Early Ed Watch

We've Moved!

Lisa Guernsey — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:24:00 -0500

As of December 1st, Early Ed Watch has moved, along with the Early Education Initiative and the rest of New America's program pages and blogs. Please find us here at Earlyed.NewAmerica.net and update your bookmarks.

For those of you using RSS, click here for our new feed.

Our bi-weekly email newsletter should continue to arrive as scheduled, every other Tuesday. And if you have not yet subscribed to our newsletter, we'd love to have you. To subscribe, click here and select Early Ed Watch in the newsletter list.

Thanks for bearing with us as we work out some final kinks and try out some new graphics at the new site.

Some Reading for Thanksgiving Break...

Lisa Guernsey — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:05:00 -0500

Early Ed Watch is off this week in honor of Thanksgiving and the genius of pumpkin cheesecake.

If you've got an appetite for early ed news this week, check out these interesting posts from fellow bloggers.

Preschoolers Watch More Than 2 Hours of TV a Day in Many Childcare Settings, (By Paul Nyhan, Birth to Thrive Online)
"Infantalizing Our Kids Into Incompetence," (On Time Magazine's cover story, by Robert Pondiscio, Core Knowledge Blog)
Movies: A War on Kids? Or Just More Scare Tactics? (By Alexander Russo, This Week in Education)

Happy Turkey Day. We'll be back next week.

Photo courtesy of flickr user mtsofan under the Creative Commons license.

Duncan: Early Ed Can Get Schools Out of 'The Catch-Up Business'

Lisa Guernsey — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:37:00 -0500

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presented the fullest picture yet of his vision for a birth-to-8 education system in remarks yesterday at the opening of the annual meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

In a wide-ranging speech that emphasized the importance of "raising the bar" on the quality of early learning environments, Duncan said that early childhood advocates now face two challenges. One, he said, is the need for better transitions and "follow through" between pre-K and the K-12 years. The other is what he sees as a necessary shift in thinking about how to measure quality -- moving from "inputs" like teacher qualifications and child-to-staff ratios to "outcomes" that indicate whether children are developing and learning well.

Duncan praised the NAEYC, the nation's largest membership organization of preschools, child care centers, kindergartens and public elementary schools, for its insistence that to close the achievement gap, we must prevent the gap through high-quality early learning experiences.

"I want our schools to get out of the catch-up business," he said. "To prevent the gap," he continued, "we must be ready to dramatically improve outcomes for our children."

Later in his speech he provided more context for how he might define "outcomes," noting that measures of "school readiness have historically been treated as if they are apart from a child's social and emotional development." Today, he said, "We recognize that a child's ability to engage in self-regulation and cooperative play are critical to school readiness success ... It's time to recognize that they are inextricably linked."

Duncan did not address how those outcomes might be measured and used. Here at Early Ed Watch we see this question as critical and expect to be digging into it over the coming year. We agree that without indicators of children's progress - without measures of "outcomes" - we will never have a full enough picture of how well an early learning environment is meeting their needs.

We also agree with the need for "follow through" into the K-12 years. His remarks regarding the need for "better transitions" were especially encouraging.

"The best early learning system is of little use," he said, if a child ends up in "an inadequate or lousy elementary school." He added: "We cannot diminish the importance of K-12 reform."

As longtime readers of this blog know, we strongly support PreK-3^rd strategies that align curricula, standards and assessments from pre-K to kindergarten and on up through the third grade. Instead of educators focusing on the divide between early childhood community and the K-12 world, children would be far better served by a system that makes no distinctions, providing children with rich instruction, content knowledge and social interactions that are aligned and build on each other throughout each year of their early lives.

Duncan briefly mentioned the prospect of new public funding for early education in the proposed Early Learning Challenge Grants, the Race to the Top initiative and the Investing in Innovation, or i3, Fund. He also spoke about the Education Department's relationship with the Department of Health and Human Services (which administers Head Start). He said he sees a "new sense of partnership" between the two agencies, adding that Jacqueline Jones, senior advisor for early learning in the Ed Department, and Joan Lombardi, deputy assistant secretary of the HHS's Administration for Children and Families, work together daily.

The secretary also gave voice to some of the obstacles to creating high-quality environments by describing what he called the "iron triangle" that affects publicly funded preschools and child care centers. On one side, providers are being asked to open more slots for more children, otherwise known as "increasing access." On another side, providers are being asked to "boost quality," by paying higher salaries that attract more qualified teachers and investing in professional development. And on the third side, they are being asked to cut costs and show savings.

He did not offer step-by-step guidance on how to break free of this iron triangle, but he did commend several states for making progress. He singled out Oklahoma for "showing it's possible" and praised Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey for being leaders in building high-quality early learning systems. He also singled out the Harlem Children Zone and the CLASS observational assessment developed by Robert Pianta at the University of Virginia.

Nor did Duncan's speech answer the toughest questions in early childhood -- such as how to improve teacher compensation, how to do appropriate assessments and how to use assessment data, and where states should look for sustainable funding streams. But he was interrupted by applause throughout his remarks and the audience of thousands -- sitting amid rows and rows of chairs in the cavernous Washington Convention Center -- gave him a standing ovation. As the NAEYC meeting goes into full swing over the next several days it will be interesting to see how preschool teachers digest the many details in his speech. We'll keep our eyes and ears open, and we encourage you in the blog comments below to give us your take on Duncan's vision.

UPDATE 11/19 1:35 PM: The full text of Duncan's remarks is now available on the Ed Dept web site, and J.M. Holland over at Inside Pre-K has posted an audio recording.

ECACs: The Next Step in Systems-Building

Christina Satkowski — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:24:00 -0500

Over the past several months, I have spent a lot of time talking to early childhood stakeholders about collaboration, and today the Early Education Initiative is releasing a policy brief based on that reporting. "The Next Step in Systems-Building: Early Childhood Advisory Councils and Federal Efforts to Promote Policy Alignment in Early Childhood." It provides a status report on all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

You'd think that sharing information and working together nicely would be second nature to leaders in early childhood policy. After all, it is something they teach in kindergarten. But in practice, collaboration -- or more specifically, policy alignment -- is more than just a matter of making sure everyone knows what everyone is doing and playing nicely. It takes hard work.

What makes policy alignment so hard? Government programs serving young children and their families are spread across departments of education, health and welfare. Non-profit organizations and private childcare providers also play a significant role in caring for and improving the lives of young children. The result is a tangled web of avoidable dysfunction. Low-income parents may not know that their children are eligible for Medicaid or Head Start, kindergarten teachers are given no information on the background of their incoming students, providers file redundant paperwork for different agencies, and the list goes on.

In recent years, several states have taken steps to address this issue by bringing policymakers and stakeholders together in early learning councils and having them, as a group, outline aligned policy objectives across multiple fields and ultimately create a high-functioning system of early childhood services. Based on the success of councils places like Illinois and Pennsylvania, Congress mandated that every state designate a State Early Childhood Advisory Council (ECAC) as part of the Head Start Reauthorization passed in December 2007.

After floundering for a year, ECACs are suddenly attracting new attention in Washington and in state capitols. Through the stimulus, ECACs finally received promised funding - ranging from $500,000 to more than $10.6 million per state, depending on size. ECACs also play a central role in the proposed Early Learning Challenge Grants legislation that is expected to be taken up by the Senate in the coming months. ECACs are being positioned to play a major role in early childhood policy, but what do we know about them?

First, the good news: States are making good progress on developing their ECACs, with much of the activity taking place this fall. In fact, many states already had something close to an ECAC in place in 2007 when the Head Start law was reauthorized. These states are being re-energized by the new federal guidelines, which is helping them fine-tune their council's structure and vision, individuals close to the process tell me. Of course, the funding is a big boost too, as many states had no funding at all for their ECACs. More importantly, several states are creating ECACs for the first time, finally bringing together relevant stakeholders to build an early childhood system in their state. (See the report for a state-by-state breakdown of ECAC development and funding). I was especially impressed by those states that were able to get multiple stakeholders together on an email chain or on a conference call with me - having this kind of natural communication network is an important first step.

But don't get your hopes up yet. In many states, the men and women I talked to had a story to tell about similar councils that started a few years back and showed so much promise but became effectively defunct because they lost funding or suffered from turnover in a state's governorship. Most states also receive grants from the five other federal programs that promote early childhood systems-building (such as the Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems Initiative) but these programs have not been a uniform success. In a couple of isolated cases I was told of some real tension (such turf wars) between key individuals or organizations involved in early childhood policy. And sometimes, officials were not well-informed about the roles they are supposed to play. In reporting this paper, I came across people who were obvious potential members for their state's council, even people who are required to be on the council, but who were first hearing about it from me.

This time around, we should see these councils making a greater difference. Because of higher-level membership requirements -- as well as the requirement that the states develop a plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human services -- ECACs are more likely to create a comprehensive system-building plan and will have the right people at the table to make sure it happens. Plus, the federal funding commitments give them a buffer against cyclical state budgets. Yet there is also a risk that ECACs could go the way of the several attempts at policy alignment that came before them. This means those states that are already ahead on the policy alignment front could emerge as winners, in a better position to win competitive federal grants, while those states that are just starting their system-building process could falter once again. Of particular concern is South Dakota, which has officially decided not establish an ECAC due to insufficient state funds.

The convenings, discussions and decisions that will determine the vitality of ECACs are happening right now, and new information about ECACs can be found every week. As states work to finalize their applications for federal ECAC funding by the August 1, 2010 deadline, we have 10 recommendations for state and federal policymakers to make sure that ECACs can live up to their promise to power a vision for effective early childhood systems. Read those recommendations and the full report here.

Department of Education Releases Race to the Top Application

Sara Mead — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:47:00 -0500

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released the application and notice of final priorities for the Race to the Top competition, a $4.35 billion grant program that rewards states that have shown the most commitment to and progress on education reforms to improve student achievement. The final priorities and application reflect a number of changes from a draft the department released in July that drew more than 1,100 comments.

The change of greatest interest to the early education community is probably the addition of a new invitational priority specifically focused on improving early learning outcomes. As we reported previously, a number of RTT commenters, including major associations and several major foundations that invest in early childhood, urged the Education Department to place greater emphasis on early learning in designing the grant program. The addition of the new invitational priority for early learning doesn’t give these groups everything they wanted. An invitational priority means states don’t get any extra points for including early ed in their applications. But it does indicate that the Secretary believes early childhood is an important component of a larger education reform agenda and wants states to include reforms that address or integrate school readiness and linkages between preschool and elementary schools in their RTT applications.

Colorado Lieutenant Governor Barbara O’Brien, who’s been tasked with leading her state’s efforts to secure RTT funding, and is generally regarded as leading the pack on RTT reforms, clearly knows this. She’s been a strong advocate in her state for both early learning and what is often called a “P-20” approach to reform – one that integrates early childhood with K-12 school reform efforts and the elementary years. As other states start working on their RTT applications, they could do worse than follow O’Brien’s lead.

Here at Early Ed Watch, we’ve promoted these kind of linkages as well, often couched in terms of a PreK-3^rd approach – the creation of a seamless system from pre-K up through the early elementary grades. In fact, we see several ways that states could integrate early learning programs and PreK-3^rd reform to address the other RTT selection criteria, as well as ways that states could use the reforms encouraged by RTT to support a PreK-3^rd approach.

For example, take one of the selection criteria: a state’s commitment to turning around the lowest-achieving schools. A growing number of schools and districts, including Union City, N.J. and Montgomery County, Md., have used PreK-3^rd approaches (like comprehensive literacy programs that span pre-K up through 3^rd grade) to dramatically improve results in low-performing, high-poverty schools. States and school districts could make implementation of comprehensive PreK-3^rd reforms an important part of their strategy for turning around low-performing elementary schools, particularly now that these final priorities give districts greater flexibility to implement district-driven “transformational” interventions in these schools.

Requirements to “provide effective, data-informed professional development, coaching, induction, and common planning and collaborative time” for teachers could also support PreK-3^rd alignment and reform. More broadly, states that are serious about improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps will include a variety of policies and steps that support PreK-3^rd reforms in their RTT applications, because providing children with high-quality, seamless PreK-3^rd early learning experiences is essential to driving student learning gains over the long term.

For folks who are following this issue more closely, here are some other key changes in the final RTT priorities:

Creation of a new section at the beginning of the selection criteria in which states are expected to lay out their coherent, coordinated, statewide reform agenda, and provide evidence of buy-in to that agenda from school district in the state, state capacity to implement the agenda, and the ability to significantly improve educational outcomes. Some criteria in this section previously appeared in other sections in the proposed priorities.
Extension of the deadline by which states must commit to adopting new, common K-12 standards, because some states found the previous timeline too short to be feasible. Under the final priorities, states must adopt common standards by August 2, 2010, or demonstrate commitment to doing so at a later date in 2010.
Increased emphasis on use of data at the local level to inform professional development and improve instruction, in addition to the creation of statewide longitudinal student data systems.
Clarification that “teacher effectiveness” should be measured by multiple measures, including, but not limited to, gains in students’ academic achievement over time. Other factors might include high-quality teacher observations. While this change is getting a lot of attention from RTT watchers and the media, it’s not clear whether it’s actually that much of a change. While the proposed guidelines emphasized the importance of linking student performance data to individual teachers and including student achievement in measures of teacher effectiveness, Education Department officials have been publicly saying for some time that multiple measures, including observation, should be used to measure teacher effectiveness.
Increased emphasis on and clarification of points related to professional development and support for teachers and other educators.
A variety of changes related to requirements to turn around low-performing schools. The proposed priorities included four turnaround strategies, but they limited school districts’ ability to use the fourth strategy, “transformation,” other than as a last resort when other, more aggressive models could not be used. That limitation has been lifted, but districts with more than nine persistently low-achieving schools may not use the transformational approach in more than half of their schools. In addition, some provisions relating to creating a hospitable state policy environment for charter schools have been moved from the “turning around lowest-achieving schools” section to the “general” section, to clarify that the Department does not see charter schools as the sole or chief remedy for turning around low-performing schools, but views improving such schools as a competency all districts should have.
Addition of a new criterion inviting states to describe how they allow school districts to operate innovative, autonomous schools other than charter schools.
Expansion of the invitational priority for P-20 coordination, to include not just vertical coordination from early childhood to K-12 and up through higher education, but also horizontal coordination between schools and other agencies and organizations providing comprehensive services for children.

The final priorities have been getting lots of comment, from education policy experts, advocacy groups, and bloggers. Here’s some other coverage and analysis worth reading:

Education Week, “Rules Set for $4 Billion Race to the Top Contest” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/11/11/12stim-race.h29.html
New York Times, “After Criticism, Administration is Praised for Final Rules on Education Grants,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/education/12educ.html?_r=1
Eduwonk, “Racing to the Top” http://www.eduwonk.com/2009/11/racing-to-the-top.html
Education Gadfly, “Evaluating the Race to the Top Final Criteria” http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/11/evaluating-the-race-to-the-top-final-criteria/
Eduflack, “The Race Officially Begins Now” http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/11/11/the-race-officially-begins--now.aspx

Questioning eyeQ

Sara Mead — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:00 -0500

One of our favorite cognitive scientists, Daniel Willingham, is introducing a new recurring feature, "Hall of Shame," on the Washington Post's Answer Sheet blog. His point is to debunk the claims made by the marketers of "educational" products, curricula and technologies that are rooted in flawed "science" -- or none at all.

Willingham's first target is eyeQ, an admittedly odd-sounding software program that claims to double reading speed in two weeks of 7-minute daily sessions, by improving eye-brain connectivity. According to the company that produces eyeQ, more than 750 schools are using the program. Willingham makes short work of its claims.

The coup de grace for me is the website’s claim that the left hemisphere is associated with scientific ability and logic, whereas the right brain is associated with intuition and artistic ability. This cartoon characterization of the brain was discredited 30 years ago.

Read the whole thing here.

The real question we have is: Why do schools fall for educational products, methods, curricula, and professional development programs based on such dubious/sketchy evidence? There are lots of programs out there like eyeQ, and there's also a growing market in "brain based" professional development for teachers, based on concepts -- teaching to the boy brain/girl brain, teaching to the left brain/right brain, teaching to visual/audio/kinetic learning styles -- that Willingham can also explain are hooey. It's particularly troubling that, in many cases, districts use federal Title I or Title II teacher quality funds to buy dubious products and training programs.

While we don't know the answer, here are two thoughts:

First, educators are particularly susceptible to "brain based" approaches based on sketchy evidence, because neuroscience findings have gotten a lot of press attention in recent years, because the presentation of PET scans and MRIs by marketers gives these products a false patina of "science," and most importantly, because most educators themselves have shockingly little real training and education in actual cognitive science. There is often little connection between education schools and university researchers in departments of psychology, and educators' pre-service coursework includes either very little information or outdated research on the science of learning and child development. This is particularly problematic for future teachers in the PreK-3rd years, when it's particularly important that teachers have a solid understanding of children's development.

Second, the selection of these programs reflects the education field's ongoing search for "quick fixes," programs or tools that will magically solve education problems and produce results, as opposed to the less glamorous, and harder, task of improving instruction at a fundamental level. This is true at both the policy and practice levels. Unfortunately, we've spent a lot of time and money in education on silver bullet solutions that don't produce results. Just think what could be accomplished if some of that energy were instead focused on goals like aligning standards, curriculum, and instruction; monitoring student progress; diagnosing causes of failure to master content; and differentiating instruction to help all students succeed -- in other words, PreK-3rd. Such an approach may take more time and money to implement than quick fixes like eyeQ, but we'd bet dollars to donuts the long term return on investment is much greater.

Where's SAFRA?

Sara Mead — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:40:00 -0500

It occurred to us recently that readers might be wondering about the status and outlook for the Student Financial Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) legislation currently pending in Congress that would, among other things, establish a new Early Learning Challenge Grant program to support states in developing comprehensive, statewide birth-to-five early childhood systems. Fortunately, our colleagues at Higher Ed Watch have provided a useful update!

As readers may recall, SAFRA passed the House of Representatives in mid-September. Now the action moves to the Senate--except that there's not much SAFRA action to report there, because the bill, like a lot of other things in Washington these days, is on hold until the Senate comes to resolution on health care reform.

Even though SAFRA includes early childhood provisions, it is primarily a bill to reform the federal student loan program (hence its name), with early childhood reaping some of the benefits of the savings those reforms produce. These student loan reforms are more controversial, and face greater opposition, in the Senate than in the House, and as a result some early childhood advocates have become concerned about the oulook for Early Learning Challenge Grants. But, as our colleagues at Higher Ed Watch clearly explain, reform is coming to the student loan programs, whether student loan industry officials like it or not. And Early Learning Challenge Grants are along for the ride. That said, given the ongoing debate over health care reform, the wait for SAFRA's eventual passage will likely continue for a while--certainly longer than we expected when it was introduced in July.

Readers who are interested in more closely following the debate over SAFRA's student loan reforms should consider adding our sibling blog, Higher Ed Watch, to their RSS readers. And if you're following the health care reform debate, our colleagues at New Health Dialogue should also be required reading.

Comprehensive Literacy Legislation Introduced in Senate

Sara Mead — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:00 -0500

Last week, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced the Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN) Act, a comprehensive literacy bill designed to overhaul the federal role in supporting literacy from preschool through high school. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

This bill addresses the important need to reestablish a federal role in supporting early literacy, following the elimination of funding for the Reading First program. It also takes important steps to support adolescent literacy. But we worry that it shifts the focus of federal literacy efforts too much towards the middle and high school years, at the expense of critical PreK-3^rd years, which build a foundation for all of children’s later literacy learning.

The LEARN act authorizes new federal literacy programs to replace both existing federal literacy investments—Even Start, Early Reading First, and Striving Readers—and the Reading First program, which Congress defunded last year. In that respect, it’s much needed. Supporting literacy development has been an important federal education priority, backed up with dollars, through the previous two administrations. The elimination of Reading First funding in fiscal year 2009, following large cuts in 2008, cut off an important source of funds for reading programs in low-income elementary schools, leaving many scrambling to figure out how to continue this important work during tight economic times.

The LEARN act would provide grants to states to develop and implement comprehensive state literacy plans, from early childhood through high school. The act authorizes both one-year planning grants, to support states in developing their literacy plans, and five-year implementation grants. States that receive implementation grants would be required to spend 90 percent of those funds on subgrants to local entities—school districts, early childhood programs and nonprofits. Funds would be awarded on a competitive basis, with priority for grantees serving high numbers of poor children, children who are struggling in reading, and school districts with high numbers of schools identified for school improvement under ESEA. States would have to direct 10 percent of the subgrant funds to early childhood (birth to 5) literacy initiatives, 40 percent to literacy programs in kindergarten through fifth grade, and 40 percent to programs in middle and high school. States could use the remaining 10 percent to conduct statewide activities to support literacy.

While Early Ed Watch is pleased to see legislation promoting a federal role and funding for literacy programs, and there are a number of things we like about this bill, there are also aspects we feel could be improved.

First, what we like: We especially like that the LEARN Act places a strong emphasis on writing as an important component of literacy alongside reading. The ability to write well is increasingly important in our information-based economy, yet too many of our students fail to master that skill. Schools should integrate writing into the curriculum from an early age—even before children can truly “write.” Many of the schools that are most effective at promoting literacy across the PreK-3^rd spectrum have adopted this practice.

The bill emphasizes integrating literacy across the content areas and using diverse and varied texts. That we like too.

We also think it’s important that the bill maintains a focus on things that were working well in Reading First—the five essential components of literacy instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension); the use of appropriate screening, diagnostic, and formative assessments to track students’ reading progress and inform instruction; high-quality professional development; and additional support for struggling students.

And we are particularly pleased with provisions requiring states to conduct an audit of pre-service teacher coursework to ensure that future teachers are getting the training they need to provide effective literacy instruction to children—something all too many teacher training programs still do not do, despite the strong body of evidence that exists on effective reading instruction.

That said, we have some concerns as well. It’s unfortunate that, even as a growing number of school districts and states are building seamless PreK-3^rd early literacy experiences for young children, this bill still resorts to the same old silos—separate grants for birth to age five, K-5, and middle/high school literacy initiatives—rather than encouraging PreK-3^rd integration. That said, there are a number of simple ways that Congress could strengthen the bill to better support PreK-3^rd alignment, and abundant opportunities to do so before this bill becomes law. Even in its current form, states and school districts could use the LEARN Act’s programs and funding to promote Prek-3^rd alignment—they’d just have to think a bit creatively about how to do so.

While we recognize the need to invest more in adolescent literacy, we also question the wisdom of devoting the same amount of funding to middle and high school literacy as to elementary schools. The PreK-3^rd years are the crucial time when children develop foundational early literacy skills on which all their future learning rests, and it’s far cheaper to provide the support students need to achieve reading proficiency by third grade than it is to provide remediation later. Given the critical importance of those years for reading, we would argue for investing a larger share of the resources in early childhood and elementary literacy efforts.

Of course, how much literacy funding will be available for any grade level depends on how much Congress decides to appropriate for the LEARN Act’s programs. The bill would authorize $2.35 billion in funding annually for literacy. But that doesn’t mean that much money will actually materialize. Authorizations only provide a ceiling on how much Congress can spend for a program. The actual funding levels will be determined each year by the Congressional appropriations committees. And right now the total appropriation for literacy programs in both the House and Senate appropriations bills is an order of magnitude lower than the LEARN Act’s authorization levels--$274 million in the House and $263 million in the Senate. In many ways, the real proof of Congress’ commitment to literacy is not this bill, but how much they spend on it going forward.

Congress, with health care reform and the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act already on its plate, will probably not act on the LEARN Act this year. Rather, the legislation will probably be incorporated into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as No Child Left Behind), which Congress is expected to take up next year. Stay tuned for more in the months ahead.

House OK's Home Visitation as Part of Health Care Overhaul

Lisa Guernsey — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:46:00 -0500

The health care bill that the U.S. House of Representatives passed this Saturday includes a program that early childhood advocates should feel good about: It includes funding for voluntary home visitation programs. The bill authorizes a five-year, $750 million grant program to help states develop in-home services to help pregnant women and mothers of very young children.

We provided details on this legislation when the health-care bill started to take shape in the House. To learn more, see our July 29th post, "Fate of Home Visitation Program is Tied to Health Reform Bill."

As the Senate starts to debate its own bill, we'll be watching to see if home visitation remains part of the picture. It looks promising. The version passed by the Senate Finance Committee includes several differences -- for example, it doubles the funding to $1.5 billion over five years -- but for the most part embraces the same ideas. We've noted recently that research questions remain on how to create the most effective programs, but the approach in general has attracted bi-partisan support. The granddaddy of home visitation programs, the Nurse-Family Partnership, has produced sound evidence of reducing child abuse and neglect, improving children's health and safety, helping parents to be more responsive to their children and reducing harsh parenting tactics. And other programs, like Early Head Start and the Healthy Families program in Alaska, have been linked to improved cognitive outcomes for young children.

Early Ed for “The Safety of Our Country”

Lisa Guernsey — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:41:00 -0500

A report last week from a new group called Mission: Readiness featured a very troubling statistic: 75 percent of young Americans cannot join the U.S. military because they are too poorly educated, have a criminal record or are overweight.

But here's a promising development to go along with that startling data: The report goes straight to the heart of the problem, explaining that the solution is to ensure that all children receive a high-quality early education. In fact, the report puts early education its sub-head.

The title is, "Ready, Willing, and Unable to Serve: 75 Percent of Young Adults Cannot Join the Military; Early Education Across America is Needed to Ensure National Security."

Eighty-nine retired military leaders, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed the report. They have come together to form Mission: Readiness, a non-profit, bi-partisan organization dedicated to supporting public investments in early childhood programs as a matter of national security.

In their words:

"The safety of our country demands urgent and intelligent action. We call on all policymakers to ensure America's national security by supporting interventions that will prepare young people for a life of military service and productive citizenship; this includes fully funding early childhood education programs, improving graduation rates, supporting families in ways that improve parenting skills and reduce child abuse, improving child health, mental health and nutrition services, and helping troubled kids get back on track."

In its "Next Steps" section, the report hails Oklahoma for its pre-K program, and points out that "Head Start serves less than half of all eligible children," and Early Head Start serves far fewer than that.

But the report doesn't simply urge the opening of more pre-K programs for 4-year-olds. It includes examples of birth-to-5 strategies and stresses how important it is to deliver high-quality programs -- both of which are approaches that we fully support as well.

The only piece missing from the military leaders' assessment is an acknowledgment that school readiness by age 5 is not the end-all, be-all either. It will take high quality early education programs that push up through the primary grades, maintaining the momentum of the gains made in children's preschool years. The faster we start focusing on that, the more likely the chances that our country can not only pull itself out of the military-recruitment morass but also improve the quality of life that these children will lead no matter what career path they choose.