District of Columbia

Putting the "Quality" into Quality Pre-K

Sara Mead — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:36:00 -0400

If you read this blog regularly, you probably know that quality is critical in early education programs. While high-quality pre-k programs have been shown to produce significant learning gains and long-term benefits for participating children, poor quality programs do not produce such results. Regular readers of this blog will also be familiar with structural factors that are linked to pre-k quality, such as qualified teachers with at least a bachelor's degree and training in how young children learn, or small class sizes and child:adult ratios.

But while these factors are important in creating the conditions in which quality early education can occur, we shouldn't mistake them for quality. True quality in early education programs is something much more complex and nuanced. It's a matter of the interactions that occur between children and adults in early childhood classrooms--the emotional support that teachers provide to children; the richness of language used; the ways in which children are exposed to new ideas, words, and concepts; and ultimately the learning outcomes for children in these programs. Building systems that ensure children benefit from high-quality interactions in pre-k, and supporting pre-k teachers in delivering quality instruction in pre-k settings, is much more complicated than requiring lead pre-k teachers to hold bachelor's degrees (although achieving that goal is challenging enough in its own right).

New America's early education initiative is committed to helping policymakers and practitioners enter into a more nuanced discussion of what it really takes, from a policy perspective, to ensure that all children have access to quality pre-k programs. Last week we hosted a forum on "Putting the 'Quality' into Quality Pre-K." Nationally recognized early childhood researcher Craig Ramey spoke about the features that early education interventions must have in order to produce significant and lasting learning gains for young children, and presented a model for teacher support and professional development to help pre-k teachers deliver high-quality early learning opportunities for young children. Educators working with the D.C. Partnership for Early Literacy, a federally funded initiative that supports evidence-based, high-quality early literacy instruction in 20 preschool classrooms at 3 public charter schools educating primarily low-income 3- and 4-year-olds in Washington, D.C. spoke about their experiences using data to improve the quality of their pre-k programs, as well as how they use a Response to Intervention (RTI) model to prevent children's early learning difficulties from developing into larger problems.

You can see the full video and discussion in the video below.

Yo, Chancellor Rhee! What's Missing from the DCPS Five-Year Plan

Sara Mead — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:29:00 -0500

The holidays have given me some time to finally read through the Five-Year Action Plan for the District of Columbia Public Schools that Chancellor Michelle Rhee released in late October. (Yes, I know, I'm clearly a girl who knows how to have a fun holiday season.) (Yes, I know, I should have gotten to it sooner.)

There's a lot of good stuff in there, but one glaring omission that really troubled me: A total lack of attention to early education. The word "preschool" appears exactly once in the document, as part of a series of early education programs given a passing mention in a section dealing with parental engagement. Pre-kindergarten or early childhood education? Not a mention. Kindergarten? Nope. On the upside, early literacy does get mentioned twice, and Rhee is proposing a solid, research-based approach to early literacy, including increased use of tiered interventions for struggling readers.

Now, I realize that fixing DCPS is a complicated undertaking that involves addressing a whole lot of problems. But to ignored the role of pre-k and kindergarten early education in improving children's performance in DCPS strikes me as a huge mistake. After all, Rhee already has substantial numbers of 4-year-old children enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes within her own school buildings. And the District of Columbia Council recently passed ambitious universal pre-k legislation to expand access to pre-k programs and to improve their quality. That legislation could provide a real opportunity for Rhee to transform the too-often lackluster pre-kindergarten instruction taking place in DCPS and use quality pre-k as the base for building a high-quality system of aligned Pre-k to 3rd education within DCPS elementary schools.

Rhee's plan places an admirable emphasis on improving the quality of not only academic but also social and emotional supports available to students in DCPS schools, and on implementing and aligned curriculum with accompanying instructional supports. But both those reforms should begin at the pre-k and the preschool level, to help ensure that children build a solid base of basic academic and social-emotional skills by the end of third grade.

Moving Towards Universal Pre-k in Washington, D.C.

Christina Satkowski — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:22:00 -0400

Last month, the District of Columbia Council took an important step towards making universal pre-k a reality in the District by passing Pre-Kindergarten Expansion and Enhancement Act. This new, comprehensive legislation seeks to provide pre-k to every 3- and 4- year old in the District whose parents want it by 2014. The legislation is good news for kids and parents in the District of Columbia, but it's just the first step. Now the District faces the even greater challenge of building a high-quality District-wide pre-k system out of the current network of disparate programs providing early education and care in the nation's capital.

Too often when it comes to education, Washington, D.C., finds itself at the bottom of the pack, behind all of the 50 states. But when it comes to early education, the District of Columbia has long been a leader in providing publicly funded pre-k to its children. The District enrolls a higher percentage of its 3-year-olds in publicly funded pre-k than any state in the country, and a higher percentage of 4-year olds than all but three states (Oklahoma, Florida, and Georgia). But despite relatively high enrollments, the advocacy group Pre-K for All estimates that at least 2,000 children whose parents want to enroll them have no access pre-k programs. With 61 percent who qualify for free or reduced price lunch, a risk factor for poor school achievement, there's a real need for high-quality pre-k to prevent children from falling behind before they even start school. Moreover, D.C. delivers pre-k through a patchwork of programs operated by the District of Columbia Public Schools, charter public schools, Head Start, community-based childcare, and the Department of Recreation, and quality varies dramatically across programs, so even many children enrolled in pre-k are not getting the full support they need to be ready to learn in kindergarten.

The new law seeks to expand pre-k access in the District by adding an additional 125 new, high-quality pre-k classrooms by 2014-serving an additional 15 percent of unserved children each year. At the same time, the law seeks to improve the quality of existing pre-k programs, setting a maximum teacher-student ratio (1to 8 for children age 3 and under, 1 to 10 for 4-year olds) and requiring all teachers to have a bachelor's degree by 2017. The law also requires the District's Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) to establish guidelines relating to facilities improvement, parent involvement, and curriculum for pre-k programs by September 1. To help pre-k programs achieve the new standards, the legislation authorizes technical assistance grants, as well as an incentive grant program used to recruit high-quality college graduates to work in Washington, D.C.'s pre-k classrooms.

There's a lot to like about this plan. For one, it takes a systemic approach, seeking to improve quality across all sectors providing publicly funded pre-k in the District, rather than simply tacking an additional program atop the existing patchwork. Second, the law focuses on quantity and quality, to ensure that the investment in increasing pre-k enrollments produces real results. Third, the law allows for a diversity of pre-k providers, including the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), public charter schools, and community-based organizations, including Head Start. This is important to provide parents a choice, and also to foster innovative teaching approaches. Fourth, the program's funding, which comes through the District's uniform per-pupil funding formula, in the same way that DCPS and charter schools receive funding, is much more stable than pre-k funding streams in many states, and should help guard pre-k from the perennial budget chopping block. Fifth, the law stresses accountability, mandating an annual baseline quality assessment and program capacity audit to gage how universal pre-k is progressing. Finally, the law emphasizes that D.C.'s new investment in pre-k is educational, rather than just childcare, by moving oversight of the program from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. The legislation also promoted PK-3 alignment by explicitly requiring OSSE to ensure that standards and teaching practices in the pre-k program are aligned with those for kindergarten through third grade.

As is the case with any complex piece of legislation, this one leaves many questions - especially concerning quality - for OSSE to answer in the coming months. Here are a few things to keep an eye out for:

Alignment - This new legislation gave OSSE responsibility to oversee pre-k programs across an incredibly diverse array of school- and community-based providers. And D.C.'s public education system, where more than one-in-four children attend charter schools, is also incredibly diverse. Aligning PK-3 curricula and teaching practices across such a range of providers, while also respecting their diversity, will be incredibly difficult-but it is doable. OSSE will need to work closely with DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee and the Public Charter School Board, which oversees public charter schools, to develop and implement a PK-3 alignment plan that will straddle pre-k and elementary school and assure that learning continues uninterrupted during these years, while also preserving the individuality of diverse providers.

Assistance Grants / Professional Development - With all programs under a new pre-k umbrella, funding for quality improvement initiatives will come from a single source, the OSSE. Community-based providers and charter schools have expressed concern that this may limit their ability to develop unique curricula and contract with outside organizations for assistance. While the law does not specify exactly how these grants should be used, the criteria used to evaluate grant proposals should respect the diversity of D.C.'s students and pre-k providers, ensure providers have the flexibility to obtain quality services that meet their unique needs, and support innovation and customization while ensuring quality.

Community-Based Organizations - The law sets a target for 25 percent of programs to be operated by community-based organizations (CBOs). This is a completely arbitrary number (it was set as high as 50 percent in an initial draft) that may not match the actual capacity of community-based providers, or the types of pre-k programs that District parents want. The District needs to reconsider this number regularly to make sure it is realistic in the context of D.C.'s pre-k market.

Monitoring - The law calls for two annual assessments, a capacity audit and a baseline quality assessment. These two accountability mechanisms must be both rigorous and comprehensive, including site visits, student progress assessments, and, eventually evidence from longitudinal data systems OSSE is developing to monitor students' progress from pre-k through high school. At the same time, the District needs to make sure that penalties for failing to meet requirements do not unnecessarily restrict the diversity of pre-k providers or weed out programs that otherwise have great potential.

D.C.'s recent universal pre-k investment has tremendous potential and the increased access and quality it provides will benefit thousands of children. This legislation is also an important complement to DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee's efforts to radically improve the D.C. school system. Rhee's job is an incredibly tough one, but it will be easier if children enter DCPS with a strong academic base to build on. Now let's make sure the new pre-k programs actually build that base.

A Good Opportunity (for Research)

Jennifer Cohen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:00:00 -0400

The Department of Education recently released the second year impact evaluation of Washington, D.C.'s Opportunity Scholarship Program. This federally funded program--a fancy name for vouchers--provides randomly selected low-income students living in the District of Columbia a scholarship, or voucher, worth up to $7,500 to attend the private school of their choice. The report has generated response from national and local political figures on both sides of the voucher debate. D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton believes the program should be cut because of school accountability issues, while Council Member Marion Barry supports the program because he believes it increases educational opportunities for D.C.'s children. The fact that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program is up for Congressional reauthorization further intensifies these debates. Beyond the political rigmarole, we at Ed Money Watch believe that the program, and the resulting study, should continue through the full five years to further inform the debate surrounding voucher programs and their impact on academic progress.

The study found no statistically significant difference in math or reading achievement between students who did and did not receive scholarships. While the main finding is not encouraging, the study did find improvements in reading achievement for three subgroups--those who did not attend a low-performing school when they applied for the program, those who had relatively higher pre-program academic performance, and those who applied in the first year of program implementation--that combine to represent 88 percent of participating students. These improvements--roughly a two to four month lead in reading ability over students who did not receive a scholarship--are nothing to scoff at. Additionally, parents whose children participated in the program were more satisfied with the quality and safety of their schools.

These findings are admittedly not particularly compelling. Non-significant findings are rarely a blessing for an experimental program like Opportunity Scholarships. As a result, some politicians, including Norton, are citing the findings as an argument for eliminating the program altogether. It's important to recognize, however, that these are impacts from only the second year of the program. Sea-changes in educational outcomes rarely, if ever, happen over a period of just two years. If all education reform efforts were held to such high standards, very few would make it past the first two years.

Additionally, there is something to be said for substantively significant differences versus statistically significant differences. Statistical significance means that researchers have 95% confidence that differences between outcomes for experimental and control groups are not due simply to chance. The aggregate impacts in this study don't meet that threshold. But while the researchers found no statistically significant gains for scholarship recipients overall, trends do seem to be in the positive direction, and the achievement gains for the three student subgroups described above are meaningful differences in performance.

Despite the study's inconclusive findings, the dispute over the Opportunity Scholarship Program is really about political and ideological controversy surrounding vouchers. Those who support the program believe that vouchers will improve education for all by increasing competition among schools. Those who oppose it take issue with the use of public funds for tuition at private institutions, particularly because private schools are not subject to the same public accountability requirements as public schools. Self interest also plays a role, particularly for the teachers' unions who sense a threat to their hold on the job market.

However, there is another important angle here worth considering. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program is a pilot program connected with a valuable and important evaluation strategy--randomized control trial. This strategy is both rigorous and rare (a political powder keg for the Upward Bound pilot). So, regardless of one's political or ideological stance on vouchers--or whatever you want to call them--stopping the Opportunity Scholarship Program in its tracks is not the answer. Ending the program will only slow the progress of rigorous, scientifically-based research in education.

Eliminating the Opportunity Scholarship program also poses pragmatic problems for D.C.'s public schools. Cutting the program would force an already highly mobile population to reshuffle back into District of Columbia public schools and further disrupt both the students' academic progress and DCPS' reform efforts. This would also be a major blow to families of scholarship recipients who are by and large happy with their chosen schools and believe their children are benefitting from the program.

People who are for vouchers should want to see this program continue to prove that "opportunity scholarships" work and are a valid option for D.C. residents and other districts across the nation. However, for people who are against vouchers, cutting this program short should be the last thing on their mind. What better evidence is there than a truly rigorous randomized control study to prove that this long contested idea is a no-go? In the ongoing debate over school choice and vouchers, it would be nice to have solid evidence to add to the pro or con pile based on a rigorous evaluation of a mature voucher program. As Congress considers these study results and the potential reauthorization of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, the need for solid evidence should prevail over political agendas.

Closing a School, Opening a Door for PK-3

Sara Mead — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Just seven months into her tenure as Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), Michelle Rhee faces a major test over her plan to close 23 underenrolled public schools. After years of enrollment losses to charter school competition and families leaving the District for the suburbs, Washington, D.C. desperately needs to consolidate its school facilities to match capacity to enrollment. But parents and community-members strongly oppose closure of their neighborhood schools. [slideshow]

The case for school closures is typically made in economic terms: excess facilities are a financial drain on the District and underenrolled schools lack the resources to deliver quality educational programs. But school closure--and the resulting restructuring of remaining schools that absorb students, teachers, and in programs from closed buildings--also offers an important opportunity to catalyze reform.

Specifically, Rhee should take advantage of school consolidation to transform DCPS's hodgepodge of early elementary program into a network of PK-3 academies offering children a high-quality, aligned early learning experience. How would this happen? More than half of the schools Rhee has proposed closing are elementary schools. The students they currently serve (as well as teachers currently working in those schools) will transfer to more than a dozen other elementary schools. Making this happen will require significant increases in capacity at new schools; more importantly, Rhee and her team must support principals at the newly expanded schools to build a cohesive faculty united around shared educational goals. A focus on PK-3 reform offers a vision for doing that, and the transition caused by school consolidation provides an opportunity for implementing a PK-3 reform agenda.

What would PK-3 academies entail? Two key elements--universal pre-k for 3- and 4-year-olds and full-day kindergarten--are already in place at many DCPS elementary schools. And legislation currently before the city council could--if key changes are made--help support a PK-3 reform agenda by providing much-needed resources to further expand DCPS pre-k offering to serve all children who need them. PK-3 academies would also offer small class sizes in grades PK-3.

These features are important--but the most important part of a PK-3 reform strategy involves creating communities of practice around coherent and shared expectations for curriculum, instructional practice, and student outcomes in each school that are aligned across all classrooms in a single grade level and from grade to grade so that each new concept builds on students' existing knowledge in an ascending ladder of learning. Such communities must be supported by high-quality, aligned professional development, including observation and feedback that helps teachers improve the quality of their instructional and emotionally-supportive interactions with children, as well as plenty of time for teachers to work and plan together in grade-level and multi-grade teams. School culture and professional development encourages everyone--administrators, teachers, parents, even children--to focus together on a shared outcome goal: grade-level proficiency in core academic subjects by the end of third grade, as well as social and emotional competencies needed for success in school and life.

Creating such communities is hard work. But it's essential if DCPS is to achieve Rhee's lofty goals for its students. A shared PK-3 reform vision, implemented by an effective principal, can be a critical tool in catalyzing schools towards this goal. Further, a strong PK-3 vision can help make the case to parents for how their children will benefit from school closures in tangible ways. And Rhee doesn't have to look far to see examples of this in practice: A PK-3 vision helped turn around Baltimore County's Deep Creek Elementary School, and neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland, has used a PK-3 strategy to boost student achievement in schools serving its most at-risk students.

Rhee and Mayor Adrian Fenty's staff have expressed a desire to use consolidation to create more PK-8 schools in the District, which they believe would do a better job of offering challenging academics and an emotionally and socially supportive environment for kids who currently struggle in the District's too-often abysmal middle schools. But, in creating these schools, Rhee and her staff should pay at least as much attention to the PK-3 side of the equation. That's where children must build the critical skills they need to succeed in the middle grades, so if we don't get reform right there, what kind of building we locate middle grades students in becomes meaningless. Moreover, implementing distinct PK-3 academies within PK-8 schools can help address the concerns of parents who fear mingling their little ones with middle school-aged students.

A host of factors currently at work in the District of Columbia--Council legislation to expand pre-k offerings, school closures, efforts to restructure failing schools, a move towards PK-8 schools to replace troubled middle schools--could potentially catalyze real improvements in early elementary education: but only if Rhee seizes the opportunity to implement an aggressive PK-3 reform agenda.

Testimony Before the D.C. Council on "Pre-K For All' Bill

Sara Mead — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

On January 3, New America Early Education Initiative Director Sara Mead testified before the D.C. Council on the need to improve proposed "Pre-K For All" legislation. The prepared text of her remarks is posted below:

My name is Sara Mead and I am Director of the Early Education Initiative at the New America Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy institute in the District of Columbia that conducts research, develops policy, and provides resources and technical assistance to federal, state, and local policymakers. Universal pre-k, if done well, has real potential to complement the education reforms currently underway in the District and lead to improved student achievement and life outcomes. But, as you have heard many times today, pre-k programs will produce these results only if they are of truly high quality. As the Council considers this legislation, you must be aware that you are not simply funding a program, but working to build a new system of early education for young children in the District of Columbia. How that system is designed—not simply funding or specific classroom quality requirements, but how pre-k providers are recruited, selected, and held accountable—is critical to its long-term ability to deliver high-quality programs and results for children. Unfortunately, the system and quality requirements this legislation proposes are not sufficiently developed to produce high-quality results. This legislation goes too far in mandating one-size-fits all requirements that would burden providers while making minimal, if any, additions to quality, while also being insufficiently stringent on some of the issues that really matter. Let me give you some examples:

Teachers. This bill admirably requires all lead pre-k teachers in public (including charter public) schools and new community-based programs to employ teachers with bachelor’s degrees. This requirement reflects research showing that teacher quality is critical to student learning and greater education is associated with higher quality. However, the legislation goes too far in requiring pre-k teachers to have one of only 3 college majors—an arbitrary requirement that has little research behind it and would exclude many potentially qualified individuals (such as certified kindergarten teachers). Research and common sense show that pre-k teachers who have specialized training, knowledge or experience in educating young children are more effective—but this requirement should be much more broadly defined.
Teacher Pay and Class Sizes. This bill would require all teachers to be paid on a single salary schedule set by ECEA, and mandate a maximum class-size of 16 and adult:child ratio of 1:8. I don’t need to tell you these provisions are expensive, and you have heard from providers today about their concerns with them. These provisions are unnecessarily one-size-fits-all and could ultimately undermine quality by preventing programs from innovating in teacher pay, different staffing structures (such as team teaching), or strategies to “grow their own” supply of high-quality teachers.
Licensure. The bill would require public and public charter schools to be licensed as daycare centers. This requirement is burdensome and duplicates existing oversight by DCPS and the Public Charter School Board.
Accreditation. This bill would require all programs to obtain national certification, most likely from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, by 2014. This is an extremely demanding standard that would also limit parent choice by imposing a particular pedagogical vision—not the only one consistent with quality—on all pre-k programs. It would also dramatically increase the program’s costs.
Professional Development. This bill would specify a single entity as the provider and coordinator of all technical assistance and professional development for pre-k teacher quality in the District. This provision would limit providers’ and teachers’ flexibility to obtain professional development that meets their needs. Building a supply of high-quality pre-k teachers for the District is a tremendous challenge—why hobble ourselves by placing all the responsibility on a single entity when there are many qualified organizations in the District?
The 50% set-aside for community-based programs is arbitrary and problematic.

While this bill is too “one-size-fits-all” on some “quality” indicators, it demands too little on others. Most obviously, lead teachers in existing community-based settings would need to have only a Child Development Associate credential—less than an associate’s degree—and there is no quality requirement for assistant teachers. These requirements are too low for quality. Many community-based providers will need additional time and support to meet high quality requirements—this bill helps provide that. But we should not create a two-tiered system of separate standards for school- and community-based programs, nor should tell parents programs high-quality “Pre-K for All” before they meet standards. I am also concerned that the language currently in Sec. 301 of the bill does not clearly require lead teachers in community-based settings to hold a bachelor’s degree even after 2014.

Even more fundamentally, this bill includes insufficient provisions for ongoing oversight and evaluation of program quality, for assessing child outcomes, or for holding programs accountable for their impacts on children’s learning and lives. This is critical. It is not enough simply to fund pre-k programs for all District 3- and 4-year-olds. We need to know whether they are working. That does not mean NCLB-style accountability, but there are a variety of appropriate ways for assessing program quality and children’s learning on an ongoing basis. This legislation seeks to ensure the quality of pre-k programs it funds. Lgislation can set a floor beyond which programs cannot fall. But there are real limitations on policymakers’ ability to legislate true quality, and efforts to do so often lead to harmful micromanagement. Instead, legislation must create systems and structures that support quality:

A qualified and effective entity charged with recruiting, evaluating, approving, and carrying out ongoing oversight of high-quality pre-k providers;
Systems of accountability and oversight;
Structures and ongoing relationships that link pre-k programs to the K-12 education system.

These elements are largely lacking in the current bill. I, and am sure many of other experts who spoke this morning, would be happy to work with you further to develop outlines for such systems.