• Pre-K Taskforce
• Pre-K Pilots
• Laying the Foundation
• Expanded Eligibility
• School Funding Formula
• Pre-K For All
• Low- and No-Cost Pre-K Policies

A pre-k taskforce, sometimes called an advisory committee or study group, can be a significant first step toward developing comprehensive policies related to pre-k program delivery and design; these entities can be created either through gubernatorial or legislative action.  In fact, while reauthorizing Head Start in 2007, Congress added a new provision requiring every state to create or designate a state advisory council to better coordinate early education and care services.  Which strategy is best and what the directive should include depends upon the specific needs of the individual state.

Principles for good policy:

• In order for the committee to function well, it should have the right number of people; usually 10-15 is small enough to be manageable, but large enough to bring diverse perspectives to the table.
• The committee must be made up of the right type of people in order to be effective. Business leaders, pre-k providers, parents, the state early childhood specialist, state department of education leaders, human services department leaders, Head Start collaboration coordinators, higher education representatives, K-12 representatives, legislators from each party, and leaders from the child care community should all be considered.
• The committee should have a clear charge with specific questions they should seek to answer.  Their tasks should be neither too narrow nor too broad, and must be accompanied by firm deadlines.
• The committee must have funding for a designated staffer; this person can be from the state agency that handles pre-k or from an outside group or agency. The 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) includes funding for one-time start-up grants for State Advisory Councils. 

Examples:

• 2006 legislation established the Maryland Taskforce on Universal Preschool Education.
• The Illinois General Assembly passed legislation in 2003 to establish the Illinois Early Learning Council. Their final report became the basis for the Illinois Preschool for All Act, passed in early 2006.
• In 2007, the Washington legislature created the Early Learning Advisory Council to “work in conjunction with the Department of Early Learning to develop a statewide early learning plan that crosses systems and sectors to promote alignment of private and public sector actions, objectives, and resources, and to ensure school readiness.”
• In 2008, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed the Pre-Kindergarten Education Act, which charged the Department of Education (RIDE) with planning a pilot program to serve three and four year olds in communities with low-performing schools.  RIDE’s Pre-K Planning Committee, which met six times between September 2008 and January 2009, released its final report in February 2009.  The report provides a framework of recommendations for Rhode Island’s Pre-K Education Demonstration and Expansion Initiative. 

Click here for additional resources on the creation of state advisory councils.  (Link to advisory councils page).

Building a pre-k-for-all system is a big commitment for lawmakers. Given difficult political environments, it can be more practical to start small and establish a high-quality pre-k pilot program that allows the state to begin serving children while working to build support for future expansion.

Principles for good policy:

• Research shows that quality standards are critical to realizing the benefits of pre-k. Therefore, legislation for any pilot program must ensure that the program is high quality.
• Pilot sites should be strategically selected to ensure a sufficiently diverse and large sample of children. Low-performing school districts, as defined by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education law, make a good choice for pilot sites.
• In order to achieve reliable results, the pre-k pilot sites should include a variety of classroom settings, such as schools and community-based programs.
• An adequately funded evaluation conducted by a respected research team with a solid design and adequate time is crucial to accurately measure the pilot's results.

Examples:

• In 2006, the Kansas legislature approved a pre-k pilot program to serve 600 children in six counties and at the Fort Riley military base. The pilot will be evaluated by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) in 2007.
• The Tennessee Pilot Pre-K Program was created in 1998. In 2002, an analysis of first grade standardized test scores found that at-risk students who participated in the pilot performed better than their peers who did not, especially in language and reading comprehension. In fact, participating students performed better than the state average, and pre-k champions have since used these findings to win incremental expansion of the program.

There are many steps to take and pieces to include when building a truly comprehensive early childhood system and as yet, no state has fully realized this vision. However, many states have some of the pieces in place.

Principles for good policy:

• Be strategic. Consider analyzing facilities and capitol outlay to identify where pre-k demand might exceed supply; developing a professional-development plan to phase in new teacher degree requirements; incorporating increases to teacher salaries and benefits; and identifying where within state government to house programs and a governance structure.
• Make sure each piece has the necessary funding.
• Prioritize the pieces and establish a timeline for implementation which sets a five-year limit for phasing in any piece of the system.
• This incremental approach may make it easier to secure bipartisan sponsors from throughout the state and to address differing regional needs. This will help cultivate new legislative champions over time.

Examples:

• The Early Education for All Campaign was launched in 2000 to help gradually lay the foundation for a high-quality system of early education in Massachusetts. By focusing on systems building, state legislators were able to make substantive progress on pre-k, in the face of political resistance that prevented expansion of services. In 2004, legislation was passed that created an independent board and consolidated Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), the first in the nation. In 2005, the legislature approved $20 million in new funding to strengthen the foundation and to support professional development. Another $45 million was approved in 2006, including $4.6 million for pre-k pilot programs and to develop a quality rating system. In 2006, the legislature also passed legislation establishing pre-k for all, but the governor vetoed it. Despite the setback, lawmakers clearly established their intent to proceed with their early education agenda.
• In 2005, New Mexico lawmakers, recognizing the importance of highly qualified teachers, set aside 20 percent of allocated pre-k funds for professional development and higher education scholarships. In 2006, they added $1.5 million in one-time start-up costs for developmentally appropriate equipment and classroom safety improvements; $4 million to plan, design, construct, equip, and furnish pre-k classrooms statewide; and, mandated a study of the feasibility of creating an office of school readiness.
• In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed An Act Concerning School Readiness to establish an Early Childhood Cabinet, raise the minimum qualifications for pre-k teachers with a phase-in deadline of 2015, and provide school facility construction grants for projects that encompass full-day pre-k and kindergarten programs. Lawmakers continue to look at means for expanding and improving their program, with additional changes expected in 2007.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits of pre-k for all children, many states still target pre-k programs to low-income children and children with disabilities. In some cases, because of tight budgets or a complicated political climate, it might be easiest to start with such a program and expand the eligibility restrictions.

Principles for good policy:

• Examine the current political context in your state and focus on what you can win. Your long-term goal may be pre-k for all, but each small success is important.
• Be able to justify expansion of eligibility to a particular group of children. Whether you're targeting three year olds, English language learners, or children living in low-performing school districts, find and use research to support your position.
• Be aware of potential consequences of opening the pre-k statute to amendments. You may not expect anyone to try and further limit the program's availability, but it could happen.
• Analyze and map the data on who is currently getting pre-k and who is not to determine which and where children should be served by the next expansion.
• Build alliances. As you add new categories to your state's definition of eligibility, you're not just creating new opportunities for children but also opportunities for new legislative champions to sponsor the amendments.

Examples:

• In a 2006 special legislative session, Texas amended the state's pre-k eligibility guidelines to include all four-year-old children with parents who are on active duty in the armed forces or an activated member of the National Guard or Reserve or who were killed or wounded in action. Once enrolled, children remain eligible even if the parent leaves active duty.
• The Kentucky Preschool Program was created through legislation in 1990 to serve four year olds at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold and three- and four-year-old children with special needs. After more than a decade at those eligibility levels, in 2006, the Kentucky legislature voted to expand the program to cover all children at 150 percent of the federal poverty threshold and allocated an additional $23.5 million in each year of the biennium (FY07 and 08).

The most effective way to protect and advance state pre-k is to tie funding directly to the popular support for K-12 education spending. By including pre-k in the school funding formula, states guarantee that pre-k will keep pace with any population influx of pre-kindergarteners and funding will only be cut if general education expenditures are diminished.

Principles for good policy:

• Investigate the number of pre-k-age children who are currently not served by pre-k programs in each school district and prepare information for each district about the costs and benefits of pre-k.
• School funding formulas often adjust or weight funding levels based on several factors including a child's "at-risk" status, limited English proficiency, or special needs. Explore all available options to serve the maximum number of children in each district and to provide an adequate level of funding to serve children's unique needs.
• Requirements such as local matches, in-kind donations, and before- and after-care needs can hamper local districts' ability to provide pre-k. Anticipate these challenges and prepare options to support local efforts.
• Educating school superintendents, school board members and elementary principals is crucial to ensuring that this model works. Survey their knowledge and interest around pre-k and provide any and all necessary information to build support and enthusiasm. Then, invite these local pre-k champions to testify to the legislature.

Examples:

• In 1990, Oklahoma legislators approved The Education Reform and Funding Act, moving pre-k funding into the state school funding formula. Subsequent legislation in 1998 allowed all school districts to receive formula funding to serve all four-year-old children regardless of income.
• Nebraska passed legislation in 2005 that allowed high-quality programs that have received three years of state pre-k grant funds to begin receiving pre-k funds through the school funding formula with the 2007-09 biennium, freeing up grant funds for new programs that will also eventually get school funding formula dollars.

Research on brain development continuously shows that pre-k is just as necessary as kindergarten or first grade. Yet, targeted programs often reach only a fraction of the children they seek to serve and often are low quality. Targeting pre-k toward at-risk children creates separate and potentially unequal programs for lower- and upper-income children while failing to address the significant readiness gap between middle- and upper-income children. Finally, NCLB requires schools to ensure that all children perform at high levels by 2014. High-quality pre-k can help schools meet these requirements and offers an opportunity for all children, regardless of socioeconomic status, to start school prepared to succeed. If the political environment in your state is conducive, pre-k for all is the best possible program design.

Principles for good policy:

• By passing legislation or providing vocal support for a ballot measure, state leaders can communicate their strong commitment to pre-k for all.
• Insist on quality services from the beginning. Mandate early learning standards that incorporate the most recent research on early literacy, math, science, and social-emotional development in addition to teacher-child interactions, assessment procedures, classroom environment, and health and safety routines.
• Set state pre-k program standards that are equal across all settings and that address teacher qualifications, group size, and class ratios.
• Raise teacher salaries and benefits to levels similar to those of comparably qualified K-12 teachers.
• Include support for the program to be offered in diverse settings.
• Provide for a professional development plan that includes continuous training and quality-improvement efforts to all pre-k teachers.
• If it's not possible to serve every child in a quality program right away, begin with the most at risk and set a firm timeline for expansion of services to all children.
• Include a timeline for phasing in important quality improvements.

Examples:

• California's Proposition 82 would have established free, part-day pre-k for all California children, expanded the supply and quality of the pre-k workforce, increased the number of facilities, ensured access in a range of settings, and combined local, state, federal, and private funds to finance the program. The program would have been phased in over ten years to allow the state to address the challenges associated with starting a large program. Unfortunately and in spite of widespread voter support for pre-k for all, tax fears led to the measure's defeat. Nevertheless, the initiative featured sound policies and embraced a realistic and realizable implementation timeline, which could serve as models for other states.
• On the last day of West Virginia's 2002 legislative session, a bill was passed that addressed myriad education-related issues. Unbeknownst to early childhood leaders, advocates, and most of the public, the bill also included a provision for all four-year-old children in West Virginia to have access to pre-k by the 2012-13 school year. The bill folds pre-k into the state school funding formula for public schools, and requires county school systems to coordinate their pre-k programs and contracts.

With states facing massive shortfalls, tough decisions must be made to trim budgets and invest dollars where they have the most impact.  Now is the time for governors and legislators to lay the groundwork for pre-k expansion and quality improvements by setting up governance structures and strengthening state early childhood advisory councils.  Here are some smart low- and no-cost actions that policymakers can take during tough budget years. 

• Pass small increases to state pre-k investments to keep up with increases in demand and in the cost of living so that programs do not have to reduce the number of children served. As incomes are stretched thin and unemployment rises, more families are finding themselves eligible for support. Pre-k should be part of a comprehensive array of programs that support children’s success in school while parents are working to make ends meet.
• Make small investments that will enhance comprehensive services, such as effective parent support and screening and referral services, which strengthen pre-k programs and reduce costlier health and other public expenditures down the road.

• Propose statutory or regulatory changes to make disbursement of appropriated funds more flexible and efficient. Reduce restrictions that prevent local school districts from drawing down pre-k funding.  For example, allow funding to support full-day programs in districts that need them.  This would support arguments for maintaining current funding levels and avoid unspent pre-k funds getting redirected to address budget shortfalls.
• Develop and put in statute a multi-year plan for pre-k expansion and quality improvements with funding goals at each step in the process; short- and long-term goals should be accompanied by firm deadlines, and a taskforce or state advisory council should be put in place to monitor progress. 
• Commission research to examine ways to improve the delivery of pre-k programs.  Areas that could be include:

• Facilities and transportation
• Funding and revenue streams
• Improving and aligning components of the professional development system (e.g., teacher preparation, career pathways, QRIS initiatives, etc.)
• Collaboration strategies and resources
• Evaluation and assessment

• Create a state advisory council or taskforce to facilitate collaboration, coordinate the use of federal stimulus and other funds, and propose policy recommendations, as now required by federal Head Start Reauthorization.
• Shift state pre-k investment into states’ school funding formulas, which may lead to better protection for pre-k program spending in future budget downturns.

Examples

• In 2009, Maryland lawmakers passed legislation that would require the Department of Education to develop a business plan for pre-k expansion — including strategies to ensure availability increases across a variety of settings — and present it to the governor by December 1. The legislation, which had no cost attached, was endorsed by the Baltimore Sun.
  
• This year, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland announced plans to reform the P-16 system in his state, laying the groundwork for future investments in early childhood. His budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 establishes a Center for Early Childhood Development within the Department of Education. He has also  charged the state’s Early Childhood Advisory Council with developing a comprehensive system and created an Early Childhood Financing Workgroup to explore a single financing system for early care and education programs.