotten or overlooked without compromising the strength of the full system. Countless promising practices, innovative ideas, and dedicated stakeholders exist across the United States. This chapter has highlighted only a small sample of those efforts. Nurturing this country’s treasure of young children demands that states share their best efforts with one another and be willing to learn from one another.

Learning from Others

111

Notes 1. For overviews of the history of early care and education in the United States, see, for example, (Bloch 1987; Cahan 1989). 2. Even though the term “day care” is frequently used interchangeably with “child care,” it is an inadequate synonym. Day care is an inappropriate term not only because child care services are often provided during evening hours and overnight to meet the needs of parents who work nontraditional and shifting hours, but also because children, not days, are cared for in these programs. 3. Mandatory school attendance begins in first grade in most states. Only 14 states— Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia—require children to attend kindergarten (McMaken, 2003).

References An act concerning education—child care administration and office for children, youth, and families and Maryland family support centers network—transfer to state department of education, Maryland General Assembly, 419th Session (2005). Barnett, S. W. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). Bloch, M. N. (1987). Becoming scientific and professional: An historical perspective on the aims and effects of early education. In The foundations of the school subjects, ed. T.S. Popkewitz, 25–62. London: Falmer Press. Brooks-Gunn, J. and G. Duncan. (1997). The effects of poverty on children and youth. The Future of Children 7 (2): 55–71. Bruner, C., M. Stover Wright, B. Gebhard, and S. Hibbard. (2004). Building an early learning system: The ABCs of planning and governance structures. Des Moines, IA: State Early Childhood Policy Technical Assistance Network, Child and Family Policy Center. Cahan, E. D. (1989). Past caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and education for the poor, 1820–1965. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty. Gallagher, J. J., R. M. Clifford, and K. Maxwell. (2004). Getting from here to there: To an ideal early preschool system. Early Childhood Research and Practice 6 (1). Retrieved March 16, 2006, from www.ecrp.uiuc.edu on General Accounting Office (GAO). (2000). Early education and care: Overlap indicates need to assess crosscutting programs (No. GAO/HEHS-00-78). Washington, DC: GAO. Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. (1995). Reconsidering children’s early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. Helburn, S. W., ed. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver. Hyson, M., ed. (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for initial licensure, advanced, and associate degree programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Kagan, S. L. and N. E. Cohen. (1997). Not by chance: Creating an early care and education system for America’s children. New Haven, CT: Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy, Yale University.

112

Kristie Kauerz

Kagan, S. L. and M. J. Neuman. (2003). Back to basics: Building an early care and education system. In Handbook of applied developmental science: Vol. 2. Enhancing the life chances of youth and families: Contributions of programs, policies, and service systems, ed. F. Jacobs, D. Wertlieb, and R. M. Lerner, 329–345. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kagan, S. L. and E. Rigby. (2003). Policy matters: Improving the readiness of children for school. Recommendations for state policy. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. Kauerz, K. (2005). State kindergarten policies: Straddling early learning and early elementary school. Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web (March). Available at www.journal.naeyc.org/btj/200503/. LeMoine, S. (2004). Center child care licensing requirements (August 2004): Minimum early childhood education (ECE) preservice qualifications and annual ongoing training hours for teachers and master teachers. Retrieved January 31, 2005 from http://nccic.org/pubs/cclicensingreq/cclr-teachers.pdf McMaken, J. (2003, August 2001). State statutes regarding kindergarten. ECS StateNotes. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.htm Mitchell, A., L. Stoney, and H. Dichter. (1997). Financing child care in the United States: An illustrative catalog of current strategies. Kansas City, MO and Philadelphia, PA: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts. National Child Care Information Center. (2004). Child care and development fund (CCDF) report of state plans: FY 2004–2005. Washington, DC: Child Care Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ———. (2005). Quality rating systems: Definition and statewide systems. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from www.nccic.org/pubs/qrs-defsystems.pdf National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Scott-Little, C., S. L. Kagan, and V. S. Frelow. (2003). Standards for preschool children’s learning and development: Who has standards, how were they developed, and how are they used? Executive summary. Greensboro, NC: SERVE. Shore, R. (1998). Ready schools: A report of the goal 1 ready schools resource group. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

6 North Carolina’s Early Childhood Initiative: The Smart Start Story and Its Evaluation Donna Bryant Smart Start is North Carolina’s nationally recognized comprehensive initiative to improve its early child care and education system with the goal of ensuring that all children under kindergarten age are healthy and prepared for school. Many states are focusing on their early care and education systems, and some have initiatives similar to Smart Start. Instead of following a top-down, state-mandated strategy, these initiatives generally claim to be “reinventing government” by setting broad goals for infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families, and then allowing local communities to decide how best to meet these goals. As other states develop plans to improve the well-being of their youngest children, they may benefit from a closer look at the beginnings of Smart Start in North Carolina as well as the successes that have been documented to date. While no two states operate in precisely the same ways, distinctive characteristics of North Carolina’s plan can be adjusted and applied to other states’ efforts to introduce comprehensive early childhood education and development programs. This chapter will describe North Carolina’s Smart Start initiative, summarize the results of its evaluation, and comment on several issues related to evaluating such a program.

A History and Description of the Initiative The First Year In the 1980s North Carolina early childhood advocates were increasingly successful in educating the legislature on the importance of the early years. The state’s low standing on indicators of children’s well-being was used to motivate change (e.g., 20 percent of young children in poverty, thirty-ninth in a state index on the health and well-being of children, high infant mortality and weak child care standards). In the early 1990s the well-publicized research on brain development captured the public’s interest, particularly that of parents. And in 1992, former governor Jim Hunt decided to campaign for reelection (he had been governor for two terms in the 1970s) with

114

Donna Bryant

early childhood as his central issue. Early childhood experts helped the governor develop the early childhood initiative during the campaign. When Hunt was reelected and took office in January 1993, the North Carolina political climate and economy were right for this new birth to age five initiative, which was called “Smart Start.” Hunt obtained the backing of major business leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, using every speech at every occasion as an opportunity to explain that North Carolina would not be able to build a world-class workforce if its children did not come to school ready to learn. The governor’s crusade was effective. Within 6 months, the state legislature appropriated $20 million of state tax dollars for Smart Start and formed a new Division of Child Development. A system of allocating the funding to counties was established and a competition was held. Given the short turnaround time in the summer of 1993, it was quite surprising that 89 of 100 counties were able to form the required teams and submit an application for funding. Obviously, motivation and enthusiasm were high. In September 2003 Governor Hunt announced the selection of the 12 “pioneer” partnerships (representing 18 counties) that would be the first to participate in Smart Start. Once chosen to be a Smart Start partnership, the 12 local teams were required to attend 3 3-day retreats to discuss and plan the activities to be funded by Smart Start. Many days of meetings also occurred locally. Partnerships had to establish a nonprofit organization to receive the state dollars (a 501[c]3 organization). By statute, the local partnership boards had to bring everyone to the table (government, business, parents, early childhood service providers, faith communities) to design their plan and ensure the best collaborative approach to meet community needs. These boards made programmatic and funding decisions at the local level. The legislature also passed laws creating the North Carolina Partnership for Children (NCPC), a nonprofit organization to provide statewide leadership, technical assistance, and oversight for Smart Start. The initial legislation included laws improving the teacher to child ratios in child care, and also allocated an additional $1 million statewide for immunizations and another $1 million for the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project®. The latter, a program administered in North Carolina by Child Care Services Association, links early child care providers with scholarships for their education and increased compensation. The initial legislation also funded a statewide Smart Start evaluation. It was a whirlwind first year. Smart Start’s rapid launch was made possible by Hunt’s strong leadership, a solid base of previous work by advocates, a robust economy, coincidental timing with the national media’s focus on early brain development, and an exceptionally motivated and savvy group of administrators in the Division of Child Development and other state departments related to health and education. The celebration accompanying the launch of Smart Start was followed, however, by months and years of hard work, as local teams and state officials began figuring out exactly how this dream of an initiative was going to actually work.

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

115

The Middle Years of Expansion The original vision for Smart Start was that each county or partnership (some partnerships consisted of multiple counties) would decide on and implement their own solutions to their own county’s early childhood needs. A comprehensive system of early care and education was envisioned with parent choice, affordability, accessibility, and high quality. Many agencies and organizations would need to be involved, including child care programs, Head Start, public schools, county health and social service agencies, faithbased programs, and many others. The state gave very few mandates to the counties in the first years, so many local partnerships struggled with decisions about how broadly to aim the focus of Smart Start. Was it primarily to improve the child care system or could Smart Start be broadly inclusive of health programs, family resource centers, home visiting efforts, and a variety of other programs for families of children birth to age five? The early guidelines were loose and counties were encouraged to take different routes to the ultimate goal of school readiness. However, after a few years the state partnership developed a list of core services and eventually even the legislature stepped in, mandating that at least 30 percent of Smart Start service funds be spent on child care subsidies for low-income parents and 40 percent on other child care related activities such as quality enhancement. The remaining funds could be spent on health and family support activities. From 18 Smart Start counties in 1993, Smart Start expanded each year until 1997, eventually encompassing all 100 NC counties in 81 local partnerships, including a few multicounty partnerships. Funding to counties is allocated by a formula that considers both the needs and current resources for young children on a county basis. The main elements of the formula are the number of children under age six in families below 125 percent of the poverty level and the cost of providing child care to all those who need it (the additional market rate cost of child care for all children, birth to age five, not currently in care). The General Assembly increased funding steadily until 2000 when Smart Start received $240 million, approximately 70 percent of the originally projected full-funding level. In addition to the state funding for Smart Start, statute requires a 10 percent match from the private sector each year. Smart Start has always exceeded this amount, garnering over $200 million in private funds and contributions since it began. In 2000, North Carolina elected a new governor and entered, as did many other states, a period of economic stagnation. The legislative funding for Smart Start decreased to $200 million in 2005–2006. However, as Smart Start funds decreased gradually each year, funding for Governor Easley’s new statewide prekindergarten program increased. The More at Four prekindergarten program targets four-year-old children from low-income families. It provides classroom-based, school-day early education in programs that meet state guidelines. Classrooms are located in schools, child care centers, and Head Start programs. The More at Four Program served almost 11,000 children in 2003–2004 (Peisner-Feinberg 2005). The state

116

Donna Bryant

funding of approximately $3,500/child is expected to be matched by local funding and in many counties, some or all of the match is provided by the local Smart Start partnership. More at Four is a very specific program whereas Smart Start is a process for funding a variety of early childhood programs. When More at Four began, Smart Start partnerships had been operating in their communities from four to eight years, so the partnerships were able to facilitate the launching and continued operations of the new prekindergarten programs, through both financial and operational support. Interestingly, when added together, the 2005 Smart Start funding and More at Four funding totaled about $250 million, so although the Smart Start budget had decreased, total state funding for early childhood did not.

Smart Start Today To provide Smart Start services to children birth to age five and their families, each local partnership develops a comprehensive plan that targets the greatest needs in their community among three core services: child care (quality, affordability, and availability), health, and family support. Each part of this plan must connect to measurable outcomes, and services must not duplicate existing statewide or local efforts. Some counties fund only a few different services (e.g., child care subsidies, on-site consultation for quality enhancement of center-based and family child care, and a family resource center), while others support numerous services, including (in addition to the above) child care resource and referral for parents, scholarships for early childhood teacher education, home visiting programs, dental care, and immunization support. In many cases, Smart Start funds are used to enhance or expand the services of an existing program. Local partnerships are encouraged to make decisions about the activities they fund based on data. Partnerships are allowed to hire local evaluators, but with the level of needs they want to address, partnerships generally fund programs over evaluations. With some justification, they look to the statewide evaluation to answer the key questions regarding Smart Start’s effectiveness.

The Evaluation of Smart Start A statewide evaluation of Smart Start was funded from the very beginning of the initiative. The evaluation team consisted of researchers from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute and the Schools of Education, Public Health, and Maternal and Child Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The goal of the evaluation was to provide answers to some of the big questions about Smart Start, for example, How was the process working? Did Smart Start-funded efforts improve the quality of early childhood programs? Was Smart Start good for children?

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

117

Because Smart Start is not a single intervention nor even a dozen interventions, but rather hundreds of interventions across the state, determining what comprised a “statewide evaluation” was an initial challenge. In the first year of Smart Start, the NCPC and the administration set forth 39 goals for the initiative, including immunizing children on time, helping families value learning for themselves and their young children, providing affordable high-quality child care to all families, and increasing children’s school entry skills. As the evaluation team observed the first 12 county partnerships in their meetings to work on their initial local plans and as the team met with state agency leaders to determine the breadth and depth of the evaluation, the scope of possible studies was immense. Which of the many studies that could be done were most important? Where should the evaluation begin? The evaluation team used a logic model approach to determine where to focus the evaluation efforts (Connell and Kubisch 1998; Weiss 1995).

Theory of Change A specific theory of change model had not been spelled out by the developers of Smart Start, although many theories of change were implicit in the activities funded in the first year. The 12 pioneer partnerships funded 244 individual local service programs and activities in the first year of Smart Start, ranging from 10 to 54 activities within a single county. Defining what Smart Start really was and how to evaluate “it” challenged the evaluation team. The team developed a posthoc logic model that organized and simplified the multitude of activities, based mainly on the delivery process of the activities and their intended outcomes. Each activity was grouped into one of four categories with services related to (1) quality child care improvement; (2) family functioning; (3) children’s health care; or (4) increased/ improved interagency collaboration. Most of these activities had implicit, if not explicit, short-term goals in the pursuit of the long-term goal of helping NC children arrive at school “healthy and prepared to succeed.” (This goal was specified in the legislation.) To better guide the evaluation, the team depicted and simplified the theory of change model that seemed to be guiding the initiative (see table 6.1). Leaders at the state Partnership for Children and in the Division of Child Development participated in discussions of the logic model as it was developed. As shown in table 6.1, the child readiness outcome would be reached through improved child care quality and better functioning families. Thus, many Smart Start–funded services targeted family and center-based child care as well as family support and education programs. Health services attempted to increase the numbers of children receiving immunizations, regular health check-ups, and screenings with the longer-term goal of improving child health. The fourth broad category of services was in the domain of support for planning and collaboration within communities.

118 Table 6.1

Donna Bryant Theories of Change Underlying Smart Start

Target

Smart Start Service-Broad Category

Short-Term Change

Long-Term Change

Families and young children

Quality child care efforts

Better child care for children birth to age five

More “ready” children at age five

Family programs

Better functioning families

More “ready” children at age five

Health programs

More children taking advantage of greater number of health services

Children more healthy at school entry

Support for planning and collaboration

More and different people involved in the decision making

Coordinated service systems that strengthen families and children

The early childhood system in the community

The theory was that involving more people and agencies in the decision making about the child and family programs in their community would result in more coordinated and efficient systems of care with fewer gaps through which children and families could fall. This theory of change model then guided the work of the evaluation team, the local partnerships’ accountability process to the state partnership and to the legislature. Every quarter, partnerships reported the number of children and/or families who had received or participated in Smart Start–funded activities by the activity type. Expenditures for each type of funded activity were also reported quarterly. Through these reports, the evaluation team could calculate the amount of funds spent on each broad category of service, both within and across partnerships. Systematically linking the activities, outcomes, and contexts of the initiative through a theory of change model sharpened the planning and implementation of the evaluation. Tying the evaluation work to the systems change model kept the evaluation team efforts focused substantially on child care quality and children’s health, language, and social outcomes. Other studies have focused on families and on the entire collaboration process. The studies use rigorous research methods whenever possible. Both qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted. Examples of studies in child care accessibility and quality, children’s school entry skills and health, family involvement, and local agency collaboration are presented below. (A complete list of 35 reports is on the Web: www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart.)

Child Care Quality and Accessibility Research shows that high quality child care environments are positively related to children’s later cognitive, language, social, and emotional

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

119

outcomes, both in the short term and the long term. For example, findings from the four-state Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study found that children who attended higher quality preschool classrooms had fewer problem behaviors, better math skills, and better cognitive and attention skills through second grade (Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). In addition, the positive influences of better child care quality were even more pronounced for children at greater risk, particularly in terms of behavior problems and math skills. Studies in other states have shown that children in higher quality preschool classrooms exhibit greater competence with peers in preschool (Howes, Phillips, and Whitebook 1992) and in kindergarten (Howes 1990). Based on studies such as these, Smart Start partnerships direct about 30–40 percent of funds toward quality improvement of child care centers and family child care homes. Grants are provided to programs for specific quality enhancement materials or activities. Early childhood consultants are hired to deliver on-site customized technical assistance to teachers and family child care providers seeking to deliver better care and education. Higher rates of child care subsidy are given to centers and homes that reach specific quality milestones (cf. Stoney and Mitchell, this volume). Each year the numbers of centers, teachers, and family child care providers who participated in these activities increased and the number of children affected by these activities has increased. The growth of Smart Start can be illustrated in a number of ways. In the five years from 1997 through 2001, the number of families receiving direct subsidies to help pay for child care services rose from 18,627 to 57,114. These subsidies were in addition to federally funded child care subsidies and were dispersed either through the local partnership or through the social services agency that handled child care subsidies. In addition, 8,900 new child care spaces were created with Smart Start funding. From the school years 1996–1997 through 2000–2001, the number of children ages birth to five attending child care centers that participated in specific quality improvement activities rose from 62,274 to 149,009 respectively (Bryant 2002). To put these numbers in perspective, in 2001 about 600,000 children under age 6 lived in NC and approximately 185,000 were enrolled in licensed child care programs. With regard to accessibility of programs to children with disabilities, the number of centers serving children with disabilities increased from 40 percent of centers in 1994 to 59 percent in 1999. In addition to showing increased availability of child care, child care quality was measured using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms and Clifford 1980), a widely used observational measure of the quality of child care for preschoolers. The ECERS assesses quality in many domains, including the learning activities for children, teacherchild and child-child interactions, the schedule of the day, choices provided for children, the physical space indoors and outside, as well as the learning materials available to the children. Scores on each of 37 items can range

Percent of Centers

120

Donna Bryant 100

1994

90

1996

80

1999

70

2002

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low

Medium

High

Classroom Quality Figure 6.1

Quality of NC Preschool Child Care

from 1 to 7, with the overall mean score used as a global measure of the developmental appropriateness or quality of the classroom. An overall score from 1 to 2.9 is considered poor quality (low); scores from 3 to 4.9 are considered medium to good quality (medium); and scores of 5 or greater are considered good to excellent quality (high). Through on-site observations of over 180 randomly selected child care centers, the evaluation showed that child care quality increased steadily and significantly across four assessment occasions from 1994 to 2002 (Bryant et al. 2003). Figure 6.1 shows that compared to 1994, in 2002 more than twice as many child care centers scored in the high range on the ECERS. Of course, this still means that more than half of the programs sampled had yet to meet the goal of five on the ECERS, but significant progress has been made. In addition to quality improving over the years, these studies also showed that the quality of center-based child care was significantly related to the number of local quality improvement activities in which the child care centers participated and, within a partnership, to the amount of funds that were targeted to quality improvements. Another Smart Start study showed a similar positive association between family child care quality and participation in Smart Start quality initiatives, with more participation significantly related to higher family child care quality. Although the overall quality of family child care in NC still needs improvement, progress is being made (Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2000). In 12 partnerships that significantly increased the numbers of high-quality child care programs in their county, interviews with 37 key informants helped us describe the variety of strategies they had successfully used (Taylor and Bryant 2002).

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

121

Evaluation of Children’s School Success The studies reported above, showing steadily increasing classroom quality scores within center-based child care (ECERS scores), were influential to policymakers, but the studies involving children’s outcomes seemed more influential. A major long-term goal of Smart Start is that children arrive at school healthy and ready to succeed. The child care, family support, and health efforts funded by Smart Start should all contribute positively to children’s developmental status when they enter kindergarten. For example, in FY 1999–2000, over 90,000 children received health or developmental screenings that were funded by Smart Start. The evaluation team documented kindergartners’ entry status via kindergarten teacher ratings of thousands of children (both teachers and children selected randomly and representatively from state records) in 1995, 1997, and 1999. We used the Kindergarten Teacher Checklist (Dauber, Alexander, and Entwisle 1993), a 36-item teacher rating of children’s readiness in 5 domains—language skills, cognitive skills, sensory-perceptual skills, affect/motivation, and physical-motor skills. No change in teachers’ ratings of children’s skills in the five domains were seen nor were there changes in the percentages of children deemed by their kindergarten teachers as “ready to succeed in school” (between 81–82 percent each year). Did this lack of an upward trend line mean that Smart Start was not working? The evaluators believe that two flaws in the research design make the results from cross-sectional sampling from 1995 to 1999 hard to interpret. First, the sampling strategy did not allow the evaluators to know whether a particular child or family participated in any local Smart Start programs. Second, the strategy could also not account for the possibility that teachers’ expectations of the children’s abilities might rise over the years, if children’s skills were indeed improving. We needed a more robust design. When we prospectively followed into kindergarten 214 preschoolers (4-year olds) who had attended child care centers that had participated in extensive Smart Start quality improvement activities, and compared them to 294 classmates who had attended non–Smart Start child care, we were able to show significant differences between the two groups (Maxwell, Bryant, and Miller-Johnson 1999). Smart Start children entered school with significantly higher vocabulary scores and more positive teacher ratings of their social skills (using the Social Skills Rating Scale, Gresham and Elliott 1990). They were also 50 percent less likely to have behavior problems. These differences were seen even after controlling for poverty, which was a very strong predictor of children’s kindergarten entry skills. Comparing the same two groups of children, those who attended Smart Start centers were significantly more likely to have a regular source of health care than children who had not, 90 percent versus 82 percent (Kotch and Kropp 2000). Another child outcomes study included observations in 120 classrooms and individual assessments of 512 children. This study linked a center’s participation in Smart Start quality improvement programs to higher

122

Donna Bryant

classroom quality and also linked higher classroom quality to higher scores among children on assessments of literacy and numeracy skills (Bryant, Maxwell, and Poe 2003). Classroom quality as measured by the ECERS significantly and positively related to children’s outcomes, over and above the expected effects of gender, income, and ethnicity. Children from poor and nonpoor families were equally influenced by quality, providing support for quality improvement programs in all kinds of settings, serving all kinds of children, not just targeted to those who are the poor. Children from poor families are more likely to have lower kindergarten readiness skills and thus be in greater need of positive early childhood experiences; however, all children benefit from improved programs. This study provided to policymakers the most convincing support for the positive effects of Smart Start.

Evaluation of Smart Start Families An important goal of Smart Start has been to help families effectively fulfill their roles as primary providers, nurturers, and teachers of their children. A long history of parenting research has established that parental influence on children’s development is strong and complex (Collins et al. 2000). Smart Start programs provide families with information, education, and support to help their children prepare for success in school. Smart Start funds family resource centers where families can obtain information and education related to child development and parenting. To be convenient for parents, these resource centers are often located in low-income neighborhoods or in or near school buildings. Smart Start funds training in parenting skills, parent education opportunities, and family literacy and home visiting programs. In FY1999–2000, over 66,000 families received parent education and support from a Smart Start–funded program and 22,000 families received information, education, or support specifically from a Smart Start family resource center. Because of the wide variety of family programs that are part of Smart Start, the evaluation has described the characteristics of the range of families involved in Smart Start rather than study specific programs (Lowman, Bryant, and Zolotor 1997). Through interviews with 356 families chosen randomly from the rolls of Smart Start-funded programs of all types, evaluators learned that most Smart Start families are working and that a wide range of families, from low- to upper-income, were involved. Mothers who worked tended to work full time, averaging 36 hours per week. Families engaged in educationally important activities with their children. On questions identical to those in a national survey (U.S. Department of Education 1993), the responses of Smart Start parents showed that they read, played number games, told stories, and sang songs together as often, if not more often, than the national sample of parents of preschoolers, an optimistic finding given that a much higher percentage of Smart Start families were of lower income compared to families sampled in the national survey. Although the majority of families were involved in at least one community group, 25 percent of families were not, and 25 percent also reported

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

123

needing parenting education programs. Low-income families were more than twice as likely as middle-income families to report one or more barriers to obtaining needed services. The results of this study highlighted the fact that Smart Start is for all families, not just families in poverty, and that families highly desired and appreciated the kinds of services Smart Start was providing. It will always be challenging to assess the added value of family focused programs to the overall initiative that focused the majority of its funding on early care and education delivered by child care centers and family child care homes. Most early childhood professionals involved in Smart Start believe that family programs alone would not be sufficient to reach the kindergarten health and readiness goals. However, engaging with families enables intervention staff to positively influence families and parenting directly and to link parents and their children into systems of early care and education for the child that meet the child’s learning needs.

Evaluation of Collaboration Smart Start is more than the sum of its parts. The evaluation team has conducted several studies of collaboration and community involvement using interviews and focus groups with partnerships and community members. The first qualitative studies were extensive observations of the planning process within local partnerships and interviews with key participants. The reports of these efforts not only described the collaboration and start-up process, but also resulted in changes in the planning process requirements and in the provision of early childhood technical assistance and leadership training to the partnerships (Maxwell and Bryant 1994; Bryant and Adkins 1995). In more recent studies, participants have reported that the Smart Start planning process has improved local interagency collaboration among organizations that serve young children and their families. Many participants think that collaboration is one of the most striking successes of Smart Start (Orthner, Cole, and Ehrlich 2000). Maintaining parent and business involvement in local partnership boards is a challenge shouldered mainly by the executive directors of partnerships, but is perceived as essential for the partnership’s success (Cornish and Noblit 1997; Patterson 1998). The value of these qualitative studies is sometimes hard to assess, as it often seems that legislators focus more on hard data--service counts and outcomes. However, the qualitative studies have provided rich descriptions of how the partnership process is working, which is, after all, the heart of the innovative “intervention” known as Smart Start. As noted above, these studies have gleaned lessons useful not only to NC, but also to other states with similar broad initiatives.

Challenges in Evaluating Smart Start Although Smart Start and other similar, comprehensive communitybased initiatives may be very appropriate for solving complex community

124

Donna Bryant

problems, they are challenging to evaluate. Connell et al. (1995) discussed six specific difficulties faced by evaluators of comprehensive initiatives and Smart Start illustrates them all. First, Smart Start is a horizontally complex initiative, affecting multiple community systems, such as child care, schools, and health agencies. Second, Smart Start is also vertically complex, targeting change at multiple levels of the community, including service systems, families, and individuals. Third, Smart Start attempts to affect a broad range of outcomes, including outcomes that are difficult to define and measure, such as collaboration among service agencies. The evaluation team addressed horizontal and vertical complexity by designing and conducting evaluations of individual components of Smart Start and then tying the studies together for the policymakers via the systems change model. Focusing on one component at a time reduced the problems associated with a range of goals, but of course, did not fully reflect the broad nature of the outcomes potentially affected. Contextual issues comprise the fourth evaluation challenge. Context must always be considered, though, because individual local Smart Start programs and interventions are not taking place in isolation and are affected by economic and political factors not controlled by the initiative leaders. This fourth evaluation challenge can sometimes be addressed by using county demographic variables such as average household income or education as predictors in statistical models. However, the Smart Start evaluation team had no proxy variables for a number of other contextual factors that may have been at work. For example, the political leadership in the state House of Representatives changed hands the year after Smart Start began; Hurricane Fran devastated several eastern counties in 1996; the number of Hispanic families in NC tripled in the 1990s. How does one take these factors into account in a systems-wide evaluation? Evaluators are also challenged by a fifth complexity: flexible and evolving interventions, developed by community members and possibly redefined at each funding cycle. The way in which Smart Start partnership boards spend their funds and the amount designated for specific types of services varies widely across partnerships and, within a partnership, across years. We have tried to take this into account by using proportion of funds appropriated for specific services as an indicator of a county’s commitment to that service. For example, in the child care quality study, the funding proportion was indeed a predictor (proportion of total Smart Start budget spent on child care predicted higher classroom quality). However, amount of funding is only a proxy for the actual intensity and quality of services provided. Understanding the initiative’s effects can be enhanced with documentation of service quality and quantity. The sixth evaluation challenge faced by Smart Start has been the absence of a comparison community or control group. Traditional random assignment designs have been impossible because communities were not randomly assigned to receive or not receive Smart Start funds and because their

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

125

initiatives are often aimed at all individuals in a community. Even if random assignment of individuals within a community were possible, it would be difficult in many cases to determine who is and is not participating in the “intervention” because Smart Start efforts have been well integrated into the existing service system. Although we can match counties on certain demographic characteristics, we cannot match on intangibles such as the presence or absence of a dynamic executive director and highly involved board members. The evaluation tends generally to look within counties for unserved or underserved children, families, or child care centers and then comprise a comparison group. Such a comparison group does not have the elegance or methodological acceptance of a randomized study, but when the comparability of the two groups can be documented, the results of studies with this approach are more accepted. Pre-post comparison studies are another way to address this evaluation challenge. Another consequence of the blending and leveraging of funding that Smart Start engendered within communities and the state is that traditional cost analyses have not been done, and probably cannot be done. Per capita state spending on Smart Start in a given year could be calculated (i.e., $200 million divided by 600,000 children under age six) but the resulting amount would not represent any particular child’s experiences in Smart Start. The local partnerships totally fund some services, partially fund some programs, and many act as the catalyst to get other efforts off the ground. Determining Smart Start’s contribution to a specific child’s “outcomes” is not possible. These evaluation challenges were not unique to Smart Start. They are faced by existing community-based early childhood initiatives (whether statewide or city-wide) or will be faced by newly developed initiatives in other states. Where state legislation establishes broad goals but gives communities flexibility to develop the approaches and services that best meet their needs, activities and desired outcomes will differ from place to place. The increasing need for outcome-based accountability to show the effects of an initiative will create a demand for credible evaluations that adequately take into account the complexity of these initiatives. Several strategies can be undertaken early in the life of an initiative to increase the likelihood of a successful evaluation. One is to create realistic expectations for the likely effects of an initiative. With two-year election cycles, legislators often want change in a short period of time, so it is tempting to overpromise on the results of an initiative. A realistic set of expectations that acknowledges the time it might take to achieve change, especially if the funds are thinly spread, can reduce future disappointment with results. Funders and policymakers need to be educated that a single study will not answer all their questions. Another useful strategy is to provide process results during the time between an initiative’s launch and the expected time of outcome results. While fully acknowledging that reports about the implementation of the

126

Donna Bryant

process or documentation of services delivered and characteristics of recipients are not outcomes or impact data, such reports can serve important functions. They help describe the initiative in compelling ways, can target needed areas of improvement, and document whether the services are reaching the intended population. They also fill the gap between the beginning of the initiative and the time at which measurable outcomes might indeed be expected. Using multiple communication methods can also be helpful. Long reports are generally of interest only to other evaluators and the program directors of the programs directly involved. Most policymakers desire concise, synthesized summaries of the most important findings. Parents and service providers will usually attend to shorter and colorful reports. Presenting data in multiple ways reaches multiple audiences. The Smart Start evaluation team has been fortunate to work with very smart, dedicated administrators at the state agency, state partnership, and local partnership levels. The study reports were read, digested, and acted upon when changes were needed. These individuals also helped the evaluation team polish the message of some of the studies, increasing their readability or relevance to the legislature. Some of the reports, most notably those on quality increases and positive outcomes for children, appear to have been most influential with legislators. Local partnerships perhaps paid more attention to the reports on the Smart Start process itself, which is not surprising, given that they were “making it up as they went along” in the early years and were glad to participate in and read about studies that helped describe what was working and what was not.

Summary A number of salient features characterize the Smart Start initiative. One has been the intense degree of collaboration that has occurred at every level, from the funding (a blend of public and private) to the agencies (state, county, and local community agencies, both profit and nonprofit) to the early care and education system (including child care centers, family child care, Head Start, early intervention programs) to the boards that run the local Smart Start nonprofit agency (a mix of business folks, parents, early childhood educators, health professionals, and more). Smart Start has not been “business as usual” with the legislature sending additional funds down the subsidy track or the safe playground track. Communities have been empowered to make their own decisions about how best to meet their needs. They have also been monitored very, very carefully with audits occurring every year. It is no small fact that real money undergirded Smart Start, not just a million or two added to a few agencies’ budgets. From $20 million in the first year to over $200 million in recent years, Smart Start has had a significant level of funding, so that leaders, planners, and

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

127

providers could actually implement some of their dreams. In addition, Smart Start was committed to research for self-improvement, accountability, and to make its case for effectiveness. The evaluation of Smart Start was a 10-year endeavor. In 2003, the legislature removed statewide evaluation from the budget, although support continues for the state and local partnerships and for some evaluation at the local level. The 35 studies conducted from 1993 to 2003 helped tell the story of Smart Start, its challenges, and its successes. The evaluation has provided evidence that many of the goals are being achieved in North Carolina—child care quality is improving, more families who need child care are receiving it, families are engaged in their children’s’ lives, and children in centers involved in Smart Start are more ready to succeed at school entry and more likely to have a regular health care provider. We know that the results of the evaluation studies are still discussed when the legislature deals with the hard issues that face a state whose economy has been stagnant for three years. North Carolina set important goals for school readiness back in 1993. Through a public-private partnership with local decision-making and state guidance, Smart Start has helped North Carolina make steady progress toward improving child care quality and accessibility, access to health and screening services, and parent involvement. The evidence supports the view that Smart Start is an innovative and effective model for other states and communities to follow as they design new early childhood initiatives.

Note Most of the studies noted in this chapter can be accessed on the website www.fpg.unc. edu/~smartstart.

References Bryant, D. (2002). Smart Start annual report 2002. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www. fpg.unc.edu/smartstart/reports.html#AnnualReport2002. Bryant, D. and A. Adkins. (1995). Keeping the vision in front of you: Results from Smart Start key participant interviews. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart Bryant, D., K. Maxwell, and M. Burchinal. (1999). Effects of a community initiative on the quality of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 14: 449–464. Bryant, D., K. Maxwell, M. Poe, and K. Taylor. (2003). Smart Start and preschool child care in NC: Change over time and relation to children’s readiness. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute. Collins, W. A., E. E. Maccoby, L. Steinberg, E. M. Hetherington, and M. H. Bornstein. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting, the case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist 55 (2): 218–232. Connell, J. P. and A. C. Kubisch. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

128

Donna Bryant

Connell, J. P., A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, and C. H. Weiss. (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Cornish, M. and G. Noblit. (1997). Bringing the community into the process. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg. unc.edu/~smartstart Dauber, S. L., K. L. Alexander, and D. R. Entwisle. (1993). Characteristics of retainees and early precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 39: 326–343. Gresham, F. M. and S. N. Elliott. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Harms, T. and R. M. Clifford. (1980). Early childhood environment rating scale. Columbia, NY: Teacher College Press. Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and quality of childcare predict adjustment in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology 26: 292–303. Howes, C., D. A. Phillips, and M. Whitebook. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the development of children in center-based child care. Child Development 63: 449–460. Kotch, J. and N. Kropp. (2000). The effect of Smart Start child care on children’s access to health care at kindergarten entry. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart. Lowman, B., D. Bryant, and A. Zolotor. (1997). Families and the North Carolina Smart Start initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart Maxwell, K. and D. Bryant. (1994). Emerging themes and lessons learned: The first year of Smart Start. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Maxwell, K., D. Bryant, and S. Miller-Johnson. (1999). A six-county study of the effects of Smart Start child care on kindergarten entry skills. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. Orthner, D., G. Cole, and R. Ehrlich. (2000). Smart Start collaboration network analysis report. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart. Patterson, J. (1998). Smart Start: Building community-owned public-private partnerships. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (200). Evaluation of the North Carolina more at four prekindergarten program: Year 3 report. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Peisner-Feinberg, E., K. Bernier, D. Bryant, and K. Maxwell. (2000). Family child care in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., M. R. Burchinal, R. M. Clifford, M. L. Culkin, C. Howes, S. L. Kagan, et al. (2001). The relation of preschool quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development 72 (5): 1534–1553. Smart Start Evaluation Team. (1997). Bringing the community into the process: Issues and promising practices for involving parents and business in local Smart Start partnerships. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center (Report to NC Dept. of Human Resources). Taylor, K. and D. Bryant. (2002). Demonstrating effective quality improvement. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from www. fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart.

North Carolina: The Smart Start Story

129

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). 2003 National Household Education Survey. Washington, D.C. Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts, ed. J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, and C. H. Weiss, 65–92. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

This page intentionally left blank

7 The Texas Plan Kay M. Albrecht, Kaitlin G. Guthrow, and Alvin R. Tarlov With contributions from James D. Calaway, Michelle Precourt Debbink, Todd Litton, Carol Shattuck, Jason Sabo, Thomas McIntire, James Strickland, Sandi Borden, Nancy Pechacek Hard, Sandra Lamm, Liz Plaster, and Shona Neigut

Introduction Beginning in 2003, under the leadership of the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC) and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, with input from hundreds of individuals from early childhood community organizations across the state, The Texas Plan (TTP) was formulated. The Texas Plan, now in its second edition, is a comprehensive document comprised of 50 specific public policy recommendations to establish a statewide program for early childhood development and education (ECDE) for all 3- and 4-year-old children in Texas. Recommendations include those for governance, administration, technical assistance, financing, standards and assessments, and more. TECEC and its 230 member organizations have provided information documents, knowledge summaries, and feedback on drafts for legislative consideration. ECDE is the only substantive issue considered in these four years that has garnered bipartisan support from the legislature. The comprehensive system envisioned by TTP does not yet exist. A beginning has been made. Popular and political traction is building. The Texas Plan is summarized in this chapter.

The Road to The Texas Plan Early childhood education is commonly used as the generic description of what parents, families, teachers, programs, and communities provide for children during the early childhood years. Many other terms have been used. None of them accurately conveys the dynamic and significant contribution that the early childhood years make to human development, quality of life, and health throughout the lifespan. The term early childhood development and education (ECDE) is used purposefully in this chapter to convey this larger meaning.

132

Albrecht et al.

The Texas Plan for a statewide early childhood development and education system is a blueprint for establishing, operating, financing, and supporting a bold and innovative future for ECDE in Texas. It has been crafted to fit Texas’ history, culture, demography, and the existing mix of services already in place. Although Texas has not been a leader in the formulation of policy to advance the quality and affordability of ECDE, a history of efforts to improve ECDE does exist. In 1970, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health produced one of the first studies on the status of ECDE, which gave impetus to the creation of a state Office of Early Childhood Development charged with the responsibility to coordinate early childhood services in the state of Texas. In 1995, the Interagency Workgroup on the Coordination of Early Care and Education Programs identified the barriers inhibiting program coordination among child care, Head Start, and prekindergarten. Legislation in 1999 created the state Office of Early Childhood Coordination to promote “community support for parents of all children younger than six years of age through an integrated state and local decision-making process.” This bill also created an advisory committee to develop a comprehensive strategic plan working with diverse stakeholders across the state. It was in this historical context that the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC) was formed in 2002 and operationalized in 2003. Rallying a membership of 230 organizations, this diverse collective worked on the development of a long-range plan for systems integration in Texas. Soon after TECEC began its deliberations, the Texas Program for Society and Health became a partner, taking the lead responsibility for drafting the vision created by experts and stakeholders into a formal policy document, The Texas Plan. A consensus for the public policies specified in The Texas Plan has been reached by Coalition members. The plan is being used to advance the actions needed for adoption and implementation. A major leap toward high quality, coordinated ECDE came with the passage of Senate Bill 76 in 2003. This legislation created a framework for the study of school readiness among at risk children. The State Center for Early Childhood Development at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, with financial support from this legislation, conducted a multisite exploration of how to better integrate the delivery of ECDE across the disparate programs operating across the state. Working with local leaders, the state center established the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), which brought together child care, Head Start, and public and private prekindergarten providers to implement cross-program integration within 11 selected communities. Project activities included, among other things, teacher training through online resources, joint participation in professional development, and classroom mentoring; integration of resources through sharing of curricula, materials, methods, teachers, training, and classroom space; technology improvements to drive real-time progress monitoring; and establishment of common goals to ensure school readiness

The Texas Plan

133

between local partner organizations. Research and evaluation yielded some interesting early results. For example, significant gains were achieved in children’s literacy and language development in classrooms whose teachers participated in learning best practices related to children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (Landry 2004). The success of this effort resulted in Senate Bill 23 (2005) to expand TEEM to 30 communities serving 40,320 preschoolers in 2,016 classrooms throughout Texas. As indicated in surveys conducted at the state and local levels, Texans have a growing interest in early childhood development. In 2006, United Ways of Texas commissioned a statewide survey of 1,200 registered voters about prekindergarten and public education. The survey reveals Texans’ strong positive views on the value of prekindergarten education. Some of the most compelling findings include • three out of four Texans believe prekindergarten should be fully funded for all students, regardless of family income; and • Texans are willing to support increased tax revenue if needed to fund prekindergarten programs for all children. (Impact Texas 2006)

A recent survey of families in Houston, the state’s largest city, also found that almost everyone supports the idea of state funding for ECDE, even if taxes are increased to pay for such services (Collaborative for Children 2004). Yet, families are mostly on their own as they cobble together ECDE services to meet their needs. ECDE in Texas is a polyglot of public, private, nonprofit, for-profit, corporate-, state-, federal-, and self-pay arrangements. Multiple and inconsistent training, accreditation, and licensure requirements contribute to confusion among parents as they try to figure out the actual differences among myriad programs and services. In this context, families have a strong need for expansion of ECDE capacity in terms of availability, affordability, and quality. A massive influx of immigrants from Mexico as well as Central American and Asian nations has created a compelling need to provide new Texas children with the necessary linguistic, cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral skills needed to prepare them effectively to enter the formal educational system and become successful learners. Taking advantage of the early childhood years as an opportunity to increase readiness skills and to enhance second language learning is sure to produce useful results. It would be a waste, and probably impossible, to dismantle existing programs, teaching staffs, management capabilities, facilities, and other infrastructure components. The challenge to Texas is to accommodate the great diversity of sponsorships, standards, licensure, and financing while substantially expanding capacity, enhancing program quality, strengthening effective governance, providing adequate financing, increasing appropriate certification of teachers, and instituting effective accountability processes to form a cohesive system of ECDE services.

134

Albrecht et al.

Guiding Principles Building a high-quality ECDE system for all children in Texas required commitment to a set of foundational principles. Of the many values discussed, seven were selected as guiding principles for The Texas Plan. They are as follows. • The Texas Plan views families (parents and other significant caregivers) as children’s first and most significant teachers. The formula for children’s academic and life success starts with strong, capable parenting and families that are prepared to begin and then share and support the important work of educating their children with teachers and other ECDE staff. • The Texas Plan includes all children based on voluntary choice of parents. The needs of all young children residing in Texas are addressed by The Texas Plan regardless of income, location, or level of need. • The Texas Plan calls for subsidies to a variable extent for each family enrolled in ECDE services. Fees charged to families will vary on a sliding scale with income. • The Texas Plan proposes a single reimbursement rate for all providers who meet identified standards. Competition for child enrollment would be based on parent/family preferences, knowledge of program quality, and unique features or ancillary services. • The Texas Plan includes all program providers. All currently operating types of ECDE services are included. • The Texas Plan proposes a unique governance structure established by legislative mandate yet functioning independently of state government and administered through regional and local districts. The integration of the public and private sectors of ECDE into a consolidated system allows Texas to experiment with broad cross-sector participation and collaboration. • The Texas Plan proposes a substantial and sustainable infusion of additional funds from all public revenues, that is, federal, state, and local, to ensure widely accessible, high-quality ECDE for every Texas child from birth to age five. New funds are essential to accomplishing the goals of The Texas Plan and to allow all programs to provide high quality, comprehensive ECDE.

Critical and Unique Features of The Texas Plan Based on the guiding principles, several critical features of The Texas Plan emerged. They are described here.

The Texas Plan Is Parent (Family) Centered and Values Parents as Partners, Learners, Advocates, and Decision Makers Parents are often referred to in this chapter to include not only parents but also primary and sometimes secondary caregivers who may or may not be the child’s biological pacrents. For more information on the importance of relationships in ECDE, see chapter 2.

Fundamental to The Texas Plan is the belief that families are the earliest and most constant educators of their children in cognitive, social, and

The Texas Plan

135

emotional matters. An incontrovertible finding of research on ECDE programs is that active and continuing parental participation and involvement is crucial to effective child outcomes (Lui, Yeung, and Farmer 2001; Baker, Piotrkowski, and Brooks-Gunn 1998). Adults in parental roles are the constant in children’s lives, not only during the early years, but also throughout children’s formal education. As such, they are the experts on their children. Regular communication about children’s particular educational and developmental status serves as the foundation of a beneficial partnership between the family and the ECDE program. The Texas Plan makes policy recommendations related to three key parental roles—parents as teachers, parents as learners, and parents as advocates. Most parents of young children are very interested in and want to be involved in their children’s educational lives. This interest is the most intense for the first and youngest child (Lubeck 2001), making the ECDE program of the first born child the optimal place to begin a lifelong commitment to school involvement. Direct parent involvement when children are at school has the greatest effect on successful outcomes and readiness for kindergarten and education thereafter (Reynolds et al. 2004). The ECDE system can serve not only to prepare children to succeed in school and in life, but can also help families practice and perfect the necessary skills to be engaged, effective teachers and advocates on behalf of their children in future years. Although the frequency or intensity of family’s direct involvement in their children’s educational lives may decrease as children progress through the educational system, early positive parental connections to the ECDE system can resonate throughout the first born and subsequent children’s lives (Simpson 2001). The inclusion of parenting and parent education to validate parents as learners is another dimension of ECDE programs supported by The Texas Plan. A variety of programs have been shown to enhance parenting skills, including separate classes on parenting, frequent contact between families and specialists when there is a need to acquire educational and developmental information. The end result is families with increased capacity to guide and direct their children, to understand and impact growth during particular developmental stages (particularly challenging stages such as toddlerhood and adolescence) as well as increased insight into their child’s developmental uniqueness. Parents can also learn skills to advocate for their own children, can become advocates for the importance of ECDE in their neighborhoods and communities, and be fully engaged in civic and community discussions related to fostering family well-being.

The Texas Plan Validates and Reinforces Dual Cultural Identity Texas is a multicultural and multiethnic state (see chapter 8 in this volume for data and discussion of demographic diversity in Texas). This diversity is a rich heritage produced by waves of immigrants who have made Texas their

136

Albrecht et al.

home. The Texas Plan seeks to cherish the cultural uniqueness of families and validate and embrace the dual identity of Texans. Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and many others with roots outside of the state and the United States contribute to the richness of Texas’ mosaic. Honoring, respecting, and validating the cultural identity of families while providing development and education opportunities for Texas’ children is imperative to the success of an early childhood education initiative. At the same time, ECDE programs should help ensure that all Texas’ families come to see themselves as an important part of the American educational, economic, civic, and societal structure. Cultural identity is also closely tied to language. Home language defines many cultural and family traditions and experiences. When English language learners enter ECDE programs, it is important to validate and use home languages as children and their families learn English. To keep children from falling behind educationally, the ECDE system will need to match the language of instruction to children’s home language until they have acquired enough second language skills to continue further instruction in English. Making this transition a smooth and gradual one requires well-prepared teachers with extensive knowledge of how children acquire second language competence as well as programs that can bridge the two language worlds until children can perform competently in both.

The Texas Plan Supports Families Many things outside of the child’s direct educational experiences influence child outcomes. Family poverty, material insecurity, family instability, and family violence all directly impact children’s lives and, subsequently, their school success. When children’s development and education are negatively impacted because their families do not have the resources or preparation to support early development or serve as capable and effective first educators, families may need additional support. Literacy training, assistance earning a GED, job training, resume writing, job application and interviewing skills, medical, dental, and mental health access, nutritional services, transportation assistance, housing assistance, and safety education are all examples of support some families may need. Comprehensive family support services such as these will join the cadre of resources available to families as a result of enrollment in an ECDE program under The Texas Plan. Finally, finding ways to help families make social connections in their residential communities creates support systems for them. Joining local organizations, participating in churches, synagogues, or mosques, working with community groups on philanthropic projects, and participating in community engagement experiences enhance families’ self-esteem while also creating a platform for them to advocate for their children’s well-being.

The Texas Plan

137

Core Elements of The Texas Plan Standards A critically important element of the plan is the incorporation of uniformly adopted standards. The Texas Plan addresses the development of three types of standards. Standards for the Professionalization of Teachers and Administrators Early childhood education has much to gain from the professionalization of its workforce. As the state center’s TEEM project revealed, improved professional preparation improves children’s school readiness outcomes (Landry 2004). The Texas Plan uses professionalization to mean that professional preparation and certification (preservice, in-service, and retraining) and compensation should all coalesce to create a sustainable ECDE workforce with standardized skills specific to teaching our youngest children, and with clear opportunities for professional advancement. Research has shown that well-prepared teachers with specialized training in ECDE tend to have the knowledge and skills to positively impact child outcomes—both short term and long term (Coffman and Lopez 2003; Peth-Pierce 2000). On average, better-qualified teachers are more skilled and responsive to educational goals, particularly those related to language and cognition (Howes 1997; Phillipsen and Peisner-Feinberg 2000); more effective with families (Barnett 2004), a crucial consideration for supporting parents as the child’s first educators; help children develop social and emotional competence, which has been shown to increase the chances of avoiding the high costs associated with remedial and special education (Peth-Pierce 2000); on average are more effective in preparing children for educational and life success; and are more likely to create enriched learning environments, provide higher quality instruction to children, and have more positive interactions with children (Phillipsen et al. 1997). Under the current system, professional preparation of teachers in Texas takes place within a complex mix of widely varying standards. Public school teachers of state-funded prekindergarten programs must hold bachelor’s degrees, but these degrees often focus heavily on teaching strategies for children during the early elementary years rather than on the growth, development, learning styles, and pedagogy for the early childhood years. The Texas Education Agency also has a specialized training requirement that the teachers hold an endorsement in early childhood or kindergarten. However, teachers do not have to specialize in prekindergarten or have teacher in-service requirements specifically related to ECDE (Barnett 2004). Assistant teacher degree requirements vary widely based on local requirements. In regulated child care, there are minimal requirements for adults who work with young children. Current requirements for adults are limited to 8 clock hours of preservice training and 15 clock hours of annual in-service training. There are no requirements for the adults who provide care for kith and kin.

138

Albrecht et al.

The federal government sets Head Start teacher requirements. The 1998 Head Start reauthorization bill increased teacher qualifications by requiring that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers nationwide have an associate’s or higher degree from an accredited institution by September of 2003. This goal has been met by the Head Start community and current statistics show approximately 31 percent of teachers have an associate degree, another 31 percent hold a bachelor’s degree, and 5 percent have obtained a graduate degree (National Head Start Association 2005). Texas also has minimal professional preparation requirements for program directors/administrators who are responsible for the ongoing operation of regulated programs. A Child Development Associate credential, administrative credential (such as the Executives of Children’s Services (EXECS) credential from the National Association of Child Care Professionals), or an Associates of Arts with six hours of specialized credit in business or administration is all that is required. Principals, on the other hand, are required by the Board of Education to have at least a master’s degree and two years of teaching experience as a certified teacher (Texas Education Agency 2001). These wide variations between professional preparation requirements for teachers and administrators must be reduced and standardized so that their training becomes professionally similar. The Texas Plan calls for standardization of professional preparation that would require all teachers who work with children during the early childhood period (birth to age five) have bachelor’s level preparation in ECDE and appropriate teaching skills for this age group. Furthermore, The Texas Plan calls for identification of the content knowledge and skills all early childhood teachers should have, and for continuing education requirements to promote continuous improvement and integration of new methods. Effective professional development must include adequate orientation to teaching in teacher preparation, effective introduction to the development and inclusion of selected curricula, regular and frequent mentoring and coaching from more experienced colleagues, adequate and timely evaluations of teaching skills and practices, and periodic reviews of classroom effectiveness. The Texas Plan would provide funds for professional development of future and existing teachers in ECDE through scholarships, loan forgiveness programs, released/protected time to pursue education, direct payments, and assessments of prior learning from on-the-job experience. The Texas Plan recognizes the high, unmet demand for qualified teachers and requires a phased-in approach to these degree and in-service requirements over a 10-year span. Estimates of the demand for additional teachers with appropriate professional preparation to support the ECDE initiatives already under way in the United States range from 43,000 to 200,000 (Epstein 2002). When the “highly qualified” status (bachelor’s degree in the specific content area) required by federal No Child Left Behind legislation is taken into consideration, the number of teachers with specialized training in ECDE needed over the next 10 years

The Texas Plan

139

increases dramatically. If further consideration is given to serving children from birth through the fifth year, these numbers rise yet again. Calculated for Texas alone, this equates to 3,700–17,240 new ECDE teachers needed over the next 10 years. The Texas Plan would mandate, fund, and provide the authority to develop and implement an integrated, standardized, well-articulated, and effective system of professional development to lead to a stable, wellprepared workforce. Such a system must include coordinating certification and degree programs, retraining and certifying existing teachers without bachelor’s degrees, and ensuring compensation commensurate with the investment teachers make in their education. Finally, The Texas Plan recognizes that professionalization of early childhood teachers requires a compensation structure and opportunities for career advancement that will encourage well-trained professionals to remain in the field. Current salaries and benefits across segments of the ECDE field vary dramatically as a result of differences in sponsorship, funding, and program size. Public education systems have salaries and benefits that are comparable across systems although levels vary geographically. Regulated programs, predominantly licensed child care facilities, registered family day care homes, private kindergartens, and Head Start, have highly variable salary structures and infrequently offer employer-paid health or retirement benefits. High teacher turnover, low levels of teacher training, poorly prepared applicants for vacant positions, and difficulties in professional identity have resulted (Barnett, 2004). The Texas Plan proposes compensating all ECDE teachers at salaries with employer-paid benefits that are equal to public school compensation for comparable education and experience, for example, $31,000-38,000 for entry-level teachers with bachelor’s degrees in related fields (early childhood education or child and family studies). The annual salary estimates for 2004 for a child care teacher, preschool teacher, and kindergarten teacher in Texas were $15,080, $23,150, and $44,400 respectively (US Department of Labor, 2004), clearly illustrating wide salary discrepancies across different sectors of the current ECDE system. With these professional development and compensation standards in place and the appropriate structures to support them, Texas can achieve the goal of highly trained and qualified teachers at the end of the 10-year phase-in of the requirements of The Texas Plan. Although substantially less aggressive than the five-year deadline for a bachelor-degreed teacher in every classroom used by New Jersey to credential teachers for Abbott preschools (Ryan and Ackerman 2005), it is a huge first step for Texas. Programmatic Standards—Child Curricula The Texas Plan envisions ECDE curriculum as the result of a dynamic, classroom-based development process rather than the selection from a prescribed list of currently available commercial curricula. Because of the integration of developmental domains during the early childhood years,

140

Albrecht et al.

cognitive development and academic content cannot be separated from ongoing development and learning across emotional, social, language, and physical domains. (See chapter 4 of this volume for a discussion of developmental domains and their interactions and integration.) A body of knowledge about developmentally and culturally appropriate curricula exists to guide programs in designing specific classroom curricula standards to meet developmental and educational goals (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC] 2003). The Texas Plan proposes that curricular standards for ECDE programs be developed in conjunction with this evidence, originate from communities with opportunities for family input, and take into account children’s unique developmental, cultural, and educational characteristics and distinctive aspects of the community. Learning Standards Early childhood development and education programs have many intrinsic strengths, including providing opportunities for integrated curriculum activities and experiences simultaneously across all developmental domains, offering opportunities for uninterrupted play, multiage groupings to allow for differences in level of skill acquisition, use of a variety of teaching techniques that range from didactic to experiential, and so on. Building on these strengths, developing appropriate standards and assessments, and aligning them with the K-12 systems requirements presents many opportunities and challenges (Neuman and Roskos 2005). Currently, Texas has curriculum guidelines for three- and four-year olds. Developed by the Texas Education Agency, these guidelines were created to “ensure all three and four-year olds have opportunities to strive toward these goals” (standards) (Texas Education Agency 1999). In the disconnected system currently available to families of young children, these standards do not apply to regulated programs operated outside of public education contexts. No learning standards exist for programs that serve children from birth through age three. Uniform statewide standards must be developed. Standards should cover the full range of educational and developmental processes, be linked to specific ages and developmental periods, and embrace and accommodate variations in children’s culture, languages, individual characteristics, abilities, and disabilities (NAEYC 2003). Learning standards must be dynamic and living, and change as new research and practices are reported or discovered. The Texas Plan calls for standards to be reviewed and reconsidered at regular intervals and adjusted as new, relevant evidence is reported. They should coordinate with K-12 standards for health screenings, diagnostic testing, and developmental assessments as well as other K-12 system standards. The Texas Plan mandates using a phased-in approach until all programs consistently apply these standards.

The Texas Plan

141

Assessments The global objective for assessments is to provide a statewide, transparent, consumer-oriented system to monitor the progress of every ECDE program toward reaching identified standards and goals. The proposed assessments system includes child assessment, family assessment, site-specific program assessment, and overall system assessment. No such system is in place in Texas at this time. It must be developed and implemented to provide useful information for parents, teachers, administrators, and taxpayers as well as to create accountability in the system overall. Assessment of the Child ECDE professionals favor child assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by teachers’ professional development, inclusive of families, and connected to specific, beneficial purposes related to the educational program (NAEYC 2003). The Texas Plan proposes that classroom-based child assessment strategies be used to assess individual children’s progress and to guide revisions and improvements in the educational program for each child. The family, the teacher, and the program should use child assessment data to individualize teaching of each child, identify significant concerns in the program that may require intervention, and help programs improve their educational and developmental program (NAEYC 2005). The TEEM project (operated by the State Center for Early Childhood Development as mandated by the Texas Legislature in Senate Bill 76 [2003] and Senate Bill 23 [2005]) provides evidence that individual early childhood assessments are both practical and useful. The TEEM project experimented with hand-held computer technology to support teachers’ ability to monitor ongoing progress of every child in the classroom on literacy skills. This technology allowed teachers to complete classroom-based child assessments of literacy skills in less than five minutes per child. The technology enabled teachers to assess each individual child and to quickly aggregate data to explore literacy progress in the class overall. To reap the full benefits of child assessments, parents and other family members should play a direct role. They are experts—they know and understand their children both in the context of the home and in the broader social context of the neighborhood and community. The Texas Plan recognizes this important point but has not as yet specifically addressed how families might be involved in their child’s assessment beyond sharing assessment data from the classroom with teachers. Inclusion of parents in child assessment might be accomplished through opportunities to discuss, challenge, and understand how teachers will address targeted developmental goals. The assessment could help families devise a home environment favorable to their child’s specific developmental need.

142

Albrecht et al.

Once individual child assessment data are collected, the results can be aggregated to include all children in the class or school and used to improve teaching strategies, enhance curricula content, and group children for particular, targeted experiences or for individualized instruction. If assessments are used to evaluate programs or the overall ECDE system, only aggregate data, without individual child or program identifiers, should be used. Family Assessment The Texas Plan includes family assessment as part of the overall assessment system. The goal of family assessment is to confirm each family’s capacity to participate fully in their child’s education and to guide the program’s ability to support, encourage, and expand partnership and participation of families with the program. Family assessment includes exploring whether families are responding to and participating in the program, collecting evidence of application of parenting behaviors at home that improve child outcomes, tracking participation in services offered by the ECDE program, and evaluation of the efficacy of the services provided by families who participate. Such assessment could include evaluating the specific procedures individual programs use to support parents as teachers, learners, and advocates, how family participation in children’s educational lives is encouraged and facilitated, and family members’ own evaluation of their participation in various program components. As with other components of the assessment system, no such assessment strategy is currently in place in Texas. Assessment of Individual Programs The goal of site-specific and overall program assessment is to strengthen child progress and outcomes, and to substantially improve program quality. Assessment strategies and quality indicators exist, including curriculum standards, training, certification, and ongoing professional development of teachers, child-centeredness, spatial arrangements, child learning outcomes (NAEYC 2003; Boyd et al. 2005). Supplemental objectives such as health care, parent involvement, and adequate family resources should be assessed. Program assessments are rarely completed or monitored in Texas. The Texas Plan proposes that this deficiency be corrected. Systemwide Quality Assessment The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child-Care Licensing Division, monitors and makes available to the public information relative to compliance with licensing standards of home-based and centerbased ECDE programs. The overall effectiveness of the programs relative to children’s readiness for kindergarten is not assessed. Additionally, the Texas Education Agency makes available to the public a global overall rating of public school campuses and districts from prekindergarten through twelfth grade.

The Texas Plan

143

The Texas Plan recommends implementing comprehensive, uniform systemwide quality assessments of every ECDE site. The system would include a data system to collect, analyze, and disseminate information on relative progress toward established goals. It would be designed to inform families in their selection of an ECDE site as well as to encourage programs to provide higher quality services to families by delineating a range of quality, not just identifying programs as either above or below a threshold. The system would also provide a “roadmap to quality” to help programs see how they compare to other programs and to specify the steps needed to improve. The Texas Plan also includes recommendations to align public priorities for child and youth development, create a single point of access to ECDE for families, expand local resource and referral agency initiatives, support and improve home-based ECDE provided by relatives, and identify the broad impact of ECDE on Texas society. Assessment of progress toward these goals would be included. Senate Bill 76 (2003) and Senate Bill 23 (2005) mandate development of a quality rating system for school readiness. The purpose of the system is to determine if an ECDE program is preparing children effectively for kindergarten, and to provide information for parents in their selection of a quality ECDE program. The proposed Texas School Readiness Certification System (TSRCS), which is currently being field tested, is voluntary and offers certification for any program serving three- and fouryear old children that meets the system’s requirements. Components to be assessed include amount of time spent in cognitive readiness experiences, good standing with Texas Child Care Licensing for the nine months prior to application for certification, equipment and facilities, and program components including curriculum, monitoring child progress, and professional development. Certification will also be linked to children’s outcomes in kindergarten. Development, piloting, and validating the system are in process. If implemented, TSRCS could provide an additional source of program quality evaluation.

Governance, Administration, Technical Assistance, and Financing of the ECDE System Governance The lack of ECDE district and statewide coordination and collaboration in Texas leads to confusion, unequal opportunity for children, variable quality, and uneven availability of funds and services. A central governance structure can improve these characteristics and ensure more equitable opportunity for all children. The Texas Plan recommends a quasi-governmental structure, the Commission for the Texas Statewide Early Education and Development System, to govern the ECDE system under a mandate from the state, yet functioning independently, enjoying some amount of freedom (albeit with limits) from the struggles experienced by state agencies. The governance structure will provide an opportunity to engage fully a

144

Albrecht et al.

great American experiment in public-private collaboration. The commission would be responsible for setting broad policies, conducting continuous planning and evaluation, and providing oversight of the administration, technical resource functions of the ECDE system, and financing. Administration Central administrative responsibilities will focus on the development of operating procedures, standards, assessments and their monitoring, and ensuring the participation and inclusion of all providers in the ECDE system. The administration will also be responsible for the quality assessment system and overseeing standards monitoring in coordination with the districts. Coordinating a fair yet competitive market requires that the administration of the system remain nonpartisan in all of its activities in order to gain the trust and respect of the players in the system. Steady input into the system requires a broad constituency of parents, teachers, ECDE experts, community interest groups, diverse ECDE organizations, demographers, statisticians, program evaluators, business and financial experts, and local and state governments. The plan envisions some degree of devolution of administration to the community level. The administration of the statewide ECDE program would occur through districts so that local communities could have wide input and contribute to the choices that best fit the needs of their constituents. Technical Resource Center The organizational recommendations of The Texas Plan additionally call for a Technical Resource Center to operate cooperatively yet separately from the administration to avoid conflicts of interest between oversight, standard setting, and quality on the one hand and assessment of quality and outcomes on the other. The Technical Resource Center would provide comprehensive technical assistance to ECDE programs, support standards implementation, research the effectiveness of components of the system, oversee development of new technology for early childhood education and assessment, and provide extensive training and technical assistance to support programs in meeting the requirements of the ECDE system. Financing Universally available high quality ECDE in Texas has a price tag. The Texas Plan recommends combining resources from family payments, state funds, federal appropriations, corporate contributions, charitable donations, and philanthropic foundation grants to equalize expenditures per child and standardize reimbursement of providers across the entire system without diluting current services. It expects state government to draw upon federal dollars to the maximum extent permissible, including funds for Head Start, Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Title I, Dependent Care Systems Plan, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and others.

The Texas Plan

145

The Texas Plan calls for a substantial and sustainable contribution of funds from public revenues to ensure widely accessible, high-quality ECDE for every Texas child from birth to age five. Without new revenue, the vision of The Texas Plan cannot be realized. Generating maximum revenue, assuring a high degree of cost efficiency, and attainment of equity of opportunity for children will require some degree of centralization of administration of the entire system. The extraordinarily high benefits to cost ratios of public investment in ECDE have been amply demonstrated (see chapter 9) and justify the effort.

Some Challenges to The Texas Plan The Public’s View of Poverty as Unrelated to ECDE The Texas Plan envisions including in its first phase all prekindergarten age eligible children regardless of income. An important emphasis of the plan is on closing the gap of opportunity for those children who live in poverty. Poverty in Texas is persistent and growing (see chapter 8, this volume). A frontier spirit prevails in Texas and somewhere just below the public psyche is a widely held view that all it takes to make anything feasible, such as success in schooling, is the will to do so. Although the direct connection between household poverty, compromised child development and learning, and between ECDE and subsequent financial success in later life may not be generally appreciated, extensive research suggests just such a link exists (Duncan and Magnuson 2003; Schweinhart 2004). It is incumbent upon the developers of The Texas Plan to craft public messages that make clear this connection and its implications for society as a whole. One important piece of information to aid in this process is that middle and upper income children appear to have fairly high rates of the problems that ECDE tends to reduce in low-income children. Grade retention and dropout rates for middle-income children are 12 percent and 11 percent respectively while upper-income children experience these problems at rates of 8 percent and 3 percent respectively (Barnett 2006). Including all children in high-quality prekindergarten could generate important benefits across economic groups by reducing overall dropout and grade retention rates. In addition, Texas is heavily dependent on federal funds to serve lowincome children in ECDE programs. To increase children’s access to ECDE programs, new federal and state money is needed. Like so many other states (Doctors 2006), public opinion is coalescing around an unwillingness wait for federal programs such as Head Start to address the growing need for ECDE. Texans seem poised to assume that responsibility with state funds through legislative mandate.

The Plan’s Age Focus The stakeholders in the development of The Texas Plan were faced from the beginning with the reality of declining revenues at the state and independent

146

Albrecht et al.

school district levels for program development, design, start up, or expansion. Conversations have focused on the reality that currently Texas does not fully fund kindergarten for all its five-year olds. In 2001, only 73 percent of five-year olds were enrolled in full- or part- day kindergarten (Wirt et al. 2004). Many of these children are enrolled because they have been identified as unprepared to enter the educational system as a result of family risk factors including poverty, home language, and developmental or maturational delays. Adding another five years (birth to age five) to the educational system seems an almost insurmountable hill to climb. Yet all stakeholders and a substantial and growing body of cognitive science researchers agree that interventions, if not for all children, to be effective at least for disadvantaged children, should begin at birth and continue until the child is well into the elementary education system. Early discussions focused on the optimal span for The Texas Plan from a practical point of view. Shall we assume that kindergarten classrooms in elementary schools will become available over time for all children who finish ECDE programs? Should limited resources be stretched to serve children from birth through three in addition to three–five-year olds, in response to the growing research showing that early experiences are crucial to future developmental and educational achievement? Should the early elementary years (kindergarten through third grade) also be included in The Texas Plan, ensuring a system that addresses the inherently different developmental and educational needs of children during the early childhood development period as compared with the middle childhood period? The way The Texas Plan has chosen to respond to these questions may invite schisms in the important alliances among educational professionals and advocates. Since the entire educational stream derives their individual budgets primarily from the same treasuries, competition among them could lead to a lack of cooperation. Early child care and education, elementary, secondary, and higher education systems are each fundamentally different programs addressing dramatically different phases of human development. Yet there must be continuity as children move from one system to the next and a sense that all are working together for a single overall purpose. In the end, The Texas Plan adopted a long-term active focus on birth to 5-year olds with an initial concentration on 3–5-year olds, and a supportive alliance with others involved in development and education from birth to age 18. Maintaining this broader focus and developing these alliances will be a challenge.

The Public Will There is ample evidence that Texans support the inclusion of the early childhood years in the educational system (Collaborative for Children 2004). Although elected officials have yet to demonstrate the political will to appropriate the financial resources to implement the public’s desire, Texas may have reached the tipping point on this issue. Early childhood development and education has become one of the few social and economic issues

The Texas Plan

147

to garner bipartisan support within the Texas Legislature as evidenced by bills supported in the 2003, 2005, and 2007 legislative sessions. In addition, discussions have been occurring at the state level regarding financing options to bring new funds into the system. Although the proposed omnibus bill, Senate Bill 50, did not ultimately pass both houses during the 80th Legislative Session in 2007, the Legislature did approve funding for all three of TECEC’s priorities including $15 million to continue ECDE services through the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM); $18 million to support reimbursement rates to child care providers serving at-risk children; and $2 million to support early childhood education professionals in the field. Texas serves less than half of four-year olds (Barnett 2006). Expanding to serve all three- and four-year olds is a considerable challenge, both for financing and infrastructure. Other discussions without consensus relate to how to design a system that prepares families to take over the continuing developmental and educational responsibilities when their child leaves the ECDE system to enter elementary school, whether to focus resources on urban or rural areas, the challenges of program availability in nonurban areas, and the provision of alternate hours programs to support diverse needs of families with variable or nonconventional work schedules. These questions must be answered in ways that maintain the public momentum but are also practical from an implementation standpoint.

The State of the State’s Children Some of the challenges to The Texas Plan emerge from the demographics of the population (chapter 8, this volume). The Texas population is young: 28.2 percent were under age 18 in 2000 (Comptroller of Public Accounts 2003); between 2000 and 2003, the state had the fastest growing child population in the United States (McCown 2004). The Texas population tends to be less educated: only 21 percent held a bachelor’s degree or more in 2003 (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2005); the state ranks forty-sixth in high school graduation rates, with 21 percent dropping out before completing high school (Comptroller of Public Accounts 2003); 5 of the 10 least literate cities in the United States are in Texas, that is, Garland, Arlington, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and El Paso (Miller 2004). A larger proportion of Texas children are poor relative to the nation overall (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2005a); Texas ranks twenty-ninth in national rankings of median household income (Comptroller of Public Accounts 2003); the learning achievement gap separating children of lower income from higher income families is increasing, a fact bound to negatively influence the development of poor children (Duncan and Magnuson 2003). Children in poor households are more likely to have health problems, a contributing factor to poor health statistics in Texas: infant mortality percentages have grown in successive 5 years to 7 deaths per 1000 births; only 78 percent of toddlers were fully immunized in 2003; and 21 percent

148

Albrecht et al.

of Texas children do not have health insurance, a ranking of fiftieth among the states (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2005b). Texas families are under increasing stress. Twenty-nine percent of working families with children aged infancy to four and 51 percent with five-year olds are in center-based care (Texas Workforce Commission 2003). Singleparent households and teen births are increasing in Texas. Texas teen birth rate, 69.2 per 1000 females aged 15–19, was the second highest rate in the United States (Comptroller of Public Accounts 2003). Additional stressors include intra-family violence, divorce, deprivation, hunger, homelessness, isolation, and parental incarceration. It has been estimated that 350,000 children below age 18 have experienced parental incarceration (Texas Inmate Families Association 2005). Each of these adversities generates intra-family stress that can bring child development and learning to a halt. The result is a substantial population of at-risk children in Texas have a need for highly effective ECDE services, a need that poses a large challenge to The Texas Plan.

Keeping the Focus on Families as Children’s First Educators Although few question the appropriateness of keeping the focus on families as first educators, some Texans may be less prepared to fulfill this role. Because of poverty, illiteracy, home language, job responsibilities, or simply lack of knowledge of parenting for child development, not all parents will come into the ECDE system ready to be effective first educators of their children. The integration of family support services into ECDE services may put an extraordinary burden on the ECDE system as it tries to support families as primary educators while providing them with additional services such as education on parenting, experiences in empowerment and advocacy, and guidance in obtaining material and social supports when needed to stabilize or improve family functioning. Garnering employer support for parent time-off from work to participate in their children’s education during the workday is a challenge. ECDE programs sometimes add additional roadblocks by scheduling events only during work hours or expecting families to attend without their children. Low literacy rates and poor school histories are further roadblocks to participation for some families. The good news is that many effective family engagement programs are already in place across the state, and others are in use in other states and reported in the research literature. Finding, describing, and sharing these models can provide ECDE programs with a wide range of options to adopt or adapt to suit their program needs.

Developing Appropriate Early Learning Standards One of the challenges to the development of standards in Texas is to avoid omitting important areas of development, such as cognition, quantitative

The Texas Plan

149

reasoning, literacy, empathy, social skills and reported emotional control, moral codes, physical development, and so forth, or allowing one area of development to become the dominant basis for instruction (Scott-Little, Kagan, and Frelow 2004). The Texas Plan addresses the essential issues related to the content of early learning standards. From this starting point, consensus on issues such as balance of emphasis, age variation, must be negotiated. A critical challenge to early learning standards will be to address English language learners as they progress toward English proficiency as they transition into the elementary grades.

Assessment of Program Quality and Child Outcomes Research that examines both program quality and child outcomes may provide the most useful evaluation of ECDE programs. However, child assessments must be a part of the comprehensive assessment system and not the primary criteria for determining individual program effectiveness or child placement. If program assessment includes only testing of child outcomes and not dimensions of ECDE programs that are essential to developing school readiness, the opportunity to be clear about the relationship between program and development will be forfeited and quality improvement efforts will be seriously compromised. Children in one school may vary greatly from children in other schools on many variables such as family socioeconomic status, the child’s developmental experiences prior to preschool, health and nutritional status, prenatal experience, family culture, home language, and so forth. Individual program evaluations should be sensitive to all of these issues and strive to find ways to create the richest opportunity possible for each child’s development and success in school. Many early childhood educators view standardized achievement measures for young children as insufficiently accurate to ensure reliable and valid results. Yet there is a legitimate concern among early childhood and elementary educators that the third grade (the current grade for initiating Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Testing) is too late to identify children who are falling behind developmentally and educationally and to intervene to prevent school failure. Ensuring that standardized assessment instruments are sufficiently reliable and valid at the individual level—that is, for an individual child—is absolutely necessary. Individual variations in growth, development, and learning are the norm during the ECDE period, not the exception. Further, the aggregation of individual children’s scores into a composite measure of one aspect of program effectiveness depends on the availability of valid and reliable measures.

Creating the Appropriate Teaching Workforce A shortage of ECDE teachers in Texas already exists, and demand for them is rising. The shortage of bilingual and special education certified teachers

150

Albrecht et al.

is especially acute. The seventy-seventh Texas legislature directed the Higher Education Coordinating Board to develop a strategic plan to increase the number of certified teachers (all grades) in the state from 276,000 to 360,000 (a 30 percent increase) by 2015 (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2002). The requirements of increased enrollment in ECDE degree programs could outstrip the universities’ capacity to prepare teachers (Epstein 2002; Early and Winton 2001). Recent concerns about the quality of teacher preparation programs in the United States (Levine 2005) and about whether Texas higher education has the capacity to generate adequate numbers of appropriately trained ECDE teachers envisioned by The Texas Plan have been raised. Designing degree programs in ECDE, ECDE Special Education, and ECDE Administration and getting approval for them from the Higher Education Coordinating Board may prove to be an even bigger challenge. Texas had a Teacher of Young Children certification program in the late1970s and early 1980s that could be reinstated or serve as a model for new certification programs. New programs do not necessarily come with additional faculty and funding (Levine 2005). There is a risk that poorly prepared teachers will result from increased demands for postsecondary programs if adequate higher education funding does not accompany rising demands (Levine 2005; Winter 2005).

Family Services and Facility Development Connecting the ECDE system with family services is another challenge. ECDE administration must develop mechanisms to connect children to medical, dental, mental health, and nutritional services, and parents to adult education, literacy, and workforce skill development services. These services, especially for poor families, enhance family well-being and foster a home environment conducive to successful education and development of the child. Facility development presents a further challenge. Early childhood development and education often occurs in spaces whose original purpose did not include the development and education of young children. Shortcomings in these facilities abound; surplus space in public schools and multipurpose rooms in churches often lack the necessary equipment, furniture and spatial arrangements and are often inadequate for small children. Addressing this challenge will require funds specifically budgeted for this purpose.

Working toward Adoption of The Texas Plan The mission of TECEC is to build a system of quality ECDE that prepareschildren in Texas for educational and life success. Through systems level innovations, the objective is to support both ECDE and the needs of families and society. Thus, TECEC is taking a comprehensive root cause approach to enhancing ECDE for Texas children. The leadership, collaborative work, and neutral voice of TECEC have led to working relationships

The Texas Plan

151

with key statewide and local entities in a coordinated top-down and bottom-up approach. Research suggests that inequalities in social opportunities confer penalties on all of society’s socioeconomic groups (Marmot 2006). The Texas Plan is focused on removing these inequities for the state’s early childhood population in order for all Texans to benefit. The current political and policy landscape in Texas can be summed up thus: in recent years, there is less money and more need. The role of government is changing and a transfer of fiscal responsibility to cash-strapped local communities is occurring. Texas state agencies are undergoing a massive and lengthy reorganization. The combination of these factors has created a sense of urgency felt by stakeholders across political and philosophical spectrums. The ECDE community in Texas has concluded that the only hope for creating broad-based change is through the creation of a common message, a united front, and a collective force that becomes compelling. The state’s many challenges have in fact propelled the state’s disparate voices for ECDE to work collectively. Since inception in 2003, TECEC has garnered support from more than 230 early childhood member organizations across the state from both the public and private sectors. TECEC has participated in advisory capacities to numerous ECDE statewide initiatives; and played a critical role in public policy development at the state level. The breadth and mobilization of its membership resulted in significant influence on the seventy-ninth legislative session (2005), playing an important role providing eduction, analysis and feedback from communities. These efforts led to the passage of bipartisan bills to expand the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), the appointment of the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) to develop a report examining the resource needs and financing options for ECDE programs, and to create an online single point of access for families in need of early childhood education services. Most recently, in the 80th (2007) Legislative Session, TECEC played a key role with others in securing $35 million to support ECDE services. The accomplishments and successes of TECEC thus far have been directly due to the activation of participating members and partner organizations across the state. Few social issues present a broader, more complex, and more fascinating range of possibilities and challenges than ECDE. First, the range of players is enormous and includes parents and multinational corporations, elected officials and small business owners, and educators. Each of these interested parties brings a unique set of demands and interests to the table. Second, ECDE is the rare issue that crosses over the political boundaries and opens the door for bipartisan unity. A specific recommendation outlined in The Texas Plan that could propel this system forward is the establishment of a commission to conduct a study of financing options to provide increased, long-term, stable funding for high-quality ECDE programs. The commission would study the costs of attaining the high standards outlined in The Texas Plan, costs of data

152

Albrecht et al.

collection to assess the system’s effectiveness, program evaluation costs, and report on the state of child development in Texas. The commission could utilize the guiding principles of The Texas Plan in regard to revenues from families on a sliding scale related to family income. The commission would also study the latest results of the TEEM project led by the State Center, and the recommendations set forth in the Legislative Budget Board report charged in House Bill 2808 (seventy-ninth regular legislative session 2005). The commission will have the potential to serve as a catalyst for building a coherent, comprehensive system for the development and education of all young children just as the recommendations outlined by the Select Committee on Public Education in 1984 sought to “construct a new school system that will make academic achievement in Texas first in the nation and allow our children to be competitive throughout the industrialized world” (Select Committee on Public Education Recommendations Report 1984). Change is coming to ECDE in Texas. In response to TECEC’s effort to create a single and unified voice on behalf of Texans concerned about ECDE, proposals have been informed and driven by the best available research and practices. This increases the chances of overcoming ideological and historic divisions. Although the challenges laid out in this chapter must be addressed constructively one by one, and compromises made, the ECDE community in Texas has become a force. That community is optimistic that during the next decade the pieces will come together for a high-quality development and education system. The system will be transformative in the opportunities it will provide for each child to reach his or her full potential.

Summary What will Texas look like in the year 2040 if the policies proposed in The Texas Plan are fully implemented?

Rising Success of Children as Learners As the quality of ECDE programs improves, elementary schools will see more children entering kindergarten with the necessary skills to be successful learners. The achievement gaps of children of different socioeconomic groups will narrow. As a result, profound changes in our public school system will occur with fewer children being referred to special education classes and fewer children being held back to repeat grades. As the percentage of students who succeed in elementary school increases, a ripple effect will be created throughout the system and the number of high school graduates and college entrants will rise proportionately.

Enhanced Parent Education and Involvement As opportunities for parent education and family supports expand, parents and other family members will become more involved in their children’s

The Texas Plan

153

education. Improved data about the quality of particular programs and access to understandable, comparable, user-friendly information will allow parents to select ECDE programs to fit their children’s particular needs and the family’s expectations. In addition, homes will become more conducive to ECDE.

Stronger Families and Communities Local ECDE needs will be increasingly met as all ECDE programs gain a better understanding of families’ unique needs. In addition, the diversity of services designed for particular locales and particular groups of families will increase as the ECDE marketplace begins to serve more children. The impact on children who experience economic deprivation, hunger, homelessness, cultural isolation, and parental incarceration will decrease as a result of expanded access to full-day ECDE programs with trained professionals, increased family involvement, and the availability of family services. The public health of communities will improve as immunization rates rise and health screenings detect early intervention needs in time to implement remediation.

Greater Returns to the Public and Private Sectors Private sector involvement in ECDE will increase as both the public and private sectors experience significant returns on their ECDE investment. The Texas workforce will become stronger, fewer Texas residents will require public assistance, and fewer Texas juveniles and adults will be incarcerated. As a direct result, Texas families will secure higher incomes and become more economically secure.

Human Capital Development and Economic Development The capability and flexibility of the workforce is fundamental to economic development, especially in a knowledge-driven, globalized, competitive economic environment. This element of human capital has been shown to be fundamentally formative and dependent on cognitive and social development early in life. The years from birth to age five are highly important. There is wide acceptance among ECDE experts and economists who have studied it, that the return on investment in ECDE is manyfold, both to the individual and to society. The U.S. economy will be greatly favored by a sizable injection of capable talent into its workforce. The future of Texas is not predetermined. It will be shaped substantially by the efforts and actions of the ECDE field, the legislature, families, and other stakeholders. More than 30 years of research and evaluated best practices from throughout the United States and elsewhere have shown what is necessary for successful development and education of young children. Brain science has verified what has been known for a long time; children learn from day one given the appropriate opportunities. The Texas Plan is a blueprint to ensure the educational and life success of every Texas child.

154

Albrecht et al.

References Ackerman, D. J. (2005). Getting teachers from here to there: Examining issues related to an early care and education teacher policy. Early Childhood Research and Practice 7 (1) (Spring). Retrieved September 20, 2007 from ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/ackerman.html. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005a). Kids count-children in poverty. Retrieved September 15, 2005 from http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare_results. jsp?I=190. ———. (2005b). Kids count-children without health insurance. Retrieved September 15, 2005 from http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare_results.jsp?=110. Baker, A. J. L., C. W. Piotrkowski, and J. Brooks-Gunn. (1998). The effects of home instruction program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY) on children’s school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 13 (4): 571–588. Barnett, W. S. (2004). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. Preschool policy matters, 1. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Childhood Research. ———. (2006). Benefits of preschool for all. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http:// nieer.org/resources/files/Benefits.pdf. Barnett, W. S., J. T. Hustedt, K. B. Robin, and K. L. Schulman. (2004). The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool yearbook. New Jersey: National Institute for Early Education Research. ———. (2005). The state of preschool. New Jersey: National Institute for Early Education Research. Boyd, J., W. S. Barnett, E. Bodrova, D. J. Leong, D. Gomby, K. B. Robin et al. (2005). Promoting children’s social and emotional development through preschool. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=125. Coffman, J. and M. E. Lopez. (2003). Raising preschool teachers qualifications. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.trustforearlyed.org/docs/ NJAbbotBrief.pdf. Comptroller of Public Accounts. (2003). Texas: Where we stand. Retrieved September 15, 2005 from http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wwstand.html. Doctors, J. V. (2006). Pre-k and politics 2005. Washington, DC: Pre-k Now. Duncan, G. J. and K. Magnuson. (2003). Promoting healthy development of young children. In One percent for kids, ed. I. Sawhill, 16–39. Washington, DC: Brookings. Collaborative for Children. (2004). Houston survey results. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from http://www.collabforchildren.org. Early, D. M. and P. J. Winton. (2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher preparation at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16 (3): 285–306. Epstein, A. (2002). Early childhood professionals: Current status and projected needs. Exchange 143: 45–47. Head Start Performance Standards. (1996). Federal Register 61 (215). Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.head-start.lane.or.us/administration/regulations/ 45CFR130x.index.html Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult-child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43: 404–425. Impact Texas Communications. (2006). A survey of voter attitudes on pre-k education in Texas. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://www.uwtexas.org/article.php?article =471andsection=1andtid=53 Landry, S. H. (2004). A report of the State Center for Early Childhood Development Advisory Committee on Senate bill 76. Retrieved from http://uth.tmc.circle/pdfs/ sb76.pdf.

The Texas Plan

155

———. (2005). Effective early childhood programs: Turning knowledge into action. Houston, TX: University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center/Rice University James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Levine, A. E. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313. pdf. Lubeck, S. (2001). The role of culture in program improvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16 (4): 499–523. Lui, W. P., A. S. Yeung, and S. Farmer. (2001). What do parents want from day care services? Perspectives from Australia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16 (3): 385–393. Marmot, M. G. (2006). Status syndrome: A challenge to medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 95: 1304–1307. McCown, S. S. (2004). The facts, the future. Presented at the William P. Hobby Policy Conference, Austin, TX. Miller, J. (2004). America’s most literate cities. Whitewater, WI: University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.uww.edu/ marketingandmedia/special_reports/cities/methodology.pdf. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Screening and assessment of young English-language learners: Supplement to the NAEYC position statement on early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. National Association for the Education of Young Children/National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. National Head Start Association. (2005). Issue brief: Head Start teacher qualifications. Alexandria, VA: National Head Start Association. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://nhsa.org/download/advocacy/fact/HSTeacher.pdf. Neuman, S. B. and K. Roskos. (2005) The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20 (2): 125–145. Peth-Pierce, R. (2000). A good beginning: Sending America’s children to school with the social and emotional competence they need to succeed. Bethesda, MD: Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network (FAN), National Institute of Mental Health. Phillipsen, L. C., M. R. Burchinal, C. Howes, and D. Cryer. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12 (3): 281–303. Reynolds, A., S. Ou, and J. Topitzes. (2004). Paths of effects of early intervention on emotional attainment and delinquency: A conformational analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development 75: 1299–1323. Ryan, S. and D. J. Ackerman. (2005). Using pressure and support to create a qualified workforce. Education Policy Analysis Archives 13 (23). Retrieved July 20, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n23/. Schweinhart, L. J. (2004). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 40: Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=219. Select Committee on Public Education. (1984). Recommendations report. Retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/68/ed84r.pdf. Simpson, A. R. (2001). Raising teens: A synthesis and a call to action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www. hsph.harvard.edu/chc/parenting/raising.html.

156

Albrecht et al.

Texas Education Agency. (1999). Prekindergarten curriculum guidelines. Retrieved August 31, 2005 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/downloads/. ———. (2001). Principal certificate. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www. sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/certinfo/2principal.pdf. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2002). Strategic plan to address teacher shortages. Retrieved November 2, 2005 from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/ PDF/0510.PDF. Texas House of Representatives. (2005). House bill 2808, section 3, 79th regular legislative session. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.legis.state.tx.us/ BillLookup/BillSummary.aspx?LegSess=79R&Bill=HB2808 Texas Inmate Families Association. (2005). Retrieved June 14, 2006 from http://www. tifa.org/. Texas Workforce Commission. (2003). Economic impact of child care industry in Texas. Retrieved 9/28/05 from http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/childcare/ccimpact2003.pdf. U.S. Department of Labor. (2004). State occupational employment and wage estimates— Texas. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_data.htm. Winter, G. (2005). Study finds poor performance by nation’s education schools. The New York Times. Retrieved September 25, 2007 from http://www.nytimes. com/2005/03/15/education/15teach.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx= 1190330611-VFxV9ORKB8a2n7GVExgDqA. Wirt, J., S. Choy, P. Rooney, S. Provasnik, A. Sen, and R. Tobin. (2004). The condition of education, indicator 3, trends in full- and half-day kindergarten. US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2004–077, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/section1/indicator03.asp.

III

Social Action and Public Policy Issues 8 Demographic and Related Economic Transformations of Texas: Implications for Early Childhood Development and Education Steve H. Murdock and Stephen L. Klineberg 9 Can Society Profit from Investing in Early Education Programs? Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson 10 Financing Early Childhood Care and Education Systems: A Standards-Based Approach Anne Mitchell and Louise Stoney 11 The Framing of Early Child Development and Education: Lessons from Communications Research Susan Nall Bales

159

177

189

215

This page intentionally left blank

8 Demographic and Related Economic Transformations of Texas: Implications for Early Childhood Development and Education Steve H. Murdock and Stephen L. Klineberg

Introduction In the past 20 years, Texas has been profoundly changed in ways that the public has only begun to fully comprehend. The state recovered from the severe recession of the mid-1980s, with the collapse of its oil, agriculture, and other extractive industries, into a restructured economy and a demographic revolution. The vigorous, blue-collar, “resource economy” of the twentieth century has now receded into history. In its place, an informationage, high technology, knowledge-based, fully worldwide economic system is now taking shape. At the same time, major immigration flows have transformed this state and nation from one composed almost exclusively of European nationalities into an amalgam of all the peoples of the world. Texas, along with California and New York, is at the forefront of the new multiethnic America. As a result of advances in computers and robotics, intensifying worldwide competition, inexpensive transportation, and declining unionization, the good-paying blue-collar jobs—as in the state’s thriving construction and oil-field manufacturing industries—have rapidly disappeared. In the Texas economy of today, a vast array of new services, particularly in the technology-based sectors, now provide larger sources of state revenues than either oil or agriculture. The new economy offers rich and expanding opportunities for those with high levels of trained intelligence, technical skills, and educational credentials. For workers without such skills, the economy is generating large numbers of low-wage service jobs that offer few chances for people to work their way out of poverty. Gone forever is the opportunity for a young man or woman to graduate from a public school in Texas with a high school diploma and expect to be

160

Murdock and Klineberg

able to make a middle-class wage. “Human capital” has become the critical economic resource, and advanced education is now the single most important determinant of a person’s ability to earn enough to support a family. The restructured, two-tiered, “hourglass” economy offers few opportunities for incremental upward mobility though well-paid manufacturing jobs. It is therefore sobering to realize that the overall Texas population today has lower levels of educational attainment than the majority of other states. In the “knowledge economy” of the twenty-first century, that reality seriously threatens Texas’ competitive advantage. Concurrent with these economic transformations, new immigration streams have transformed the ethnic composition of the Texas population. Between 1990 and 2000, the state’s total population grew by 23 percent, surpassing New York to become the second most populous state in the union. The Anglo numbers (non-Hispanic whites) during the decade increased by just 7.6 percent; but the population of African Americans grew by 22.5 percent, Hispanics by 53.7 percent, and the category of all other racial/ethnic groups (Other) by 80 percent. Many of the new immigrants, especially those from Asia and Africa, have come to Texas and America with high levels of professional skills and educational credentials. For these newcomers, the loss of the “bluecollar path” to financial security may have little direct relevance. The new economy means serious trouble, however, for the much larger numbers of immigrants whose formal education puts them at the bottom of the skill ladder, with few accessible rungs leading upward. This is particularly the case for the largest component of the new immigrant population: those arriving from Mexico, El Salvador, and other Central American countries having few skills, little education, and severely limited resources. The educational levels among Texans in general are lower than those for the nation as a whole, and progress has been slow. Most data point to improvements during the 1990s, particularly in enhancing educational accountability. Nevertheless, by 2000 Texas still ranked forty-fifth among the 50 states in the percent of its adult population made up of high school graduates and twenty-seventh in its percent of college graduates. By 2004, Texas ranked fiftieth among the states on the percent of high school graduates and thirty-fifth on the percent of college graduates. During the 1990s, although both African-American and Hispanic youth experienced larger percentage increases than Anglos in the proportions receiving college degrees, the ethnic differentials remained large. In 2000, 30 percent of all Anglo adults, but only 15 percent of African Americans and 8.9 percent of Hispanics, had a college education. The challenge for Texas is clear. The state must do whatever it can to ensure that its population will be able to compete successfully in the hightech “knowledge economy” of the twenty-first century, and it will only be able to do so if it can increase substantially the levels of educational attainment across all segments of its population. If it fails to raise those levels, the state will find itself with decreasing incomes and tax revenues, along

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

161

with increased demands for nearly all types of public services. The chapters in this volume have shown that expanded programs in early childhood education and development may be among the most effective means available to improve educational outcomes across the state and to narrow the educational gaps that divide Texans today. In this chapter, we review recent demographic research, primarily from Murdock et al. (2003), to examine the demand for, and the implications of, such early childhood intervention programs in Texas. We begin by describing past and projected patterns of growth in the state’s population, and we examine the implications of these patterns for the economic future, with particular attention to the role of education in affecting socioeconomic outcomes. Finally, we make use of the available data to project the potential effects of early childhood intervention programs on socioeconomic change in Texas, and from this we suggest the role that such programs may play in altering the state’s economic prospects. Although projections such as those presented here must be used with full knowledge of their potential for error, particularly when they are extended across several decades, our purpose is not to suggest that any given population number, degree of educational achievement, or income level will inevitably develop. This chapter will show that, whatever the specific figures that are ultimately attained, programs such as those in early childhood education and development can contribute importantly to the state’s ability to meet the educational and economic challenges that lie ahead.

Historical and Projected Patterns in the Texas Population Although our focus in this chapter is on the children of Texas, it is also important to understand how the larger population has changed in the recent past, and how it is projected to unfold in the future. Thus, we briefly examine patterns of change in the total population and then concentrate on the demographic patterns that have refashioned the population of Texas children.

Growth and Diversity of the Total Population of Texas The story of Texas has been one of continual growth. As table 8.1 makes clear, in every decade since the first U.S. Census in which it appeared, Texas has grown at a faster rate than the nation as a whole. In the 1990s, the state grew by 22.8 percent, compared to 13.2 percent for the nation as a whole. Its population increased by nearly 3.9 million, an amount roughly equivalent to having added the number of people who in 1990 lived in the cities of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi combined. Between April 1, 2000 (the official census date) and July 1, 2004 (the date of reference for postcensus estimates), the Texas population added another 1.6 million persons. Texas had the second largest numerical increase of any

162

Murdock and Klineberg

Table 8.1 Total Population and Percent Population Change in Texas and the United States, 1850–2004 Year

Total Population Texas

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004

212,592 604,215 818,579 1,591,749 2,235,527 3,048,710 3,896,542 4,663,228 5,824,715 6,414,824 7,711,194 9,579,677 11,196,730 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 22,490,022

Percent Change

United States

Texas

United States

23,191,876 31,443,321 39,818,449 50,155,783 62,947,714 75,994,575 91,972,266 105,710,620 122,775,046 131,669,275 150,697,361 179,323,175 203,302,031 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906 293,655,404

— 184.2 35.5 94.5 40.4 36.4 27.8 19.7 24.9 10.1 20.2 24.2 16.9 27.1 19.4 22.8 7.9

— 35.6 26.6 26.0 25.5 20.7 21.0 14.9 16.1 7.2 14.5 19.0 13.4 11.4 9.8 13.2 4.3

Note: All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year. Values for 2004 are as estimated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

state in the nation both in the 1990s and in the post-2000 estimates. It had the eighth fastest rate of growth in the nation in the 1990s and the fourth fastest in the early years of this century. Table 8.2 presents the Texas State Data Center’s1 projections of the population’s growth through 2040 (see Texas Population Estimates and Projections Program [2001] for a full listing of these projections and a detailed description of the projection methodology). Three projection scenarios are developed. The first (zero or low growth) scenario assumes that there will be no in- or out-migration or that they are equal to one another, so that all growth is the result of natural increase, or the difference between the numbers of births and deaths in the state. The second (0.5 or moderate growth) scenario assumes that the same fertility and mortality levels obtain as in the low-growth scenario, but the rates of net migration by age, sex, and race/ethnicity will continue at one-half the rates that were observed in the 1990s. (This scenario generally produces rates of growth that are similar to those observed for the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000.) The third (1.0 or high growth) scenario posits the same birth and death rates as in the other scenarios, but assumes that age, sex, and race/ethnicity specific rates of net migration will continue at the same relatively high levels as were observed during the 1990s. As indicated in table 8.2, the center uses these three alternative scenarios to project that the state’s population will grow to roughly 25 million

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

163

Table 8.2 Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections of the Population in Texas by Race/Ethnicity from 2010 to 2040 Year

Anglo

Black

Hispanic

2000

11,074,716

2,421,653

2010

11,292,858

2,604,162

7,986,640

776,088

22,659,748

2020

11,320,857

2,727,365

9,220,971

828,786

24,097,979

2030

11,086,475

2,756,470

10,406,060

856,437

25,105,442

2040

10,599,190

2,697,888

11,408,456

856,047

25,561,581

6,669,666

Other

Total

% Change

685,785

20,851,820

—

Assuming Rates of Net Zero Migration (Zero or Low-Growth Scenario)

123

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to One-Half of 1990–2000 (Moderate 0.5 Growth Scenario) 2010

11,494,673

2,730,659

8,999,827

953,348

2020

11,735,043

3,004,173

11,742,820

1,256,342

27,738,378

2030

11,701,065

3,191,230

14,900,692

1,596,578

31,389,565

11,382,992

3,283,413

18,391,333

1,954,592

35,012,330

2040

24,178,507

168

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 1990–2000 (High 1.0 Growth Scenario) 2010

11,700,471

2,863,397

10,164,378

1,168,772

25,897,018

2020

12,165,004

3,309,068

15,056,028

1,897,182

32,427,282

2030

12,350,427

3,694,283

21,533,219

2,960,361

40,538,290

2040

12,225,486

3,995,349

29,926,210

4,435,916

50,582,961

1143

by 2010 and will reach between 35 and 51 million by 2040. The projections indicate that the growth rates between 2000 and 2040 will range between 68 and 142 percent. In sum, the Texas population has increased rapidly throughout its history, and is projected to continue to do so in the future. The population has also become increasingly diverse. In 1980, more than 65 percent of all Texans were Anglos (i.e., non-Hispanic whites). By 2000, the population was only 53.1 percent Anglo. Another 11.6 percent were African Americans (non-Hispanic blacks), 32.0 percent were Hispanics, and 3.3 percent were classified as Others (persons who are not Hispanic, not Anglo, and not black; primarily Asians, native Americans, and some other race/ethnicity groups who are not Hispanic, Anglo, or black). The Texas State Data Center projects that non-Anglos will comprise a majority of the Texas population between 2005 and 2006, and the population as a whole will be more than 50 percent Hispanic sometime between 2026 and 2035 (under the high- and moderate-growth scenarios, respectively). By 2040, the projections indicate that Anglos will constitute no more than a fourth to a third of the population, and non-Anglos will comprise between 66 and 75 percent of all Texas residents. (All percentages given in this paragraph have been calculated from the data in table 8.2). The rapid growth in the Texas population is thus inextricably combined with its increasing diversity. Moreover, because of the large differentials in socioeconomic and educational opportunities and in levels of attainment

164

Murdock and Klineberg

between Anglos on the one hand, and African Americans and Hispanics on the other (the two largest non-Anglo populations), the demographic patterns we have described will enlarge the demands being made on the state’s educational institutions and increase the numbers needing specialized public services.

The Growth and Diversity of the Child Population The proportion of the total Texas population that is composed of persons under the age of 18 (defined as the Child Population) has remained steady (at about 28 percent), but the increase in numbers has been dramatic. The child population grew from about 4.8 million in 1990 to about 5.9 million in 2000 (see table 8.3, an increase of 22.9 percent [Murdock et al. 2003]). Moreover, recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2004) indicate that the child population in Texas is now growing faster than that in any other state. From 2000 to 2004, the number of Texas children increased by 380,020, to reach nearly 6.3 million in 2004. The child populations in the other three largest states grew less rapidly. In California, the numbers under the age of 18 increased by 346,634; New York’s child population actually declined by more than 117,000; and Florida’s grew by 356,950. As a result, Texas’ overall population in 2000 was among the youngest in the nation, with a median age of 32.3, 3 years lower than the U.S. median of 35.3. (Data in this paragraph not shown in tables.) The large number of children in Texas will constitute a major challenge for its educational institutions, even as it also represents an important opportunity for the state to build a better future. Moreover, the number of children (age less than 18 years) in Texas can be expected to increase substantially in the coming decades (see table 8.3). The Texas State Data Center (2001) projects, under its high-growth scenario, that the child population of the state will expand by 84 percent between 2000 and 2040, increasing from 5.9 million to more than 10.8 million. Even under assumptions of moderate growth, the population of Texas children will increase to nearly 7.7 million by 2040, a 31 percent rate of growth. Equally important, the Texas child population is far more ethnically diverse than the population as a whole (data in this paragraph not shown in tables). Whereas 53.1 percent of all Texans in 2000 were Anglos, this was true of only 43.4 percent of those under the age of 18, and the extent of the diversity grows substantially at younger ages. In 2000, roughly 73 percent of the population aged 65 or older was Anglo, but this was the case for only 40 percent of those younger than 5. Overall, 57 percent of the entire Texas population under the age of 18 was non-Anglo in 2000. As these children age, the total population will grow progressively more diverse. Table 8.3 illustrates the faster rates of growth in the non-Anglo populations of the state. Under all three of the projection scenarios, the population

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

165

Table 8.3 Population in Texas ,18 Years of Age by Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projections from 2010 to 2040 Year

Anglo

Black

Hispanic

Other

Total

% Change

2000

2,552,553

768,367

2,386,765

179,074

5,886,759

—

Assuming Rates of Net Zero Migration (Zero of Low-Growth Scenario) 2010

2,381,989

711,286

2,718,253

191,251

6,002,779

2020

2,250,596

656,616

2,894,620

171,836

5,973,668

2030

2,037,621

599,805

3,023,563

149,589

5,810,578

2040

1,845,920

533,120

3,123,007

145,659

5,647,706

24

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to One-Half of 1990–2000 (Moderate to 0.5 Growth Scenario) 2010

2,410,363

745,637

2,962,436

222,271

6,340,707

2020

2,315,423

724,359

3,567,655

244,147

6,851,584

2030

2,129,593

697,760

4,160,892

261,862

7,250,107

2040

1,955,759

651,536

4,776,747

302,677

7,686,719

1 31

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 1990–2000 (High 1.0 Growth Scenario) 2010

2,439,166

781,589

3,231,809

258,642

6,711,206

2020

2,382,124

798,752

4,396,662

344,556

7,922,094

2030

2,225,880

811,337

5,740,541

455,889

9,233,647

2040

2,072,294

795,593

7,313,460

625,864

10,807,211

284

of Anglo children decreases, while the growth rates for Hispanic and children from other non-Anglo groups increase substantially. In the high-growth scenario, for example, the numbers of Anglo children decline by nearly 19 percent between 2000 and 2040, while the population of black children increases by 3.5 percent, Hispanic children by more than 206 percent, and children from Other groups by nearly 250 percent. (Data in table 8.3; percentages not shown.) As a result of such changes, the children in Texas will be increasingly non-Anglo (table 8.4). In 2000, 43.4 percent of all Texas children were Anglos; that percentage will drop to just 25.5 percent by 2040 under the moderate-growth scenario and to 19.1 percent in the high-growth scenario, while the black population of children, 13.1 percent in 2000, will fall to 8.5 percent under moderate-growth and to 7.4 percent under high growth. In that same (high growth) scenario, 67.7 percent of all Texas children in 2040 will be Hispanic; even under the assumptions of moderate growth, more than 62 percent will be Hispanic. If the non-Anglo children of Texas are unprepared to succeed in the “knowledge economy” of the twenty-first century, it is hard to envision a prosperous future for the state as a whole.

166

Murdock and Klineberg Table 8.4 Percent of Population ,18 Years of Age in Texas by Race/Ethnicity in 2000, and Projections from 2010 to 2040 Year 2000

Anglo 43.4

Black

Hispanic

13.1

40.5

Other 3.0

Assuming Rates of Net Zero Migration (Zero or Low-Growth Scenario) 2010

39.7

11.8

45.3

3.2

2020

37.6

11.0

48.5

2.9

2030

35.1

10.3

52.0

2.6

2040

32.7

9.4

55.3

2.6

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to One-Half of 1990–2000 (Moderate-Growth Scenario) 2010

38.0

11.8

46.7

3.5

2020

33.7

10.6

52.1

3.6

2030

29.4

9.6

57.4

3.6

2040

25.5

8.5

62.1

3.9

Assuming Rates of Net Migration Equal to 1990–2000 (High-Growth Scenario) 2010

36.3

11.6

48.2

3.9

2020

30.1

10.1

55.5

4.3

2030

24.1

8.8

62.2

4.9

2040

19.1

7.4

67.7

5.8

Implications for Texas’ Educational and Socioeconomic Future Rapid population growth always generates both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, an expanding population increases the market for all types of private sector goods and services. Growing populations both reflect and contribute to economic growth and development. On the other hand, rapid growth also means increased demands on public services, such as transportation, water and sewer, fire, police and emergency services, and educational institutions. Murdock et al. (2003), under their high (1.0) population growth scenario, have projected that the number of students in Texas elementary and secondary schools will increase by more than 3 million, from 4.0 million students in 2000 to nearly 7.1 million by 2040, an increase of more than 76 percent. At the same time, of course, the school populations will become increasingly non-Anglo. By 2040 (under the same high population growth scenario), fewer than 20 percent of all elementary- and secondaryschool students in Texas will be Anglo, and more than 66 percent will be Hispanic.

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

167

Because a variety of historical, discriminatory, and other factors have produced substantial differentials in the socioeconomic resources available to the different racial/ethnic groups in Texas, the increasing socioeconomic and educational diversity may have serious consequences for the Texas economy if such differentials are not significantly reduced. For example, the 2000 census found that Anglos in Texas had a median household income of $47,162, whereas the median household income of blacks was $29,305 and that of Hispanics $29,873 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002). Only 7.8 percent of Anglos in 2000 came from households with incomes below the poverty level, but this was true for 23.4 percent of African Americans and 25.4 percent of Hispanics (data not shown in the tables or figures). If the intergroup differences in income and education remain as they are today, while the ethnic composition of the Texas population continues to change in the ways we have described, Texas will be substantially poorer and less competitive in the future than it is today. As shown in figures 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, without fundamental changes in the socioeconomic differentials among the various racial/ethnic groups in Texas, by 2040 the workforce of this state will be less well educated than it was in 2000, its average household will be $6,500 poorer in 2000 constant dollars, and the proportion of family households living in poverty will have increased from 11.4 percent in 2000 to 15.4 percent in 2040.

Percent 35.0 30.1 30.0

29.0

28.7

28.7 23.9

25.0

18.2

20.0 15.0

12.9

10.0 5.3 5.0

4.4

0.0 No High High School School Diploma Graduate

Some College 2000

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/Prof. Degree

2040

Figure 8.1 Projected Percent of Labor Force by Education Attainment in Texas, 2000 and 2040 Note: Projections are shown for the high (1.0) population growth scenario defined earlier in this chapter.

$60,000

$54,441 $52,639 $50,903 $49,326

$50,000

$47,883

$40,000

$30,000 2000 Figure 8.2

2010

2020

2030

2040

Average Household Income in Texas, 2000–2040 (in 2000 Dollars)

Note: Projections are shown for the high (1.0) population growth scenario defined earlier in this chapter.

Percent in Poverty

35.0

30.0

30.0 26.7 25.0 20.0 15.0

16.6

15.0

14.4

11.8

11.4 10.0

18.9 18.9

17.0

15.4

7.5

5.0 0.0 Family Households

Married Couple

Male Female Householder Householder 2000

Figure 8.3 2040

Nonfamily Total Households Households

2040

Projected Percent of Households in Poverty by Family Type in Texas, 2000 and

Note: Projections are shown for the high (1.0) population growth scenario defined earlier in this chapter.

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

169

The Role of Education in Changing the Socioeconomic Prospects The demographic transformation we have reviewed makes it clear that Texas cannot improve its chances for success in the economy of the twenty-first century if it does not succeed in changing the socioeconomic differentials that currently exist among the state’s racial/ethnic groups. Improvements in education are critical in this connection, because levels of education are among the most powerful predictors of household income. The data shown in figure 8.4 demonstrate that relationship. In the year 2000, the Texas households that were headed by a college graduate had an average income of $80,950, compared to $42,271 for those headed by a high school graduate and $30,412 for households headed by persons with less than high school education. Over a 40-year working life, this means that the average household headed by a college graduate will make over $1.5 million more than one headed by a high school graduate and over $2.0 million more than one headed by someone with less than a high school education. How much difference will it make if Texas can make significant improvements in its aggregate levels of education? To address this question, Murdock et al. (2003) assumed that during the next 40 years income will continue to have the same relationship to education as is presented graphically in figure 8.4, and then examined the implications of three different levels (scenarios) of potential improvement in educational attainment using the same underlying projected level of population growth assumed under the 1.0 population projection scenario. Given the common underlying scenario of population change, the effects of three alternative scenarios of

$120,000

Average Income $104,294 $102,410

$100,000 $80,950 $80,327 $80,000 $60,000

$52,552

$54,467

$42,271 $44,068 $40,000

$30,412 $32,473

$20,000

$0 Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College or Associate Degree Texas

Bachelor's Degree

Graduate/Professional Degree

United States

Figure 8.4 Average Annual Household Income in Texas and the United States by Educational Attainment of Householder in 2000 Note: From Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample.

170

Murdock and Klineberg

educational attainment are examined relative to income, consumer expenditures and other factors. The top bar in each set of bars within an educational and race/ethnicity category in figure 8.5 shows the percent of adults aged 25 years of age and older in each racial/ethnic group who, in the year 2000, had attained different levels of education. For example, in 2000, 50.7 percent of Hispanics had less than a high school level of education. The base educational attainment scenario assumes that the population increases as projected under the 1.0 population projection scenario but levels of educational attainment do not change from 2000 to 2040 (e.g., 50.7 percent of Hispanics 25 years old or older would continue to have less than a high school level of education from 2000 through 2040). The horizontal red bars represent the levels that can be expected to occur by 2040 if the increases in educational attainment that took place between1990 and 2000 were to continue for each of the four decades from 2000 to 2040. This is referred to as the 1990–2000 trend scenario. For example, under this scenario, 32.1 percent of Hispanics would have less than a high school level of education by 2040. Finally, a third educational attainment scenario is examined in which the projected 2040 (under the 1990–2000 trend scenario) for the Other group is assumed to be as projected but the rates shown for Anglos by 2040 (under the 1990–2000 trend scenario) are assumed to also prevail for blacks and Hispanics. For example by 2040, 47.8 percent of Anglos, blacks, and Hispanics would have a college level education. This is referred to as the full closure educational attainment scenario. Particularly telling are the educational differentials. Among persons 25 years and older in 2000, 87.3 percent of Anglos had at least a high school education, as did 76.0 percent of African Americans, but only 49.3 percent of Hispanics. Similarly, whereas 30.0 percent of Anglos 25 years and older had college degrees, only 15.5 percent of blacks and 8.9 percent of Hispanics did (figure 8.5). The effects of the alternative educational attainment scenarios are dramatic. Figure 8.6 shows their impacts on the aggregate household income and consumer expenditures of Texans aged 25 or older. The three Alternative Educational Attainment Scenarios for 2040 (the base, the 1990–2000 trend, and the full closure scenarios) are compared to the Educational Attainment levels of income and consumer expenditures for 2000. Because of rapid population growth and assuming no change since 2000 in the intergroup differences in educational attainment (the base educational attainment model), total incomes and expenditures continue to increase, but per household incomes (not shown here) actually decline by $6,500 between 2000 and 2040, and consumer expenditures per household (also not shown here) drop by more than $3,200. The data in figure 8.6 show that, if improvements in educational attainment during each of the next four decades continue at the same rate achieved in the 1990s (Model II in figure 8.6), this will result in an aggregate household income of $765 billion, compared to $621 billion under Model I. In

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas Anglo < High School

12.7

2.2

High School

16.6

25.7 31.6 33.4 30.0

Some Coll./Assoc. Bachelor's + Black < High School

171

47.8

24.0

4.3

29.9 25.6 30.6

High School Some Coll./Assoc. 15.5

Bachelor's +

40.5

29.6

Hispanic < High School 22.0 25.8 18.4 24.1

High School Some Coll./Assoc. Bachelor's +

8.9

Other < High School High School Some Coll./Assoc.

7.6

18.0

21.0 13.4 16.1

11.0

20.6 42.3

Bachelor's + 0.0

50.7

32.1

68.0 10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Percent 2000

2040

Figure 8.5 Percent of Persons 25 Years of Age or Older by Level of Educational Attainment and Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and Projected to 2040 Assuming Continuation of 1999–2000 Rates of Improvement in Educational Attainment Note: The population projections to year 2040 used in this figure’s calculations assume the high (1.0) population growth scenario defined earlier in this chapter.

other words, if Texas can succeed in increasing the educational attainment levels of its citizens by as much in each of the next four decades as it did during the 1990s, this would raise aggregate household incomes by $144 billion per year by 2040. Under these improvement assumptions, average household income increases from $33,950 in 2000 to $39,470 in 2040 in 2000 constant dollars. (Data not shown in figure 8.6.) If the black and Hispanic attainment levels can match by 2040 those that are projected for Anglos (the Model III, “full closure” scenario), this would increase aggregate household incomes by more than $300 billion per year (see figure 8.6). Under these circumstances, the average household incomes of all Texans, rather than declining by $6,500 per household (as in the 2000 Base Educational Model), would increase by more than $8,600; the mean level of consumer expenditures, rather than declining by an average

172

Murdock and Klineberg Billions $1,200 $1,000

$938

$800

$765

$600

$752 $629

$621 $528

$400 $251 $200

$210

$0 Year 2000 Base (Actual Educational Attainment

Scenario I Year 2040 Assumes 2000 Actual Educational Attainment Level Continues Unchanged

Aggregate Income

Scenario II Year 2040 Assumes 1990–2000 Actual Educational Attainment Improvement Rate Continues to Rise into 2040

Scenario II Year 2040 Assumes Anglo Educational Attainment Rates Are Achived by All Racial-Ethnic Groups ("Full Closure Model")

Consumer Expenditures

Figure 8.6 Aggregate Income and Consumer Expenditures for Population 25 Years of Age or Older in Texas in 2000 and Projected under Alternative Educational Attainment Assumptions for 2040 Note: The population projections to year 2040 used in this figure’s caculations assume the high (1.0) population growth scenario defined earlier in this chapter.

of $3,200 per household, would grow by more than $1,100. (Data not shown in figures.) Obviously increases in educational attainment would be good for the economic future of Texas. The demand for services would also change if higher educational attainment was achieved. People with higher levels of education are less likely to require various public services (e.g., welfare, public health, criminal justice services, etc., see Murdock et al. [2003]). As an example, consider the projected change in state prison populations. Assuming that incarceration rates by educational level continue as in 2000 and that educational levels in the various racial/ethnic groups change according to Models I, II, and III (figure 8.6) described above. The results indicate that in the absence of any changes in educational outcomes (the base educational attainment model), the number of persons aged 25 or older who are incarcerated in Texas prisons will grow from 126,515 in 2000 to more than 341,000 in 2040, and the state’s costs to maintain these prisoners will increase to more than $5 billion per year in 2040 (in 2000 dollars). By comparison, under Model III, the full closure model, the number of prisoners increases only slightly, from 127,000 to 135,000, even though the total population of the state will more than double, and total prison costs amount to just $2 billion in 2000 constant dollars, very little different from the 2000 costs. (Data in this paragraph are not shown in the figures and tables.)

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

173

The data make it clear that increased educational attainment will not only benefit those who obtain the education but also the larger needs of the state as a whole. Texas will be considerably wealthier and more competitive in the years ahead if it can increase its levels of educational attainment across the board. Achievement of this educational objective will be enhanced if effective early childhood education programs (preschools) reach all Texas children, thereby substantially raising the proportion of children prepared to succeed in kindergarten and up the educational ladder and beyond (see chapter 3).

The Role of Early Childhood Development Programs in Shaping the Educational Future We have seen that improvements in education for Texas’ non-Anglo populations will generate a brighter future for Texas as a whole. What the demographic analyses do not address is the specific policies that would help to close the attainment gaps among the various racial/ethnic groups in Texas. As suggested by other chapters in this volume, early intervention in children’s lives with proven methods to enhance their preparation for lifelong learning can contribute significantly to their eventual educational attainment. The effectiveness of such programs has been known in Texas for 30 years (see Begley and Liston 1975). Programs in early childhood education and development have been shown to have substantial impacts on rates of educational attainment (Reynolds and Temple 1996; Reynolds 1997; Ramey et al. 1998; Reynolds 1998; Waldfogel 1999; Shonkoff et al. 2000; Reynolds et al. 2000, 2004; Heckman 2006; Knudsen et al. 2006). A recent study (King et al. 1999) examined the impact of an early intervention program on a targeted (low income) group of children in Texas. The research found that exposure to the program ultimately increased high school graduation rates by 47 percent and college graduation rates by 10 percent. If a fully implemented, Texas-wide childhood intervention program were to increase high school graduation rates across the state by 47 percent, that would account for considerably more than the 35.7 percent increase in high school graduation rates achieved under the “1990–2000 trends” model described above. Assuming that the increased rates of high school and college graduation found by King et al. (1999) for low-income persons in Texas could be duplicated across the entire state, this would produce nearly half of the 85.7 percent change needed to bring about full closure between blacks, Hispanics, and Anglos in their levels of educational attainment. If the impacts reported by King et al. (1999) for low-income persons can be applied to the total population, an effective program of early childhood education and development would also account for nearly one-fifth of the increase in the number of college graduates stipulated under the “1990–2000 trends” model and for 1 of every 20 college graduates (10 percent of the

174

Murdock and Klineberg

roughly 200 percent increase) required under the “full closure” scenario. Under the high-growth assumptions, this would mean by 2040 that early childhood intervention programs could account for more than 4.8 million additional persons with at least a high school education and for nearly 1.2 million additional college graduates. Although these figures are speculative and based on a variety of assumptions, they nevertheless suggest that early childhood education and development programs could have significant impacts on the overall levels of educational attainment of the Texas population. In light of the economic consequences of improved education, the data suggest that the long-term benefits for Texas are extensive if a full implementation of early childhood programs is accomplished.

Summary and Implications The demographic data we have reviewed have potentially profound socioeconomic effects on Texas now and in the future. These data document the dramatic increases that have occurred in Texas’ total and child populations, as well as in their racial/ethnic diversity. The populations are projected to continue their rapid growth in the years ahead and to become even more diverse. By 2040, the population of Texans under the age of 18 may well exceed 10.8 million, and 81 percent of them will be non-Anglo children. Due to a variety of historical, discriminatory, and other factors, Hispanics and African Americans have long experienced very low levels of educational attainment in Texas, and they comprise the two largest non-Anglo segments of the state’s population that are increasing in size. If Hispanics and other non-Anglo Texans are not given a real opportunity to acquire the educational credentials they will need in order to compete in the “knowledge economy” of the twenty-first century, the consequences will be felt not only by them, but also by the entire state. Texas will be poorer and less competitive in the years to come, with significant reductions in aggregate income, increases in poverty rates, and substantially higher public service costs. Our analyses also shows that there is an alternative future for Texas. If the levels of educational attainment of all Texans can be substantially increased, the state will instead experience considerably increased income and business activity, and it will be able to capitalize fully on the advantages of having a young, multicultural and multilingual workforce, well positioned for competitive success in the global knowledge economy of the new century. Given the current socioeconomic characteristics of the state’s population, achieving that alternative future will not be easy. Effective policies need to be developed and implemented that can bring about substantial gains in educational achievement across all segments of the Texas population. The chapters in this volume have made a compelling case that early educational intervention will be an indispensable part of the effort to raise

Demographic and Economic Changes—Texas

175

educational levels in Texas. Our analyses suggest that large-scale, publicly funded early childhood education and development programs, when carefully monitored to ensure that they are both effective and efficient, constitute one of the most readily available, widely applicable, and cost-effective (Heckman 2006) ways of meeting the Texas challenge and of creating a brighter future for all Texans.

Note 1. One of the authors, Steve Murdock, is Director of the Texas State Data Center. In 2004 the Center moved from Texas A&M in College Station to the University of Texas at San Antonio. He is now a Professor in the Department of Sociology at Rice University in Houston.

References Begley, C. and J. S. Liston. (1975). Early childhood development Programs in Texas: An analysis of benefits and costs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health Education & Welfare, National Institute of Education. Currie, J. (2001). Early childhood education programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (2): 213–238. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312 (June 30): 1900–1902. King, C. T., K. Faliski, A. M. Betsinger, and D. P. O’Shea. (1999). The net benefits of early childhood investments: Findings, implications and a Texas agenda. Austin, Texas: U.S. Department of Education, Center for the Study of Human Resources. Knudsen, E. I., J. J. Heckman, J. L. Cameron, and J. Shonkoff. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (27): 10155–10162. Murdock, S. H., S. White, N. Hoque, B. Pecotte, X. You, and J. Balkan. (2003). The new Texas challenge: Population change and the future of Texas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Ramey, C., F. Campbell, and C. Blair. (1998). Enhancing the life course for highrisk children in social programs that work, 184–199. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Reynolds, A. (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: Age thirteen findings from the Chicago longitudinal study. Child Development 69 (1): 231–246. ———. (2000). Long term benefits of participation in the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Madison: Xerox, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Reynolds, A. J. (1997). The Chicago Child-Parent Center: A longitudinal study of extended early childhood intervention. Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion Paper No. 1126–1197. Reynolds, A. J. and J. A. Temple. (1996). Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: Age 13 findings from the Chicago longitudinal study. Institute for Research on Poverty. Discussion Paper No. 1095–1096. Reynolds, A. J., S. Ou, and J. Topitzes. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development 75: 1299–1328.

176

Murdock and Klineberg

Shonkoff, J., D. Phillips, and B. Keilty, eds. (2000). Early childhood intervention: Views from the field. National Research Council and Institutes of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Temple, J., A. Reynolds, and W. Miedel. (2000). Can early intervention prevent high school dropout? Urban Affairs 35 (1): 31–56. Texas Population Estimates and Projections Program. (2001). Projections of the population of Texas and counties in Texas by age, sex and race/ethnicity for 2000–2040. Austin: Texas State Data Center, Texas A&M University System. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Census 2000 summary file 3 (machine readable data files). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. ———. (2004). Annual estimates of the population by sex and age. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. Waldfogel, J. (1999). Early childhood interventions and outcomes. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.

9 Can Society Profit from Investing in Early Education Programs? Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson

Introduction Social policies are often motivated by compassion or justice, but sometimes their proponents argue that they constitute worthy social “investments.” Just as business decisions take into account the effect of an investment on a company’s bottom line, it is useful to ask whether government expenditures that “invest” in children’s cognitive and behavioral skills can provide “profits” to society as a whole. School failure is costly, not only to the children who will grow up limited by lower earnings and fewer career opportunities, but also to society, which must incur the costs of additional remediation and support for individuals throughout their lives. Early education programs are one of many possible ways to promote the school success of at-risk children. This chapter summarizes evidence on whether the gains associated with early education programs can more than offset their considerable costs. Suppose we start with a group of 200 preschoolers from low-income families. Countless studies suggest that many will not be as academically and economically successful as children from middle-class families. But suppose that we enroll half of the low-income children in an early education program for a year, and track their fortunes, as well as the fortunes of the children who do not attend preschool, for 30 years. Although it is unrealistic to expect that all of the children who attend preschool will become college-educated professionals, there still may be important differences in the attainments and well-being of the children who receive early education and those who do not. Providing early education programs like Head Start is not cheap. Per pupil costs are estimated to be $6,900 per year for the current mixture of part- and full-day Head Start programs (Head Start Bureau 2002). Suppose that our 100 children participate in an early education program for one year at a taxpayer cost of $8,000 per child, or $800,000 altogether. Those who

178

Duncan and Magnuson

view this as a wise investment need to demonstrate that the benefits accruing to taxpayers and the children themselves meet or exceed $800,000. How should we go about estimating the benefits? We would certainly want to know how many of the children needed special education services during primary school. Suppose that 20 of the children attending the preschool program needed a year of special education, but 30 of the comparison children did too. Because special education classes require specially trained teachers and often separate classrooms, the cost to taxpayers for providing just a year of special education to the additional 10 students could easily total $80,000 (Chambers, Parrish, and Harr 2004). If, as is often the case, special education classes are needed for two, three, or even more years, then taxpayer savings could be several times this amount. Suppose that we also collect the police records of the children as they move through their teen years and into adulthood. Many will not be involved in the criminal justice system at all. But if the academic skills or positive behavior learned in preschool somehow help keep children out of trouble later on, then we might find differences in criminal activity. Economic studies conclude that the costs of crime, especially violent crime, are very large because they involve not only the police and court system, including expenses for arrests, trials, and incarceration, but also the victims’ costs for medical treatment, earning losses, and the like. Miller and colleagues (1996) estimate that the total costs associated with each violent crime amount to roughly $8,000 and for each property crime about $500. So even if the preschool children go on to commit only a few fewer crimes than children not attending the program, the savings to taxpayers and crime victims could be considerable. On the more positive side, our preschool program might prevent high school dropout and enhance employment opportunities. Suppose we track the earnings and unemployment experiences of the children into adulthood, and find that the earnings of program children are $.50 per hour higher than comparison children, and that ten more children participating in the program have avoided long-spells of joblessness, relative to children in the comparison group. Even after accounting for the fact that these labor market advantages are reaped two or more decades after money is spent on the program, these employment and earnings differences for the 200 children can easily exceed $100,000. And in this case the program’s effects on earnings are enjoyed by both the individuals themselves (in the form of higher income) and taxpayers (because of the higher taxes paid by these individuals as well as lower welfare benefits paid to them). These are the kinds of steps that need to be taken to arrive at a proper accounting of all of the benefits and costs of an early education program. When completed, the accounting provides an answer to the question of whether government spending on preschool education programs yields a “profit” to society. The purpose of this chapter is to review evidence from preschool program evaluations. We first explain how comparisons

Early Education Programs and Profit

179

of program costs and benefits to society resemble the kinds of profitability calculations the business sector makes when assessing possible investments. We then review evidence from the small number of early education programs for which costs and benefits have been reliably determined.

Early Education Programs as Investments An Economic Framework Cost-benefit frameworks (Levin 1983; Gramlich 1990) are the formal way in which the profitability of social investments can be assessed. Key to these assessments is a systematic accounting of the costs and benefits of an intervention program, based on a careful (ideally random-assignment) comparison of outcomes for the children or adults offered the program services and otherwise similar children or adults not offered program services. When both costs and benefits can be quantified, an accounting can produce an estimate of a program’s benefits relative to its costs. As when a firm uses an investment’s stream of revenues and costs to calculate its rate of return, the comparison of benefits and costs for a social program can be expressed as a social rate of return. Economists distinguish between costs and benefits that accrue to (1) children in the interventions and their families; and (2) taxpayers who typically pay the bulk of social program costs. Our ultimate interest is in social costs, benefits, and rate of return, which combines the participant and taxpayer components. While taxpayers will want to know whether a program’s benefits to them exceed their costs, a more comprehensive accounting of social profitability would compare the combined taxpayer plus participant costs with the combined taxpayer plus participant benefits. If a program’s total benefits exceed its total costs, then investment logic suggests that public funding of such a program is socially profitable. If benefits fall short of costs then the public’s money is better spent in other ways or returned to taxpayers for their own private consumption (including their private investments in their own children). Lest readers be put off by the hard-hearted nature of these considerations, we hasten to note that it is often difficult to assign monetary values to important components of program benefits and costs. Properly done, costbenefit analysis recognizes this possibility in its examination of whether conclusions based on monetized amounts could possibly change if these nonmonetary considerations were taken into account. That said, the logic of economic thinking about interventions is hard-hearted in the sense that it may conclude that spending on children’s early education intervention is not warranted. Like it or not, public resources for interventions are limited, and funding a preschool program often precludes funding something else. Informed policy requires a rigorous framework for judging among competing programs, and cost-benefit analyses provide precisely such a framework.

180

Duncan and Magnuson

The Example of Perry Preschool To illustrate the application of cost-benefit analysis, let us turn to the Perry Preschool program. Launched in 1962, the Perry Preschool program provided one or two years of enriched early education for 58 low-income African-American children. During the school year, the program provided 2.5 hours of class on weekdays. The curriculum was geared to the children’s age and capabilities, emphasizing child-initiated learning activities. Staff encouraged children to engage in play activities that would promote their problem-solving skills as well as their intellectual, social, and physical development. During the afternoons, the program staff visited each family once a week for an hour and a half. The four teachers served only 20–25 children each year, providing enough staff to complete the regular home visits and ensuring a low child-to-teacher ratio. The program’s benefits were assessed by comparing the Perry children with similar children who did not attend any type of early education program. Information was collected on children’s cognitive development, academic achievement, and educational outcomes when the children were of school age, and their educational outcomes, occupational success, and criminal activity when they were adults. Analyses demonstrated that attending Perry Preschool positively affected children’s intellectual and cognitive abilities (e.g., IQ) through age seven. More important were the program’s longer-lasting beneficial effects on other school outcomes and well-being in adulthood. Schweinhart et al. (1993) provides the accounting of program costs and benefits shown in Table 9.1. Although the program was free to the participating families, the program’s staff and facilities costs (in 2003 dollars) amounted to $16,186 per child. Since some children participated in the program for two years and others for only one year, the $16,186 represents an average of about 1.5 years of program attendance. The social profitability question is whether the program’s benefits exceeded these substantial costs. During their primary and secondary schooling, children who attended the Perry Preschool program were less likely to be held back and require special educational services. For example, Perry children received special education services for an average of 1.1 years, whereas comparison children received these services for an average of 2.8 years. Expressed in dollar terms, these per-child expenses for K–12 schooling produced a $9,000 savings to taxpayers.1 Ironically, the higher school achievement of children in the program carried with it a cost because taxpayers support some of the costs of the public colleges. The fact that more program children attended college meant higher subsidies from taxpayers estimated to be $1,137, which appear as negative amounts in the benefits portion of table 9.1. As they moved into their adult years, children who attended Perry Preschool worked and earned more than the group of comparison children. In fact, over the course of their lives, the difference in earnings is estimated

Early Education Programs and Profit Table 9.1

181

Benefits and Costs of the Perry Preschool Program For Participants

For Public

Total

Total Costs of the Program

$0

$16,186

$16,186

Program Benefits More efficient K-12 education, such as less grade retention and higher achievement

0

9,002

9,002

Increases in publicly funded higher education costs

0

–1,137

–1,137

Increase in lifetime participants’ earnings and employee benefits

28,145

11,588

39,734

Decrease in welfare payments

–3,475

3,823

347

Decrease in crime

0

92,199

92,199

967

371

1,338

Total Benefits of the Program

$25,637

$115,846

$141,483

“Profit” (benefits minus costs)

$25,637

$99,661

$125,296

Other

Ratio of benefits to costs

8.74/1

Source: Schweinhardt et al. (1993). All amounts are expressed in 2003 dollars. Perry Preschool served 58 low-income African American children who attended preschool for 2.5 hours a day for an average of 1.5 years. The program also involved weekly home visits with children’s parents.

to be $39,734 per child. About one-third of this earnings differential went to the government in the form of higher tax payments, but the remaining two-thirds made its way into the pockets of the program participants in the form of take-home income. The higher earnings were coupled with about $3,500 less in welfare benefits—a plus for taxpayers but an offsetting minus for the participants themselves.2 More important from an economic point of view were the large differences in rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration between the children who attended Perry Preschool and children in the comparison group. Police and court information indicate that by the age of 28, the Perry children averaged 2.3 arrests. In comparison, children who did not attend preschool averaged 4.6 arrests. The disparity in arrests was even more pronounced among males, with close to 12 percent of the preschool boys having been arrested five or more times compared with 49 percent of the nonpreschool boys. The economic value of these differences is huge—more than $90,000 per child. These various benefits totaled $115,000 per child for taxpayers and $25,000 per child for the participants and their families. Summing these two figures produces the estimated total social benefit of more than $140,000 per child, more than eight times higher than the $16,000 program cost. Indeed, it is precisely these data that produce the often-quoted statement that investing $1 now in early education will provide more than $8 in benefits later on.

182

Duncan and Magnuson

But just because a single rather intensive program offered to several dozen children appears to provide eight times the volume of benefits relative to costs, there is little reason to expect that all efforts to boost child wellbeing through early interventions would be as profitable. For one thing, less intensive programs may not make enough of a difference in the children’s lives to provide even a fraction of Perry Preschool’s benefits. For another, it is very difficult to maintain quality when small programs are scaled up into real-world efforts offered to thousands of children. We turn now to evidence from other evaluations to shed light on these issues.

Other Evidence There are many evaluations of early education programs but remarkably few that provide convincing evidence (Karoly et al. 1998; Barnett 1995; Farran 2000). Most evaluations lack comparison-group children who are otherwise similar to the program participants. Some have very limited follow-up periods. Another look at table 9.1 shows that had the Perry Preschool evaluation stopped after 10 years, the benefits from reduced education spending would have fallen short of program costs and the program would not have been judged to be socially profitable. Two program evaluations of early education programs do pass muster, however. The first (The Carolina Abecedarian Program) is an extremely intensive program that provided full-time center child care for almost the entire preschool period. The second (Chicago Child-Parent Centers) is an actual scaled-up program that operated for several years in a number of poor Chicago neighborhoods. A summary of the social benefits and costs of each program is provided in table 9.2. For the sake of brevity, our accounting does not distinguish between benefits to taxpayers and program participants.

The Carolina Abecedarian Program The Carolina Abecedarian program was a center-based preschool program provided to children at risk of school failure. Between 6 and 12 weeks of age, 112 children were randomly assigned to the program group or a comparison group. The teacher/child ratios were quite low—1:3 for infants and 1:6 for older children. The center was open 5 days a week, 10 hours a day, for 50 weeks a year. The curriculum emphasized language development. The program provided free transportation, as well as medical and nutritional services. Children in the comparison group had access to the same medical and nutritional services. The Abecedarian and comparison-group children have been followed through age 21 (Campbell et al. 2002). The evaluation found large and longlasting differences in children’s cognitive development and academic achievement. Masse and Barnett (2002) estimated the Abecedarian program costs and benefits, and we provide a summary of their work in table 9.2.

Early Education Programs and Profit Table 9.2 Program

183

Benefits and Costs of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers and the Abecedarian

Total Costs of the Program Program Benefits Reductions in special education and grade retention Increases in publicly funded higher education costs

Carolina Abecedarian a

Chicago ChildParent Centerb

$ 36,581c

$ 7,562d

9,013

5,505

28,291

2629

Increases in participants’ earnings and employee benefits

38,282

31,369

Increases in maternal earnings

75,080

—

Health Benefits (e.g., reductions in smoking)

18,137

—

Reductions in child abuse/neglect

—

870

Decreases in juvenile and adult crime

—

14,980

200

1,872

Other Total Benefits of the Program

$138,257

$53,968

“Profit” (benefits minus costs)

$112,582

$46,406

3.78/1

7.14/1

Ratio of benefits to costs

Notes: All amounts are expressed in 2003 dollars. a Masse and Barnett (2002). b Reynolds et al. (2002). c Represents difference in costs between the program and comparison groups over the entire period from birth through age five. d The cost is estimated for the one and a half years of average CPC participation in the preschool program.

This high-quality program had a correspondingly high price tag, with per-year per-child program cost estimates (in 2003 dollars) ranging from just under $11,000 to just over $16,000. Children in the comparison group also participated in center-based child care, although not for as long a time as the Abecedarian children and at less expense. Consequently, the estimated expense of the Abecedarian program for birth through age five—$36,581—amounts to the difference in child care costs between the program and control groups. Improvements in Abecedarian children’s school success yielded savings in expenditures for special education and grade retention of $9,013 per child. However, because Abecedarian children were also more likely to attend postsecondary schooling than comparison children, additional costs of $8,291 per child were incurred in college tuition. Improvements in educational attainment translated into higher earnings in the labor market, and the Abecedarian program’s lifetime earnings benefits are estimated at over $38,000 per child. The provision of stable, high-quality child care also benefited program children’s

184

Duncan and Magnuson

mothers by creating increased employment opportunities. Abecedarian’s effects on mothers’ earnings were substantial—close to $3,750 per year, yielding a total increase in maternal earnings of $75,080. A survey conducted during adolescence found lower levels of smoking among Abecedarian children (39 percent versus 55 percent). Estimating the economic value of likely decreases in mortality provides an estimate of the economic value for better health behaviors ($18,137). Unlike Perry Preschool, the Abecedarian program did not appear to reduce children’s criminal behavior, and so the program does not provide any benefits in this area. Abecedarian’s estimated benefits sum to $138,257, a figure quite close to Perry Preschool’s total benefits. However, with a marginal cost of $36,581, more than twice Perry’s costs, the cost-benefit accounting suggests that each $1 invested in providing such an intensive and high-quality program yielded almost $4 worth of benefits.

Chicago Child-Parent Centers The Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC) program is noteworthy both for its evaluation and for the fact that it is a large-scale early education program undertaken by the Chicago public schools with federal Title 1 funds. Twenty-four separate CPC programs were located in or near public schools in the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. These programs provided educational and family support services to children between the ages of three and nine (preschool through third grade). The preschool program ran for 2.5 hours a day, 5 days a week during the school year and for 6 weeks during the summer. On average, children attended 1.5 years of preschool. The structured curriculum emphasized language and math skills, but provided children with diverse learning experiences, including such activities as field trips. The centers had low staff to child ratios (1:8), well-trained teachers, and offered comprehensive services including health care and food, as well as a strong parent and community outreach component designed to involve parents in their children’s schooling. The school-age services included reduced class sizes, a teachers’ aide for each class, continued parent and community outreach, as well as extra instructional materials and academic enrichment activities for children. An evaluation conducted by Reynolds and colleagues (2001, 2004) has followed a cohort of CPC children and a matched comparison group that entered kindergarten in 1985. The latest data were collected during early adulthood (age 21). The comparison children typically did not attend early education programs, although a small proportion participated in Head Start. Although the programs provide services through third grade, the evaluation is able to differentiate between the costs and benefits of the preschool school component and the follow-on program. Participation in the CPC preschool program had remarkable effects on children. Not only have they experienced better school and labor market outcomes than the comparison children, but they were also less likely to be victims of child abuse or neglect or to engage in criminal activities.

Early Education Programs and Profit

185

Reynolds and colleagues (2002) provide a detailed accounting of the program’s costs and benefits, and we summarize their main findings in table 9.2. At $5,505 per child, CPC’s savings in the costs of grade retention and special education placement are more modest than for either Perry Preschool or Carolina Abecedarian. As with the other two studies, CPC children were more likely to attend college, leading to more costly subsidies ($629). The estimated increases in participants’ earnings are substantial ($31,369 per child). Reductions in crime were also more modest for CPC children (17 percent of CPC children were arrested by the age of 18 versus 25 percent of comparison children) than for Perry children, resulting in modest savings for criminal activity ($14,980). The evaluation found that participation in CPC preschools reduced reports of abuse and neglect. CPC children had only half as many substantiated reports of abuse or neglect as comparison children (5 percent versus 10 percent). By reducing administrative and protective custody costs, this difference creates a savings of $870 per child. Estimated at $53,968, the total benefits of the CPC centers are more modest than those of either Carolina Abecedarian or Perry Preschool. However, the program cost considerably less than the other programs, and so the payoff for the investment is nearly on par with Perry Preschool. Each $1 invested in CPC yielded $7 in return.

Does This Evidence Generalize to Less Intensive Programs? Given the more than $6 billion we spend annually on the Head Start program, it is important to ask about evidence regarding its social profitability. Despite its nearly 30-year history, a random-assignment evaluation has only recently been conducted (Puma et al. 2005) while a benefit-cost analysis has yet to be done. At the end of one year, children receiving Head Start program services performed better on reading tests, were better behaved, and healthier. Program benefits were modest, and tended to be stronger for three- than four-year olds. We do not yet know whether these short-run impacts will fade out or persist over time, but, some recent nonexperimental analyses of the longterm effects of Head Start have also shown important long-term behavioral and academic benefits for children. Currie and colleagues (Currie and Thomas 1995, 2000; Garces et al. 2002) found that Head Start is associated with a significantly increased probability of completing high school and attending college for whites, and with less crime among blacks. They also found evidence that there are positive spillovers from older children who attended Head Start to their younger siblings. Barnett (1995) reviews a larger body of evaluation literature covering less comprehensive or lower-quality programs and targeting, for the most part, economically disadvantaged children. While these other studies are not as comprehensive as the three studies reviewed above, they tend to show smaller gains for program children. Moreover, these gains often faded out within a few years. Thus, it appears that the multiple services provided by

186

Duncan and Magnuson

the most intensive early education programs probably do add value, and we should probably expect smaller effects from less comprehensive programs. What about even less intensive steps to promote school readiness such as subsidies for the use of center-based child care or regulations requiring formal certification of child care providers? Facile generalizations from Perry Preschool–type evaluations to these kinds of policy issues are ill advised. One could easily imagine a situation in which boosting child achievement requires a combination of conditions such as well-trained and responsive teachers, meals to ensure that children are fed and a parent outreach component that ensures that parents understand and reinforce the preschool curriculum. Less intensive steps that do not address this combination of needs may provide no measurable benefits to children. There is little consensus on the efficacy of more modest enhancements to childcare quality for all children, not just disadvantaged children. Several noteworthy studies have drawn their data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, a large national study of more than 1,000 children born in the early 1990s. On the issue of center-based care, studies based on these data suggest that children who spend more time in child care centers, particularly after age three, enter school with somewhat higher cognitive ability than otherwise similar children who do not (NICHD Network and Duncan 2003). But at the same time, such children, particularly boys, appear to exhibit more aggressive behavior (NICHD 2003). As for childcare quality, the evidence suggests that the quality of childcare has quite modest impacts on children’s cognitive development (NICHD and Duncan 2003). All in all, it appears safe to conclude that the dramatic gains observed in the intensive interventions do not generalize readily to more modest early education programs and attempts to improve childcare quality for children from diverse economic backgrounds.

Conclusions We have sought to apply an economic lens to the issue of early education programs. Some readers may be put off by our bottom-line approach in arguing that investing in early childhood programs makes economic sense only if the benefits of doing so exceed the often formidable costs. The value of this approach, however, is that if investments in these programs can be shown to be economically profitable, the result is a rationale for social spending that should appeal to conservatives and liberals alike. Remarkably, a number of careful evaluations have established that intensive early education programs can generate a handsome social profit. And while some of the programs are far too expensive to consider for widespread use, one of them—the Chicago Child-Parent Program—has actually been implemented at a scale that could serve as a model. We eagerly await longerrun evidence on the impacts of the nation’s Head Start programs, since it will provide a much more definitive look at scaled-up early education programs.

Early Education Programs and Profit

187

Although intensive programs appear to have proved their worth, less intensive programs have yet to do so. So it is a mistake to say that evidence from Perry Preschool programs proves that any money spent on early education will provide appreciable social dividends. On the basis of the available evidence, we know that a targeted approach, in which intensive programs are directed at children most in need of them, makes economic sense. Whether the benefits of a universal program will outweigh its costs is still uncertain (Barnett, Brown, and Shire 2004).

Notes 1. Since these, and all other benefits, accrued years after costs were incurred, they have been discounted to their present values using a three percent discount rate. 2. Taxpayer savings are a little higher than lost participant welfare payments because taxpayers also benefit from the reduced needs for a bureaucracy to administer the welfare payments.

References Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children 5 (3): 25–50. Barnett, W. S., K. Brown, and R. Shore. (2004). The universal vs. targeted debate. Preschool Policy Matters 6: 1–15. Campbell, F. A., C. T. Ramey, E. P. Pungello, J. Sparling, and S. Miller-Johnson. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science 6: 42–57. Chambers, J. G., T. B. Parrish, and J. J. Harr. (2004). What are we spending on special education services in the United States? Center for Special Education Finance. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://csef.air.org/publications/seep/national/ AdvRpt1.PDF. Currie, J. and D. Thomas. (1995). Does Head Start make a difference? American Economic Review 85: 341–364. ———. (2000). School quality and the longer-term effects of Head Start. Journal of Human Resources 35: 755–774. Farran, D. C. (2000). Another decade of intervention for children who are low-income or disabled: What do we know now? In Handbook of early childhood intervention, second edition, ed. J. Shonkoff and S. Meisels, 510–548. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garces, E., D. Thomas, and J. Currie. (2002). Longer-term effects of Head Start. American Economic Review 92: 999–1012. Gramlich, E. (1990). A guide to cost-benefit analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Head Start Bureau. (2002). Head Start program fact sheet, fiscal year 2002. Retrieved March 13, 2004 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2003.htm. Karoly, L. A., P. W. Greenwood, S. S. Everingham, J. Houbé, M. R. Kilburn, C. P. Rydell et al. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Levin, H. (1983). Cost effectiveness: A primer. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Masse, L. N. and W. S. Barnett. (2003). A benefit cost analysis of the Abecedarian early childhood intervention. National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers

188

Duncan and Magnuson

University. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://nieer.org/resources/research/ AbecedarianStudy.pdf. Miller, T., M. Cohen, and B. Wiersema. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten? Child Development 74: 976–1005. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network and G. Duncan. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Development 74: 1454–1475. Puma, M., S. Bell, C. Heid, M. Lopez, N. Zill, et al. (2005). Head Start impact study: First year findings. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Resources. Reynolds, A., S. Ou, J. Topitzes. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development 75: 1299–1328. Reynolds, A. J., J. A. Temple, D. L. Robertson, and E. A. Mann. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A fifteen-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association 285: 2339–2346. ———. (2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analyses of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24: 267–303. Schweinhart, L. J., H. V. Barnes, and D. P. Weikart. (1993). Significant benefits: The high/scope Perry preschool study through age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation Number 10. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Head Start: Research provides little information on impact of current program. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

10 Financing Early Childhood Care and Education Systems: A Standards-Based Approach Anne Mitchell and Louise Stoney

What Is an Early Care and Education System? Webster defines the word system as “a set or arrangement of things so related or connected as to form a unity or organic whole.”1 At present, early care and education has a number of different subsystems: Head Start, subsidized childcare, public prekindergarten, and others. While each of these subsystems has its own internal consistency, they do not work together to form an organic whole. In addition, some services function outside these systems, for example, child care provided by family, friends, and neighbors. And there are a host of services that do not exist but are needed, such as paid family leave. In recent years a number of attempts have been made to weave these early childhood systems and services into a cohesive whole—with varying degrees of success. One of the obstacles is lack of agreement on how to define the system, as well as the lingering hope that there might be “one right answer.” The truth is that system reform is complex and there are likely to be many right answers. We believe a system of early childhood development and education that will serve all children birth to five and their families can be constructed from the current subparts, with some modest additions. Effectively financing such a system requires that current financing mechanisms and revenue sources be aligned (to maximize all available resources) and that a plan for generating and expending future revenues be developed. This chapter is designed to help guide that process by offering a model for standards-based reform, as well as financing information and examples of state plans and practices that illustrate the model. There are several reasons why early childhood finance reform should be rooted in standards. First, standards define actual costs. Factors such as staff qualifications, ratios and class size, health and social services, among others, have a direct impact on the cost of both service delivery

190

Mitchell and Stoney

Quality Standards for Programs and Practitioners

Engagement and Outreach selling the vision

Professional/Program Development to meet/maintain standards

Quality Early Care and Education System

Monitoring and Accountability to ensure compliance with standards

Ongoing Financial Assistance linked to meeting standards Figure 10.1

A Model Early Care and Education System Design

Source: Model has been modified from the original formulated in 2003 by the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance.

and the infrastructure needed to support the system. Second, standards are an effective way to structure accountability. If programs are to be held accountable for achieving specific child outcomes, then the standards that are established for programs (e.g., ratios, class size, curriculum) and practitioners (e.g., training and education) should be designed to achieve those outcomes and should be linked to funding. Third, clearly defined—and easily understood—standards can help to build consumer engagement and support for higher quality services. Finally, if the various subsystems within early care and education are rooted in common standards it is possible to develop a shared financing strategy. In short, if all available financial assistance is linked to meeting a common set of standards, then all parts of the early care and education system begin to move in the same direction. The Alliance for Early Childhood Finance developed the systems model, displayed in Figure 10.1 to help guide early childhood finance reform. Several states have used this approach to demonstrate how the existing subsystems can be aligned and to identify gaps in both services and funding. The model includes five basic components that are currently present, at least to some extent, in each of the existing subsystems. Each component is described briefly below.

Quality Standards Every part of the early care and education system has a set of standards for programs and/or practitioners. In some cases, these standards are legal requirements, such as child care program licensing or public school teacher licenses. Sometimes they are funding standards, such as Head Start

Financing Early Childhood Education

191

performance standards or tiered reimbursement for child care subsidies. Sometimes they are voluntary standards, and may be driven by consumers or community norms, such as program accreditation, national board certification for teachers, or public school “report cards.” These standards appear, at first, to be quite different. However, they are all rooted in a common goal: what the early childhood field calls “developmentally appropriate practice” aimed at helping children become learners who will succeed in school and life. When the standards used by various subsystems are compared, similarities abound. And taken together, they can form a cohesive whole. Moreover, standards can illuminate pathways toward best practice. If standards are not viewed as a single measure but rather as a continuum— with various levels aimed at practitioners in different domains—it is possible to develop a common set of quality standards. The quality rating systems that many states have developed are an example (Mitchell 2005a; Stoney 2004). 2 Several states have begun to use a tiered approach to standards to link various parts of the early care and education system. 3 The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction uses the state’s Five-Star Child Care Quality Rating System as a common standard, and then layers additional requirements (for their “More at Four” preschool program) on this base.4 Colorado is currently negotiating with the state preschool program to develop systemic links to the Qualistar quality rating system. 5 And the Los Angeles Universal Preschool Master Plan recommends a five-star quality rating system for the preschool program, aligned with existing standards including California Desired Results, national program accreditation, and Head Start Performance Standards.6

Professional and Program Development Once quality standards have been established, steps must be taken to ensure that programs and practitioners receive the assistance they need to meet and maintain the standards. This includes initiatives to help programs meet quality standards (such as on-site evaluation and technical assistance). It also includes support for practitioners (training and education systems, mentoring opportunities, career counseling, etc.). Many of the current subsystems have already developed supports for programs and practitioners, such as the Head Start Training and Technical Assistance system, technical assistance and training provided by child care resource and referral (CCR&R) agencies, higher or continuing education offered at colleges and universities, public preschool teacher resource centers, and many others. At present, these systems tend to operate independently and their services are not always linked to practitioner or program standards. Common standards create a strong incentive to explicitly link these efforts so that all resources are used most effectively.

Monitoring and Accountability Agencies that fund or administer early care and education services typically establish mechanisms to monitor compliance with standards. But each has a

192

Mitchell and Stoney Applying the Alliance Model: Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania BUILD* initiative used the Alliance model to guide its work on early childhood system reform. The group began by fleshing out each of the “boxes” identified in Figure 10.1. In the Quality Standards box they listed all of the program and practitioner standards that were used by any part of the early care and education system in any part of the state. The same process was followed for the remaining boxes. Each professional/program development system was identified. Each monitoring and accountability system was identified. All forms of financial assistance were listed, including information on whether or not that assistance was specifically linked to compliance with quality standards. The next step was to work on implementation, that is, alignment within each box. To guide this effort, the State Departments of Education and of Human Services created a jointly appointed staff position. Early Learning Standards were established to guide teaching practices in all early care and education settings. Several new grant programs were launched and a Task Force established to review rates. Recently, the state created a new approach to professional/program development, called Keys to Quality, which is linked to the Pennsylvania quality rating system (Keystone Stars). * For information on the BUILD initiative in Pennsylvania and other states, see www. buildinitiative.org.

different method. Program accountability involves staff and procedures to monitor compliance with regulatory requirements, funding standards and quality benchmarks (accreditation or quality rating systems) as well as communication with referral agencies and other consumer education efforts. Practitioner accountability is often the responsibility of training and education entities, and may include degree requirements in the higher education system, or training requirements (and a training registry) for practitioners. Once again, our model is designed to help states think through how the monitoring that is conducted by each of the current subsystems can be aligned, used to ensure compliance with common standards, and work together as a whole.

Financial Assistance If all available financial assistance is linked to meeting a common set of standards, then all parts of the early care and education system begin to move in the same direction. There are many ways to provide financial assistance for early care and education services. These include direct subsidies to the child care industry (such as grants or tax benefits for programs or wage supplements for staff, linked to quality standards) and portable subsidies to help families pay for child care (such as tiered public or private payment rates—or individual tax benefits—linked to levels of quality) (Stoney 2002). Finance options will vary among states and communities. The key is to think systemically, to explore how each form of financial assistance can be linked to the unified standards, and provide both flexibility and

Financing Early Childhood Education

193

Applying the Alliance Model: Maine* In March 2004, early care and education leaders from all sectors joined forces to sponsor the Maine Children’s Congress. A key goal of the Congress was to explore the feasibility of developing a statewide, cross-system early childhood quality rating system. Congress participants used the Alliance model as a framework for this discussion. They envisioned developing a common set of quality standards that would define steps in a statewide quality rating system. These common standards would also create a framework for the system as a whole, with linkages to supports, monitoring, finance and outreach. * For more information, see www.earlychildhoodfinance.org.

accountability at the same time. The long-term goal of a cross-system plan for early childhood finance reform is to align the policies that govern early care and education funding streams so that they may be layered in support of a single child or group of children.

Engagement and Outreach System reform cannot work unless practitioners and consumers embrace the change. In other words, they must understand what quality standards mean, why they are important, what they can do to comply, and how compliance will benefit them individually and collectively. Effective outreach is not just about disseminating information; it is about changing behavior. For example, when Maine doubled the state dependent care tax credit for families who use “quality” child care, the number of parents interested in finding out the quality status of their child’s program increased dramatically. The number of child care teachers participating in professional development, and the number of programs seeking accreditation, increased as well. In this case, a finance-related policy change had direct effects on consumer and practitioner engagement.

Alignment: The First Step in Financing The model described above is a way to begin the process of aligning the policies and procedures that govern existing early care and education subsystems. This approach not only helps to build a cohesive vision, it is also a way to maximize and track all existing funds and resources. As was noted earlier, if all available funds are linked to meeting common standards, then collaboration is not only possible, it becomes a goal with clear benefits. When funds are linked to common standards, in a clear and accountable way, it also makes it easier to draw new funds into the system. Figure 10.2 shows that it is possible to link the funding streams that are administered by a wide range of public and private agencies to a common set of standards. Remember that the standards will be tiered, so different funding streams could require different levels of compliance (e.g., the social services child care subsidy program might require a one-star minimum and

194

Mitchell and Stoney

Department of Education Prekindergarden Professional licensing Early Childhood Food and Nutrition Programs All linked to standards

Department of Public Welfare Tiered ReimeXXXment Rates for child care Training and quality grants All linked to standards

Department of Tax and Finance Higher Dependent Care Tax Credit ECE Occupational Tax Credit Other business or individual tax benefits All linked to standards

Quality Early Care and Education System Department of Health Early intervention Health and safety Training Healthy Child Care America TA and supports All linked to standards

Standards for Programs

Standards for Practitioners

Learning Guidelines (Outcomes for Children)

Figure 10.2

Funds for child care centers at the courts or delinquency prevention All linked to standards

Quasi-Public Construction Authority

Head Start Agreement with Federal Regional Office to create administrative/fiscal links to common standards

Judiciary/Office of Court Administration

Private Sector Agreements with United way, community foundations, etc. to link $ to common standards ECE Programs link tuition fees to common standards

Higher Education Campus–based child care programs Practitioner education All linked to standards

Funds for construction of ECE facilities linked to standards

Funding Aligned with Standards in State Early Childhood System

Source: Model has been modified from the original formulated in 2003 by the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance.

raise reimbursement as the star level increases; the education department prekindergarten program might establish a four-star minimum, and so forth.) Figure 10.2 maps the issue of financing from an administrative perspective, that is, the various public and private entities that typically administer funds that can be used to support early care and education. However, these entities rely on multiple revenue sources. The issue of revenue generation and fund coordination is discussed in more detail below.

What Will a System Cost? A critical question about any system of early childhood care and education is, what does it cost? Overall? Per child? The answer is, it depends. It depends on what elements are included in the system, what standards each element is expected to meet, how many consumers are expected to use the services, and what supports are needed to ensure the services are available. Essentially, the child outcomes that are desired drive the decisions about system elements to be included and program features to be emphasized, which in turn drive costs. The desired learning outcomes for children are linked to and dependent upon the standards for practitioners and programs.

Financing Early Childhood Education

195

A system of early care and education is comprised of the direct services to children, defined by the quality standards for programs and practitioners, and the elements that support service delivery. In the Alliance model, these infrastructure/support elements are professional and program development, monitoring and accountability, engagement and outreach. The system cost is the direct costs plus the infrastructure/support costs. The first step is to clarify the factors that will drive direct costs. First, what standards will the programs and practitioners have to meet? Second, will comprehensive services, such as family support or parent education, and health services, be included? Third, how many children/families are expected to use the services that are being offered? Will the proposed system be for all children (universal) or be designed for limited access (targeted)?7 The expected use of a universally accessible service (i.e., the take-up rate) is never 100 percent; that is, not all families will choose to partake of family support or to enroll their child in preschool. Estimating participation rates accurately is important to estimating costs. A key characteristic that will affect direct cost is teacher qualifications. Personnel are the largest cost in any early childhood program, and that cost will increase in direct relation to the qualifications expected. Staff who are expected to meet the requirements in basic childcare regulations command far lower compensation (wages and benefits) than do teachers who are expected to have college degrees and teacher certification. Direct service costs will depend on the compensation levels needed to recruit and retain staff who meet the standards. The early care and education system must also ensure a supply of qualified staff, and account for these associated infrastructure costs. If all or a large proportion of teachers will be required to have early childhood credentials, the cost of workforce development will depend on knowing about the current supply of qualified teachers and the status of workforce preparation programs, especially in higher education. How many in the current workforce have child development associate credentials, bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education and child development (ECE/CD), master’s degrees, and so forth? How many colleges offer degrees in ECE/CD, degree programs leading to teacher certification in ECE? Are there accessible pathways for students from the two-year to the four-year colleges? How many qualified ECE teachers are produced annually now? Costing out these will provide an estimate of the cost of the professional development element of the Alliance model. The intensity of the programs offered also matters to the calculation of direct costs. The second most important cost driver is how many hours per day, days per week, and weeks per year early care and education services will be provided. Full-day, full-year certainly costs more than part-day, school year. Assuming that common standards are developed in levels, with increased practitioner and program requirements at each level, it is possible to use these standards to create a set of direct service cost assumptions. The basic level is an estimate of what it costs to comply with the state’s basic child

196

Mitchell and Stoney

care regulations. At each higher level, costs are adjusted to account for costs needed to meet the higher standards. If these cost assumptions are combined with accurate estimates of the take-up rate for services at each level (i.e., how many children will use that level of service?), then the overall cost (and per-child cost) can be estimated for each quality level.8 Similarly, estimates can be made for infrastructure. Program development is the cost of technical assistance to programs to make the improvements necessary to meet program standards. Professional development is the cost of ensuring an adequate supply of qualified staff. Monitoring and accountability to ensure compliance with standards (e.g., program monitoring/reporting, data collection and analysis, etc.) can be costed out based on data from existing regulatory and quality assurance efforts. The cost of outreach and engagement can be estimated from current consumer education efforts appropriately scaled up. While the majority (90 percent) of the overall system cost is attributable to the direct services to children and families, the infrastructure/supports that make the services work are essential and have costs that must be considered (Golin, Mitchell, and Wallen 2003). System cost estimation models for early care and education have been developed and used in a handful of states. Ohio, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Illinois were part of the Universal Financing of Early Care and Education project, a partnership of the Human Services Policy Center at the University of Washington and the Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University. This method uses a computerized policy simulation model that allows states to compare alternative policy scenarios (Kagan et al. 2002). Several states, including Illinois, Massachusetts, and California have used a model developed by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and Early Childhood Policy Research to estimate the cost of universally accessible, state preschool services and infrastructure. The model uses a set of Excel spreadsheets that can be customized with state data. A report describing how the model was used in Illinois is available (Golin, Mitchell, and Wallen 2003); a report describing the model in detail and how to use it in any state is also available (Golin, Mitchell, and Gault 2004). Finally, no cost estimate is complete without an accounting of what is already being spent. The estimated overall cost of the system is offset by current expenditures, public and private. This calculation yields an estimate of the gap to be filled by new investment—the starting point for policy discussions about the proportion of overall cost to be borne by the public sector and the sources of revenue. The following section will discuss the various revenue sources that are currently used to fund early care and education services.

Revenue Sources Funds that are currently expended for early care and education services can be grouped into three broad categories—the family contribution, government

Financing Early Childhood Education

197

assistance (including tax and expenditure-based subsidies from federal, state, and local governments), and private sector support (including employers and philanthropy). While current data on the percentage of contributions made by each of these groups are not available, a study conducted in 1995 revealed that the largest share of early care and education revenues, about 60 percent, is contributed by consumers, about 39 percent is government assistance, and less than 1 percent comes from the private sector (Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 2001). Efforts to update these numbers suggest that, over the past 10 years, the percentage of revenues derived from family contributions has declined slightly and the percentage derived from government contributions has risen slightly.9 Private sector support appears to have more than doubled; however, this growth must be considered in context. “More than doubling” the private sector share of revenue simply means that the contributions of this sector grew from less than 1 percent to well over 2 percent—still a minor percentage of overall revenues. The bottom line is that even with many successful efforts to increase business and philanthropic contributions to early care and education, it is unrealistic to expect the private sector to become a major financial contributor to the system. Business and philanthropy can play a key leadership role as an influential voice for increased government spending on early care and education, and can work in partnership with the public sector to maximize and leverage all available funds. Figure 10.2 identified the government agencies that often administer early care and education funds. These funds are typically drawn from the federal, state, local, and private revenue streams described below.

Federal Revenue Sources for Early Care and Education The majority of expenditure-based federal early care and education funds are found in four funding streams: Head Start, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Lesser amounts are expended from the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), Even Start, Title I, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).10 Federal financial support for childcare expenses is also made available through the Dependent Care Tax Credit and Dependent Care Assistance Plans. Each of these will be explained in detail below.

Head Start Head Start funds comprehensive early education and development services to low-income preschool children and their families. A majority of the children served are four years of age11 and most programs operate on a part-day, school year calendar. Federal funds are awarded directly to community-based grantees who must comply with Head Start performance standards. Early Head Start funds comprehensive child development services for low-income infants and toddlers and their families. A variety of delivery models are used and some are home-based.

198

Mitchell and Stoney

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) The CCDF is a block grant to states that fund child care subsidies for lowincome families as well as state-designed initiatives to improve the quality of child care. Each state qualifies, based on a formula, to receive a minimum amount of funds each year (discretionary and mandatory funds) but can receive additional federal funds (matching funds) by spending state dollars for child care. States are permitted to set their own income eligibility guidelines, payment rates, and rules so long as eligibility does not exceed 85 percent of the state’s median income and rates ensure equal access to services. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) The TANF is a fixed block grant to states for state-designed welfare reform initiatives. These initiatives may include a wide range of supports and services—including child care—for families on public assistance, those leaving public assistance for employment, or those “at risk” of dependence on public assistance. States are permitted to transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF allocations to the CCDF and may also spend an unlimited amount of TANF funds directly on child care. The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) The CACFP provides open-ended funding for meals, snacks, and nutrition education in regulated child care programs, including child care centers, Head Start programs, and family child care homes. The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) The SSBG provides funds that states may use for a variety of social services, including child care. Even Start Even Start provides funds to states for programs that combine adult literacy and parent education with early literacy programs for children birth to age seven. Title I (Chapter I) of the No Child Left Behind Act Title I (Chapter I) of the No Child Left Behind Act provides funding to school districts to support services for “educationally disadvantaged” children. Title I funds are distributed to school districts by formula allocation based on updated 2000 census data for children, ages 5–17, from families living in poverty. Providing programs for preschool children is an allowable use of these funds. National estimates of the percent of Title I funds spent on preschoolers range from 5–7 percent. Decisions about the use of Title I funds are made by local education agencies (school districts). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The IDEA includes two grant programs to assist states in serving young children with disabilities. Part B funds special education services for children

Financing Early Childhood Education

199

ages 3 through 21. Part C funds services for infants and toddlers with disabilities. States may use IDEA funds for a range of services, including early care and education. Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) The DCTC permits working families with children under the age of 13 to claim a credit for a portion of their child care expenses. Taxpayers may receive a credit of up to 35 percent of the first $3,000 expended for the care of one child, or the first $6,000 for the care of two or more children. The maximum credit is available to families with incomes below $15,000 who owe federal taxes and incur child care expenses that equal or exceed the expense limits. Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP) The DCAP makes it possible for employees to set aside pretax dollars for child care, if their employer has established an approved DCAP. Employees may set aside up to $5,000 per year ($2,500 for a married person filing separately) in pretax earnings for child care, which is then shielded from income and social security taxes.

State Revenue Sources for Early Care and Education In addition to allocating the federal funds noted above, states invest their own revenues in early care and education. There are a limited number of sources of revenue available to a state: taxes (sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes), fees, and lotteries and other types of gambling proceeds (Stoney and Edwards, 2002). While the primary sources of state early care and education funding are summarized below it is important to note at the outset that some of these funds are not available in Texas because the state does not have income tax revenues.

State General Revenue The vast majority of states use general revenue to fund a preschool program for children who are four (and sometimes three) years of age. The preschool program is in the state budget, either as a separate line item, a line item in the education budget, or embedded within the state education aid formulas. Four states fund preschool through their education aid formulas: Texas, Maine, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. Quite a few other states make significant general fund contributions to early care and education services for children of varying ages, including North Carolina’s Smart Start initiative and Rhode Island’s Starting RIght initiative. Rhode Island’s general revenue contribution is larger than the federal revenue the state receives for child care. California, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Delaware, and Michigan also expend noteworthy amounts of general revenue to support early care and education, well beyond what is required of them for match and maintenance of effort requirements.

200

Mitchell and Stoney

Lotteries Lotteries are a popular way to fund education. Only one state (Georgia) has consistently used lottery proceeds to fund preschool; the lottery provides about $250 million annually. Florida had funded its preschool program partly with lottery dollars until the school readiness legislation passed in 2002. Alabama attempted in 2000 to pass a lottery for preschool, but failed. In 2003, the Oklahoma legislature approved a two-part ballot measure to establish an education lottery and enact a constitutional amendment to ensure that all proceeds benefit prekindergarten to 12 education. Voters approved the measure on the November 2004 ballot. Tennessee voters have also approved establishment of a lottery and the use of its proceeds for prekindergarten to 12 education. Gambling-Related Funds One state (Missouri) uses a portion of riverboat gambling fees collected by the state to fund early care and education. They are quite clear that these are not “gambling proceeds” but rather fees levied on gamblers that are collected by the state. The allocation for preschool was $21 million in FY2000. Sales Tax Two states use a dedicated portion of the state sales tax to fund early care and education. In 1984, South Carolina established preschool for at-risk four-year olds (called “4-K”), as part of an education improvement bill and funded it with a 1-cent increase in sales tax. Arkansas’ preschool program is also part of an education reform package, supported by an Education Trust Fund funded by a dedicated sales tax. Voters in Washington State rejected a measure on the November 2004 ballot that would have authorized a 1-cent increase in sales tax to establish an education trust fund for preschool, improvements in K–12 education and higher education access. Sin Taxes Several years ago, the Arkansas legislature enacted a three-year surtax on beer to augment funds for early care and education. The tax raised about $8 million annually. (In FY2005, with Governor Huckabee’s leadership, the tax was renewed and additional general funds were made available for preschool, increasing the total appropriation to $40 million.) California voters enacted a tax on tobacco products (Prop. 10) that funds a range of early childhood development services including universal preschool in several counties. The tobacco tax raises about $650 million annually, down from about $723 million in its first year (Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 2001). Personal Income Tax Credits Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have established a state DCTC.12 However, since six states including Texas have chosen not to tax

Financing Early Childhood Education

201

personal income, this is not a viable approach in every state. The state of New York, which has a particularly generous state DCTC, reported that just over $200 million was claimed by state taxpayers in 2001 (NYS Department of Taxation and Finance 2003). Business Income Tax Credits Another approach to supporting early care and education is corporate tax provisions for employers. More than half the states (28) have established some form of an employer tax credit, which typically allows an employer to claim a corporate tax credit for a percent of the cost of an employee child care benefit. Of course, employers may deduct expenditures for child care programs from their corporate income as reasonable and necessary business expenses before taxes are calculated. A recent report from the National Women’s Law Center examined employer tax credits in 20 states in which data were available. In 16 of the 20 states, 5 or fewer corporations claimed the tax credit. In 5 of the 16 states, no corporations claimed the credit (Fitzpatrick and Campbell 2002). Investment Tax Credits Two states (Colorado and Oregon) have developed child care contribution tax credits that appear to be successful. The Colorado Child Care Contribution Tax Credit, which is available against both corporate and personal state income tax, has been in place since 1989. Taxpayers receive a credit worth 25 percent of their contribution, up to $100,000 (Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 2001). The Oregon Child Care Investment Tax Credit was designed as an investment strategy that used tax credits to generate private sector contributions to child care. Like federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, the Oregon credits are marketed and sold to an investor. Invested funds are then drawn into a single pool that is used to help fund the child care industry. Unlike housing tax credits, which are sold at a price negotiated by an intermediary entity, taxpayers who purchase Oregon child care credits receive a credit of up to $1 for every $1 contributed (Enterprise Foundation 2004). Tobacco Settlement Funds Several states, such as Kentucky and Kansas, have used a portion of the state’s share of the tobacco settlement to fund early care and education. Kentucky allotted 25 percent of its settlement, or $56 million over two years, beginning in state fiscal year 2000. No state can generate sufficient funds from state revenue alone to fully support an early care and education system; federal contributions are necessary, as well as private contributions. The amounts generated by the various state strategies vary from nothing or very little from employer tax credits to reasonably large sums from sales and excise taxes. Clearly, appropriating general revenue, regardless of its original source, is the most effective strategy.13

202

Mitchell and Stoney

Local Funds for Early Care and Education Localities can generate funds for early care and education through property and sales taxes. One approach is to increase the property tax millage rate and earmark the increase for this purpose. Seattle, Washington, has done this in its Families and Education Levy. Another strategy is to earmark a percentage of existing local property tax dollars for children’s services. San Francisco has taken this approach. These approaches raise several million dollars annually for early care and education. Property taxes may also be levied by “special taxing districts,” which are independent, usually single-purpose units of local government. These districts are legal entities separate from general-purpose local governments such as cities, towns, and counties, although they may share boundaries with a local government unit. In Florida, counties have been permitted since 1945 to establish Children’s Services Districts that are fiscally and administratively independent of local government and have taxing authority. The larger, more populous counties in Florida are able to raise $8–10 millions annually. In 2002, Miami-Dade voters passed a local property tax initiative for children by a 2-to-1 margin, becoming the eighth Florida county to do so. The initiative is estimated to generate about $60 million annually, with half to be spent on children under five. A few local jurisdictions have levied sales taxes for early care and education. Pitkin county in Colorado, where Aspen is located, is one example: their local sales tax generates about $2 million annually. An interesting feature of this tax initiative is that a portion of the revenues collected each year is invested in a Trust Fund that generates income for future use. In addition to generating local revenue, local governments have access to a few types of federal and state funds that they can choose to spend on early care and education. These include federal block grants, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) as well as state and federal funds to local school districts, among others.

A Coordinated Financing Approach There are many revenue sources for early care and education, and these funds are administered by different federal, state, or local agencies. Head Start/Early Head Start funds flow from the federal Head Start Bureau directly to community-based programs. CCDF funds flow from the federal Child Care Bureau to the state Lead Agency, which uses a variety of administrative entities to award child care subsidies and grants. TANF funds are awarded to the state agency responsible for administering public assistance, typically a state human services or employment agency. CACFP funds are administered by the federal Department of Agriculture, and often flow through the state education agency or health department. While Even Start and IDEA Part B funds are typically awarded to, and administered by, the state agency responsible for overseeing education, IDEA Part C funds

Financing Early Childhood Education

203

might flow through a different agency, such as the health department, in some states. Other federal education funds, Title I, flow primarily to local school districts. In some states, education funds for prekindergarten programs flow directly to local organizations and in others are administered by local school districts. Additional local funds are available in some communities, and administered by yet another entity. And individual tax benefits, such as the DCTC and DCAPS, are awarded directly to families through the tax system. How, then, is it possible to coordinate all of these funds in a single system? Some states have sought to improve coordination by restructuring the agencies that administer early childhood funds. Some have created Children’s Cabinets or other state-level coordinating entities (Pennsylvania and Colorado). A few have established an entirely new agency to administer all early childhood funds (Alaska, Arkansas, and Massachusetts). Minnesota merged its human services and education departments into the Department of Children, Families, and Learning for about six years but has now separated them. Others, such as North Carolina and Kentucky, have created a statewide public/private partnership to manage early care and education funds (Arizona School Readiness Task Force 2002). While reorganization can be helpful, it does not necessarily result in improved coordination of funds. Regardless of whether a new governance structure is created, the hard work of aligning existing funding—and the systems that have been established to administer those funds—remains. Figure 10.2 shows the various entities that administer early care and education funding. Even if all of these agencies were combined into one (not a very feasible option) or all of the funds were sent to one state agency (a somewhat possible, but complex option, given that the funds come from multiple federal agencies), it would still be necessary to change the rules, reimbursement rates, forms, policies, and procedures that are currently used for each funding stream. The approach outlined in this chapter focuses on function rather than form. We believe that systems reform work can occur in the context of new governance structures, or it can occur through agreements among the agencies responsible for funding, monitoring, and/or administering the current subsystems. Figure 10.3 is based on a standards and financing scenario that was developed for the Maine Children’s Congress. It is one example of how existing subsystems might be coordinated via a common set of graduated standards that allows funds to be layered from multiple sources and maximizes the efficiency of monitoring and support services offered by existing agencies. Figure 10.3 is simply a hypothetical example and does not currently exist in Maine; it is used here for illustrative purposes only. The example suggests linking a three-star, tiered quality rating system to the existing state and federal early care and education subsystems. In this example, a one-star program would be required to comply with standards that are roughly equivalent to the current Maine child care licensing standards.

204

Mitchell and Stoney Level Level

Requirements

Equivalent Standards

Minimum child care licensing regulations

Available Funds

• DHS vouchers • Basic DCTC

All one-star requirements,

• ME quality Certificate

• DHS vouchers +

plus….

• Accreditation

• "Quality" DCTC

All two-star requirements, plus…

• Head start

• DHS vouchers++

• Prekindergarten

• DHS contracts +

• DHS contracts • Head Start

• "Quality+" DCTC • Head Start • Prekindergarten

Figure 10.3 Hypothetical Model for Coordinating Standards and Financing Sources in a Tiered (Three-Star) System Source: Developed in 2005 by the Alliance for Early Chilhood Finance for the Maine Children’s Congress.

One-star programs would qualify for a basic child care voucher rate (if they serve children who receive a child care subsidy) and the families served by this program could claim the basic state Dependent Care Tax Credit. A two-star program would be required to comply with standards that are roughly equivalent to the current Maine Quality Certificate standards and/ or NAEYC Accreditation. Two-star programs would qualify for a higher child care voucher rate and/or a child care subsidy contract that also reimburses at a higher rate. Families who enroll their children in a two-star program would be eligible for the Maine Quality DCTC, which is currently nearly double the basic credit amount. Three-star programs would be required to comply with prekindergarten requirements (e.g., certified teachers). Three-star programs would be eligible for a child care voucher or contract reimbursement rate that is even higher than the two-star rate. And families who enroll their children in a three-star program would also receive an even higher DCTC benefit. A host of additional funding streams could be linked to this basic one-, two-, and three-star framework, as is suggested by Figure 10.2, discussed earlier.

Putting It All Together: State Examples Early childhood system reform is not easy, nor quick. Effective change requires a long-term commitment, a deep understanding of the many elements that

Financing Early Childhood Education

205

affect program quality, careful planning, and focused implementation. Below are some examples of states that are in various stages of this process.

Planning: New York In New York, a broad-based coalition spent three years crafting a “blueprint” for a system of high-quality, early care and education programs, open to all children, starting at birth and continuing right through kindergarten. This blueprint calls for a comprehensive multiyear strategy, one that incorporates paid family leave and affordable, quality infant care, child care, prekindergarten for three- and four-year olds, Head Start and other early education programs to support and sustain all of New York’s families. In addition, this system will include programs, information, and services to meet the special needs of the state’s children, and family support services, including counseling, intervention, and information, as well as health, mental health, and dental services to assure every child gets off to the best possible start in life. The proposed system would cost approximately $8 billion. Existing public and private investments already account for about $4.75 billion of that total, leaving a gap of about $3.25 billion. And, as with the current array of early education and child care programs, a portion of the direct costs would come from parent fees, accounting for slightly over $150 million of the investment needed. Building the unified system in New York would therefore require an additional investment of public funds of about $3.1 billion, when the system is fully implemented. Obviously this investment would be phased in over time based on the 10-year time frame, minimizing the additional cost increase in any one year (Center for Early Care and Education 2004). Further, the blueprint notes that New York has a number of avenues available to generate public revenue to finance various components of an early care and education system. Examples include broadening its tax base, maximizing federal funding streams, establishing dedicated fee and revenue sources, and further using tax credits to supplement wages and underwrite a portion of out-of-pocket costs for families. Specifically, one proposal is to include prekindergarten in the state aid formula and increase funding so all four-year olds can be accommodated by 2006 and all three-year olds by 2009. Another proposal calls for increasing the state dependent care tax credit from 110 percent of the federal credit to 150 percent and incorporating quality criteria. Along with these public dollars, there may be opportunities for private funding over and above parent fees from businesses and charitable contributions.

Planning: Massachusetts In 2003, Massachusetts established a Council on Early Education and Care to “support accessible, affordable, quality child care and education for children ages birth through age 5 in the Commonwealth,” and charged

206

Mitchell and Stoney

the Commissioners of Child Care Services, Education, and Public Health, to “develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate, integrate, and streamline publicly funded early education and care administration and functions” within six months (Departments of Education and Public Health, and the Office of Child Care Services, March 2004). The commissioners’ report made the following recommendations: create a state-level oversight board with connections to local councils; consolidate state-level administration of programs and funding streams for early education and care; adopt uniform program standards and guidelines; establish standard state rates for services; establish a single early education and care data collection system and increase shared responsibility for data collection across agencies; establish the appropriate balance between funding for direct service, quality enhancement, and administration; and create a workforce development system to support the education, training, and compensation of teachers. The commissioners acknowledged that the focus of their work was primarily on services for three- and four-year olds, but that some recommendations addressed infants and toddlers as well. The council planned to direct future work to the entire early education and care delivery system. In 2004, the legislature and governor directed the council to develop a plan for consolidating state-level administration of existing early care and education services and established a special legislative Advisory Committee on Early Care and Education to develop a plan for expanded services, with both plans due by December 31, 2004. In 2005, a Board of Early Education and Care was established to advise the new Department of Early Education and Care, combining the state’s child care agency with all preschool services from the Department of Education. The new department officially began operations by July 1, 2005. The FY2005 budget provided modest new funds ($500,000) to support the development of the streamlined early care and education system; the FY2006 budget increased the state investment in early care and education overall by $30 million (7 percent increase over FY2005).

Implementation: Rhode Island Rhode Island has built a strong consensus for financing a child care and early childhood education system that has a dual emphasis on support for working families (access to affordable care) and positive impacts on children’s development and well-being (access to high-quality programs). The design and constituency-building phase for Rhode Island’s system occurred over several years and involved hundreds of leaders across the State. In 1998, a carefully built, broadly held consensus led to passage of a law establishing a comprehensive child care and early education system called Starting RIght. Starting RIght includes several key elements. Families are entitled to child care assistance based on income, with progressively expanded income eligibility levels (currently, 225 percent of poverty, or about 65 percent of the State Median Income). Child care assistance payment rates have been steadily increased to reach the 75th percentile of the

Financing Early Childhood Education

207

market rate survey. Health care benefits are offered to providers who participate in the child care assistance program. Quality initiatives are designed to address service-support and infrastructure issues, including: comprehensive services (modeled on Head Start); a “state-of-the-art” professional development (with core competencies, accessible training, scholarships for individuals, and accreditation support and on-site technical assistance for programs); and a permanent public/private Child Care Facilities Fund. The state is now developing a quality rating system for early care and education and afterschool programs and plans to use this framework to focus and consolidate its quality improvement work. The design of Rhode Island’s system is also intentionally public-private, using federal and state funds and parent copayments. The state funds the system using the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and state general revenues. For state fiscal year 2003, a public investment of $81.4 million was made with 35 percent federal funds and 65 percent state general revenue funds. About 90 percent of the total funds are spent on child care assistance (subsidy), about 7 percent on quality initiatives (including health care), and 3 percent on administration (Mitchell 2005b).

Implementation in Other States In 2000, a strong majority (59 percent) of Floridians voted for a constitutional amendment requiring the state to create by 2005 a voluntary, free, high-quality prekindergarten education program for all four-year olds. The Florida legislature spent nearly two years in the process of figuring out how to create what will be one of the largest state-funded prekindergarten programs in the country. They wrestled with defining quality, especially in terms of teacher qualifications, as well as determining eligible providers. The cost of providing prekindergarten has been estimated at $300 million to educate some 125,000 children. The program is slated to begin in the 2005–2006 school year; the state will use a mix of federal and state revenue sources to support the program. Arkansas is working to meet a court-ordered deadline to restructure how its education system—prekindergarten to 12—is financed. The legislature, in February 2004, approved a funding-formula plan that would increase annual state education spending by about $400 million, to an overall total of some $2.4 billion, and are now debating where the money will come from. The governor and legislature agreed to include $40 million for Arkansas’ Better Chance prekindergarten program.

Next Steps Using Texas (Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition, 2005; see chapter 7, this volume) and a few other states as examples, some suggestions are offered as next steps to help states move toward an effective financing plan for preschooling.

208

Mitchell and Stoney

Link Funds to Common Standards and Use This Approach to Align and Maximize All Existing Early Care and Education Funds Although Texas currently spends a significant sum on early care and education services, these public funds are not coordinated, nor are they linked to common standards, policies and procedures. Child care programs that participate in the Texas Workforce Commission subsidy system must comply with basic regulatory requirements, and may choose to comply with the Texas Rising Star quality rating system. Head Start programs must comply with Head Start performance standards, policies, and procedures. Prekindergarten programs follow curriculum standards and teacher degree requirements established by the Texas Education Agency. Early childhood programs that are funded by all three entities must comply with multiple standards. Privately funded early childhood programs may not comply with any standards other than basic regulatory requirements. In short, early care and education services in Texas are not a system, but a series of unconnected subsystems—each with its own rules, regulations, monitoring, support services, and funding requirements. A key first step to financing early care and education services in Texas would be to develop an alignment plan that links the existing subsystems. As described earlier, several states have used the elements identified in the Alliance for Early Childhood Finance systems model to help guide this work.

Identify New Streams of Public Revenue There are several ways that Texas could increase public funds for early care and education. These include revising the education foundation formula, increasing the TANF transfer to CCDF, directly spending TANF funds on child care, and increasing the percentage of general revenues expended for early care and education. Each approach will be discussed in more detail below. Education Foundation Funding Texas distributes funding for public education via the Foundation School Fund and the Available School Fund. The Permanent School Fund, containing approximately $20 billion, is used to guarantee bonds issued by school districts. Interest earned on Permanent School Fund is the source for the Available School Fund. Every district receives some funding from the Available School Fund. A similar fund provides support for public higher education (The Permanent University Fund). Both interest and some of the capital gain realized by the University Fund are allowed to be used for higher education. Until a constitutional amendment was passed in November 2003 and statutory changes were made, only interest from the Permanent School Fund was permitted to be used to fund public education. Now capital gains can be recognized in the Permanent School Fund. Some of the capital gains are now directed to increase the total amount in the Available School Fund. At present, not all of the increase due to realized capital gains is directed to

Financing Early Childhood Education

209

the Available School Fund. Texas could decide to direct a portion of these capital gains increases into the Permanent School Fund specifically to fund early care and education. Currently the only prekindergarten aged children who are supported by Foundation School Funds are those who qualify as at-risk and are enrolled in the state prekindergarten program. Expanding the definition of prekindergarten to include all preschool-aged children and making them all eligible for Foundation School Funds might be an option to consider. TANF Transfer and TANF Direct Spending The federal TANF program allows states to spend these funds directly for child care and allows states to transfer up to 30 percent of TANF funds into the CCDF. Transferred amounts are then subject to CCDF rules. The vast majority of states transfer TANF funds to CCDF and a few do transfer the full 30 percent that is allowed. A large majority of states spend TANF directly on child care and some spend as much as 40 percent of their TANF allocation in this way. In FY2002, Texas received over $813 million in TANF funds, yet transferred less than 1 percent to CCDF and spent less than 1 percent directly on child care. The allocation of TANF funds could be changed to generate significantly more funding for early care and education. General Revenues Many states expend general revenues for early care and education in excess of the amounts required as match and maintenance of effort by federal funding sources. Unfortunately, Texas is heavily dependent upon federal funds to support early care and education, largely because the state does not tax personal income or levy significant excise or business taxes. Effectively financing a high-quality early care and education system will, however, require additional new state funds. Sales and use taxes are a common way states generate revenue. Some states have raised significant, new funds for early care and education via earmarked “sin” taxes such as cigarettes and beer. Others have allocated a larger percentage of overall general revenues for early care and education. These states have been able to generate political will to support early care and education using the rationales of both long-term financial return on investment14 and short-term economic impacts.15 These rationales, and the research supporting them, are described in detail in other chapters. To help lower personal income taxes for young families—and establish another revenue stream for early care and education—many states have established a tax credit or deduction for child care expenses. Two states (Maine and Arkansas) have linked the credit to quality standards. A few years ago, Colorado developed an innovative proposal that linked the state dependent care tax credit to the Educare quality rating system and also proposed a new, refundable child care provider tax credit linked to the rating system.

210

Mitchell and Stoney

Maximize Employment-Related and Private Sector Resources The private sector can also play a key role in financing early care and education services. Indeed, privately paid parent fees currently comprise the largest revenue source for early care and education services in the United States, and this is not likely to change. Employers and other private sector funders can, however, implement a number of policies to help families pay for early care and education and ensure that children receive the care, attention, and early learning opportunities they need to succeed. These include supporting paid family leave, promoting the use of Dependent Care Assistance Plans, linking private funds to quality standards and helping families understand the link between price and quality. Each of these will be discussed in more detail below. Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) Research on early brain development has underscored the importance of one-on-one relationships with caring adults for very young children (see chapter 2, this volume). Providing paid family leave through TDI is a costeffective way to support this goal. TDI is a privately paid medical leave program that has existed for more than 40 years and is funded through payroll taxes from the employer and/or employees’ wages. TDI provides partial wage replacement programs with limits on length of payment (usually 26 weeks) and weekly benefit amounts (usually pegged to a percentage of weekly wages up to a maximum). Five states (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island) and Puerto Rico currently require all employers to have temporary disability insurance programs. Since the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1961, all disability insurance policies must cover “pregnancy-related” disability. Thus, these five states make TDI benefits available to women who have corroboration from a physician that they are “disabled” for a period of time following the birth of a child. In 2002, California amended its existing TDI program to go beyond coverage for pregnancy-related disability and created paid family and medical leave (e.g., any employee who needs to leave work to care for a newborn or ill family member). The new law took effect on July 1, 2004, and is supported entirely by employee contributions. As with other TDI programs, no public funds are involved; in fact, the new benefit is expected to reduce public expenses somewhat. The average annual cost is $27 per employee with benefits of up to $728 per week (50–55 percent of pay) for up to six weeks (Bell and Lovell 2004). Dependent Care Assistance Plans The U.S. Internal Revenue Service allows taxpayers to set aside up to $5,000 from their salaries before taxes to help cover the cost of child care, if their employer has established an approved Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP). Any employer—public or private, proprietary or nonprofit— may establish a DCAP. Under a DCAP, the employee’s pay is reduced by

Financing Early Childhood Education

211

an amount designated by the employee, and these funds are set aside in a special account to pay dependent care expenses. The employee does not pay social security or income taxes on these funds. The employer also saves its share of social security and other payroll taxes on funds placed in a DCAP. States should encourage all employers, including the state itself, to establish Dependent Care Assistance Plans. In addition, employers should be encouraged to make the DCAP more accessible and beneficial to all families, including those with low and moderate incomes, by providing additional funds. The DCAPs established by Con Agra Refrigerated Foods and Bank of America are excellent examples (Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 2001). Quality and Price Consumers also need to understand why high-quality early care and education matters, why it is likely to cost more, and how to identify programs that meet high-quality standards. Economic theory holds that supply increases or declines in response to effective demand. Effective demand on the part of consumers of early care and education is influenced by the financial resources available to purchase services and by qualitative comparative information about the services. Providing better information to consumers of early care and education might affect the demand side significantly. If higher quality services are in demand, the supply of them will increase. If quality is valued, consumers may be willing to pay more for better services, given sufficient financial resource to act on their value assessment. A simple objective quality rating system is essential information for consumers.

Conclusion As we have argued throughout this chapter, linking funding to a set of common standards is a powerful tool. This strategy not only helps to maximize the use of existing public and private funds, but can also help bring new public funds into the early care and education system. This approach builds a cohesive financing system with accountability firmly attached. We envision a universally accessible early care and education system. This means a system in which a broad array of affordable early care and education services—for children of all ages in public and private settings— are available to all families. Universal does not mean free; it means affordable. Like our current higher education system, some low-income families may pay nothing for early care and education services, and some highincome families may pay a significant sum. Government, however, provides the financial and administrative support needed to ensure that all options are able to provide the early learning opportunities children need to succeed, with schedules that support families to work, and that consumers and funding entities clearly understand the differences among options. Our model and financing approach does not assume that early care and education services are universally available in the short term. Creating largescale change takes many years, and will require changes in funding for direct

212

Mitchell and Stoney

services to children as well as the system infrastructure as a whole (e.g., practitioner training and education, program technical assistance, monitoring, etc.). State-level policymakers could plan system linkages, rooted in common standards, and each year redirect a portion of resources toward the new standardsbased approach. Direct services could expand in a variety of ways. Children in targeted communities, such as those in poor performing school districts, or lower-income neighborhoods, could be served first, with others brought in later as resources expand. Or the state could phase in children by age. Research on the benefits for children and families who utilize highquality programs has underscored that good early care and education can contribute to the overall quality of life for citizens regardless of age or socioeconomic status (Barnett, Brown, and Shore, 2004). Children who benefit from early childhood education may sustain higher earnings later in life, thus contributing to their communities in the form of higher tax contributions and higher rates of homeownership. Increases in homeownership also contribute to the tax base and to school systems (Golin, Mitchell, and Gault 2004). Early care and education can also be viewed as an industry that makes a significant contribution to regional economies. In short, highquality early childhood education is a public good with high returns for children, families, communities, and the United States as a whole. The wisdom of investing in young children is no longer a question. The challenge is translating what we know is right and wise into the will to make the public and private commitments of resources that are required. We believe our model provides a feasible method to organize current and new resources to make that investment.

Notes 1. Webster’s New World Dictionary (2nd ed.) (1970). 2. A quality rating system is a method to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early care and education settings. In 2006, 14 states had such systems in place and nearly two-thirds of states are planning them. Nearly all of the quality rating systems that are currently in use incorporate Head Start (8 of 10). Three also include public prekindergarten requirements and standards at higher “star” levels. 3. A “tiered” approach is one that has several levels progressing from basic to advanced. 4. Personal communication with Peggy Ball, North Carolina Division of Child Development. May 2004. 5. Personal communication with Gerrit Westervelt, Colorado Educare. May 2004. 6. K. Hill-Scott, The sky’s the limit! Los Angeles universal preschool master Plan. First 5 LA. http://www.prop10.org/docs/Partnerships/UPK/Proj_UPK_MasterPlanFinalDraft. pdf. pp 41, 66, 67. Accessed on September 15, 2005. 7. The question of universal versus targeted is much debated. We believe the early care and education system should be universal for several reasons: all children deserve access to early education, needy children will have more and better choices in a universal system, universal services enjoy much stronger public support than targeted ones, and the additional costs of a universal system can be shared with higher income families. For an excellent discussion on this topic, see the April 2004 issue

Financing Early Childhood Education

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

213

of NIEER Preschool Policy Matters on “The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool for All?” Several years ago the Colorado Educare initiative created per-child cost estimates for each of their star levels. Pennsylvania’s Rate Policy Task Force recommended that the state annually model the cost of direct services at each level of the Keystone Stars quality rating system. Unpublished research conducted by Louise Stoney, Stoney Associates, 2003. There are dozens of additional federal funding streams that can, in theory, be used to support early care and education. For more information on potential sources, see Stoney (2003). In FY 2001, 56 percent of the children served in Head Start were four years of age and 33 percent were three years of age. These states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia (Donahue and Campbell, 2002). For an expanded discussion of state and local finance strategies, see Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter (2001). There is overwhelming evidence that high-quality preschool education can substantially increase children’s chances of succeeding in school and in life. See the section on benefits and outcomes at www.nieer.org. Many studies find that child care as an industry makes a significant contribution to regional economies. This finding has been replicated in more than 34 state and local studies of the economic contributions of the child care industry. An interactive database that includes all studies is available at http://economicdevelopment. cce.cornell.edu.

References Alliance for Early Childhood Finance. (2003). A model early care and education system design. Arizona School Readiness Task Force. (2002). Growing Arizona. Phoenix: Children’s Action Alliance. Barnett, W. S., K. Brown, and R. Shore. (2004). The universal vs. targeted debate: Should the United States have preschool for all? In Preschool policy matters, Vol. 6. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=101. Bell, L. and V. Lovell. (2004). Paid parental leave policy: An infant care strategy (notes from a conference call sponsored by Smart Start’s National Technical Assistance Center). Retrieved from www.earlychildhoodfinance.org. Center for Early Care and Education. (2004). Early care and education for all: New York’s commitment to young children and families, a blueprint for action. Albany, NY: Center for Early Care and Education. Retrieved from www.winningbeginningny.org Departments of Education and Public Health and the Office of Child Care Services. (2004). Report of the Massachusetts Early Education and Care Council. Boston, MA: Departments of Education and Public Health, and the Office of Child Care Services. Donahue, E. and N. D. Campbell. (2002). Making care less taxing: Improving state child and dependent care tax provisions. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center.

214

Mitchell and Stoney

Enterprise Foundation. (2004). The Oregon child care investment tax credit: A new financing approach for child care. New York: Enterprise Foundation. Fitzpatrick, C. S. and N. D. Campbell. (2002). The little engine that hasn’t: The poor performance of employer tax credits for child care. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/TheLittleEngine2002.pdf Golin, S. C., A. W. Mitchell, and B. Gault. (2004). The price of school readiness: A tool for estimating the cost of universal preschool in the states. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/ G713.pdf Golin, S. C., A. W. Mitchell, and M. Wallen. (2003). The cost of universal access to quality preschool in Illinois: Report to Governor George H. Ryan’s Task Force on universal access to preschool. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/preschoolIL.pdf Kagan, S. L., R. N. Brandon, C. H. Ripple, E. J. Mayer, and J. M. Joesch. (2002). Supporting quality early childhood care and education: Addressing compensation and infrastructure. In Young Children, ed. Derry Koralek, 58–65. Vol. 57, No. 3. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Also see www.hspc.org Mitchell, A.W. (2005a). Stair steps to quality: A guide for states and communities developing quality rating systems for early care and education. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America/Success by Six. ———. (2005b). Success stories: State investment in early care and education in Illinois, North Carolina and Rhode Island. Raleigh, NC: Smart Start’s National Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved from www.earlychildhoodfinance.org Mitchell, A.W., L. Stoney, and H. Dichter. (2001). Financing child care in the United States: An expanded catalog of current strategies. 2001 edition. Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. (2003). The New York state child and dependent care credit: Background and statistical analysis for tax year 2001. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Office of Tax Policy Analysis. Stoney, L. (2002). Finance reform: Visioning a new child care financing structure. Retrieved from http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/handouts/Visioning.htm. ———. (2003). Financing early care and education services: A primer for county leaders, Washington, DC: National Association of Counties. ———. (2004). Financing quality rating systems: Lessons learned. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America/Success by Six Stoney, L. and K. Edwards. (2002). Child care financing matrix (based on Mitchell, Stoney, and Dichter 2001). Retrieved from http://nccic.org/pubs/ccfinancingmatrix.html Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition and the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. (2005). The Texas plan: Enhancing early childhood education and development, 2nd ed. May 2005. Houston, TX: Rice University, James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy.

11 The Framing of Early Child Development and Education: Lessons from Communications Research Susan Nall Bales . . . to carry to the public the message of community- and future-centered interventions to improve children’s brain architecture.

The preceding chapters make a powerful, indeed seemingly irresistible, case for quality, affordable early childcare and education. In fact, the entire volume makes the case for understanding child development as a product of environments, exposure, and encouragement, with early childhood education as the vehicle for delivering the experiences that help children become productive and well-adjusted young people. Moreover, the case appears to be so compelling and so substantiated by science and economics that it argues for broadly shared societal responsibility, involving all levels of government as well as businesses and families. Yet public enthusiasm for day care has remained relatively flat for the past decade. From May 1987 to August 2003, the percentage of people who agree that “too many children are being raised in day care centers these days” increased from 68 to 72 percent (Values Update Survey 2003; Pew Research Center 2003); clearly these numbers indicate more concern than endorsement. But what explains this contradiction between the public good and the public will? Relatedly, how can advocates communicate the importance of early education in such a way that it overcomes public misgivings and misperceptions? In particular, what kinds of communications will help the public understand its shared responsibility for children’s development and assign a higher priority to policies that promote effective early childhood education? This chapter attempts to answer these questions by reporting on the research findings associated with a multimethod process for identifying what stands between the public and its understanding of early child education policies. That process, called Strategic Frame Analysis™, uses techniques adapted from the cognitive and social sciences to explore Americans’ conceptual models—in this case, of child development and child care. Using this approach, we identify, create, and test ways to overcome conceptual

216

Susan Nall Bales

barriers to public understanding by reframing the public discourse. The strategies we propose as a result of this work rely on the use of various frame elements, including values and metaphorical models.1 In all, the research on which these observations are based includes more than 24 focus groups with media-attentive, highly engaged citizens, 90 one-on-one interviews with parents and nonparents, and experimental research conducted with more than 400 individuals, including business and civic leaders. While the sample is largely a national one, the final round of experimental testing included approximately 100 Texas informants. In addition, we conducted a comprehensive review of existing public opinion data on early care and education, subjected materials produced by advocates to content analysis, and reviewed media content analyses conducted by other researchers associated with the FrameWorks Institute. The early childhood research conducted by the FrameWorks Institute and its research partners dates from 2001 and continues through the present, with funding provided by the A. L. Mailman Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Rice University Baker Institute for Public Policy/Texas Program for Society and Health, and the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, now part of the Center for the Developing Child at Harvard University. This chapter draws upon a wide array of detailed research conducted by the FrameWorks Institute and attempts to summarize and synthesize that body of work. The author hopes that this brief analysis will inspire readers to access the original reports available at www.frameworksinstitute.org.

The Power of Frames: A Brief Overview of Communications and Framing The last decade of research in the social and cognitive sciences strongly suggests that the challenge of communicating about social issues requires an understanding of the conceptual frames that ordinary people bring to any given policy discussion. According to Reese, Gandy, and Grant (2001), frames are “organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world.” Each word or image we use evokes a conceptual structure that includes more extensive images and knowledge, a structure of meaning that is literally triggered by the cues built into a communication. Put another way, people use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. These mental shortcuts rely on “frames”—what some researchers have called “fast and frugal” heuristics—that trigger connections to more extensive networks of internalized concepts (Gigerenzer and Todd 2001). This innate process allows people to quickly accord meaning to unfolding events and new information without rethinking each communication transaction in depth. From this perspective, which forms the theoretical basis of Strategic Frame Analysis™, public understanding of an issue depends upon its

Lessons from Communications Research

217

association with what Walter Lippmann called “the pictures in our heads” (1922). Internal frames of reference can be triggered by various elements, such as language choices, tone, or different messengers or images. Each of these frame elements may have a profound influence on decision outcomes by guiding the pattern of reasoning that individuals use to think about a particular issue. While space precludes a more complete examination of the scholarship documenting the effects of framing elements, an in-depth review appears in other FrameWorks materials (see “Framing Public Issues,” FrameWorks Institute 2002 at http://www.frameworksinstitute.org). This chapter will focus on two particular frame elements: values and simplifying models. Numerous scholars have called attention to the importance that values play in reaching public judgment on social issues (Rokeach 1979; Schon and Rein 1994; Lakoff 1996). For example, Milton Rokeach (1979) first observed that most American frame contests are waged between the core values of Freedom and Social Justice. Robert Reich (1987) has argued that all American political discourse involves four main “parables” built around fundamental values: the Rot at the Top (Corruption), the Mob at the Gates (Permissiveness), the Triumphant Individual (Personal Responsibility), and the Benevolent Community (Interdependence). Discussing an issue from the perspective of any one of these four values frames, Reich asserts (1987), will guide a person’s thinking on the issue because the frame will invoke the images and thoughts associated with that core value. In other words, the person is “primed” to think about the issue in a given way. FrameWorks’ research on social issues pays particular attention to the ability of core values to prime a conversation toward different policy solutions. Using survey research methodology, we introduce various values frames to test the impact each has on a standard set of policies that experts have determined would ameliorate real world conditions. Priming surveys conducted by the institute on subjects as diverse as rural policy, race, food systems, and adolescent development demonstrate statistically significant differences in public attitudes to the same set of policies depending on what values frame (Community, Opportunity, Personal Responsibility, Interdependence, etc.) people are primed to use as the lens for understanding those policies (Bostrom 2006a, 2006b). Identifying the values that elevate effective policies is a major contribution toward crafting effective communications about any issue. For instance, using the value of Individual Autonomy/Personal Responsibility to prime a discussion about gun control with words like “Take Responsibility for the Firearms in Your Child’s Home” invokes the values of individualism and self-protection that are prevalent in American culture. Adding another frame to the fire, advocates might say “Education is the Key to Protecting Children from Guns,” further invoking the values frame of individual responsibility, with both child and parent held accountable for their actions in preventing “accidents.” Framing the same issue as a community issue with ties to public health, on the other hand, leads a listener to a very different set of policy conclusions. Suggesting that “Guns

218

Susan Nall Bales

without Locks Are Like Medicines without Safety Caps” indicates that the gun industry should be held accountable to the same health and safety standards as others who produce potentially dangerous products. By invoking a Fairness Frame toward a consumer product, community action in the form of policies to protect public safety becomes the appropriate action. Policy advocates make these kinds of frame choices every day as they communicate about their issue. Strategic Frame Analysis is a tool for documenting the soundness of their selection and the ultimate consequences of these frame choices. FrameWorks’ experiments confirm the scholarly literature on priming effects and the power of values in promoting these effects: values primes can and do dramatically change the public’s policy preferences and attributions of responsibility. The second element we explore, simplifying models, has to do with explaining “how things work.” Put simply, “simplifying models are a kind of metaphorical frame that both capture the essence of a scientific concept, and have a high capacity for spreading through a population” (Aubrun, Grady, and Bales 2006). According to FrameWorks’ researchers Cultural Logic, numerous studies in the cognitive sciences have established that both the development and the learning of complex, abstract, or technical concepts typically rely on analogies (Thagard 1997; Biela 1991; Gentner and Gentner 1983; Hesse 1963; Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Cultural Logic concludes, An explanation that reduces a complex problem to a simple, concrete analogy or metaphor contributes to understanding by helping people organize information into a clear picture in their heads, including facts and ideas previously learned but not organized in a coherent way. Once this analogical picture has been formed, it becomes the basis for new reasoning about the topic. Better understanding also leads to an increase in engagement and motivation. (D’Andrade 1992; Shore 1996)

Simplifying models have proven their power empirically, as FrameWorks has incorporated these frame elements into priming surveys, with concrete evidence of their ability to further lift policy support for such issues as reforming the food system (Aubrun, Brown, and Grady 2006; Bostrom 2006b). So how do we acquire these internalized frames in the first place? Where do they come from? As mentioned earlier, frames are conceptual structures that we acquire or absorb as we move through life—from experience, the media, and other cultural sources. The “core values” frames dominate our culture and our way of life—it would prove difficult to grow up in American society without a richly defined concept of individual responsibility, for example. However, the nuances of frames can be influenced by a variety of sources. There is quite a bit of interplay between the influence of media and experiences that drives how people think about public issues. A recent study of people’s understanding of homelessness pointedly illustrates how people use experience and the media to reason about public

Lessons from Communications Research

219

issues. Sociologist Barrett Lee analyzed survey data to determine how contact with the homeless influenced people’s attitudes. As reported by Richard Morin (The Washington Post, May 30, 2004), the results showed that those who had some contact or experience with the homeless had the most empathy toward this group and “were less likely to see homelessness as the result of some personal defect.” By contrast, those who relied upon the media for their information about the homeless were “more likely to view homeless people as dangerous, and [were] less likely to support homeless rights to public space or express a willingness to sacrifice.” In other FrameWorks research, however, we have seen how persistently media-induced frames stand up to negating experiences. When parents were asked how images of out-of-control teenagers in the media squared with their perceptions of their own children and peers, people described their own children as “exceptional” while maintaining the veracity of the media stereotypes for other teenagers (Aubrun and Grady 2000). Barrett A. Lee’s study found that those who had been homeless at some point were often no more sympathetic to the issue than those who had no familiarity, indicating a similar sort of “exceptionalism” at work (The Washington Post, May 30, 2004). This phenomenon might suggest that something more than direct experience is necessary to contest ingrained frames. Moreover, while we gain much knowledge from our personal experiences, we do not often come into contact with the intimate details of every public issue. In light of this, we turn to other sources for information. Traditionally, the news media serves as the main source of Americans’ information about public affairs (Roper Starch 1994). Communications, especially via mass media, have their roots in frame-based transactions in which the pictures sparked by the telling of a news story connect to the pictures already in our heads. Importantly, the media’s influence on how we think about social problems lasts far beyond our memory of a particular newscast or news topic. The frames used on the news to discuss public issues will set up habits of thought and expectation that, over time, are so powerful that they automatically filter and distort new information to conform to the frame (Gilliam et al. 1996; Gilliam and Iyengar 1997, 1997). Interpreted through this lens, the outcomes of Lee’s homelessness study would suggest that the media routinely portray homelessness in terms of highly individualistic choices or circumstances, which then encourages people to assign responsibility to individuals and not to society as a whole. This portrayal of the homeless directly invokes the Personal Responsibility value frame, and discourages a multifaceted explanation for homelessness. As past FrameWorks research has demonstrated, individuals exposed to different frames can “toggle” between alternative views. That is, because they have absorbed more than one way of looking at an issue, they can literally hold several contradictory ideas at the same time. Which idea will prove dominant at the time of policy decisions is often decided by the power of the frame cues and the coherence of the dominant frame in media and culture. Such toggling is especially acute when the public lacks a clear

220

Susan Nall Bales

understanding of an issue. When the phrases and jargon used by public figures or advocates do not resonate with people—that is, the frames evoked do not provide clear, effective, and directive guidance—the public will fall back upon its previously acquired knowledge about an issue. In the case of early child development, the lack of public understanding of the most fundamental principles of young children’s social, emotional, and regulatory growth makes the ordinary American highly vulnerable to misunderstanding and manipulation. When policy proponents frame their proposals in confusing terms, the public must rely upon those “pictures” in their heads in order to arrive at a working understanding of the issue. Therefore, the first step in any effort to design communications to engage the public on a political or social issue involves a descriptive analysis of the frames they have available to them. Inevitably, this requires an understanding of the way an issue has been portrayed in the news. Analysts must then attempt to discern, using qualitative research methods, the degree to which these news frames have been internalized by citizens; in other words, analysts must assess the extent to which the public remembers and reasons based on the stories taught to them by the media. In certain cases—and early childhood education is one such case— this multistep process allows communications scholars to identify missing pieces of information that prevent ordinary people from learning new ways to think about an issue. Often, these missing pieces become the keys to unlocking complicated scientific phenomena for the public. Whether related to global warming, rural poverty, or human development, the communications advocates use to inform the public about complicated issues must be memorable, conceptually complete, and vivid in order to displace existing frames and thereby improve public understanding of alternatives to the status quo. Once a characterization of the public’s knowledge base is completed and the gaps in that knowledge base understood, research can identify well-crafted messages that convey these missing pieces and bring new information sharply into focus. The remainder of this chapter will convey the results of such extensive communications analysis for early childhood education and development. We begin with understanding the public’s knowledge base about child development and about early child education, and then move toward identifying gaps in the public’s knowledge base, the values frames that will promote understanding, and the messages that will bridge the gaps.

Early Childhood Development and Education: What Does the Public Think? As discussed above, this book lays out the importance of positive early childhood experiences to development and well-being, and the positive impacts that good child development can have on society. Unfortunately, much of the way we talk and think about children in our society masks or

Lessons from Communications Research

221

undermines the important concepts of early childhood development and education. Under most of our models for thinking about children’s development, the detrimental effects of environment, poverty, or abuse are dismissed and responsibility for children’s outcomes is attributed strictly to parents. In addition, the most common ways we think about early childhood education or care do not include children’s developmental well-being, and undermine attempts to include crucial developmental elements in young children’s day care settings. This section details the current knowledge about the frames the public uses to define and understand both child development and early childhood education.

Child Development—Media Influence and Folk Knowledge Given the relative paucity of households with young children present, we can surmise that many Americans receive a great deal of “information” about young children from the news, and especially from local television news. Recent content analysis of more than 11,000 local evening television news stories in 6 cities, conducted by Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., for Children Now (2006), provides rare insight into the way that young children are depicted in this influential medium: • crime and health stories predominate, regardless of the age of the child; • in health stories, the dominant frame is child safety; • only 13 percent of stories look at systemic factors affecting a child’s health and well-being; and • only 3 percent of stories address development.

These trends result in what Gilliam has called “the imperiled child” frame, which has distinct consequences for public understanding and policy prioritization: “Whether it is trying juveniles in adult courts, metal detectors and drug testing in schools, or safety regulations for everything from toilets to playground equipment, people are looking for ways to add another layer of bubble-wrap to their children” (Gilliam 2006). Further, very young children are perceived as “precious objects” who must be safeguarded from external harm (Aubrun and Grady 2003). Of great importance to the issue at hand, the Imperiled Child/Safety Frame crowds out important developmental considerations in favor of protection and stability. Bad peers, bad parents, and safety were the most commonly voiced threats to young children during FrameWorks’ testing. Experts know, however, that these threats are far outweighed by the long-lasting effects of poorly built brain architecture that result from preventable conditions in the child’s environment, from poverty to maternal depression. But the Imperiled Child Frame presented by the news media is not the only operational frame adults use when thinking about children and their development. By applying a cognitive analysis to one-on-one interviews with average Americans, we found other models available to Americans in addition to the Imperiled Child/Safety Frame (Aubrun and Grady 2002).

222

Susan Nall Bales

Among most informants, there was a tendency to simplify early child development as “love is all you need,” or to rely on tropes associated with popular greeting cards to explain how children develop (“they grow in your shadow”) and what they need to succeed (self-esteem, etc.). Cultural Logic pared down the responses to show that when reasoning about the early development of young children, Americans have automatic recourse to a small set of internalized frames that we will characterize as follows: • child on AutoPilot, in which development is essentially automatic (“a child is a ticking clock”), so intervention is unnecessary; • child as Sponge, in which development is a result of “soaking up” values and information, making intervention impractical; • the Family Bubble, in which development is a primarily a private family centered system, making intervention inappropriate; • Baby Bootstrap, in which development is largely the child’s responsibility—if the child behaves and listens, it will happen—so intervention is coddling and the self-sufficient child should be encouraged to triumph over adversity; • it is Fate, in which successful development depends largely on pluck and luck, which depends on a complex equation of genes and environment that cannot be controlled, so intervention is unlikely to be effective.

What these commonsense models and metaphors share is a simplified way of looking at children’s development that does not include the importance of positive interaction to build solid brain architecture. Their use downplays or masks many of a child’s critical interactions with their environments (housing, neighborhoods, schools, museums, libraries, community resources), and with adults or peers (caregivers, neighbors, other children, parents, etc.). Essentially, these frames undermine the public’s understanding of children’s healthy development as requiring age-appropriate stimuli and opportunities across the range of human learning and values: social, cognitive, emotional, and moral. FrameWorks researchers conclude that such factors as “lead paint in the home, whether or not the mother received prenatal care, whether or not there were mental health services or family support programs available in a child’s community, or whether a child might be lacking in confidence due to lack of a nurturing bond with parents—are essentially off the radar screen” (Aubrun and Grady 2002). When the previous frames are employed, none of these factors registers as having a potentially long-term impact on a child’s development and well-being. It is important to note that while the public sees the actions of parents as of critical importance to the developing child, the parent-child interaction is not understood in the same way that scientists perceive early interactions. Under the public’s models, the process of development is not related to hard-wiring the brain, as experts see it, but rather is a process of molding or shaping, in which the child’s personality becomes molded after the closest adults’. Given these results, coupled with more data from one-on-one interviews, the cognitive team concluded that the various mental roadblocks

Lessons from Communications Research

223

to understanding child development in each of the frames above stemmed from a similar source. Each frame presents an obstacle to understanding early child development because of an overreliance on a “mentalist perspective inherent in our folk models of the Mind”: People reason as if minds were nonmaterial objects, defined only in terms of our subjective and abstract mental experience. According to the folk theory, our minds are characterized by internal states such as perceptions, beliefs, feelings, desires, intentions, and most importantly, an inner Self. While this mental world can involve causal connections (e.g., desires lead to intentions), these causal stories bear little connection to the sort of material events (such as the firing of neurons) that are central in expert understandings. For most people, the gap between the nonmaterial mind/soul and the material body is a very wide and even unbridgeable one. It is important to note that for most practical purposes, the mentalist perspective guides people’s thinking in useful ways. For example, it allows us to make educated guesses about what others are thinking, and about what they are likely to do next—which tends to matter more than information about others’ brain processes. On the other hand, the mentalist perspective acts as a barrier to new learning about important aspects of early childhood development. For example, the mentalist perspective does not include the important notion of a “damaged system” (i.e., the idea that a person might behave a certain way because of a damaged internal system rather than a moral failure); it excludes certain kinds of causality, such as the lasting effects of chronic stress; and it tends to imply a kind of “all or nothing” perspective, in which personhood emerges full-blown even in very young children, rather than developing through the growth of individual parts and systems. (Aubrun and Grady 2003)

Each of the most common frames for child development not only masks accurate understanding of development, but also crowds out early childhood intervention. Placing responsibility squarely on the parents or the child makes intervention either useless or inappropriate, and therefore unimportant compared to other policy options. These “other policy options” often stem from Imperiled Child Frame—policies that ostensibly improve safety have a much higher priority than policies that would improve developmentally appropriate education. In other words, as long as those frames serve as the basis for understanding child development, interventions aimed at improving child development—such as early childhood education—will gain little traction among the general public.

Early Childhood Education: Values and Metaphors Adding yet another layer of complexity to the communications issues surrounding early childhood education and development, the idea of day care— the most commonly understood venue for early childhood education—also carries its own meanings. In order to fully understand barriers to public support for appropriate early childhood education, we must explore public understanding of day care. For many years, early child education has

224

Susan Nall Bales

been discussed (and therefore framed) in the context of day care, which is itself “about” Women‘s Work Facilitation; in other words, Women’s Work Facilitation is the “core value” of the Day Care frame. FrameWorks characterizes “day care” as a “mental shortcut”—a highly effective and charged frame—that instantly captures a wealth of meaning and conveys the images and view point of the frame it represents. Deploying a mental shortcut like day care requires careful scrutiny of the consequences and outcomes that derive from its use. In this case, both the metaphorical nature of the day care frame and the women’s work facilitation value have important consequences for the early childhood education discussion. Like many mental shortcuts, day care is highly metaphorical: it offers an analogy for understanding a more complex issue, and the implications of such a metaphor can prove far-reaching. As early as 1998, analyses published by FrameWorks suggested that the metaphor of childcare is that of a container: a safe, secure place for parents to deposit their children and from whence to retrieve them at the end of the mother’s work day (Lakoff and Grady 1998). Importantly, the container metaphor further reinforces the dominant developmental frame of Child Safety and shuts out all considerations of quality, interaction, stability, neglect, training, et cetera. The language we use reveals the logic underpinning the metaphor: Childcare Center Children Leaving children at center Caring for children Childcare workers

Container Packages Placing packages in a container Handling packages Package handlers

Laying the metaphor bare in this way forces us to ask questions about the consequences of such a metaphorical frame. If childcare is package handling,

• • • • • •

is it a highly skilled job? do you need to hire highly skilled workers? does it pay workers well? does it need to do so? does the environment at the facility matter? do the relationships between handlers affect the package?

Such questions (and the answers implied by the day care metaphor) suggest a reason for the public’s dismissal of day care and early childhood educators as important contributors to children’s development. The most detrimental impact of the Day Care frame comes from its innate ability to downplay the importance of development. Indeed, under the Day Care frame, there is little interest in what goes on between the time that the parent drops off and picks up the child. Witness this telling focus group

Lessons from Communications Research

225

conversation (Bostrom 2002): Informant: Why does a childcare provider have the same stature as teachers? Moderator: What do you think? Informant: I would think teachers are better educated. They are given the job of teaching your children. The others are hired to care for your children. Moderator: And care would mean? Informant: Watching the children, feeding them but not teaching them necessarily. Maybe they do in a sense . . .

These attitudes are further entrenched and reinforced by the core value of the Day Care frame: Women’s Work Facilitation. Our research confirmed that even though upward trends in women’s workforce participation remain, public attitudes toward women’s “choice” to leave their children to pursue work remained ambivalent at best. The following prototypical quote from a focus group participant characterizes the challenge of this values frame. In this quote, we see not only the negativity of the Women’s Work Facilitation Frame, but also elements of the child care “container” metaphor coming into play as well (Bostrom 2002): It’s a babysitting service is what it is. The kids are going there and that is where kids go when mom goes out and works her half a day or whatever and comes home and picks them up. They (women) have the choice. They don’t have to work.

How, one might ask, could a society have such an unsympathetic attitude to the challenges faced by working parents when so many families (often of necessity) have two working parents or one single working parent? Interestingly, the exceptionalism discussed in the homelessness and teen studies introduced at the outset of this chapter offer some instructive insights. Just as the homeless and parents of teens saw themselves as “different” from others, families in which both parents work often see themselves as “different” from other dual income families. This sort of exceptionalism allows working parents—despite their own need to work to get by—to characterize others’ need to work as driven by excessive emphasis on material goods, bad choices, or selfishness. Again, experiential understanding is colored by the frames in public discourse. Following the train of thought started by this frame to its logical end, if American families would just value the right priorities, they would sacrifice to keep mothers at home with children through critical early years, and this would solve most, if not all, developmental problems. With this knowledge, it becomes clear that the container metaphor evokes values associated with women in the workforce that do not help prioritize quality early child care and education in the public’s mind. In our focus groups, both women and men, parents and nonparents, rejected the notion that convenience or self-interest should serve as the determining value for a

226

Susan Nall Bales

conversation about child care (Bostrom 2002). The fact that women need to be in the workforce does not elevate the salience of early childhood development nor lead to support for high-quality, affordable child care. As one FrameWorks researcher observes, The public thinks of day care as an issue related to work and working women; that is, day care exists so that both parents can work. This approach positions day care as second best, an unfortunate circumstance. It is a convenience for parents, who are perceived by these informants as sacrificing their children in order to work, or who are judged to emphasize materialistic rewards above their children. Those who are advocating for policies for day care and pre-school need to break the work frame, and position early education as being about opportunity for interesting stimulation—quality early education is, quite simply, what good parents provide to their children. (Bostrom 2002, 12–13)

“The challenge for community stakeholders,” this researcher concludes, “is to shift childcare from an example of ‘bad’ parenting and a ‘bad’ society, to a requirement for ‘good’ parenting and a ‘good’ society. Good parents (and a good society) provide their children with lots of age-appropriate stimulating experiences, such as pre-school” (Bostrom 2002, 14).

What Are Advocates Saying and Why Isn’t It Working? With the numerous landmines to avoid in bringing coherence and salience to child development and child care, it is little wonder experts have had difficulty arriving at a message that helps the public to make sense of the science of child development and its implications. Experts and advocates have recently attempted to move beyond the child care/day care frame and the women’s workforce participation values by using the communications model “school readiness.” In effect, school readiness is an attempt at a “simplifying model,” or metaphorical conceptualization that simplifies a complicated scientific issue. It seeks to equate what happens inside the child (for instance, acquiring an emotional toolkit) with the more obvious physical preparation of a child for school (such as owning a school lunch box). Because the phrase so commonly appears in advocacy materials and discussions, FrameWorks’ initial research for this portion of the project focused on understanding the effectiveness of the School Readiness metaphor for advancing understanding and support for early child development. Our findings led us to reluctantly conclude that, although Americans want children to succeed in school, and recognize that there are factors that make them either more or less prepared to do so, the concept of “school readiness” is not an organizing principle in laypeople’s minds. While it serves as an organizing principle for experts, it is not a clear, available, and motivating concept that can reliably engage ordinary people.

Lessons from Communications Research

227

When considering “school readiness,” adults tended to compare the suggestions in the communications with their own childhood and to judge them irrelevant (“I didn’t go to preschool and I turned out OK” became a kind of mantra in these groups). Furthermore, expert messengers (scientists and academics) seemed impractical to those who tended to believe that “the old ways are the best ways.” Much too often, school readiness was interpreted pejoratively by FrameWorks informants as hurrying children, judging them inappropriately, or as the misguided practice of “fancy” parents. Witness these prototypical quotes from our focus groups (Bostrom, 2002): They seem to push kids into education a little too fast sometimes and they don’t allow them to be kids and play. I mean people are getting their kids into pre-school at three years old . . . you see a lot of people that want to teach their kids like you said multiple languages before they are five and teach them to read before they get to kindergarten. [New Jersey man] It sounds as though this person is interpreting someone not being ready to learn. It may be someone that hasn’t had the experience that other ones were fortunate enough to have, or somebody with a language problem, that is a problem. It doesn’t mean that they are not ready to learn. [Boston woman, responding to an assessment of new kindergartners by their readiness] Are we trying to get them there too early? Eventually that child is going to be potty trained and . . . that child is going to read and write, and are we trying to push a two year old to be ready to read and write? [Virginia woman]

So it appears that school readiness as a simplifying model fails on a number of counts. Its impact on policy reasoning is suspect: as with “greenhouse gases” in environmental policy, the idea of “school readiness” is a scientifically sound simplifying model, but fails to engage the public due to widespread misinformation and frame dysfunctionality. Furthermore, “school readiness” cues up elitism and the hurried child rather than nurturance and child development. It fails to help people understand why poverty, neglect, or abuse would undermine a child’s early and long-term performance. And it is, in the words of Claude Levi-Strauss, just “hard to think.” For average Americans, this model does not perform as it should to explain how a child’s early development affects successive achievements and resiliencies. In summary then, what the public knows about early childhood development and education occupies a narrow focus centered on children’s safety, parental responsibility for molding children, and women’s workforce participation as the central organizing principles. The overall effect of such a narrow focus is an inability to integrate new information about child development that implicates brain development, positive interactions, or shared social responsibility for our children’s health and well-being. The current language that experts and advocates use to convey developmental science holds little meaning for the laypublic, so people tend to fall back on their internalized frames. Advocates cannot succeed in elevating early childhood education and care to a prominent public focus unless they seek new ways

228

Susan Nall Bales

to communicate that break through the old and highly entrenched habits of thought that come from media and folk wisdom.

Where Do We Go from Here? Reframing the Discussion to Reach the Public In light of these results, the FrameWorks research team set out to identify the key elements necessary to “reframe” early child development. By reframing, we mean providing a different lens for the processing of new information. By specifying and empowering alternative frames in public communications, children’s advocates can signal to the public how to think about any specific children’s issue. When advocates design effective communications to put forward new ways of thinking about an issue, people can see that issue from a different perspective, or alternative frame. Typically, this reframing research involves identifying a wide range of frame cues—messengers, values, metaphors, stories, images, et cetera— that, together, can be used to signal an alternative frame that works to elevate understanding of effective policy solutions. On the issue of early child development, FrameWorks research focused specifically on two very important frame elements: the identification of a simplifying model and a realignment of the values frames that signal what a communication is “about.” These two critical elements are vitally important to the public’s ability to see beyond individualized concerns. Presumably, by anchoring citizens’ understanding in a simple mechanism that allows them to understand how development “works,” communications can redirect thinking away from the mentalist model and toward more scientifically grounded considerations. And, by redefining what values we should bring to the discussion in the first place, communications can help people see a role for society, not merely individuals, in affirming a child’s access to quality early child education. Effective reframes for early childhood education and development must elevate the role of community in providing an environment of stable, rich experiences that create a sound foundation in the child’s brain.

Priming the Conversation: Identifying the Core Values, or “What Is This All About?” As discussed earlier, core values (or, “what this conversation is all about?”) will guide the judgments the public makes on policy solutions for problems. In this section, we revisit the research conducted by FrameWorks to determine how best to prime the conversation about early child development by appealing to widely held and deeply felt values and worldviews. In order to communicate the importance of early childhood development and our shared social responsibility for the outcomes, it is necessary to invoke a set of core values that help people to see the social value of appropriate early childhood education. In focus group experiments on values frames, FrameWorks identified two important values

Lessons from Communications Research

229

that can prime discussions of early care and education in directions that support community intervention. First, child development should be “about” the future. Advocates should attempt to promote a Stewardship conversation with the public: as the adults, we hold the responsibility to safeguard and to provide for the next generation, helping them develop the tools they will need to succeed. No less than the future of the child, our communities, and our society is at stake when discussing early childhood development. When primed in this way, respondents move toward valuing quality early care, as evidenced by the following quotes from focus groups (Bostrom 2002, 19): Every child, whether it is your child, my child—it doesn’t matter because they are our future. Without them we’re not going to go on, this society. [Boston woman] Our children are the country’s most important resource and our country’s future. [Kansas City woman] What we discussed tonight is definitely our future. It’s America 20 years from now, 15 years from now. [New Jersey man]

The second values frame that yielded promising results was that of Community/Interdependence, along the lines of one of Reich’s four parables. It often proves difficult to wield the Community Frame, however, as it requires a complete enumeration of those nonfamily actors in a community that influence a child’s environment and development. Without such explicit prompting, focus group participants tended to default to a “Leave It to Beaver” version of 1950s nostalgia. This frame, in turn, reminded people of the safety and security of the (perhaps mythic) past and left them more focused on Safety and Security, thereby eroding the ability of the Community Frame to deliver attention to quality early child development. However, when communications explicitly identified the community actors and clarified the environment of relationships, as in the following paragraph, focus group respondents could prioritize quality early child interactions and programs: Children come in contact with many people in many different settings as they grow. While a parent may be a child’s first teacher, they aren’t a child’s only teacher. Day care providers, teachers, doctors, neighbors, and coaches all influence children as well. Children learn a lot in the early years. They develop the capacity to respect others, to discern right from wrong, to get along with each other. All the people a child comes in contact with help influence his growth. Parents who provide security, teachers who encourage curiosity, coaches who teach them how to get along with others, and counselors who help them recognize right from wrong—all these interactions and experiences influence a child’s long-term development.

The reactions from focus group respondents to such a communiqué reveal encouraging results (Bostrom 2002, 8); clearly the introduction of this value

230

Susan Nall Bales

frame challenges the Family Bubble—or total assignment of responsibility to the family—and heightens individuals’ developmental reasoning. It makes you realize that even if it is your child, you don’t own your child. A child is not a piece of property. A child, God gives it to you for awhile and you get this child ready for the world. [Kansas City woman] What I see out of it is people who come in contact with children should be aware of what they are teaching children because a child can pick up bad habits. [Los Angeles woman] That is how I survived . . . my teachers. I can tell you the name of every teacher I had and I did well in school. They encouraged me to coach. I lived with my high school coach and I got a football scholarship and went to college, so these people are important. [Phoenix man]

While these respondents tended to use the frame to reason about older periods of development, they nevertheless show an understanding of an interactive world in which children’s experiences with adults prove foundational to their later development.

Explaining How It Works: In Pursuit of a Simplifying Model to Educate the Public Priming the conversation as described in the previous section allows for dialogue about the issue of early childhood development. However, once the conversation has been “primed,” advocates must then express their ideas in a way that can be understood. Their language must overcome barriers to understanding the issue. The cumulative heft of FrameWorks’ research on child development suggested that one important barrier the public faces is the lack of a powerful, explanatory model that can vividly convey how child development “works.” Without such an explanatory foundation, people are highly unlikely to absorb and remember new information about early childhood development. Armed with an understanding of the public’s current framework for early childhood development and education, as well as the more elaborate understanding that scientists bring to the discussion, FrameWorks set about to develop an explanatory model sufficiently powerful and meaningful to displace the limited default frames (safety, autopilot, bad parents, etc.) in favor of concepts that highlight the importance of interaction and experiences. Over the course of a year, FrameWorks experimented with prescriptive framing to identify and create new models that might effectively allow ordinary people to see the world in much the same way (though greatly simplified) as experts who study young children’s development. Working with the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, FrameWorks researchers identified the core causal story that was lacking in the public’s mind. This story linked positive and negative interaction to the child’s developing brain, explaining how emotional, social, and cognitive development created a kind of “feedback loop” that, in turn, made the brain

Lessons from Communications Research

231

either more or less responsive to successive stimuli. Working with a team of scientists and communications experts, Cultural Logic identified and classified well over 500 candidate models, from “attunement” and “emotional brain” to “brain regulator.” The empirical research to test these models involved a broad range of methods designed to capture different aspects of subjects’ responses to new information and concepts related to early childhood development. This included questions designed to probe basic understanding of the specific term, as well as responses to explanatory paragraphs, called TalkBack Testing, which tests the ability of subjects to teach their new understanding relating to early childhood development (including terms and concepts) to naive subjects. As Cultural Logic has explained, An assumption behind the method is that in order for new understandings of the topic to enter public discourse (and the culture, broadly speaking), they must be quickly graspable and repeatable by lay people. TalkBack Testing sets a steep challenge for any new ways of framing. As each “generation” of subjects acquires the material, it has an opportunity to distort what it has learned, and to introduce unwanted elements. The strongest frames show some ability to self-correct—that is, to lead subjects back to the original formulation, even if they themselves were given a somewhat distorted version of the stimulus. (Aubrun and Grady 2003, 9)

It is important to note that the criteria for success of any candidate model include not only its explanatory power or its ability to “spread” in the population, but also its ability to elevate the salience of policies and programs that, in experts’ estimation, can support positive development. These criteria can prove more or less challenging to meet depending upon how entrenched the public is in the current thought framework. In investigating prospective models for early childhood development, FrameWorks researchers were greatly sensitized to the hurdles such a model must overcome by previous work on child abuse and neglect conducted for Prevent Child Abuse America. Given the propensity for Americans to view neglect judgmentally as “lack of attention” from distracted and irresponsible parents—not as resulting from conditions of poverty, violence, and environmental stress—the model created for child development needed to help elucidate the damaging effects of neglect to the developing child in order to be successful. Any model that could not meet this challenge was summarily rejected. The strongest model to emerge from testing, deployed as a simple communications paragraph called Brain Architecture, goes something like this: More and more doctors are talking to parents and communities about what they call “brain architecture.” Brain architecture refers to the structure of the brain. We now know that if a baby doesn’t have the right kinds of interactions in the first few years of life the baby’s brain architecture doesn’t build itself properly. And if the brain architecture doesn’t build itself properly, kids

232

Susan Nall Bales

can be at a disadvantage in long-term ways. We know a lot about what helps and hurts the growth of brain architecture. What helps build and solidify brain architecture is positive and repeated interaction with attentive adults. What weakens and damages brain architecture is frequent stress—from fear, hunger, or interacting with a parent under stress, for example. Stress releases toxic chemicals in the baby’s brain. These chemicals corrode and weaken brain architecture. This stops brain cells from growing and forming connections with each other.

Subjects from the TalkBack Testing help demonstrate the power of the model to move people from a mentalist perspective, in which emotion is largely dismissed, to a materialist view that takes development seriously, as in this Texas informant’s comments: I think what really gets me from the study is that it could actually have a chemical or biological or some sort of impact on the child’s brain. . . . Behavior is one thing, and attitude and personality is one thing, but if it can really negatively impact . . . the chemistry and the makeup of the brain—you can damage that that early—that’s really serious. That’s more than just having a bad personality, that’s really screwing up a kid.

Importantly, this model helps people understand that the connection between stress and brain structure is important and is a reason why children from poor families are at a disadvantage. As Cultural Logic notes, “The ‘family bubble’ problem is very stubborn, but the recommended models seem to help people recognize that the stresses caused by poverty affect children in ways that parents are not ultimately responsible for” (Aubrun and Grady, 2003, 28). The following passages, quoted from Cultural Logic’s report on the Talk Back Testing, further illustrate the contrast between the new model and those currently in use, such as school readiness. Here is a response from a person who has heard an “Emotional Brain” paragraph—one of the earlier versions of Brain Architecture that was subsequently rejected in the course of testing—that includes no mention of poverty: Q: How does growing up in poverty affect the emotional brain? A: I believe because you’re stressed a lot because you have a lot of stress; usually parents that do not make a lot of money are usually under a lot of stress, so that makes the child be under stress as well, so that would affect I guess the growth of the brain.

By contrast, here is a less helpful response from a subject who has heard a “School Readiness” paragraph: Q: How does growing up in poverty affect a child’s school readiness? A: I would say in a lot of cases, I wouldn’t say in all cases, growing up in poverty would hinder them, but I guess in some cases it would hinder them, sort of being ready to get to school as knowing, I guess maybe kids

Lessons from Communications Research

233

who are not in poverty growing up do have an advantage, as far as they probably know a little more when they do start school than children who are raised in poverty.

Important differences in these responses help us to understand the power of the “correct framing.” The respondent who heard the “Emotional Brain” paragraph—even though it proved a less effective model than others tested—nevertheless focused in on architectural and structural differences in the brain that could be caused by poverty, while the respondent who heard the “School Readiness” paragraph attributed the differences to simply “knowing less” due to poverty, which could of course be overcome by a child’s diligence in school. This contrast—between the deleterious effects produced by the model of school readiness and the more powerful effects associated with brain architecture—should establish the importance of research as a critical tool in preparing advocacy and scientific communications. At the same time, caution should be exercised in assuming that any model can provide a “silver bullet” to move majorities of citizens to endorse universal fully funded prekindergarten programs. Simplifying models are a powerful frame element, but if communicators get the rest of the frame wrong, a model will not save the communications. Future research underway at the FrameWorks Institute seeks to identify and refine additional values, appropriate messengers and powerful images to carry the message of Community and Future-centered interventions to improve children’s Brain Architecture to the public.

Conclusion The research conducted to date by the FrameWorks Institute offers two powerful frame elements to inform public communications on this issue. The first is a simplifying model that helps people understand how experiences affect a child’s development, both positively and negatively. “Brain Architecture” conveys a powerful visual image of experiences and interactions forming the foundation for a child’s brain. This imagery helps to overcome more readily available images that promote old folk wisdoms and restrictive understandings of a child’s physical safety. The introduction of a strong values cue—Future or Community—further helps ordinary people understand why investing in social supports for a child’s earliest years might be an important priority for society as a whole. Research demonstrates that these frame elements offer important advantages over those currently in use, from School Readiness to Day Care. While numerous dysfunctional frames populate the public opinion landscape on these issues, this chapter attempts to chart a safe course to improved early childhood communications. By carefully constructing their communications in such a way that they overcome stereotypes and learned habits of thought, early child advocates can actually help the public see what they see: the enormous opportunity that better early care offers our society in the long run.

234

Susan Nall Bales

Note 1. For definitions of common terms associated with Strategic Frame Analysis™ see http://www.frameworksinstitute.org

References Aubrun, A. and J. Grady. (2000). How Americans understand teens: Findings from the cognitive interviews. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (2002). Promoting early child development: Findings from the cognitive elicitations. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (2003). Moving the public beyond familiar understandings of ECD: Findings from TalkBack Testing of simplifying models. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Aubrun, A., A. Brown, and J. Grady. (2006). Conceptualizing food systems with simplifying models: Findings from TalkBack Testing. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Aubrun, A., J. Grady, and S. Bales. (2006). Opening up the black box: A case study in simplifying models (E-Zine #19, www.frameworksinstitute.org). Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Bales, S. N. (2001). Talking school readiness and early child development: A FrameWorks message memo. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (April 2005a). Framing public issues. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (July 2005b). Talking early child development and exploring the consequences of frame choices: A FrameWorks message memo. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Bales, S. N. and F. Gilliam, Jr. (2004). Communications for social good. Washington, DC: Foundation Center. Biela, A. (1991). Analogy in science. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Bostrom, M. (2002). Hearts souls and minds: An analysis of qualitative research regarding communicating school readiness and other child development policies. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (2006a). The prosperity disparity: Analysis of a priming survey exploring race. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. ———. (2006b). Upside down fate: Analysis of a priming survey exploring views of the food system. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. D’Andrade, R. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science 5 (3): 175–195. ———. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In Human motives and cultural models, ed. R. D’Andrade and C. Strauss, 23–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gentner, D. and D. R. Gentner (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In Mental models, ed. D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, 99–129. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gigerenzer, G., P. M. Todd, and ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilliam, F. D., Jr. (2006). A new dominant Frame: The imperiled child (E-Zine #22, www.frameworksinstitute.org). Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. Gilliam, F. D., Jr., and S. Bales. (2001). Strategic frame analysis: Reframing America’s youth. Ann Arbor: Social Policy Report, Society for Research in Child Development.

Lessons from Communications Research

235

Gilliam, F. D., Jr., and S. Iyengar (1997). Prime suspects: The effects of local news on the viewing public. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR. Gilliam, F. D., Jr., S. Iyengar, A. Simon, and O. Wright. (1996). Crime in black and white: The violent, scary world of local news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1: 6–23. Hesse, M. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed & Ward. Iyengar, S. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kempton W., J. Boster, and J. Hartley. (1995). Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. and J. Grady (1998). Why early education benefits all of us. In effective language for discussing early childhood education, ed. S. Bales, 7–19. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation with the Human Services Policy Center at the University of Washington. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, B. A., C. R. Farrell, and B. G. Link. (2004). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The case of public exposure to homelessness. American Sociological Review 68 (February): 40–63. Levi-Strauss, C. (1971). Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press, 62 Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company. Morin, Richard. (2004). The homeless and the heartless. The Washington Post. May 30. Reese, S. D., O. Gandy, Jr., and A. E. Grant. (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reich, R. B. (1987). Tales of a new America. New York: Times Books. ———, ed. (1990). The power of public ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rivers, W., W. Schramm, and C. Christians (1980). Responsibility in mass communications. New York: Harper & Row. Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values, individual and societal. New York: Free Press. Roper Starch Worldwide. (1994). Roper Reports 93: 22. Schank, R. (1998). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schon, D. A. and M. Rein. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward a resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations. Man 20: 73–87. ———. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Strauss, C. and N. Quinn. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thagard, P. (1997). Medical analogies: Why and how. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society, ed. P. Langleyand and M. Shafto. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

accountability, 93–94 accreditation, 90–92, 191 Ackerman, D. J., 139, 155 ACL (American’s Changing Life Study), 50 ACNJ (Association for Children of New Jersey), 102 Aday, L. A., 42, 61 Adkins, A., 123 Albrecht, Kay M., 131–56 (Ch. 7) Alexander, K. L., 121, 128 Alliance for Early Childhood Finance BUILD initiative (Pennsylvania), 192 Children’s Congress (Maine), 193 systems model, 190 allostasis, 55 allostatic load, 5, 42–44, 55–56, 58 Alper, C. M., 54, 62 American’s Changing Life Study (ACL), 50 analogy, role of, 218 Andrews, M. W., 37 Annie E. Casey Foundation, 147, 154 Arizona Arizona School Readiness Task Force, 203, 213 School Readiness Action Plan, 102 Arkansas Better Chance, 207 early education funding in, 200, 201, 203, 209 education finance restructuring in, 207 tax credits, 209 assessing benefits of ECE, 178 Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ), 102 Aubrun, A., 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 231, 234 axon, 6, 7, 8, 11 See also neurons Baker, A. J., 135, 154 Bales, S., 218, 234

Bales, Susan Nall, 215–36 (Ch. 11) Balkan, J., 166, 169 Barnes, H. V., 181 Barnett, W. S., 88, 111, 137, 139, 142, 145, 154, 181, 182, 185, 187 Begley, C., 173, 175 behavior, 9, 20, 31 Belsky, J., 35 Berscheid, E., 29, 34 Biela, A., 218, 235 biological sensitivity to context (BSC), 57 Birch, S., 36 Blum, D., 55, 61 Blumenthal, D., 59, 61 Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 27 Bornstein, Marc, 29, 34 Bostrom, M., 217, 225, 226, 229, 234 Bourgeois, J., 11, 25 Boyce, W. T., 55, 57, 58, 61 Bradley, R. H., 35 brain architecture atypical, 5 critical periods, 12, 14–15 definition of, 3 early childhood development, and, 231 experience and, 3, 23 intra-brain communication, 6–10 plasticity, 9, 13, 20–23 See also brain chemistry; brain development; development brain chemistry brain function and, 3 gene-environment interactions in, 40 genetics and environment in, 13 See also brain development brain development cerebral cortex, 13 elements of, 10–11 experience-dependent, 21–22, 39: human critical periods and, 14–16;

238

Index

brain development—continued laboratory experiment in, 9, 18, 39; and plasticity, 22–23; rodent experiment in, 16–20 gene-environment interactions in, 40, 57 language and, 5 mentalist perspective in, 223 motor skills and, 69–70 plasticity and, 13, 20–23, 39 relationships and, 4, 21, 28, 31, 32 sensitive and critical periods of, 14–16 severe stress and, 20, 24n3 in utereo, 11 See also brain architecture; brain chemistry; cognitive development; health; neurons brain function. See brain architecture; brain chemistry; brain development brain sculpting. See plasticity Bright from the Start (Georgia), 97 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 29 Brooks-Gunn, J., 37, 38, 104, 111, 135, 154 Brown, K., 187, 188 Bryant, Donna, 113–29 (Ch.6), 121, 122, 123, 127 BSC (biological sensitivity to context), 57 Buchel, C., 5, 24 Buffett Early Childhood Fund, 28 BUILD initiative, 192 Bunker, J. P., 46, 61 Buonomano, D. V., 22, 25 Burchinal, M. R., 84, 120, 127 CACFP (Child and Adult Care Food Program), 198 Cacioppo, J. T., 55, 61 Caldji, C., 37 California Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES), 89–90 paid family and medical leave, 210 Proposition 10, 99 Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, 108–10 See also funding programs Cameron, J. L., 9, 25 Campbell, F. A., 182, 187 CARES (Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards), 89, 90 Carneiro, P., 53, 61 Carolina Abecedarian Program, 182–85 Case, A., 43, 49, 50, 54, 61, 62 Casey, B. J., 9, 25 Cassidy, J., 29, 34

CCAC (Connecticut’s Charts-a-Course), 89 CCDBG (Child Care Development Block Grant), 144 CCDF (Child Care and Development Fund), 198, 207, 208 CCDF (Child Care Development Fund), 90 cell body (soma), 8 See also nervous system structure cell death, naturally occurring, 11 Census, 164, 176 Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education, 149 cerebral cortex, 5, 11, 13, 14 See also brain architecture; brain development; neurons Chambers, J. G., 178, 187 Champagne, F. A., 18, 20, 24, 37 change model, 117–18 theory of, 117–26, 118t Charts-a-Course (CCA), Connecticut, 89 chemical neurotransmitters, 8 Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC), 184–85 child advocacy organizations Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ), 102 Children’s Upstream Project (CUPS), Vermont, 104 Early Childhood Alliance (Connecticut), 101 Family Resource Networks (West Virginia), 104 Voices for Illinois Children, 101 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), 198 Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC), 199 child assessment, 141–42 child care, 215, 224–26 definition of, 86 See also early education programs; frames-based research; school readiness Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), 144 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), 198, 207, 208 Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), 90 Child Care Facilities Fund (Rhode Island), 207 child care tax credits, 209 childhood programs. See early education programs

Index child population, demographics, 164–65 Children’s Congress, Maine, 193 Children’s Upstream Project (CUPS), Vermont, 104 child-teacher interaction, importance of, 75, 80 chromosomal abnormalities, 45 classroom assessment, 122, 141 Cochran, M., 35 Coffman, J., 137, 154 cognitive development, 30, 43, 68–70, 72–74, 218 See also brain architecture; brain development; content plan; developmental domains Cohen, S., 53, 54, 55, 62 Cole, G., 123, 128 collaboration, 123, 126 Collaborative for Children, 133, 146, 154 College Opportunity Networks and Technology Access for Child Care Teachers, 89 Collins, W. A., 29, 34, 122, 127 Colorado Community Consolidated Child Care Pilots, 106–8 Colorado School Readiness Act (HB1297), 107 Commission for the Texas Statewide Early Education and Development System (SEEDS), 143 Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, 27 communities system Community Consolidated Child Care Pilots, 106–8 Master Plan for Education, 108–10 See also legislation community values frame, 229 See also frames-based research Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES), 89, 90 Comptroller of Public Accounts, 147, 148, 154 congenital malformations, 45 Connecticut’s Charts-a-Course (CCAC), 89 Connell, J. P., 117, 124, 128 content plan, 77–79, 108–9 Coordination of Early Care and Education Programs, Interagency Workgroup (Texas), 132 coping skills, 71 core values frame, 218 See also frames-based research Cornish, M., 123, 128

239

cortisone, 55 See also allostatic load; stress Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers, 90 Costanza, R., 46, 63 cost-benefit analysis Carolina Abecedarian, 182–84 Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC), 184–85 Perry Preschool, 180–82 cost-benefit framework, 179 cost estimation model, 196 Council on Early Education and Care, 206–7 Couzin, J., 5, 24 CPC (Chicago Child-Parent Centers), 184–85 credential requirements, 138 cultural identity and language, 136 Cultural Logic, 218, 231 CUPS (Vermont Children’s Upstream Project), 104 curriculum guidelines, 140 Currie, J., 37, 185, 187 Dabholkar, A. S., 11, 25 D’Andrade, R., 218, 234 Dauber, S. L., 121, 128 Dawson, D., 29, 34 Dawson, G., 36, 37 DCAP (Dependent Care Assistance Plans), 199, 210 DCTC (Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit), 199 demographics child population, 164–65 national population and, 94 Texas, 159–73 dendrites, 6, 7 See also neurons Department of Board of Early Education and Care (Massachusetts), 205–6 Department of Early Care and Learning, (Georgia), 97 Departments of Education and Public Health, 206, 213 Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP), 199, 210 Dependent Care Systems Plan, 144 determinants, 44–48 development biological sensitivity to context (BSC) model, 57, 58 health and, 42–44, 58: direct influences, 44–48; gradient and, 48–51;

240

Index

development—continued integration of, 59; life course concepts within, 51–55; variations in, 55–58 relationships and, 29–34 See also brain development developmental domains cognitive, 72 description of, 69 oral language, 73 primary, 68 standards development and, 93 developmental plasticity, 13 See also plasticity Dichter, H., 98, 191, 197, 211, 214 direct instruction, 79 disorders, 44–45 behavioral, 9, 31 Fragile X syndrome, 7 disrupted speech, 5 Division of Early Childhood Development, Maryland, 97 DNA See also genomic influences DNA inheritance, mitochondrial, 45 Doctors, J. V., 145, 154 duckling, 15 Duncan, Greg J., 38, 104, 111, 145, 147, 154, 177–88 (Ch. 9) Dunn, J., 29, 34, 36 dyslexia, 22 Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers, 72 Early, D. M., 150, 154 early care and education (ECE) benefits and costs, example, 181–83 core components in, 86–88 definition of, 86, 189 funding coordination of, 203–4 health factors and, 184 historical overview of, 85 early care and education system costs associated in a, 194–96 examples of, 189, 205–7 model, 204f oversight and coordination, 96–98 Early Childhood Alliance (Connecticut), 101 early childhood development public understanding of, 221–26 See also frames-based research Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), 119–20

Early Childhood Initiative (North Carolina), 113–29 Early Childhood Parent Leadership, 95 Early Childhood Policy Research model, 196 early education programs assessing benefit of, 177–79 Bright from the Start (Georgia), 97–98 Carolina Abecedarian Program, 182–84 Charts-a-Course (CCA), Connecticut, 89 Chicago Child-Parent Centers, 184–85 Division of Early Childhood Development, 97 Early Childhood Parent Leadership (Kentucky), 95 Even Start Family Literacy Programs, 105, 198 expense of, 177–78 as investments, 179–82 Keystone STARS program (Pennsylvania), 91–92 More at Four (North Carolina), 115–16 Oklahoma and, 99 Parents as Teachers (PAT), 94–95 Perry Preschool, 180–82 Prekindergarten Program (Georgia), 100, 197 public perception of, 215, 224 Qualistar (Colorado), 92 Reaching for the Stars (Oklahoma), 91 Start Right (Rhode Island), 206–7 Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), 132 universal prekindergarten, 99, 111n3 values and metaphors, 224–26 See also child advocacy organizations; funding programs; legislation; school readiness; Smart Start; The Texas Plan (TTP) Early Influences on Brain Architecture, 39 Easley, Mike, 115 economic resources, 159–60 education and socioeconomic prospects, 169–73 education funds, administration of, 203 Effective Early Childhood Programs: Turning Knowledge into Action, 67 Ehrlich, R., 123, 128 Ellis, B. J., 57, 58, 61, 62 emotion motivation and, 17 social development and, 20–21, 70–72 Entwisle, D. R., 121, 128

Index environment biological sensitivity to context (BSC) and, 57 population health and and physical, 46 relationships and, 29–34 See also demographics epinephrine and nor-epinephrine, 55 See also allostatic load; brain chemistry; stress Epstein, A., 138, 150, 154 Essex, M. J., 58, 62 Estrada, P., 35 Even Start Family Literacy Programs, 105, 198 excitatory neurotransmitter, 6, 8 experience, 71 brain architecture and, 71 experience-dependent brain development: experiments in, 9, 16–20, 18, 39; human critical periods and, 3, 23 See also plasticity experiments experience-dependent brain development, 18–19, 39 imprinting, duckling, 15 in memory and emotion, 16–17 in recognition of emotion, 16–17 Families and Education Levy (Seattle), 202 family and medical leave (California), 210 family engagement, examples of, 94–95 Family Leave and Medical Act, 33 Family Resource Networks, 104 family resources, 104–5, 136, 142, 148 Farmer, S., 135, 155 Farran, D. C., 181, 187 fatigue, allostatic, 58 See also allostatic load; biological sensitivity to context (BSC); hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system fibrinogen, 55 See also brain chemistry financial reform, 189–90, 208 Fischer, K. W., 29 five-hydroxy-indole acetic acid, 9 See also brain chemistry flexible groupings in preschool education, 80 Fogel, A., 35 Fogel, R. W., 46, 62 Foundation Funding, education (Texas), 208 Fox, N. A., 36

241

Fragile X syndrome, 7 frames-based research, 219 child development in, 220–23 core values frame, 218 values and metaphors, 224 See also FrameWorks Institute; public opinion; Strategic Frame Analysis™ FrameWorks Institute, 216–19, 226, 228, 230–31 Frelow, V. S., 93, 112 From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, 27, 28, 71 functional development, 4 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 14 fundamental cause explanation, 48 funding programs Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), 198 Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC), 199 Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), 141, 198 Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES), 89–90 Early Head Start, 197 Even Start Family Literacy Programs, 198 Families and Education Levy (Seattle), 202 general revenues, 209 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 198 public lottery and, 100 School Fund (Texas), 208–9 Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), 198 tax credits, 199, 200–202 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), 33, 202, 209 Title I (Chapter I) of the No Child Left Behind Act, 198 tobacco settlement funds, 201 U.S. Department of Education, 105, 198 See also early education programs; legislation Gamble, J. F., 46, 62 Gandy, O., 216, 235 Garces, E., 185, 187 Gault, B., 196, 214 gene-environment interactions, 45, 57 gene-social context interaction, 56 gene-social environment interaction

242

Index

See also environment genomic influences, 44–45 Gentner, D., 218, 234 Gentner, D. R., 218, 234 Georgia Georgia Lottery for Education, 100 Prekindergarten Program, 97–98, 100 Georgia Lottery for Education, 100 Geronimus, A. T., 54, 56, 62 Gigerenzer, G., 216, 235 Gilliam, F. D., Jr., 219, 221, 235 Goal 1 Technical Planning Group, 111 Golin, S. C., 196, 214 Gomby, D. S., 38 Gottfreid, A. W., 35 Gotto, M. J., 4, 25 governance structure, proposed (ECDE/ ECE), 134, 143–45 governing bodies, (ECDE/ECE), 96–98, 108, 110 Graces, E., 185, 187 gradient, social-health, 48–51 See also development and health Grady, J., 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 231, 232, 234 Gramlich, E., 179, 187 Grant, A. E., 216, 235 Greenough, W. T., 17, 19, 24 guided instruction, 79 Gunnar, M. R., 56, 62 Guthrow, Kaitlin G., 131–56 (Ch. 7) Halfon, N., 54, 56, 63 Han, W., 38 Harms, T., 119, 128 Harr, J. J., 178, 187 Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment (HSSRA), 103 HB1297 (Colorado School Readiness Act), 107 Head Start 1998 reauthorization of, 92 funding and, 197 launch of, 85 program support and, 191 social profitability and, 185–86 teacher requirements and, 138 and Texas Rising Start quality rating system, 208 Head Start Bureau, 177, 187 health, 41, 43, 45–46, 49, 54 See also development; environment health vulnerability, cumulative See also weathering Heckman, J. J., 173, 175

Helburn, S. W., 90, 111 Hertzman, C., 43, 62, 63 Hesse, M., 218, 234 heuristics, 216 Higher Education Coordinating Board (Texas), 150 Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 132 Hoque, N., 166, 169 House, J. S., 45, 50, 51, 62 House Bill 2808 (Texas), 152 How Early Events Affect Growing Brains, 39 Howes, C., 38, 137, 155 HSSRA (Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment), 103 Hubel, D. H., 21, 22, 24, 25 Hunt, Jim, 113–14 Huston, A. C., 38 Huttenlocher, P. R., 11, 25 hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system, 55, 56 See also allostatic load; brain chemistry; stress; weathering Hyson, M., 88, 111 Illich, I., 45, 62, 65 immigration patterns, 159–60 immune globulins, 55 See also brain chemistry imperiled child/safety frame, 221 See also frames-based research imprinting, 15 Improving and Maximizing Professional Development Access and Consultation for Teachers (NC), 89 indirect instruction, 79 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 198 Inequalities in Health: The Black Report, 45, 64 information integration, 17 inhibitory neurotransmitter, 6, 8 See also brain architecture Institute of Medicine, 27, 86, 88, 112 instruction, explicit, 79 intelligence, theory of (Piaget), 69 Interagency Workgroup on the Coordination of Early Care and Education Programs, 132 interneuronal communication, 8 See also brain architecture; brain chemistry; neurons intervention programs, 161, 173–74, 179

Index See also cost-benefit analysis; Smart Start; The Texas Plan (TTP) interventions, 14–16, 23, 43, 53, 54 intra-brain communication, 6–10 James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, 131 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 28 Johnson, M., 218, 234 Johnson and Johnson Pediatric Institute, 28 Kagan, S. L., 85, 93, 112, 196, 214 Kagen, J., 36 Kamerman, S., 38 Kaurez, Kristie, 85–112 (Ch. 5), 102, 112 Keating, D. P., 43, 62 Keystone STARS, 91–92 Kindergarten Teacher Checklist, 121 King, C. T., 173, 175 Kistler, D. J., 20, 25 Klineberg, Stephen L., 159–76 (Ch. 8) knowledge economy, 160, 174 Knudsen, E. I., 9, 13, 15, 24, 25, 173, 175 Kochanska, G., 35 Kolb, B., 9, 25 Kubisch, A. C., 117 Ladd, G. W., 36 Lakoff, G., 217, 218, 224, 237 Lamb, M. R., 36 Landry, Susan, 67–84 (Ch. 4), 93, 133, 137, 155 language skills, 69, 72, 93, 136 See also content plan; developmental domains Lantz, P. M., 45, 62 Laursen, B., 29 learning role of concepts and analogies in, 218 standards, 93, 140, 148–49, 192 Lee, B. A., 235 standards, 219 legislation Colorado School Readiness Act (HB1297), 107 Community Consolidated Child Care Pilots, 106–8 Council on Early Education and Care (Massachusetts), 205–6 Families and Education Levy (Seattle), 202 family and medical leave, 210

243

Family Leave and Medical Act, 33 general revenues, 200, 202, 209 Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment (HSSRA), 103 Legislative Budget Board (LBB), 151 No Child Left Behind Act, 138, 198 Office of Early Childhood Coordination (Texas), 132 Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1961 (United States), 210 public lottery and education funding, 100 School Fund (Texas), 208–9 School Readiness Action Plan (Arizona), 102–3 Senate Bill 23 (Texas, 2005), 133 Senate Bill 76 (Texas, 2003), 132 Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 (California), 108–10 Smart Start (North Carolina), 114–17, 126 Start RIght (Rhode Island), 206–7 tax credits, 200–2 T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood Project (North Carolina), 114 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), 33, 197, 198, 209 Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), 132, 133, 137, 144, 147, 152 The Texas Plan (TTP), 131 See also funding programs; The Texas Plan (TTP) Leiderman, P., 37 LeMoine, S., 88, 112 Levin, H., 179, 187 Levine, A. E., 150, 155 Levitt, Pat, 3–25 (Ch 1), 9, 11, 25, 39 Lewis, R. J., 46, 62 Lewontin, R., 56, 62 life-course, cascade metaphor, 51–52 See also weathering life expectancy, 46, 59 Link, B. G., 48, 63 Lippmann, W., 235, 237 Liston, J. S., 173, 175 Liu, D., 20, 25, 37 Lopez, M. E., 137, 154 Lowman, B., 122, 127 Lu, M. C., 54, 56, 63 Lubeck, S., 135, 155 Lubotsky, A. D., 43, 50, 62 Lui, W. P., 135, 155 Lupien, S. J., 55, 56, 63 MacArthur Foundation, 28 Magnuson, Katherine, 177–88 (Ch. 9)

244

Index

Maine Children’s Congress, 193 education aid formula, 199 tax credit and quality standards, 209 Maine Children’s Congress, 193 Mann, E. A., 184, 185, 188 Marmot, M. G., 45, 49, 59, 151, 155 Maryland Model for School Readiness, 94 Massachusetts Board of Early Education and Care, establishment of, 205–6 Department of Board of Early Education and Care, 98 Masse, L. N., 182, 187 Master Plan for Education (California), 108–10 maternal employment, 33, 34 mathematics, early concepts, 74 Maxwell, K., 120, 121, 122, 123, 127 McCormick Tribune Foundation, 28 McCown, S. S., 147, 155 McEwen, B. S., 55, 56, 63 McKeown, T., 45, 63, 65 McKusick, V. A., 44, 63 McMichael, A. J., 46, 63 Meaney, M. J., 37 medical care and development, 45–46 memory, 77–79 mentalist perspective, 223 mental retardation, 7 metaphors, role of, 224–26 Miller, Zell, 100 Miller-Johnson, S., 121, 128 Mitchell, Anne W., 98, 112, 189–214 (Ch. 10), 191, 196, 197, 207, 211, 214 mitochondrial DNA inheritance, 45 See also genomic influences model, simplifying, 218 More at Four (North Carolina), 115–16 Morin, Richard, 219, 235 Morone, J., 59, 61 Mosteller, F., 46, 61 motor development, 69, 70 MRI, 14 multimodal cortex, 13 Munakata, Y., 9, 25 Munck, 55, 64 Murdock, Steve H., 159–76 (Ch. 8), 161, 166, 169, 175 Mustard, J. Fraser, v, 43, 51, 63 myelination, neuron, 10 See also brain development Napolitano, Janet, 102 National Academy of Sciences, 27

National Association for the Education of Young Children, 90, 140, 155 National Association for Family Child Care, 90 National Center for Children in Poverty, 75 National Child Care Information Center, 90, 91 National Education Goals Panel (NEGP), 102 National Institute for Early Education Research, 147 national population, demographics and, 94 National Research Council, 27, 86, 88, 112, 204 National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (NSCDC), 24n3, 27, 27–40 (Ch. 2), 41, 230 NCPC (North Carolina Partnership for Children), 114 NEGP (National Education Goals Panel), 102 nervous system structure, 6–10 Neuman, M. J., 85, 112 Neuman, S. B., 140, 155 neural tube, 10 neuromodulators, 8, 9 See also brain chemistry; brain development neurons, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 See also brain chemistry; brain development New York, 205 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 36, 38, 186, 188 No Child Left Behind Act, 138, 198 nor-epinephrine, 55 See also allostatic load; brain chemistry; stress North Carolina Partnership for Children (NCPC), 114 Office of Child Care Services (Massachusetts), 98, 206, 213 See also legislation Office of School Readiness, Georgia, 97 Oklahoma, 91, 95, 199, 200 Orthner, D., 123, 128 parental involvement, 135, 148 parental involvement, importance of, 222 Parents as Teachers (PAT), 94–95 Parrish, T. B., 178, 187 PAT (Parents as Teachers), 94–95

Index Patterson, J., 123, 128 Pecotte, B., 166, 169 Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., 35, 115, 119, 120, 128 perceptual-cognitive ability, 70 See also brain development Perry Preschool, cost-benefit analysis, 180–82 Peth-Pierce, R., 137, 155 Phelan, J. C., 48, 63 Philips, D., 27, 38, 119, 128 Phillipsen, L. C., 137, 155 phonological awareness, 73 See also developmental domains physical environment, and role in population health, 46 physiological regulatory processes and social status, 55 Piaget’s theory of intelligence, 69 Pianta, R. C., 35, 36 Pierre and Pamela Omidyar Fund, 28 Piotrkowski, C. W., 135, 154 planning Council on Early Education and Care (Massachusetts), 205–6 New York, 205 plasticity, 9, 13, 15, 20–23 See also allostatic load; brain development; stress policy accountability and, 97, 98 alignment of, 193–94 British tax code and goals in, 59 child care and, 32–33 childhood development and, 23 communities system building, 106–8 consumer and practitioner engagement and, 193 family and community resources and, 104 infrastructure and, 87, 96–105 mandatory school attendance, 111n3 maternal employment, and, 33–34 and preschool education, 59 professional educator certification and, 88, 137 public support and, 133 research and, 4–6 support of early care and education, 101 values and, 217 See also early education programs; funding programs; legislation; program evaluation and assessment; school readiness Pollak, S. D., 20, 24, 25

245

polygenic inheritance, 45 population development development and health, 59 direct influences, 45–46 social context, 47–48 See also demographics; development; policy population growth and predictions, Texas, 161–67 positive learning experiences, effects of, 72 postsynaptic neuron, 9 poverty public perception of, 145, 231 as risk factor, 113, 146 Power, C., 43, 63 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1961), 210 prekindergarten. See child advocacy organizations; early education programs; school readiness Prekindergarten Program, Georgia, 100 prekindergarten training requirements, 88, 137 preschool instruction. See early education programs; professional educator development; program evaluation and assessment primary development domain, 68 production of population health and development model, 59–60 professional educator development, 88–90, 137–39, 150, 191 program coordination, 132 program evaluation and assessment, 142, 149 Carolina Abecedarian and, 182–83 early education programs as investments and, 179–82 See also early education programs Project CONTACT (North Carolina), 89 Project IMPACT (North Carolina), 89 Proposition 10 (California), 99 psychostimulants and neuromodulators, 8, 9 See also brain chemistry public health policies, 4 public opinion childhood development and, 220–26 day care and, 215–16 frames and, 218–19 values and, 217 See also frames-based research Puma, M., 185, 188 Qualistar, 91, 92 quality assessment, (Texas), 142

246

Index

Quality Rating Systems (QRS) overview and examples of, 91–92, 191 tax credit or deduction linked to, 209 See also program evaluation and assessment radial glia, 10 See also brain chemistry; brain development Ramey, C., 173, 175 Rapport, D. J., 46, 63 REACH (Rural Economic and Community Health), 42 Reaching for the Stars (Oklahoma), 91 Reese, S. D., 216, 235 reframing research, 228 regulatory systems, 55, 58 Reich, R. B., 217, 237 Rein, M., 217, 237 Reis, H. T., 29 relationships, 29–34 relationships-brain-child-human model, 41–42 See also experience relationships-brain-child-human development model, 41–42 research studies biomedical, 4 Cost, Quality and Outcomes, 119 Strategic Frame Analysis™, 215–16 in stuttering, 5 See also experiments; frames-based research responsive interaction style, 75–79 results-based early education systems, 92–93 revenue (ECED/ECE) child care, 119 expenditure-based federal funds, 197–201 local revenue sources, 202 state revenue sources, 199–201 Reynolds, A. J., 135, 155, 173, 175, 184, 188 Rhode Island (Child Care Facilities Fund), 207 Rich Experiences, Physical Activity Create Healthy Brains, 39 Robertson, D. L., 184, 185, 188 Rogoff, B., 35 Rokeach, M., 217, 235 Romero, M., 55, 64 Roper Starch Worldwide, 219, 235 Rose, G., 45, 49, 63 Rose-Krasnor, L., 36 Rosenfield, David, B., 5, 25

Roskos, K., 140, 155 Rothbart, M. K., 36 Rubin, K. H., 36 Rural Economic and Community Health (REACH), 42 Ryan, S., 139, 155 Samet, J. M., 46, 63 Sanchez, M. M., 37 Sapolsky, R. M., 55, 56, 63, 64 scaffolding, importance of, 75–76, 79 Schon, D. A., 217, 237 school readiness assessment example for, 103 center-based care and, 186 and child directed learning, 79 components of, 69 Kindergarten Teacher Checklist, 121 Programs: Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment (HSSRA), 103; Maryland Model for School Readiness, 94; Office of School Readiness (Georgia), 97; School Readiness Action Plan (Arizona), 103–4; School Readiness Program (Colorado), 97, 107; Smart Start (North Carolina), history of, 113–14; Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), 132 quality rating system (Texas), 143 as a simplifying model, 226 See also early education programs; legislation Schorr, L. B., 117 Schweinhart, L. J., 145, 156, 180, 181, 188 Scott-Little, C., 93, 112 sculpting, brain, 21–23 See also plasticity SEEDS (Commission for the Texas Statewide Early Education and Development System), 143, 144 Seeman, T. E., 55, 64 Select Committee on Public Education, 152, 156 Senate Bill 23 (Texas, 2005), 133, 141, 143 Senate Bill 76 (Texas, 2003), 132, 141, 143 serotonin, 55 See also brain chemistry Shaver, P. R., 29 Shaw, D. S., 37 Shively, C. A., 55, 64 Shonkoff, J. P., 9, 25, 27, 35, 37 simplifying models, 218, 226–27, 230–33 Simpson, A. R., 135, 156

Index single mutant gene disorder, 44–45 sin tax, 99, 200 Smart Start, 113–29 child care settings, 120–21 development of, 115–16 evaluation of, 116–17, 121–22, 124–26 evaluation reports website, 118 social-biological gradient, 55–58 social context description of, 47–48 effect of experiences of inequality in, 58 See also allostatic load; weathering social-emotional development, 20–21, 70–72 social-health gradient, 48–51 social learning situations, 72 social position, 56–58 See also gradient, social-health; weathering Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), 198, 207 social skills and cognitive development, 69 socioeconomic prospects and education, Texas, 169–73 socioeconomic status and health, 49, 53–54 soma, 6, 7, 8 See also neurons somatic mutations, 45 spines, 7 See also neurons SSBG (Social Services Block Grant), 198, 207 standardized assessment instruments, 149 Stanwood, G. D., 9, 25 STARS, Keystone (Pennsylvania), 91–92 Start Early, 101 Starting Strong Institute, 95 Start Right (Rhode Island), 206–7 State Center for Early Childhood Development, 132, 141, 155 state childhood programs. See early education programs; legislation; school readiness Steinburg, D., 4, 25 Stoney, Louise, 98, 112, 189–214 (Ch. 10), 191, 197, 211, 214 Strategic Frame Analysis™, 215–17 stress, 5–6, 55, 56, 58 stuttering, 5 Suomi, S. J., 55, 56–57, 57, 64 synapses definition of, 6, 8 formation of, 10, 11

247

pruning of, 12 See also brain development Szpir, M., 14, 25 TalkBack Testing, 231–33 Tallal, P., 23, 25 TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), 33, 144, 198, 202, 207, 208, 209 See also funding programs Tannenbaum, B., 20, 25 Tarlov, Alvin R., xiii–xx (Preface), 27–39 (Ch. 2), 41–64 (Ch. 3), 131–56 (Ch.7) taxes, 199, 200–202, 209 TDI (temporary disability insurance), 210 T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood Project, 114 teacher-child interaction, 75, 80 teaching strategies, 79–80 TECEC (Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition), 67, 96, 131, 132 Technical Resource Center (Texas), 144 TEEM (Texas Early Education Model), 132, 137, 151 Temple, J. A., 184, 185, 188 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), 33, 144, 198, 202, 207, 208, 209 See also funding programs temporary disability insurance (TDI), 210 Texas demographics, 159–73 diversity, 165–68, 174 education aid formula, 199 financing, 207–8 income, 169–73 population growth, 161–67 Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC), 67, 96, 131, 132 Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), 132, 137, 151 Texas Education Agency, 140, 142 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 150, 156 Texas Population Estimates and Projections Program, 176 Texas Program for Society and Health, 96, 132 Texas School Readiness Certification System (TSRCS), 143 Texas Workforce Commission, 148, 156, 208 Thagard, P., 218, 235 Thelen, Esther, 69 theory of change, 117–26

248

Index

The Texas Plan (TTP) age focus in, 145–46 as blueprint, 132 challenges to implement, 133, 145–50 core components of: administrative oversight, 143–45; assessments, 141–43; funding of, 144–45, 151, 152; learning standards, 139–40; professional standards, 137–39 foundational principles, 134 introduction to, 131 Thomas, D., 185, 187 Thompson, R. A., 35, 38 Time Windows, 77 tobacco settlement funds, 201 Todd, P. M., 235 Townsend, P., 45, 64 toxicological concerns, 46 training requirements, prekindergarten, 88 training standards, educators, 137 transporters and neurotransmitters, 6, 8, 9 See also brain chemistry; brain development United States Department of Education, 122, 129 United Ways of Texas, 133 Universal Financing of Early Care and Education, 196 U.S. Census Bureau, 164, 176 van der Gaag, J., 43, 51, 64 Vasquez, D. M., 55, 56, 62 Vermont Children’s Upstream Project (CUPS), 104 Voices for Illinois Children, 101 vulnerability, cumulative, 54 Waldfogel, J., 38, 173, 175 Wallen, M., 196, 214 Washington State Early Learning and Development Benchmarks, 93–94 Waters, E., 35

Weatherall, D. J., 44, 45, 64 weathering, 54, 56 See also allostatic load; stress websites Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education, 149 Dr. Susan Landry, 67 FrameWorks Institute, 216 Maine Children’s Congress, 193 National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 24n3 National Scientific Council Working Papers, 28 Pennsylvania BUILD initiative, 192 Smart Start evaluation reports, 118 Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition, 67 Weiss, C. H., 117, 124, 128 well-being indicators, 113 West Virginia Family Resource Networks, 104 White, S., 166, 169 Whitebook, M., 119, 128 Winton, P. J., 150, 154 women’s work facilitation, 224 See also frames-based research workforce, teaching, 149–50 Working Paper 1, 28 Working Papers, National Scientific Council, 28 Work Sampling System, 94 Yeung, A. S., 135, 155 You, X., 166, 169 Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships, 29–38 Zetterstrom, C., 15, 25 Zoghbi, H., 7, 25 Zolotor, A., 122