Category Archives: Resource

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: Power to the Profession Task Force’s Decision Cycles 3-5

Posted on by

Unifying and strengthening the early childhood workforce may be the single most important step towards closing the opportunity/achievement gap. The Foundation for Child Development has committed its energies and resources towards professionalization of the early childhood field, improving the quality of professional practice, and enhancing early childhood teacher preparation.

In 2000, the National Research Council’s Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers report and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) From Neurons to Neighborhood: The Science of Early Childhood Development report gave the early childhood field its scientific foundation and the standards for high-quality teacher preparation. We also support the long-term vision and teacher competencies proposed by the 2015 IOM report, Transforming the Workforce for Children from Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. Moving forward, the Foundation has positioned the research base and recommendations from these landmark reports at the center of our 100-plus years of funding research into the care and education that all children need for a strong start in life.

The Foundation’s support of Power to Profession was spurred by the 2015 IOM report and the vision it articulated. We acknowledge both the importance and difficulty of asking the initiative’s Task Force to do what has never been accomplished in the early childhood field: Envision a unified, diverse, well-prepared, appropriately compensated workforce and determine the competencies and qualifications early childhood professionals must have at every level of practice in order to guarantee that all children have equal access to high-quality early care and education. Recognizing that increasing competencies and qualifications among a diverse workforce would require an equitable pathway for professional development, and the compensation that must come with it, the Foundation also funded the 2018 National Academies’ Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education report that outlines a financing framework and funding strategy based on increased competencies while also retaining diversity in our workforce.

Therefore, we view Power to the Profession’s work as framed by these seminal reports, which emphasized what works for all children and developed a vision that demands equal access to high-quality care and education, access that begins each day in the arms of qualified professionals across every community, not just for those who can afford the best for their children.

THE TASK FORCE’S PURPOSE.

The work of the initiative’s Task Force is an opportunity for social and systemic transformation that cannot be squandered. It is within this context that we strongly believe that the draft recommendations in Decision Cycles 3-5 fail to seize the moment to look beyond the systemic and fiscal constraints of the present. Instead, we urge the Task Force to envision what could be and embrace what educators do best by setting higher professional standards that lead all children to better school and life outcomes.

The question today is not whether quality early childhood education works, but rather how we can make it work for all children and for all early childhood educators.

Much has been done over the past decade to convince policymakers and the public of a fundamental truth: High-quality early care and education is the vehicle of social mobility, the accelerator of better education, health, social, and economic outcomes for children and our nation.

Our charge is to close the opportunity gap that too many children and families in our society experience due to lack of access to quality early care and education. The reality is that children in the greatest need deserve early care and education provided by professionals with the highest qualifications — yet they are least likely to get them. A diverse group of competent, qualified, and fairly compensated early childhood professionals, working in every community, is a force that can eliminate the gap and lift an entire generation out of poverty to make sure that each child — regardless of the zip code in which they live — has a clear path to their full potential.

We must see the early childhood workforce as the engine of positive social and economic change that it can be. We cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We cannot be so constrained by the present realities that we cannot envision a new and better reality for children, families, and the profession of early childhood educators.

The time is now. Parents, stretched to the breaking point between their aspirations for their children and what they can afford to provide, demand something better. That demand can be harnessed to drive greater public investment, but only if early childhood educators leverage the trust that parents have in their work and their professional knowledge and skill. We have a golden opportunity to deliver a vision of and transition towards a professional structure that elevates a diverse workforce while providing uniform access to high-quality care and education for all children.

The Task Force’s vision, as currently drafted in Decision Cycles 3-5, will fail to accomplish these big but necessary goals.

We cannot have progress without change. The draft document settles for the low bar of the status quo — which further perpetuates the reality that both the quality of children’s early childhood experiences and the compensation for early childhood professionals are highly dependent on the settings in which they are enrolled or work.

In its current form, the document does not describe a clear strategy to incentivize and facilitate upward mobility across professional roles in the profession. It does not provide specific individual competencies that would describe what early childhood professionals should know and be able to do across professional roles. Nor does the current iteration of the document ensure that all children and families have access to competent professionals across all settings at every stage of early childhood education and care.

DECISION CYCLES 3-5 SET THE BAR TOO LOW…

For more: https://www.fcd-us.org/power-to-the-profession/

Source: Foundation for Child Development

New Study Brings Insight into Parental Choices in Early Education

Posted on by
By Aaron Loewenberg
APRIL 4, 2018

Over the past several decades, the number of young children enrolled in formal, center-based early childhood education, which can include Head Start, state-funded pre-K, and private child care programs, has grown dramatically. For example, while only 23 percent of four-year-olds were enrolled in formal early learning programs in 1968, that number increased to 65 percent in 2000 and 70 percent in 2012. State-funded pre-K programs now exist in 43 states and serve 1.5 million children, an all-time high, including 32 percent of the nation’s four-year-olds.

Growth in this sector has led to a heightened urgency in understanding why parents choose certain education settings over others for their children. Already, there have been a large number of studies examining which families choose to enroll their children in center-based early learning programs as opposed to home-based settings. However, there is a surprising lack of research available about how parents make decisions about choosing among options within the formal sector of Head Start, state-funded pre-K, and private child care programs.

It’s important to understand how and why parents choose one type of center-based care over others because the type of program chosen can have an impact on overall child and family well-being. For example, Head Start and state-funded pre-K programs have generally been shown to be of higher quality than private child care centers, likely because these programs face more stringent regulations than private centers. However, there are benefits to private centers that often lead families to choose them, such as the fact that they generally offer longer, more flexible hours that are attractive to working parents. As states increasingly look to help parents navigate the wide variety of early education choices available to them, it’s important to gain a better understanding of what parents look for in a provider and how they go about searching for an ideal fit for their needs.

In a new study, researchers from the University of Virginia attempt to fill the research gap about how low-income parents make choices within the formal early education sector. The researchers selected 80 early education programs that primarily served four-year-olds across five Louisiana parishes (counties) during the 2014-2015 school year. Researchers included programs to participate if they received some public funding, meaning Head Start, state pre-K, and private child care centers that received subsidies were included. Within each program, one classroom was randomly selected and parents of enrolled students were asked to respond to surveys about various aspects of their search for an early learning program. In all, about 1,300 low-income parents completed the survey.

Overall, the survey responses suggest that parents had similar views about what aspects of a program are most important, regardless of which setting their child was in, but they reported vastly different experiences about the search for a program itself.

Parents across all three types of settings agreed that the following features are the most important when selecting an early education program: that the program builds academic skills, offers a clean and safe environment, and provides teachers who respond warmly to children. Parents weighed these features as more important than more practical considerations, such as the convenience of the program’s hours and even its affordability.

But it’s in the search process itself where the researchers observed meaningful differences by setting. For example, parents seeking private child care were over three times as likely to use ads or the internet to aid them in their search compared to Head Start and state pre-K parents. Perhaps most importantly, child care parents searched more, considered more alternatives, and found the search process more difficult than other parents. Child care parents were also less likely to report that they enrolled in their top choice compared to other parents surveyed.

Why is the search process more difficult for parents who choose private child care? The survey didn’t allow the researchers to answer this question, but they do offer a few possible explanations. It could be that child care parents had more limited options as a result of having income that was slightly too high to qualify for Head Start or state pre-K. It’s also possible that child care parents were eligible and did apply for Head Start or state pre-K, but were turned away due to limited supply and had to continue in their search.

The report acknowledges that more research is needed to better understand why families in child care settings found their search more challenging, but the researchers say that one place policymakers could look to for lessening the burden for parents is a state’s Quality Rating and Improvement System. The researchers suggest that refined QRIS’s that offer parents streamlined, easy-to-understand information about early education programs in their area are likely to facilitate better and easier decision-making on the part of parents. For example, Louisiana recently unveiled an online tool that provides parents with performance profiles for early education programs.

The fact that child care parents found the search process difficult and were less likely to enroll in their top choice is significant. Due to the substantial increase in funding for CCDBG included in the recent budget agreement, the Center for Law and Social Policy estimates over 150,000 additional children will receive child care subsidies to be used at child care centers. While this expansion of access to care and education is welcome news, it also means a large increase in the number of parents engaged in the search for a quality program. Understanding parents’ motivations and frustrations can help programs and policymakers provide information necessary to ease the burdens on parents searching for a quality early education program.

Source: New America

Available at: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/new-study-brings-insight-parental-choices-early-education/

National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day

Posted on by

 

Thursday, May 10, 2018

National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day is Thursday, May 10, 2018! This annual event raises awareness about the importance of children’s mental health and its impact on their healthy development.

Mental Health and Head Start

Early childhood mental health is a child’s growing capacity to experience, regulate, and express emotions. For children birth to 5 years of age, early childhood mental health is the same as social and emotional development. Head Start and Early Head Start have a long-standing partnership with mental health consultants and community professionals to promote the well-being of children, families, and staff in the program.

Awareness Day 2018

The national theme for Awareness Day 2018 is Partnering for Health and Hope Following Trauma. It will focus on the importance of an integrated approach to caring for the mental health needs of children and families who have experienced trauma. The Office of Head Start and the Office of Child Care will highlight best practices that support resilience for this year’s Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day. Look for more details about opportunities to participate in the coming weeks.

More than 1,100 communities and 160 national collaborating organizations and federal programs will organize local Awareness Day activities and events around the country. Learn more about Awareness Day 2018 and how you and your community can get involved at https://www.samhsa.gov/children/awareness-day/2018.

Interested in planning an awareness day event at your program? Read about activities that communities across the country held for National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day 2017 at https://www.samhsa.gov/children/awareness-day/2017/activities.

The Perils of Confusing Performance Measurement with Program Evaluation

Posted on by

A group of researchers recently published a paper critiquing the child outcomes performance indicator for Part C and Part B 619. They also presented some of their thoughts in a recent webinar sponsored by the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD). The researchers’ critique is based on several faulty assumptions and consequently unfairly discredits the system for measuring child outcomes and the use of the data. Let’s look at our concerns with their critique.

First, the authors have confused performance measurement with program evaluation.

Their primary argument is that the child outcomes measurement requirement produces misleading information because it is based on a flawed evaluation design. The researchers’ critique wrongly assumes that the child outcomes indicator is designed as an evaluation. The child outcomes measurement is not a program evaluation; it is one performance indicator embedded within a larger performance measurement system that is required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). States report on a number of performance indicators that address compliance with federal regulations and program results. As such, these indicators yield information that supports program improvement and ongoing monitoring of program performance. Performance measurement systems are common in both the public (for example, Maternal and Child Health) and the private sector (for example, the Pew framework for home visiting). The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) implemented the child outcomes indicator in response to the Government Performance and Results Act which requires all federal agencies report on results being achieved by their programs. OSEP also uses the child outcomes indicator data to monitor states on results achieved, consistent with the strong emphasis in IDEA to improve results for children with disabilities.

The Government Accounting Office has produced a succinct summary that highlights some of the differences between the performance measurement and program evaluation. Performance measurement refers to ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments. Performance measures may address program activities, services and products, or results. The OSEP child outcomes indicator is a performance measure that addresses results. Examples of other results performance measures are teen pregnancy rates, percentage of babies born at low birth weight, 3rd grade reading scores, and high school graduation rates. In contrast, program evaluationsare periodic or one time studies usually conducted by experts external to the program and involve a more in depth look at a program’s performance. Impact evaluations are a particular type of program evaluation that determine the effect of a program by comparing the outcomes of program participation to what would have happened had the program not been provided.

Performance Measurement Compared to Program Evaluation

Feature Performance Measurement Program Evaluation
Data collected on a regular basis, e.g.,  annually Yes No
Usually conducted by experts to answer a specific question at a single point in time No Yes
Provides information about a program’s performance relative to targets or goals Yes Possibly
Provides ongoing information for program improvement Yes No
Can conclude unequivocally that the results observed were caused by the program No Yes, if well designed impact evaluation
Typically quite costly No Yes

A major difference between measuring outcomes in a performance measure system versus a program evaluation is that a well-designed impact evaluation is able to conclude unequivocally that the results observed were caused by the program. Performance measures cannot rule out alternative explanations for the results observed. Nevertheless, performance measurement data can be used for a variety of purposes including accountability, monitoring performance, and program improvement. Data on performance measures such as the Part C and Part B Section 619 child outcomes indicator can be used to track performance compared to a target or to compare results from one year to the next within programs or states. They can be used to identify state or local programs that could benefit from additional support to achieve better results. Comparing outcomes across states or programs should be done with an awareness that they might serve different population which could contribute to different outcomes. The solution to this is not to conclude that results data are useless or misleading but rather to interpret the results alongside other critical pieces of information such as the performance of children at entry to the program or the nature of the services received. Two of OSEP’s technical assistance centers, the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy) and the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA, have developed a variety of resources to support states in analyzing child outcomes data including looking at outcomes for subgroups to further understand what is contributing to the results observed. Just like tracking 3rd grade reading scores or the percentage of infants who are low birth weight, there is tremendous value in knowing how young children with disabilities are doing across programs and year after year.

Second, the authors incorrectly maintain that children who did not receive Part C services would show the same results on the child outcomes indicator as children who did.

The researchers’ claim that the results states are reporting to OSEP would be achieved even if no services had been provided rests on a flawed analysis of the ECLS-B data, a longitudinal study of children born in 2001. For their analysis, the authors identify a group of 24 months olds in the data set who they label as “Part C eligible children who did not receive Part C services.” These children

  • Received a low score on a shortened version of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (27 items) administered at 9 months of age by a field data collector; and
  • Were reported by a parent when the child was 24 months old as not having received services to help with the child’s special needs.

Few would argue that the determination of eligibility for Part C could be replicated by a 27-item assessment administered by someone unfamiliar with infants and toddlers with disabilities. Furthermore, data from the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study show that very few children are identified as eligible for Part C based on developmental delay at 9 months of age. The first problem with the analysis is assuming all of these children would have been Part C eligible. The second problem is that it is impossible in this data set to reliably identify which children did and did not receive Part C services. Parents were asked a series of questions about services in general; they were not asked about Part C services. As we and others who have worked with national data collections have learned, parents are not good reporters of program participation for a variety of reasons. The only way to confirm participation in Part C services is to verify program participation which the study did not do. Given that children who received Part C services cannot be identified in the ECLS-B data, no one should be making conclusions about Part C participation based on this data set.

The authors also argue that a measurement phenomenon called “regression to the mean” explains why Part C and Part B 619 children showed improved performance after program participation. In essence this argument says that improvements seen in the functioning of the children are not real changes but are actually due to measurement error. One can acknowledge the reality of errors in assessment results but to maintain that measurement error is the sole or even a major explanation for the progress shown by children in Part C and Part B 619 programs is absurd.

Moving Forward

State Part C and 619 programs are required by IDEA to report on multiple performance indicators including child outcomes as part of a larger performance measurement system. The child outcomes indicator was developed with extensive stakeholder input in order to maximize its utility to local programs, state agencies, and the federal government. The process of building the infrastructure needed to collect and use child outcomes data has been complex which is why states have been working on it for over ten years. State agencies continue to identify and implement strategies for improving the data collection and use of the data. We know that the data collection processes are not perfect and more work needs to be undertaken to address data quality and other concerns. Building a national system for measuring the outcomes for young children with disabilities receiving IDEA services is a long-term undertaking that requires ongoing effort to make the process better. Disparaging the performance indicator and the data reported by states based on incorrect assumptions and flawed analyses is not productive. Instead, the field needs to collectively engage in ongoing dialogue around critical issues of data quality, data analysis, and appropriate use of the data based on an informed understanding of what the child outcomes indicator is and is not. Part C and Part B 619 state agencies and OSEP are on the forefront of collecting and using early childhood outcomes data to improve programs – which is exactly what performance measurement is intended to do.

Source: DaSy: The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems

Available at: http://dasycenter.org/the-perils-of-confusing-performance-measurement-with-program-evaluation/ 

Nemours looking to partner with ECE/Childhood Obesity Organization to test ECELC revised Toolkit

Posted on by

Nemours Children’s Health System is pleased to announce a search to fund an organization to test an Early Care and Education Learning Collaborative (ECELC) Toolkit beginning October 1, 2017.  The ECELC Toolkit will guide a state/community through developing and implementing a childhood obesity learning collaborative for early care and education (ECE) providers.  For additional information regarding Nemours National ECE Learning Collaborative model, please visit https://healthykidshealthyfuture.org/about-ecelc/.

Nemours’ National ECELC is an evidenced informed model that, with funding from CDC, has reached over 1,670 early care and education programs and over 170,000 children nationally over the past five years.  As childhood obesity prevention efforts in the United States continue, policy and practice based interventions to promote healthy eating and physical activity best practices help shape healthier environments for children attending early care and education programs.  Over the past five years, early care and education programs participating in Nemours ECELC have improved healthy environments in their programs and continue to implement healthy eating and physical activity best practices.  Through self-assessment tools, we have learned, the ECELC model contributes to increases in child nutrition, physical activity, breastfeeding support, outdoor play and learning, and screen time best practices and healthy policy changes in early child care and education programs across the country.[1]

The ECELC model has been implemented with large grants to public and private partners and technical assistance from Nemours and CDC.  As part of the project, Nemours has developed an off-the-shelf ECELC Toolkit to guide organizations on how to run a learning collaborative for ECE providers focused on childhood obesity prevention. Nemours is seeking a partner organization to test whether the model can be implemented with limited technical assistance using the ECELC Toolkit and a small amount of funding.  The ECELC Toolkit can provide a tremendous opportunity for an organization to build upon their current professional development repertoire for early care and education programs in a targeted community.  As an added bonus, all training materials and resources are provided at no additional costs to the partner organization!   Piloting the ECELC Toolkit before full dissemination will allow Nemours and CDC to enhance the content and supportive resources with key information to ensure success of learning collaborative(s) launched by other organizations.

The selected organization will collaborate with Nemours beginning October 1, 2017 through September 2018.

The selected partner organization will receive the user-friendly Nemours ECELC Toolkit manual, all training materials and resources online, limited technical assistance support, and a small amount of funding from Nemours.  The partner organization will provide a designated staff member for the project, funding to support the project needs beyond the Nemours grant, and participate in a formal evaluation process.

An informational webinar is scheduled for Monday, August 21, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET to provide potential partner organizations information regarding Nemours ECELC Toolkit project and application process.  For questions or to register for the webinar, please contact, Content Specialist Kevin Cataldo at kevin.cataldo@nemours.org.

Nemours Children’s Health System is committed to improving the health of children.  As a nonprofit children’s health organization, we consider the health of every child to be a sacred trust.  Through family-centered care in our children’s hospitals and clinics in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida, as well as world-changing research, education and advocacy, Nemours fulfills the promise of a healthier tomorrow for all children – even those who may never enter our doors.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Smith TM, Blaser C, Geno Rasmussen C, Shuell J, Plumlee C, Yaroch AL. Assessment of nutrition and physical activity practices using self-report and observation in early care and education across multiple US states. Public Health Nutrition. March 2017:1-7. doi:10.1017/S1368980017000155.

 

Smith, T. M., Blaser, C., Geno Rasmussen, C., Shuell, J., Plumlee, C., Gargano, T., & Yaroch, A. L. (In Press). Real world implementation of a project aimed to improve nutrition and physical activity policies and practices in early care and education. Preventing Chronic Disease.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Promoting Social and Emotional Development: Four New Resources for Communities and Families with Young Children

Posted on by

January 18, 2017

By Kara Dukakis, Libby Doggett, and Shantel E. Meek

All children are born with the need and desire to connect with those around them. Neuroscience tells us that brain development unfolds rapidly in the first three years of life, and that social and emotional development begins in the earliest days of life. When children feel secure in their relationships and have their needs met in responsive and consistent ways, they begin forming a strong social and emotional foundation. They begin to learn to pay attention, regulate their emotions and behavior, express feelings, and overcome challenges successfully. All of these skills contribute to healthy social and emotional development.

The way in which children experience and manage their feelings and emotions depends a great deal on the relationship with their primary caregiver(s) and other important adults in their lives. The environments where children spend their time – whether at home or in an early learning setting – also affect children’s social and emotional development. Social and emotional development involves several inter-related areas, including social interaction, emotional awareness, and self-regulation.[1]

Social and emotional and cognitive development are interwoven from birth and unfold together. Unsurprisingly, social and emotional development is also closely intertwined with academic success. Learning- especially in the earliest years of life- is inherently a social process. Children learn through and with the adults in their lives. A large body of research shows that children with a strong social and emotional foundation demonstrate stronger academic achievement, are more likely to graduate high school, go to college, and fare better on overall wellness and other positive long-term outcomes.[2] Positive social and emotional development carries important benefits for all children, including young children with developmental delays or disabilities.

Many parents and caregivers, as well as teachers and early learning providers, are eager for information and resources on how to connect with babies and toddlers, manage young children’s behavior,[3] and help children develop relationships, regulate their behavior and emotions, and talk about their feelings. When the adults in children’s lives have appropriate expectations of children’s development at different ages, they have greater success – and much less frustration – with young children.

Building on prior successful partnerships to promote early brain and language development and early STEM education, today, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Education are joining with Too Small to Fail to release a Fostering Healthy Social and Emotional Development in Young Children Toolkit on social and emotional development. All of the resources feature examples of simple actions to take, some of which caregivers might be doing already, such as maintaining consistent routines for young children.

This set of resources on healthy social and emotional development includes:

  • A tip sheet for parents and families of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers
  • A tip sheet for infant, toddler, and preschool providers and educators
  • A milestones chart with key information on social and emotional development from birth to age 5
  • A fact sheet on the research behind social and emotional development in early childhood and lifelong outcomes
  • A “Let’s Talk About Feelings” poster

Every day, families and educators have opportunities to nurture children’s social and emotional, development through everyday interactions and easy-to-implement activities, such as those provided in the Toolkit. If we all provide supports for our children early in life, they will have the foundation needed to benefit for a lifetime.

Kara Dukakis is Director of Too Small to Fail, a joint initiative of the Clinton Foundation and The Opportunity Institute

 Libby Doggett is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Early Learning, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education

 Shantel E. Meek is Senior Policy Advisor for Early Childhood Development, Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

[1] Social interaction focuses on the relationships we share with others, including relationships with adults and peers; emotional awareness includes the ability to recognize and understand our own feelings and actions and those of other people, and how our own feelings and actions affect ourselves and others; and self-regulation is the ability to express thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in socially appropriate ways.

[2] Jones, Damon E., Mark Greenberg, and Max Crowley. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290.

[3] Zero to Three, “Tuning In National Parent Survey” (2016).

All materials will be posted on the ECD website when they are 508 compliant. Please see additional resources at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd.

 

CLASP: Policy Solutions That Work for Low-Income People

Posted on by

October 26, 2016

According to new research from the Yale Child Study Center, many early childhood programs demonstrate implicit bias in assessing children’s behavioral challenges and making decisions about suspension and expulsion.

The study asked early childhood teachers and administrators to watch two videos—one featuring a Black boy and girl, the other a White boy and girl—and identify challenging behavior. It found that teachers spent a disproportionate amount of time watching the Black boy. When explicitly asked which student required the most attention, 42 percent of participants said the Black boy, 34 percent the White boy, 13 percent the White girl, and 10 percent the Black girl.

The study tracks closely with recent data from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office for Civil Rights. According to ED’s 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), Black children comprise just 19 percent of those enrolled in public school pre-kindergarten but 47 percent of preschool children who receive one or more suspensions. Black boys are also more likely to be expelled than their peers. In addition to implicit bias, these children experience higher stress levels and less access to high-quality early education.

The body of evidence showing racial disparities in accessing and succeeding in early childhood programs demonstrates a strong need to review and modify federal, state, and local policies. We need to create a level playing field where all kids can access quality programs and receive equal treatment—supporting their success now and in the future. If we fail to address racial disparities, we’ll be undermining healthy development for millions of our youngest children.

Source: CLASP: Policy Solutions That Work for Low-Income People

Available at: http://www.clasp.org/issues/child-care-and-early-education/in-focus/racial-bias-in-preschool-teachers

Fewer Children, Fewer Providers: Trends in CCDBG Participation

Posted on by

January 2017

The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is the major federal funding stream for states to help low-income families afford child care and increase the quality of child care for all. CCDBG gives states flexibility in setting many child care policies within federal parameters. Over the past decade, the CCDBG program has been shrinking due to insufficient federal and state investments. States also have discretion to use funds from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant/program to support child care for low-income families. In 2014, the latest year data are available, combined TANF and CCDBG spending on child care fell to $11.3 billion, the lowest level since 2002.1 As a result, fewer children are getting help. Most recently, in 2015, fewer than 1.4 million children received CCDBG-funded child care in an average month, the smallest number of children served in the program since 1998. From 2006 to 2015, over 373,000 children have lost assistance—a decline of 21 percent.2 Within this context of declining investments and shrinking access, this factsheet explores trends among the child care providers receiving CCDBG funds and implications for the families served by this program.

Source: CLASP

Available at: http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/CCDBG-Provider-Factsheet-2006-2015.pdf 

Education Agenda 2017: Top Priorities for State Leaders, the Next Administration, and Congress

Posted on by

1/4/2017

Today’s students are the next generation of American doers and thinkers. The most diverse population ever, they have the honor and the burden of keeping the United States on the forefront of innovation and social progress.

To ensure students can succeed, our country’s publicly-funded education system—from early learning to public schools, and through higher education and workforce training—must be strengthened. So far, this system has failed too many of our country’s young people—turning them off of learning before they exit elementary school, leading them to repeat grades or drop out, requiring them to engage in costly remediation, and more. Widespread disparities are festering between students from high-income and low-income families; racial justice is still wanting; and linguistic diversity is still seen as a challenge instead of an opportunity.

To reform this system, New America’s Education Policy program recommends that leaders in the new administration, members of Congress, and state and local policymakers turn their attention to 10 important actions:

  1. Expand access to quality early learning.
  2. Smooth transition points from pre-K through higher education and into the workforce.
  3. Transform the preparation and ongoing development of educators.
  4. Align research and development to educational practice.
  5. Build an infrastructure for supporting dual language learners (DLLs).
  6. Improve access to and linkages between education and workforce data while protecting student privacy.
  7. Hold “bad actors” in the higher education system accountable.
  8. Simplify and target financial aid to the students who need it most.
  9. Repair the federal-state partnership in higher education.
  10. Connect education and the labor market by moving beyond the “skills gap.”

Source: New America Foundation

Available at: http://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/education-agenda-2017/

Preventing Suspensions and Expulsions in Early Childhood Settings | An Administrator’s Guide to Supporting All Children’s Success

Posted on by

1/3/2017

Purpose of The Guide:

Suspensions and expulsions of young children are not developmentally appropriate practices. Yet, recent data indicate that suspension and expulsion occur regularly in early childhood settings. These exclusionary practices, which disproportionately impact children of color, deprive children of valuable learning experiences and have a negative impact on children’s development that extends into grade school and beyond. Eliminating all forms of exclusion is urgent and vital to preparing all children for success. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Department of Education (ED) have made this a key priority and issued a Joint Policy Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Policy in Early Childhood Settings.

The purpose of this guide is to provide relevant, specific recommended policies and practices that are actionable and address the underlying root causes and provide effective alternatives. The recommended policies and practices are based on the most important research for eliminating suspensions and expulsions in early childhood settings and were developed with guidance from a panel of national experts.

Using the interactive guide, program leaders can find resources on supporting social-emotional development, reducing challenging behavior, recognizing the role of cultural differences and implicit biases, and more.

The guide is intended for those most likely to make an impact and with a great need for resources: early education program leaders in center-based settings who implement policies and procedures and promote practices; however, anyone seeking to learn more about strategies for eliminating suspension and expulsion in early childhood settings can benefit from using the guide.

Get Started

The Introduction describes the contents of the guide and provides tips for how to get the most out of the guide. The guide can be read from start to finish, or the individual recommended policies and practices can stand alone. We recognize that implementing all recommended policies and practices may be overwhelming and that programmatic changes often need to occur in stages.

To help you prioritize what recommended policies and practices are most necessary and timely to implement in your program, we have developed a self-assessment. The self-assessment is an optional tool that includes a brief questionnaire to help you reflect on your program’s policies, practices, and needs. The results of the self-assessment will help you reflect on your strengths and needs and provide you a roadmap to navigating the guide.

Source: SRI Education’s Center for Learning and Development

Available at: http://preventexpulsion.org/