ED 417 027

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

PS 026 337

Kagan, Sharon L.; Cohen, Nancy E.Not by Chance: Creating an Early Care and Education Systemfor America's Children. Abridged Report. The Quality 2000

Initiative.Yale Univ., New Haven, CT. Bush Center in Child Developmentand Social Policy.1997-00-0083p.Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy at YaleUniversity, 310 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511.Opinion Papers (120) -- Reports - Descriptive (141)

MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.*Change Agents; *Change Strategies; Child Caregivers; *DayCare; *Day Care Effects; Early Childhood Education; Infant

Care; Infants; Parent Participation; Public Policy; YoungChildrenCaregiver Qualifications; Caregiver Training; Day CareLicensing; *Day Care Quality; Day Care Registration; DayCare Regulations; Quality 2000 Initiative

This report of the Quality 2000 Initiative documents the

quality crisis in early care and education in the United States, discussing

the reasons for this crisis and suggesting a plan for improvement. Part 1 of

the report: describes the mediocre quality of care cited in the Cost,

Quality, and Child Outcomes Study, the erosion of quality since 1980, and

problems in staff training and educational levels; details the roots of the

quality crisis; and maintains that the knowledge and political will to

develop an effective early care and education system are in place. Part 2

discusses eight recommendations for developing this system: (1) use a wide

range of approaches to achieve quality; (2) focus on goals and results for

children; (3) place parents and families at the core of early care and

education programs; (4) require staff to be licensed; (5) expand the content

of training and education; (6) eliminate exemptions and streamline and

enforce facility licensing; (7) raise new funds and set aside ten percent forquality and infrastructure; and (8) create local and state early care and

education boards. Part 3 of the report, "Realizing the Vision," examines a

range of existing initiatives or programs that can be built upon. This part

also identifies three key strategies--conceptual exploration, comprehensive

demonstration, and broad-based mobilization--and concludes with a call to

action, suggesting who should do what to carry out the vision. The report's

four appendices list task force and related meeting participants,consultant-partners, and commissioned working papers. Each part contains

references. (Author/KB)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

-a1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

L .

4yYTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

S

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOthce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced aseceived from the person or organization

originating it

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

(

P

NOT BY CHANCECreating an Early Care and Education

System for America's Children

Sharon L. Kagan

Nancy E. Cohen

Abridged Report

The Quality 2000 Initiative

1997

For more information, contact

The Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy

at Yale University

310 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

PREFACE ix

Part OneTHE QUALITY CRISIS: REALITIES, ROOTS,SIGNIFICANCE, TIMING 1

THE REALITIES 2

ROOTS OF THE QUALITY CRISIS 3

SIGNIFICANCE 4

TIMING 7

Part TwoTHE RECOMMENDATIONS 9

THE PROGRAMS: RECOMMENDATIONS I AND II 10

RECOMMENDATION I: Use a Wide Range of Approaches toAchieve Quality in Family Child Care and Center-Based Programsfor Young Children and Their Families 11

RECOMMENDATION II: Focus on Goals and Results for Children 15

THE PARENTS: RECOMMENDATION III 20

RECOMMENDATION HI: Place Parents and Families at the Coreof Early Care and Education Programs 21

THE PRACTITIONERS AND PLACES: RECOMMENDATIONS IV, V, AND VI 24

RECOMMENDATION IV: Require Staff to Be Licensed 25

RECOMMENDATION V: Expand the Content of Training and Education 28

RECOMMENDATION VI: Eliminate Exemptions and Streamline andEnforce Facility Licensing 30

THE PURSE, THE PUBLIC, AND THE POWER: RECOMMENDATIONS VII AND VIII 34RECOMMENDATION VII: Raise New Funds and Set Aside Ten Percent

for Quality and Infrastructure 35

RECOMMENDATION VIII: Create Local and State Early Care andEducation Boards 38

Part ThreeREALIZING THE VISION 43

EXEMPLARY TRADITIONS AND PROMISING EFFORTS 44

REFORM STRATEGIES 45

THE PLAYERS 48

APPENDICES. NOTES. AND REFERENCES 53

APPENDIX A: CONSULTANT-PARTNERS 54

APPENDIX B: TASK FORCE PARTICIPANTS 55

APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANTS IN RELATED MEETINGS 57

APPENDIX D: COMMISSIONED WORKING PAPERS 61

NOTES 63

REFERENCES 65

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Tanika sits at a long table with her classmates in the four-year-old room of the Early Learn-

ing Preschool. Next week is Thanksgiving, and the children are making turkeys out ofbrown and orange paper. Mrs. Poole shows them how to trace the shapes, cut them out, and

paste them together. Most succeed in making their turkeys look something like the teacher's.

Nicole sits cross-legged on the rug, a sneaker in her lap, in Mrs. Ryan's living room, where

she spends most of her days. She still can't tie her shoes. Mrs. Ryan shows her how to hold

the laces and tells her to keep at it, but no matter how hard Nicole tries, the loops keep

unlooping. Mrs. Ryan tells her to make three more tries. Nicole is frustrated, and confused

about when one "try" is finished and the next one begins.

Any day now, five-month-old Andrew will be sitting up by himself For now, he is propped

up against cushions on the carpeted floor of the Shining Star Child Care Center. Jessica,

who is responsible for the infant group, wants to be sure that Andrew doesn't topple overwhile she attends to two eight-month-olds and a toddler badly in need of a diaper change.

Andrew shakes a rattle. He looks up expectantly, then shakes it harder He begins to cry. Jes-

sica tells herself that waiting tables would pay better and might be a lot less stressful.

n these settings, Tanika, Nicole, andAndrewand millions of young children likethemspend up to 50 hours a week. In

rooms like these across the nationin child carecenters, preschool programs, family child carehomes, and nursery schoolsAmerican young-sters play and pretend, hear stories and havesnacks, and fill the long hours between drop-offand pick-up. The children are used to theseplaces; they have adult supervision; andin mostcasestheir parents have selected the programs.To most casual observers, everything seems to beall right.

But everything is NOT all right. Today, anoverwhelming majority of young children in childcare spend their days in settings that have been

found to be of poor to mediocre quality1 settingsthat compromise children's long-term develop-ment. Preschoolers fare poorly, but infants and tod-dlers face dire situations, with two out of five spend-

ing their days in settings that threaten theirimmediate health and safety.`' It's not just the chil-dren who endure difficulties. Families cannotlocate quality services; program providers, thoughoften having the knowledge, lack the resources tomake needed changes; and policy makers are oftenconfused about what to do to improve services.

44,4

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Indeed, a growing number of Americans are con-cluding that America's services to its children andfamilies constitute a national crisis . . . perhaps, as

has been suggested, one of the greatest domesticproblems our nation has faced since the foundingof the Republic.3

Not By Chance: Creating an Early Care and Edu-

cation System for America's Children, based on thework of the Quality 2000 Initiative, is about thesechildren,a these parents and families,b and theseservices. It documents the quality crisis in earlycare and education,c showing that in this nationin contrast to most other industrialized nationsgood early care and education programs arebeyond the reach of most families. Not By Chancediscusses why such a pervasive crisis exists andsuggests a plan for improvement. It offers a com-prehensive response to the child care and earlyeducation dilemma by providing a visionary, long-range, and research-based strategy. Its eightactionable recommendations are predicated on,and dedicated to, the proposition that we can andmust do better by American childrenthat wesimply can no longer take chances on theirandourfuture. Not By Chance suggests that we mustcreate an early care and education systembecause children matterand because what wedo for them matters immensely.

Not By Chance came into being with the sup-port of many people. Foremost among them wasMichael Levine of the Carnegie Corporation ofNew York, whose vision for the early care and edu-cation field is inspired, and whose concern foryoung children and quality programs is unfalter-ing. He recognized the imperiled state of earlycare and education, and created in Quality 2000an intellectual forum for a thorough re-examina-tion of the challenges and opportunities beforethe field. He, David Hamburg, and Vivien Stewartunderstood, supported, and guided this effort. Tothem, and to the Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, we give thanks.

fesNOT BY CHANCE

Other foundations joined the effort to sup-port special issues. We gratefully acknowledge the

involvement of Valora Washington and the supportof the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for the resultsand outcomes portion of this work. Her couragein venturing forward on the child results journeyis admirable. Deanna Gomby and the David andLucile Packard Foundation gave support toadvance thinking in the finance component ofQuality 2000. We thank her and the Foundationfor their help at a critical juncture on a key com-ponent of the Quality 2000 effort. Luba Lynch andthe A. L. Mailman Family Foundation graciouslyhelped to support the dissemination efforts. StacieGoffin and The Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda-tion were involved in an allied project on systemsintegration; many of the lessons from this effortfound their way into our thinking and our work.Quality 2000 thanks them as well.

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance ofa group of colleagues who contributed their timeand knowledge to this project. These collabora-tors provided visionary leadership, keen insights,and provocative ideas to the initiativeand alsomade it much more fun for us, the authors, towork on. Martin Gerry (of the University ofKansas) and Cheryl Hayes (of The Finance Project)helped us with the funding and financing issues.William Gormley (of the Georgetown GraduatePublic Policy Program) consulted in the areas ofgovernment and business roles. Nancy Kolben andPatty Siegel (of the National Association of ChildCare Resource and Referral Agencies) led thework on the essential functions of the infrastruc-ture and on change strategies. Anne Mitchell (ofEarly Childhood Policy Research) was the leadconsultant in the area of professional develop-ment. Deborah Phillips (of the National ResearchCouncil's Board on Children and Families)helped launch the project as a Co-Principal Inves-tigator; later, she focused her efforts on the recon-sidering quality component. Sharon Rosenkoetter

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

(of Associated Colleges of Central Kansas) workedon child and family results issues. And CarolStevenson (formerly of the Child Care Law Centerand currently of the David and Lucile PackardFoundation) helped formulate the investigationof facility licensing. We also owe great thanks toRima Shore for editing this report.

Colleagues at the Yale University Bush Cen-ter in Child Development and Social Policy lentguidance and support throughout the effort.Edward Zig ler contributed thoughtful insights tothis work. Eliza Pritchard helped with the day-to-day work of the project, wrote several workingpapers, and assisted with early drafts of thisreport; we thank her greatly for guiding ourthinking and remaining a smiling and steady pres-ence throughout. Michelle Neuman contributedher expertise, patience, and fortitude throughoutthe final stages of this report. Muriel Hamilton-Leeand Jean Rustici contributed insight and consistentsupport through the entire process. Jane Murraysupported the work of allwillingly, graciously,and effectively.

Our families lent ongoing confidence,encouragement, and support. In particular, wethank Stephen Page for his intellectual engagementof these issues and his ongoing support.

Perhaps the greatest credit, however, is dueto our dear colleagues in the field, the goodfriends who willingly sat on task forces, wrotepapers, reviewed recommendations, and wrestledwith tough issues again and again. They are listedin the appendices. Their provocative questionsconstantly fed fuel to our thinking; their criticalcomments made the product better; their dedica-tion to the young children, families, and profes-sionals inspired and sustained our work. They arethe spirit of Quality 2000 and Not By Chance; it isonly fitting that this report be dedicated to them.

Sharon L. KaganNancy E. Cohen

August 1997

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

FOREWORD

hances are that unless a toddler is throw-ing a tantrum at the supermarket or thewoman next door takes care of children in

her home, most Americans have little day-to-dayawareness of other people's small children.Chances are that most Americans, preoccupiedwith the demands of daily living, don't thinkabout the early care and education system. Youngchildren don't vote; they don't commit crimes;they don't join teams or win trophies. They rarelymake headlines, and when they do, the circum-stances are apt to be so dramatica babysnatched, a toddler trapped in a wellthat theirexperiences are seen as exceptional rather thantypical. In short, America's young children havereceived remarkably little attention from the pub-lic at large.

Why? Why is it that we, as Americans, pro-claim dedication to the well-being of children, yetseem to be in a state of collective denial about thecircumstances in which most youngsters spendtheir days? Why is it that we, as a nation, have notgiven children the child or health care, the sup-portive services, learning opportunities, orhealthy communities they all need to succeed inschool and grow into productive adults? Why isthere a dramatic "disconnect" between our beliefsabout children and the circumstances they face?

Not By Chance seeks to address these prob-lems head-on by bringing to bear the best prac-tices of experienced practitioners, the findings ofcurrent research, and the considered thinking ofhundreds of parents, early childhood educators,

psychologists, political scientists, policy analysts,economists, finance experts, community organiz-ers, and media specialists. Working collaborative-ly, scores of individuals have contributed to theevolution of thinking embraced in the Not ByChance reportthinking that is designed toreframe how we consider and deliver early careand education services to America's young chil-dren.

Stated most simply, the Not By Chance mis-sion is that by the year 2010, high-quality earlycare and education programs will be available andaccessible to all children from birth to age fivewhose parents choose to enroll themand thatthese services will be supported by a well-funded,coherent, and coordinated infrastructure. Thismission proceeds from the conviction that qualityearly care and education programs will not comeinto being by chance and will not proliferate with-out a viable, sustained, and integrated early careand education infrastructure. That infrastructureincludes five essential elements: (1) Parent infor-mation and engagementthat parents have theinformation to make choices and the time to beengaged with their children's learning and theirchildren's programs; (2) Professional developmentand licensingthat the adults who work with chil-dren are appropriately trained and credentialedso as to ensure children's maximal development;(3) Facility licensing, enforcement, and program accred-

itationthat the out-of-home facilities in which allchildren spend their days are adequately licensed

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

so as to safeguard children's health, development,

and well-being; (4) Funding and financingthatearly care and education is sufficiently funded

and financed to assure quality; (5) Governance,planning, and accountabilitythat the governance,planning, and accountability mechanisms forearly care and education are sufficiently devel-

oped to sustain a system of efficient, quality ser-vices.

Not By Chance discusses children's programsand services along with these elements of theinfrastructure. It posits an admittedly immodestvision for how America might proceed, recogniz-

ing that conventional thinking and strategies can-not evoke the kinds of reforms that are necessary

to redress the decades of neglect that characterizeAmerican early care and education. Not By Chance

thinks long-termto the year 2010. As such, it

does not offer a prescription for legislation for the

105th or 106th Congress, though some of the ele-ments may be quite amenable to immediate leg-

islative action. It is not about adding more ser-vices or more disparate programs; rather, Not By

Chance sets new pathways for action.Not By Chance not only suggests new ways of

delivering services to young children, but also

entirely new ways of thinking about youngstersand the programs they receive. Not By Chance sug-

gests that in order to shift our services we must

shift our thinking:WE MUST THINK of early care and educa-

tion as a single seamless system, not as a setof disparate, categorical, and idiosyncraticprograms.WE MUST THINK about services for chil-dren, their families, and their communities,rather than services for children alone.WE MUST THINK of early care and educa-tion as encompassing family support andhealth, not only educational services forchildren.

NOT BY CHANCE

WE MUST THINK about broad definitionsof quality that encompass organizational cli-mate and the quality of the infrastructure,rather than more narrow definitions thattake into account only pedagogy.WE MUST THINK about using concrete,age-appropriate, child-based results andgoals for children and familiesrather thanjust program inputsas a means of account-ability in early care and education.WE MUST THINK about the professionallicensing of individuals along with facilitylicensing as a means of improving qualityservices.WE MUST THINK about collaborative advo-cacy by parents, professionals, and othercommunity stakeholders, not by profession-

als alone.WE MUST THINK about a long-term visionof early care and education, not a series of

short-term solutions.FINALLY, WE MUST THINK of improvingearly care and education as a challenge thathinges on rational analysis and planning,not on random acts of chance.

Given these ways of acting and thinking, someaspects of Not By Chance may be regarded as quitecontroversial; other ideas may be more readilyaccepted. Specifically, Not By Chance offers eight

key recommendations and suggests that in orderfor significant change to occur, work on each

must ensue. More detailed strategies accompanyeach recommendation. The strategies point aclear direction and provide a cohesive set ofactionable items as locales, states, and the nationconsider the development of an early care and

education system, fully recognizing that states andcommunities will need to tailor the suggestedstrategies to meet their unique needs.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

10

The vision, as expressed in the recommen-dations and strategies, is based on work in eightcomponents: reconsidering program quality;defining the essential functions of the infrastruc-ture; enhancing parent engagement; discerningappropriate government and business roles; con-sidering new approaches to training and creden-tialing; examining facility regulation and licens-ing; determining alternate approaches to fundingand financing; and moving to a results orienta-tion. To tap the best resources in each area, Qual-ity 2000 established relationships with consultant-partners for most of the components (seeAppendix A). The consultant-partners providedintellectual leadership and strategic guidance,helping to frame the work of their component.For some components, task forces were formed topursue more in -depth work (see Appendix B); forothers, a series of meetings was organized to sur-vey the issues, explore key controversies, andidentify promising strategies (see Appendix C).For each component, a series of working paperswas commissioned to address critical issues (seeAppendix D). This analytic work was conductedfrom 1992-1994, roughly. The synthetic phase,roughly 1994-95, focused on the integration ofinformation both within and across components.Building on synthesis papers that were preparedfor each component, Quality 2000 staff, with assis-

tance from the consultant-partners, integratedthe information across all eight components intoa draft vision for a quality early care and educa-tion system. In 1996, with the draft vision in hand,Quality 2000 embarked on its catalytic phase.Meetings were held with more than one hundredindividuals and groups in early care and educa-tion and related fields. Comments were solicitedat conference sessions, from personal interviews,and were incorporated into the final report. Inaddition to offering feedback to the vision, partic-ipants discussed possible action strategies forimplementation.

In developing a vision for a quality early careand education system, Quality 2000 and the Not ByChance report emanating from it have not soughtto achieve consensus. Consensus on such broadand controversial issues might not be feasible oreven desirable; a vision with which all could agreewould probably not be sufficiently innovative toaddress the field's thornier, more intractableproblems. As a result, not all who participated inthe Quality 2000 Initiative will agree with all thepieces of the vision in this report; yet this visionclearly builds on and integrates the ideas, sugges-tions, and comments of many contributors. In thefinal analysis, however, this report is the responsi-bility of the authors.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

II PREFACE

ICESSrisx-

- - I

_ -

Par t 1

THE QUALITYREALITIES, ROOTS -9

SIGNIFICANCE, TIMING

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

trEIOLN.a.

7-(E 7_ . _

ach day, 13 million American children aredropped off in early care and educationsettings, be they child care centers or fam-

ily child care homes. This should be a hearteningstatistic, since research shows that high-qualityearly care and education can enhance the cogni-tive and socio-emotional development of allyoung children' and in particular of childrenfrom low-income families.2

But a growing body of research has estab-lished that few American children are enrolled inthe kind of quality programs that can boost theirchances for later success in school and in life. TheCost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study foundspecifically that seven in ten centers providedmediocre care; one in eight was so inadequatethat it threatened the health and safety of chil-dren.3 In family child care, a domain oftenremote from public view and considerably less

studied, the situation is no better. Like child carecenters, quality can vary, but overall, the percent-age of programs judged to be of substandardquality ranges from 13 percent of regulated fami-ly child care homes to 50 percent of unregulatedhomes.4

The quality of care is even worse for infantsand toddlers. Fully 40 percent of infant and tod-dler rooms in centers were found to endangerchildren's health and safety in the Cost, Quality,and Child Outcomes Study:5 a smaller study setthis figure above 60 percent.b These figures areparticularly disturbing in light of the fact thatinfants and toddlers constitute the fastest-growingsubgroup of children in early care and education

NNOT BY CHANCE

13

programs: half of all infants under the age of oneare in some form of non-maternal caremost for30 or more hours per week.?

The figures are also disturbing because thecare children receive is steadily getting worse:recent research consistently documents a seriouserosion of quality since 1980.8 Moreover, thisdrop in quality is taking place at the very timewhen the nation's total number of young childrenis increasing dramatically. In the 1980s alone, ournation's population of children under the age offive rose by 28 percent.9 Just as the population ofyoung children is growing, so is the demand forearly care and education. More than half of allmothers return to work within a year of theirbabies' births,19 so that as children enter the ageof formal schooling, 80 percent of them haveexperienced some form of out-of-home care intheir early years." Early care and education, oncethe concern of few, has now become-more nearlythe rule than the exception, leading a nationaltask force to recommend universal preschool forall children ages three to five.12

Though resources for early care and educa-tion are increasing, they are not nearly able tokeep up with current and projected demand. As aresult, the system is stressed, creating greaterinequalities of access, availability, and fair and effi-cient distribution of services. The most severelyaffected are poor childrenwho now account forone-quarter of all young children.13 Althoughthey have the greatest need for quality early careand education, and stand to benefit the most,poor children often have the least access to pro-grams. For example:

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

I Children from low-income families are theleast likely to attend early care and educa-tion programs: only 50 percent of childrenliving in households with incomes of$10,000 or less regularly attend early careand education programs, compared to over75 percent of children in households withincomes in excess of $75,000.14

111 Government subsidies allow some childrenfrom low-income families to enroll in earlycare and education programs, but funds arelimited and do not allow all eligible familiesto secure care for their children. Only smallpercentages of eligible low-income familiesreceive government assistance in paying forearly care and education.15Most children from low-income homes whoare enrolled in preschool-59 percentattend programs that are unlikely to providethe full range of child development, health,and parent services needed to support theirschool readiness.16 Working-class and lower-middle-income families are also likely to relyon inadequate care.17

The problems in early care and educationare legion for poor children and families, but theyimpact all young children. In many states, individ-uals who work with young children are notrequired to hold any certificate or degree;18 manyhave only ten clock hours of training.19 Not sur-prisingly, staff turnover rates of 41 percent arecommon. Many centers and family child carehomes are not linked to other community ser-vices, including health and social services. Ongo-ing training is sporadic and of uneven quality.20About 40 percent of center-based programs arelegally exempt from regulation.21 Of family childcare providers, as many as 80 to 90 percent arenot regulated and have no contact with regulato-ry or supportive agencies.22 Parents often paylarge percentages of their weekly wages for childcare, while early care and education staff foregowages, parents forego quality, and worse, childrenforego opportunity.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

These conditions are not new; they have fes-tered for a long time. Their roots are important tounderstand if we wish to create a system thatserves children not by chance or happenstancebut by design.

ROOTS OF THEQUALITY CRISISThe quality crisis stems, in part, from historicaland cultural forces that have shaped Americanattitudes toward non-familial supports. The Amer-ican ethos has historically placed a high premiumon industry and self-reliance. Public institutionswere expected to act when families failed, provid-ing services designed to compensate for families'weaknesses. With the exception of schools andlibraries, this deficit approach has dominatedhuman service delivery generally and pervadesearly care and education specifically. For exam-ple, infant schoolsa form of non-parentalcarewere established early on with the missionof offering personal and moral lessons to the chil-dren of the indigent, furnishing the guid-ance that impovenshedparents weredeemed unableto provide.23Later, during thedepression of themid-1870s, publickindergartenswere establishedfor the children ofthe needy with theaim of improvingtheir nutrition, clean-liness, health, andwork habits.24 Childcare continued on this deficit track for manyyears, receiving federal attention and cash infu-sions for non-poor children only during times ofnational crisis. This pattern persists: today, thegovernment supports child care for poor children

I

14THE QUALITY CRISIS

primarily, while parents of non-poor children payfor child care, often devoting substantial percent-ages of their earnings to it. Indeed, early care andeducation is still regarded as an ancillary service,despite the fact that many young children haveworking parents and need some form of early careand education.

Over the last decade, scholars have arguedpersuasively that the quality crisis in early care andeducation may also be rooted in the profoundambivalence within American culture towardmothers and their care-taking roles. On the onehand, we revere the primacy and privacy of moth-

erhood and family, resisting policies andprograms that appear

to intervene in'' domestic life.

I ' I i ' ' I Indeed, many' Americans con-

, I I I I tinue to believeI I I I that out-of-home

care is harmful,despite evidence tothe contrary.25 On

' I the other hand, wedismiss the care ofyoung children as

mindless, custodialwork, devaluing the

contributions of stay-at-home mothers as well aspaid caregivers. We pursue national policies thatlead to non-parental care for more and moreyoung children, by favoring "workfare," for exam-ple, or by not providing paid parental leave.

These historical antecedents have left a pro-found legacy, adversely affecting the quality, dura-bility, and distribution of earls' care and educationservices. Programs have emerged haphazardlyand have been funded erratically; they haveemanated from different legislative mandates,funding streams, regulatory systems, and adminis-trative agencies. Some programs fall under thejurisdiction of state departments of education;others are overseen by departments of health; and

I 'I I

aNOT BY CHANCE

still others are run by departments of welfare orsocial services.26 In fact, a recent study document-ed 90 different federal programs sitting in 11 fed-eral agencies and 20 offices.27 State-supportedprograms are just as inconsistent, varying fromstate to state and even within states.

The consequences are many. First, parentsare confused. Because the process of finding andselecting programs tends to be so chaotic andnerve-racking, many parents end up settling forprograms that are reasonably convenient andaffordable, rather than holding out for high qual-ity. Second, because resources are so scarce,providers often view each other as competitorsrather than collaborators. Programs find them-selves competing for space, resources, and evenchildren.28 Third, fragmentation characterizesearly care and education at every level. The manyscattered early care and education programs donot function as a system, so that investments arenot optimized. Little comprehensive planning,data collection or links with allied services exist.The result is a non-system of services character-ized by heavy demand and high expectation, butfraught with inadequacies, inconsistencies, andfailures.

SIGNIFICANCE

Certainly, these conditions are not desirable, butwhy? Why do they matter for children, families,and the nation, and what matters most? Whereshould our attention be focused?

QUALITY MATTERS

Quality programs contribute significantly to chil-dren's development. Indeed, there is growingrecognition that early care. and education pro-grams are important precursors of school successand of children's later success in life. In part, thisis due to the fact that early care and educationprograms have an impact precisely at the pointwhen children's development is rapid, dramatic,

15BEST COPY AVAILABLE

and multi-dimensional. Neuroscientists haveestablished, for example, that the way the humanbrain develops during the first years of life has asignificant impact on later learning and intellec-tual growth, and that brain development duringthis period is quite susceptible to environmentalinfluenceincluding the kind of care and stimu-lation that children receive both at home and inout-of-home settings. "We can now say, with fargreater confidence than ever before, that thebrain responds to experience, particularly in thefirst five years of life. That means that by ensuringa good start in life, we have more opportunity topromote learning and prevent damage than weever imagined."29

High-quality early care and education pro-grams offer this good start in life by helping chil-

dren engage in relatively complex play, socializecomfortably with adults and other children anddevelop important physical, language, and cogni-tive skills." Many of these positive effects maylinger and contribute to children's increased cog-nitive abilities, positive classroom learning behav-iors, long-term school success, and even improvedlikelihood of long-term social and economic self-sufficiency.31 In contrast, children attendinglower-quality programs are more likely to

encounter difficulties with academic and socialdevelopment and are less likely to reach expectedlevels of development.32 Poor-quality programsalso undermine the development of children'sskills, with youngsters in poorer-quality pro-gramsirrespective of family incomedemon-strating less language and pre-mathematics abilityand less positive self-perception than children inhigher-quality classrooms.33

Quality programs matter for families, as well

as for children, because such programs allow par-ents to focus on employment and/or trainingresponsibilities. When children attend qualityprograms, their parents are not preoccupied withconcerns about their children's safety. Further,parents whose children are enrolled in qualityearly care and education are less likely to have to

deal with break downs in those arrangements.34In a study by Hofferth et al.,35 15 percent of work-ing mothers reported losing some time from workduring the previous month because of a failure intheir regular early care and education arrange-ment. Meyers36 found that the odds of droppingout of a welfare-to-work program during the first

year were doubled for mothers who were dissatis-

fied with their early care and education practi-tioner or program, who were using arrangementsthat did not meet established guidelines regard-ing child-staff ratios, or who did not trust the prac-titioner or the safety of the program. Families alsobenefit from the information, support, and directservices they obtain from quality programs.

Finally, quality matters for the nation, as wellas for children and families. Decades of researchnow affirm that early care and education pro-grams make good economic and social sense.37

Economically, as we have seen, the country bene-fits from the increased productivity of workingparents whose children are in high-quality care.Society also benefits economically because dollarsinvested early save on later expenditures. The 27-year follow-up study of participants in the PerryPreschool found that the children who attendedthis program were more likely than non-partici-pants to graduate from high school, earn higherwages, and own a home. Participants were less

likely to have committed crimes or received wel-fare.38 Indeed, investments in quality early careand education save society future costly andlengthy expenditures for incarceration or welfare.

America also benefits because quality pro-grams help children learn to thrive in our increas-

ingly multiracial, multicultural, and multilingualnation.39 Understanding, tolerance, and appreci-ation of people who are different start early, as dobias, racism, and hatred. Playing with and learn-ing from diverse adults and children in early careand education programs, and experiencingrespectful patterns of interaction, help youngchildren grow up to be adults who thrive in adiverse world.40

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

THE QUALITY CRISIS

THE INFRASTRUCTURE ANDTHE SYSTEM MATTER

Quality programs do not come into being auto-matically, nor can they be achieved in isolation.Quality programs must be part of a quality system.This system is composed of (1) programs thattouch the lives of children and families day by day,and (2) the infrastructurethose key elements thatact behind the scenes to support the programs.Elements of the infrastructure include:41

Parent information and engagementProfessional development and licensingFacility licensing, enforcement, andprogram accreditationFunding and financingGovernance, planning, and accountability

Few would argue that these elements areunimportant, yet in reality, few such infrastructur-al supports exist. While attending to these ele-ments individually is necessary, it is not sufficient.The elements of the infrastrucuture must worktogether. For example, requiring more trainingwithout increasing compensation will lead to staffturnover and may, in the long run, lower ratherthan raise program quality.42 Similarly, if regula-tion and accreditation are enhanced withoutattention to consumer information, parents mightfail to discriminate between high- and low-qualityprograms, providing little incentive for programsto strive toward higher standards. Moreover, ele-ments of the infrastructure must be linked withdirect services. For example, if a well-qualifiedpractitioner cannot locate employment and if pro-grams for which the practitioner is qualified havestaff vacancies, the early care and education systemis not functioning well; there is a mismatchbetween the training and placement functions.

GOVERNMENT i1Vi,01_,i/EMENTMATTERSBUT 3. AOT A aLVACEA

Americans and their elected officials are current-ly embroiled in a debate over the role of govern-

NOT BY CHANCE

ment in our society. Polls tell us that many Amer-icans across the nation believe government to bepart of the problem, not part of the solution. Incontrast, others believe that only a strong govern-ment can safeguard our most vulnerable citizensand ensure equity. This controversy is raging aswell in the early care and education community.Those who want less government tend to viewearly care and education as a market commoditywhose dynamics should be left to competition andconsumer choice; they oppose active governmentinvestment and regulation in early care and edu-cation. In contrast, those who call for increasedgovernment involvement assert that governmenthas a responsibility to provide basic protection forchildren and families, in the form of investmentsin regulation and other standards and supports.Indeed, there has been a long history of efforts tostipulate quality standards in federal legislation.43Proponents of a robust government role arguethat government has not used existing knowledgeabout child development to enhance the qualityof early care and education services. To date, thisknowledge and research has had little discernibleimpact on policy.

Critics assert that current government sup-ports for early care and education are uncoordi-nated and inefficient. Both states and localitiesare involved in facility licensing; and federal,state, and local governments are all engaged infundinghelping parents to pay for programsand investing minimally in quality enhancements.There is little role delineation according to levelof government. Given this attention from multi-ple levels of government, one might imagine thatfunding and regulation would be adequate. Thereverse is true. In comparison to investments inthe education of school-age students, public sup-port for early care and education is minimal. Atthe same time, some aspects of early care and edu-cation are overregulated by more than oneauthority, and other aspects are woefully under-regulatedvirtually ignored.

While the role of government in early careand education is debated, few suggest that gov-ernment alone can guarantee a quality system.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Quality early care and education requires theinvestment and support of parents, business, and

community organizations. Parents, who currently

pay three-quarters of early care and educationcosts, play a critical role as consumers and pur-chasers of services. Business, too, is a supporterand consumer of early care and education: it has

become more active in early care and education

in recent years, investing in quality programs and

the infrastructure. Businesses are also making

their work places family-friendly. In addition,community organizations, including houses ofworship, United Ways, and volunteer and civic

organizations contribute funding and in-kind

resources to early care and education." Theircontinued involvement is important both because

their contributions make a difference for some

children and parents, and because these collabo-

rations knit the fabric of strong communities. In

short, effective early care and education demands

dedication and investment from diverse parties.

TIMING

To be sure, American early care and education

faces serious, large-scale problems that requirecreative, forceful, meticulously considered solu-

tions. The good news is that as a nation, we now

have the knowledge and know-how to begin to

shape these solutions. A growing body of research

has documented the kinds of policies and pro-

grams that make a difference for young children,while providing guidance on how to implementthem. This fresh knowledge has opened up newavenues for thought and action, fostering thedevelopment of both a broad, bold vision and the

specific, practical strategies needed to realize it.

To a greater extent than ever before, policy mak-

ers have the research base needed to ensure theemergence of a systembased on reason and

knowledge, not happenstance or chance that has

heretofore characterized the evolution of Ameri-

can early care and education.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Not only do we have the knowledge tolaunch change, but America is amassing the polit-

ical will to do so. Concerned about the nation'sproductivity in a global economy, political and

business leaders are voicing increasing concernabout our children's early years, and are demon-strating readiness for action. They are beginning

to see quality early care and education services as

a cost-effective way to assure a stable, well-pre-

pared work force in coming decades.45

At the same time, national education reform

has broadened its focus to include the early years.

Parents and Americans in general are realizing

that the early years are critical to development.

The first National Education Goalthat all chil-dren will start school ready to learnhas high-lighted the crucial relationship between early care

and education and later educational achieve-

ment, and has accelerated interest in young chil-

dren by educators, policy makers, the media, and

parents. Countless volumes on parenting andreadying children for school line bookstore

shelves, and more parents are engaged in parent-

ing education efforts than ever before.Renewed parent and public interest in early

care and education, and serious concerns aboutthe quality of services for children, have helped to

foster a sense of urgency about the need forchange within the early care and education field

itself. Leaders in the field are looking beyond

individual programs and beyond classroom prac-tice; they are beginning to address systemicchange. Communities and states across the nation

have undertaken efforts to integrate early child-

hood services with one another, and with health

and other services. Comprehensive visions of an

early care and education system have been con-

sidered.46All of this suggests that the time to act is

now. Decades of practice and research have pro-

duced the knowledge needed to strengthen the

quality of programs and of the infrastructure. Sig-

nificant professional advances have led to con-

crete strategies for change, particularly in the

areas of pedagogy and child development. The

THE QUALITY CRISIS

4

field has developed strong, widely recognized pro-gram and curricular models emanating fromnumerous professional organizations and the fed-eral government. Early childhood researchershave gained in-depth understanding of children'searly years, identifying developmental milestonesin the physical, emotional, social, and cognitivedomains. Indeed, the quality crisis cannot beattributed to a lack of knowledge. Rather, deeplyentrenched approaches, practices, and values, aswell as long-standing social, organizational, andpolitical structures, must be tackled head-on. Wemust use new knowledge and growing political

NNOT BY CHANCE

and public will to advance our thinking and sparksignificant, new action. Recommendationsregarding how to accomplish this follow.

The next section of the report discusses theeight recommendations, which are grouped bytheme: the Programs (Recommendations I andII); the Parents (Recommendation III); the Prac-titioners and Places (Recommendations IV, V,and VI); the Purse, the Public, and the Power(Recommendations VII and VIII). The reportconcludes with Part Threea section on howthe nation might go about implementing thevision.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

4

Par t 2

Scientists and scholarsnow recognize thathigh-quality programs

have a better chance of promoting youngchildren's healthy development, both duringthe preschool years and long after, than theypreviously suspected; by the same token, theharmful effects of low-quality programs canbe more serious and long-lasting, and harderto reverse, than previously thought. But howdo we define quality? How should quality bemeasured? What approaches are likely toboost quality? How can parents, families, andstaff play a role in quality enhancement?What kinds of reform in finance and gover-nance can help to solve the quality problem?The following eight recommendationsaddress these issues. The specific strategiesthat can be used to carry out these recom-mendations are presented only briefly here,but are elaborated in the full report.

4-3

4

THE PROGRAMS:RECOMMENDATIONS I AND H

As Mike Taylor walks back to the car, having dropped off his twins at the Elm

Street Child Care Center, he wonders what makes him feel so good. The center

itself is inviting and well maintained, and the classrooms are cozy with rugs

and armchairs, and have interesting things to look at and explore. He likes

the feel of the placethe way all three of them are welcomed each morning, as

if the teachers and kids have been waiting just for them; the way they are all

pulled into whatever project is underway; the conversation that weaves

through every activity; the peace of mind he feels as he waves goodbye. And

he likes the way the teachers have clear goals for the children and seem to have

a real sense of what they want children to accomplish. But there's something

else, too, and he can't quite put his finger on it . . .

e seem to be able to sense when quali-ty exists in early care and educationsettings, but there is also something

strangely elusive about it. What is it that puts chil-dren so much at ease? Why does Mike Taylor feelthat peace of mind? Over the years, researchershave tried to explain elements of quality; oftenthey have cited group size, child-adult ratios, andteacher preparation, education, compensation,and turnover. To be sure, these are important fac-tors, but do they really tell the whole story of qual-ity? Do they fully account for why some childrenthrive in early care and education programs andothers do not? Do they really explain why somecenters and some family child care homes achieve

10

NOT BY CHANCE 2.1

good results for the children entrusted to themand others do not?

Quality 2000 examined these issues and con-cluded that there are numerous paths to qualitya wider range than previously has been assumed.We put forward two recommendations forimproving program quality in the United States:first, that we take a range of innovative approach-es to creating the kinds of programs that canachieve the desired results for children; and sec-ond, that we define and assess the results andgoals desired for children as a consequence oftheir participation in early care and educationprograms. These recommendations are rooted inthe conviction that quality programs must not beleft to chance.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

RECOMMENDATION I:USE A WIDE RANGE OFAPPROACHES TOACHIEVE QUALITYIN FAMILY CHILD CAREAND CENTER-BASEDPROGRAMS FORYOUNG CHILDRENAND THEIR FAMILIESBy the year 2010, all family child care and cen-ter-based programs will use a wide range ofproven approaches for achieving qualityapproaches that allow staff flexibility to useresources creatively and cost-effectively and toaddress all _domains of developmentinclud-ing healtheffectively.

uality 2000 has documented an urgent andpervasive problem of quality in American

fain' y child care homes and center-based pro-grams. The questions are: what should we doabout it, given the massive number of programsthroughout the country and the diversity amongthem? How can the fabric of services delivered toyoung children be strengthened? Fortunately,while the overall quality of American programs ispoor, we can learn from many examples of inven-tive strategies that have raised program quality atnumerous sites both here and abroad. Many ofthese efforts do not limit their focus to the inter-actions between adults and children, though to besure, these are critical; they focus as well on thenature of the total setting, the organizational pat-terns within that setting, and the ways in whichservices meet the needs of individual children.None of these approaches works well in all set-tings, and each must be tailored to the context inwhich it is used. Improving quality, then, meansacknowledging diverse approaches to quality,while fostering the exploration and implementa-tion of fresh ideas and strategies. Improving qual-ity means being open to experimentation and

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

adaptation, while fully recognizing that the needsof 21st century children may well be differentfrom those of children living in decades past. Itmeans using resources creatively and flexibly.

State-of-the-art practice suggests that a vari-ety of approaches to organizing staff and childrencan result in quality programs. Several very differ-ent approaches are discussed below.

Give programs more leeway in deploying staffand grouping children: Those who manage andwork in early care and education programs shouldhave at their disposal alternative, more flexibleapproaches to deploying staff and grouping chil-dren. All programs, for example, should considerworking with children in mixed-age groups.Research done in Sweden and Britain, as well as ina handful of programs in this country, show thatmixed -age groups are viable in centers and canhave important benefits for children. Children'slearning and socialization seems to be acceleratedin mixed-age groups; older children learn aboutleadership and responsibility and have the oppor-tunity to consolidate their learning, while youngerchildren learn new skills and are motivated to chal-

lenge themselves.'A strategy to be researched might address

the viability of according programs the flexibilityto assess the relationship between increasedchild-adult ratios andincreased staffrequirements.While tradition-ally, child-adultratios have beenseen as a key

to quality,2 recentresearch has ques- itioned whetherchild-adult ratios, asa single, isolatedvariable, are quite socritical. Love, Rver,and Faddis3 found

22THE RECOMMENDATIONS

that increasing ratios from 8:1 to 10:1 for three- tofive-year-old children in California did not sub-stantially affect program quality. Other studieshave found that compensation, group size, andstaff turnover may be equally important predic-tors of quality.`" The point is that it might be possi-ble to alter ratios for three- to five-year olds undercertain conditions(e.g., more well-trained,

more stable, and more well-compensatedstaff), as is the case in

selected othernations.5 Amer-

, if I ' 0 ica needs to

I I I understand howthis change mightplay out, given the

diversity of chil-i . dren and settings in

our nation. It is pos-sible that increasing

ratios and increasingstaff qualifications

could result in cost sav-

ings, which could beused to increase staff compensation. This ideademands carefully controlled research to explorethe programmatic and fiscal effects of raisingchild-staff ratios for preschoolers when staff arewell qualified. Under no circumstances should thisidea be construed to support changes in state child-staff ratios and staff preparation requirements beforethe consequences of this approach in the United States

are understood.

Focus on improving. the overall organizationalclimate: The organizational climate of early careand education programs should create a positive,mutually reinforcing environment for all of theinteractions that take place.6 Programs shouldnurture staff, parents, and families, while foster-ing alliances among all these partners.7 Staff whoare valued and treated well are more likely to cre-ate environments that value children, parents,and familiesenvironments that are conducive

NOT BY CHANCE

to enhancing child development and supportingparents and families. In turn, parents who feelwelcome in programs and feel that their con-cerns are understood and addressed will partici-pate more freely and interact with staff more cor-dially.

Increase cultural sensitivity: The increasingdiversity of our society means that practitionersmust be sensitive to multiple populations, sendingthe consistent message that the program and itsstaff value the ethnic, cultural, racial, and linguis-tic diversity of children and families. Whetheryoung children feel accepted or alienated in earlycare and education programs sets the stage forsubsequent attitudes about, and performance in,schoo1.8 To that end, young children need adultrole models from their own culture, as well asexposure to people who are different from them;this promotes cross-cultural understanding andrespect among children.9 As with other areas ofpractice, there is no one approach to serving chil-dren and families from diverse cultures and eth-nic backgrounds. In fact, flexibility in practiceoffering children many ways to demonstrate theirlearning, many ways to participate in classroomactivities, and many ways to work interactively withadults and other childrenare particularlyappropriate in working with diverse groups ofyoung children.")

Increase the number of accredited programs:Accreditation is yet another approach to improv-ing quality in programs, by uplifting good pro-grams to excellent ones. Research indicates thataccreditationa voluntary process of self-assess-ment and outside validationsignificantly raisesprogram quality and that accredited centers pro-vide higher-quality services than non-accreditedprograms." The field has enthusiasticallyembraced accreditation not only because it typi-cally sets higher standards than facility licensing,but also because the process offers numerousopportunities for self-assessment and reflection,and thereby promotes quality and professional-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ism. Moreover, accreditation does not involve"policing. "12 To expand existing accreditationefforts, additional incentives should be providedto encourage programs to become accredited. Inaddition, accreditation requires programs toimprove continuously over the years, and to beperiodically revalidated; the revalidation processneeds support. Additionally, add-on specialtiesthat encourage programs to expand their servicesand capabilities could be developed as part of anexpanded accreditation effort.

Create environments that explicitly supportchildren's healthy development: Early care andeducation programs must make special efforts toaddress the physical and mental health needs ofall children, especially those with special healthneeds. Building on the work of Healthy ChildCare America,13 early care and education settingseither need to link children to health services orprovide them directly, assuring that all childrenhave up-to-date and easily accessible immuniza-tions," quality health, dental and developmentalscreening and follow-up, and to health and men-tal health consultation for all families, children,and workers. Nutrition education and nutritionservices must be made available, as should healthand safety education programs for all childrenand their families.

Link programs with other cominonityresourceshealth. mental health. and socialservicesand support the expansion ofresource and referral efforts: Early care andeducation programs should collaborate with oneanother and with other services for children andfamilies (such as social, health and mental healthservices, job training and housing programs,schools and other organizations that serve chil-dren and families) to ensure that the comprehen-sive needs of children and families are met. Link-ing with resource and referral agencies, early careand education programs can also work with oneanother to facilitate the transitions children and

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

families make among programs. Resource andreferral agencies can help to address unmetneeds, expedite service delivery, minimize dupli-cation, coordinate training, and assure smoothtransitions for children and families. By expand-ing the number of and support for resource andreferral agencies, linkages can also help to demys-tify "the system" for parents, helping them negoti-ate the confusing social service maze, buildingtheir self-confidence, and making them strongeradvocates for their children. Moreover, resourceand referral agencies can work to promote criticalhealth linkages for children, families, and pro-grams.13

Link family child care programs to supportiveresources, including family child care networksand centers: Family child care is highly decen-tralized, and providersmany of whom worklonger hours than their counterparts in centerstend to be isolated. To combat this, family childcare providers in the United States and someEuropean countries have affiliated with support-ive local agencies.'6 Such affiliations may be infor-mal or formal, and can include peer support andmentoring, referrals, training, home visits, hot-lines, newsletters, equipment and toy lending,help with starting a family child care home andbecoming regulated, and help with becomingaccredited.17 At the more formal end of the spec-trum, family child care providers link with eachother and core organizations to form family childcare networks or systems.

In some cases, family child care supportorganizations might also offer services to "kithand kin" providers,d who would not be requiredto be licensed. Kith and kin providers includepeople who care exclusively for children who arerelated to them, as well as people who care for thechildren of only one friend or one unrelated fam-ily. These providers often identify themselvesmore as parents than early childhood profession-als;18 consequently, family child care supportorganizations should work closely with parent andfamily support organizations in communities to

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

offer appropriate services. Many American chil-dren are cared for by kith and kin, and as welfarereform takes hold, many more children are likelyto be in these care arrangements. Providing sup-portive services for these providers is therefore animportant key to advancing the quality agenda.

STRATEGIES

O 1.1. Increase the use of mixed-age groups in cen-ter-based programs, and continue to supportmixed-age grouping in family child care homes.Training and education for staff need to berevised significantly to help practitionersunderstand how to work with groups of chil-dren who vary more widely in terms of ages,abilities, and interests. In particular, theimplications of mixed-age groups forincreasing the supply of high-quality, rela-tively affordable infant care need to beexplored.1.2. Promote flexibility in how staff are deployed

during the day. Researchers, practitioners,and regulators need to identify ways for statefacility licensing regulations to allow pro-grams to deploy staff in different waysthroughout the day, as appropriate for spe-cific activities, while maintaining close staff-child relationships and quality.

O 1.3. Pilot and carefully examine the results fromcontrolled research studies in which both stafftraining and child-staff ratios are increased forthree- to five-year-olds. Research is needed todetermine how ratios and staff training andeducation can be adjusted to accommodateone another; in other words, can practition-ers with more training and experience effec-tively handle more children during certainperiods of the day? Research also needs toidentify the point at which alterations inratios compromise quality for children andfamilies. Policies should not be changeduntil this research has been completed and isfully understood.

NOT BY CHANCE

1.4. Improve the organizational climates of early

care and education programs, making themmore supportive of staff and parents.

Researchers and practitioners need to iden-tify the working conditions that matter mostto practitioners, and pinpoint related best-practice approaches. To foster more parentinvolvement and enhanced staff-parentinteraction, the field can build on the kindof parent engagement and equality-basedpractices that characterize the family sup-port movement, as well as some model earlycare and education programs.1.5. Promote staff development in cultural sensi-

tivity and cultural pluralism. Children, staff,and families need opportunities to identifyand understand their culture and ethnicity,to understand their own roots, to reflect ontheir own culture and biases, and to learnabout other cultures. Opportunities for theexploration of cultural diversity should bepart of the pedagogy of the program. Further,staff should come from the communitiesserved by the program, making as many com-munity links as possible.1.6. Increase the number of accredited programs.

Accreditation is a critical tool for raising thequality of early care and education pro-grams, and resources should be provided forits expansion. A broad-based consumer edu-cation campaign on the value of accreditedprograms should be launched. At the sametime, the accreditation process should makecontinuous improvement a requirement forcontinued accreditation status. The possibil-ity of streamlining the accreditation processshould be considered if this can be donewithout sacrificing quality. is

1.7. Increase attention to health services andhealth education. Sometimes overlooked,health services (including dental, nutrition-al, mental, and physical health) are criticalto fostering children's development and arean essential component of quality early care

--BESTCOPY AVAILABLE,

and education programs. Such services

should encompass screening, direct services,

and health education for children, families,

and providers.1.8. Promote service and program coordination

within early care and education and across var-

ious fields and agencies to promote children's

full development. Early care and education

programs should initiate and join efforts to

coordinate community resources to meet

child and family needs. For example, coor-

dination between early care and education

programs and family support programs is

already occurring in some communities2°

and needs to be expanded. Further, linkages

with health care need to be augmented, if

children's full range of development is to be

maximized. In addition to linking with these

services, early care and education needs to

create linkages among its own programs to

foster efficiency,cost-effectiveness, and col-

laboration. Such efforts must reduce frag-

mentation and acrimony among providers

by fostering the development of durable col-

laborations that engage in joint planning,

joint professional development, joint pur-

chasing, job trading and sharing, and cross-

program transition activities.

Erif L9. Expand the number of and support for

resource and referral agencies. Resource and

referral agencies perform pivotal functions

within communities, linking parents with

services, linking programs with one another,

coordinating and providing training for par-

ents and staff, and serving as hubs for service

coordination. Such agencies should beexpanded and regarded as an essential core

of the early care and education infrastruc-

ture, with particular focus on enhancing the

role of resource and referral agencies in

promoting consumer education and healthy

early care and education environments for

children.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1.10. Support the development of family child

care support networks, and the linkage of fami-

ly child care homes to centers. Preventing fam-

ily child care from functioning in isolation

while providing multiple routes for support

will enhance quality in this increasingly pop-

ular sector of the early care and education

system. Such linkages should be formalized,

with all family child care homes being

linked to some support services.

RECOMMENDATION II:FOCUS ON GOALS ANDRESULTS FOR CHILDRENBy the year 2010, clear, age-appropriate goals

and results for children will be developed. These

goals will be composed of the skills and knowl-

edge that children should be able to demonstrate

across the domains of development (social, emo-

tional, physical, cognitive, and language), and

will take into consideration the child, family,

and community conditions that promote such

development. Appropriate child-friendly mea-

sures to assess the accomplishment of the goals

will be developed.

Throughout America, there is currently a new

I consideration of gauging quality in terms of

the results that programs or interventions pro-

duce for children and families.21 This trend

reflects the fact that across numerous sectors of

American society, success is increasingly defined

in terms of results. The corporate sector, for

example, measures economic success in terms of

profits; the process is important, to be sure, but

only as it affects the bottom line. In education and

human services, success is being measured not in

terms of the number or nature of services provid-

ed, but in terms of positive changes for the recip-

ients or consumers (such as sustained employ-

ment, improved physical or mental health,

improved work or school performance).

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

In early care and education as well, there is aneed to consider placing a greater emphasis onresults for the purposes of program planning andimprovement, as well as for purposes of moreeffective evaluation and accountability. But thisraises a critical unresolved question in the field:does quality inhere in the characteristics of a pro-gram, or in the results that accrue to the childrenand families as a consequence of their participa-tion? To date, researchers have generally focused

on the nature of programsas measuredby a variety of input

variables (suchas child-adult

"I I ratios, group size,

staff training andeducation), andthe manner in

, s s s which services areI II r delivered (such as

the warmth of adult-child interactions).22

Because these stud-ies have demonstrat-ed a strong correla-tion between quality

and inputs, it has been argued that inputs canserve as a proxy for quality and that measuring out-puts may be unnecessary.

The persistent reliance on inputsand acorresponding reluctance to focus on resultsstems from two main concerns. First, when stan-dardized measures have been employed, theinformation they have generated has often beenmisused.23 The widespread use of standardizedand readiness tests has led to the mislabelling,miscategorizing, and stigmatization of children,especially youngsters whose primary language isnot English and children from low-income fami-lies.24 In some districts, these practices haveresulted in delayed school entry or enrollment inalternative "transition" classes of unsubstantiatedvalue for up to 50 percent of all children.25

16

NOT BY CHANCE

Second, there is consensus neither aboutwhich results are most important for young chil-dren, nor about how to measure results. Manychildhood educators and developmentalists worrythat only cognitive knowledge and skills will bemeasured, and that developmental domains thatare more difficult to capture in standardizedassessmentssuch as health and physical develop-ment, socio-emotional development, languagedevelopment, and approaches toward learningwill be ignored. They note that assessments ofyoung children may be skewed by children's inex-perience in performing in testing situations, andby the highly episodic and developmental natureof their learning.26 Moreover, many challenge thereliability, validity, and cultural sensitivity of exist-ing assessment tools, questioning if existing instru-ments can be altered, or if new instruments mustbe created to ensure fairness and accuracy.27

Despite these very legitimate concerns, ashift toward child-based goals and resultsanapproach that focuses on children's developmentand what children can do rather than on whatthey lack or what the program provideshasmany benefits. By defining results clearly, forexample, practitioners working with young chil-dren can tailor their efforts more precisely toachieve the desired results for individual young-sters. In this way, children's developmental needsbecome the basis for pedagogynot the numberof hours they attend or the number of curriculumunits to which they are exposed. Moreover, whengoals and results are specified, they can becomethe basis for evaluating programs, providing thekind of feedback that can help programs makecritical decisions and raise quality.

Additionally, developmental and child-based goals and results can be helpful in assessingthe overall status and progress of young childrenin communities, states, and the nation, holdingthese entities accountable for public investmentsin early care and education.28 Once they havesolid information about the extent to which chil-

2-7

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

dren are, or are not, achieving results, parents,practitioners, and the public can more effectivelypressure decision makers at all levels to strength-en services. Moreover, as programs, communities,and states begin working toward similar goals,they can more easily learn from each other aboutwhat worksadapting one another's successfulapproaches.

Moving to child-based goals and resultsoffers numerous benefits, but it also involves sig-nificant challenges. There are serious questionsabout how developmental, child-based resultswould be defined, about whether they would actu-ally stress strengths rather than deficits, and aboutwhether they would gauge progress across thedevelopmental domains. Particular concern hasbeen raised about emphasizing results in a num-ber of specific contexts: when measuring resultsfor children younger than age three and childrenwho are ethnically, culturally, and linguisticallydiverse; when the data may be used to make"high-stakes" decisions concerning children'splacement (including retention); and whenresults may be used as the basis for decisionsabout resource allocation, such as merit pay forteachers or levels of program reimbursement.29

For all these reasons, a move to child-basedresults should take place only if

There is broad participation in the identifica-tion of developmental outcomes and child-based results: Results that will be useful to thenation need to be agreed upon by a broad con-stituency, including parents, policy makers, prac-titioners, and researchers. Politicians, govern-ment administrators, business leaders, andcitizens have meaningful contributions to make inthe development of results as well. Given the dis-comfort of many in the early care and educationcommunity regarding a shift to child-basedresults, it is especially important that discussionsof results involve diverse groups of practitionersand parents.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Appropriate results are identified: Organizingresults by curriculum area (such as science ormath) may be appropriate for older children, butneeds to be examined critically where youngerchildren are concerned. Learning for young chil-dren is less oriented to mastering subject matterthan to gaining developmental competence in theareas of physical well-being (health) and motordevelopment; social and emotional development;approaches toward learning; language usage; andcognition and general knowledge.39 The processof defining results must take into account the factthat young children amass knowledge throughintegrated hands-on experiences; it must alsoreflect the existing realities of diverse communi-ties, so that local variations are accommodated.

Results are carefully measured: Because youngchildren's growth is highly episodic and variable,performance cannot be judged at a single pointin time, so data must be collected via multipleobservations. Data must also be collected frommultiple sources, by individuals who are welltrained in observing and chronicling young chil-dren's development. Measures must be age andculturally appropriate, seeking to gauge chil-dren's knowledge and skills relative to where theystarted, rather than in relation to absolute perfor-mance levels. Inventive assessment strategies aremost desirable, so long as they are scientificallyreliable and valid.

Child-based results are linked to efforts thatimprove the lives of children: Changes in childresults need to be analyzed and understood inrelation to the contexts in which children devel-op. Efforts to collect data on children's develop-

ment and performance must be accompanied by

efforts to gather information on child and familyconditions (e.g., child health, family health andincome, parent education), as well as on commu-nity conditions (e.g., service availability, accessibil-ity, and quality; social conditionspoverty, vio-

2a THE RECOMMENDATIONS

lence, drugs). Data need to be presented in waysthat are linked to action and to the improvementof conditions for children.

STRATEGIES

Keeping these safeguards in mind, the followingstrategies should be considered for movingtoward child-based results:roi H./. Engage multiple constituencies in the

process of building consensus around goals andresults that address all domains of development.

Parents, practitioners, administrators, policymakers, and the public at large should beinvolved in the process of identifying desiredresults for children. Consensus buildingaround the content of the results is the criti-cal first step in moving toward an acceptable,child-based, results-driven system.11.2. Consider results from the perspective ofchildrenacross programs and time. Sinceyoung children grow rapidly, results need tobe gauged frequently over time. Andbecause children are often in multiple set-tings during a single day or week,researchers should track them over thecourse of the day and over the course oftheir early years, noting the cumulativeimpact of early care and education experi-ences.11.3. Specify child-based results at the local,state, and national levels, increasing the cus-tomization and specificity at each level. Thefederal government should create broadgoals for child-based results to guide statesas they develop more specific goals forresults. In turn, state standards should allowcommunities to develop their own specificbenchmarks, tailored to local needs, priori-ties, and customs. All standards and bench-

NOT BY CHANCE

marks should evolve with broad participa-tion by diverse constituencies and should besubject to frequent review and alteration,when necessary (see IN above).

Develop approaches for popularizing theuse of child-based results to hold programs, com-

munities, states, and the nation accountable.Effective programs, communities, and stateswhere children and families achieve positiveresults need to be rewarded. Such rewardsmight include additional funding orincreased latitude in decision-making.Lessons learned about how to achieve goodresults must be shared extensively so thatless successful programs, communities, andstates can build on them.17.5. Report data on child and family results inways that increase public understanding of theconnection among child results, effective ser-vices, and the expenditure of public funds.Often the reporting of results is confusing tothe public, so new ways to communicateresults and their implications need to be cre-ated. To that end, experiments with report-ing mechanisms for different audiences,identifying which groups find which types ofinformation useful for which purposes,should be conducted. Effective strategiesshould be discerned and replicated.11.6. Put theory into practice by piloting the use

of well-constructed, child-based results foraccountability purposes. The challenge of cre-ating and implementing a child-basedresults system is complex and demands tech-nical assistance across states and communi-ties experimenting with results-basedaccountability. Innovative approachesshould be shared and reviewed for adoptionor adaptation.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

29

Ei11.7. Develop appropriate, cost-effective

approaches to assessment and data collection,building on existing assessment and data collec-

tion strategies. Assessment approachesshould make use of inventive strategiesincluding anecdotal records, portfolios, andclassroom observations and checklists.Those who administer such assessmentsshould be well trained and the assessmentsshould meet rigorous standards so that thescientific community and the public canhave confidence in the findings.

H.8. Fund demonstration projects, evaluation,and basic research to expand the knowledge base

and increase understanding of what helps chil-dren and families achieve positive results. Sup-port state and local networking andresource development to promote mutualtechnical assistance and informationexchange, and to disseminate best practiceswidely. Such efforts provide states and local-ities with information that can guide currentand future strategies and investments. Uti-lize state-of-the-art technologies, includingthe electronic media.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

30 THE RECOMMENDATIONS

THE PARENTS:RECOMMENDATION III

On his way out of the center, Mike Taylor runs into another parent, Salena

Rodriguez. Salena has become involved at the center, taking a health and

nutrition class offered by one of the parents. She is thinking about running for

the parent policy board and wonders if Mike will support her. She also asks

Miktif he plans on coming to the parent health fair next week. Mike's work

schedule is really busy, but he says he'll think about it. As Mike opens the car

door, he sees one of the twins' paintings on the back seat, and thinks to himself;

I really should get involved here. He wonders if he can afford to take the time

off from work next week to attend the health fair, but decides that his boss

wouldn't approve and besides, his work schedule is just too busy.

Mike and Salena are both concernedabout their children, but circumstancesdictate that they take different

approaches to being with and supporting them.Does the program recognize their differentneeds? Does Mike's employer recognize the work-family tension he faces? Does the program accom-modate their families' different backgrounds, pat-terns of relating to children, and work schedules?Could the program and employers do more tosupport families? How? Just what should be therole of early care and education programs andbusiness in meeting family needs?

20

NOT BY CHANCE

Quality 2000 examined the role of parentsand families with regard to early care and educa-tion programs and business. We considered therole of parent involvement in quality programs,reviewing obstacles and exploring lessons thathave been learned from successful efforts. Weexamined roles for business and industry. Recom-mendation III and its accompanying strategiesrepresent a fresh approach to engaging parents asconsumers of, and partners in, their children'sprograms, and fresh roles for the corporate sector.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

RECOMMENDATION III:PLACE PARENTS ANDFAMILIES AT THE COREOF EARLY CARE ANDEDUCATION PROGRAMS

By the year 2010, all early care and educationprograms will address the needs of children,parents, and families; they will engage parentsand families as partners in their children'sprograms. Parents will have the user-friendlyinformation they need to be effective parentsand early care and education consumers; workplaces will be family-friendly.

To raise quality and improve results, familiesmust not simply be effective consumers of ser-

vices or actively engaged as partners in their chil-dren's programs, but must function at the very coreof early care and education programs 31 Research

shows that parent and family engagement in earlycare and education programs improves results forchildren, increasing the likelihood of children'schances of success and achievement, and decreas-ing the likelihood of negative outcomes, both inschool and later in life.32 Intensive parentalengagement is particularly important for the devel-opment of children whose mothers have relativelylow levels of education.33

To raise quality and improve results, pro-grams must become supportive of family needsand responsive to their differences.34 Simultane-ously, employers must provide work environmentsand policies that are friendly to and supportive ofadults' multiple roles as workers and family mem-bers; they must also enable parents to be activepartners in their children's programs and effectiveconsumers of early care and education.

Family-supportive activities, in which par-ents are partners in their children's programs,will vary from program to program, based onfamily needs and program capacities.35 All par-ents should participate in some way, but not nec-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

essarily the same way. Supportive activities couldinclude parenting support groups, family fieldtrips and parties, home visits, making referrals tocommunity services when needed, a video andequipment lending library, a washer and dryerfor parent use, and/or selling cooked dinners toparents when they pick up their children. Thesetypes of activities build on many of the tradition-al conceptions of parent involvement, but in theQuality 2000 vision, parent engagement and fam-ily support go further.

In the parent engagement/family supportframework, parents are equals who bring theirown valuable knowledge and experience to theirinteractions and activities.36 Parents are encour-aged to be advocates for their children_ and theprogram.37 They are encouraged to initiate activi-ties that spark their interest and that meet theirneeds and those of their children. This perspec-tive transforms traditional parent involvementactivities, in which parents are treated as helpersand are seen as learning from staff, into full-fledged parent engagement, in which parents areviewed as partners. Strengths are acknowledgedand incorporated into programs, with a two-wayflow of knowledge and responsibility between par-ents and staff.

In addition to providing family activ-ities and services, qual-ity programsare sensitive andflexible, so thatthey reflect par-ents' perspectiveson the type ofcare and educa-tion they want fortheir children. Par- I

ents may not always s

agree with profes-sionals.38 In somecases, they may chal-lenge basic premisesof professional practice, such as the value of devel-opmentally appropriate practices, positive disci-

I I

3ZTHE RECOMMENDATIONS

pline, promoting multiculturalism, and waiting tointroduce English until children have developed astrong basis in their own language. Researchersand professionals need to explore which aspectsof professional practice are really crucial to posi-tive child and family results, and which aspectscould be more flexible in response to parent per-spectives.

A quality early care and education systemalso supports_ parents as consumers. In our freemarket of early care and education, parents have

a choice of programs. In theory, programquality hinges in part

on parents' abil-ity to recognize

and patronizegood programs,

and to forcesub-standard pro-

grams to shutdown or improve.

But unless con-sumers have the

solid informationneeded to find pro-grams, assess their

options, and makesound decisions, and unless they have a range ofaffordable options, early care and education fortheir children will be more a matter of chancethan choice. In many cases, information thatalready exists in communities, such as facilitylicensing reports, could help parents in the deci-sion-making process.39 Additional informationthat parents might find useful include profession-al ratings of programs, accreditation status, expe-rienced parents' ratings of programs, and tours ofquality programs.

Finally, it is difficultif not impossibleforworking parents to be partners in their children'sprograms or effective consumers when choosing a

Unless consumers have thesolid information needed to

find programs, as.sess theiroptions, and make .sounddecisions, and unless theyhave a range of affordableoptions, ear!' care and edu-cation for their children willbe more a matter of chancethan choice.

NOT BY CHANCE

program without the support of their employers.Family-friendly work places offer employees bene-fits including time to find, monitor, and partici-pate in children's early care and education pro-grams and family events; understanding andresponsive supervisors; flexibility in schedulingthe option of part-time work; paid sick days tocare for sick children; and job-protected, paidmaternity and parental leave.40

STRATEGIES

171.1. In every program, create multiple activi-ties to involve parents in early care and educa-tion programs. Parents can organize and par-ticipate in activities for parents and families;make decisions about critical programissues; assist with staff development and pro-gram accreditation; serve as programombudsmen for parent and practitionerconcerns; and promote service coordinationand integration among neighborhood andcommunity agencies.41III.2. Engage parents in the governance of every

early care and education program. Experienceindicates that when parents have someresponsibility for running programs (e.g.,making decisions regarding budget, hiring,curriculum), their involvement is moremeaningful for them and for their children.Such involvement can take many forms.42Parents can sit on boards of directors; inprograms not required to have boards ofdirectors (e.g., for-profit programs, familychild care homes), parents can form com-mittees (or informal groups in the case offamily child care homes) that consider cur-riculum, staff, and other program decisions.III.3. Focus on developing regular communica-tion between practitioners and parents in which

both parties are equals, contributing valuableinformation to the discussion. Regular practi-

33

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

tioner-parent communication about chil-dren and about the program is the basis forparents functioning as partners with staff.Best practices and implementation optionsshould be specified, drawing on experiencesfrom the family support field of equal andreciprocal staff-parent relations.III.4. Include parents' perspectives when devel-

oping quality standardosuch as child results,accreditation, facility licensing, and teacher edu-

cation curriculaso that parents' needs andperspectives will be better understood and

addressed. Parent perspectives on what fac-tors are important to quality and how best tomeet family needs should be one key focusof new measures of quality. The point is notthat either parents or practitioners shoulddictate the elements of quality, but that allstakeholders should participate in authenticdialogues to gain a better understanding ofvaried perspectives.M.S. Increase the linkages between early care

and education programs and family support pro-

grams. Early care and education programsshould coordinate efforts with the variedfamily support programs that may exist in aparticular communityincluding generalfamily support programs and family supportprograms focused on, for example, theneeds of Head Start families or families withchildren with special needs. Links should bemade to family literacy programs, as well asdrug and alcohol treatment programs,where necessary.

Identi6 and carry out innovative, effectivestrategies for helping parents be effective con-

sumers, including the following:

Give parents access to well-trained,skilled resource and referral coun-selors who have the time and resourcesto build comfortable, trusting relation-ships with parents.Involve community workers in con-sumer education efforts.Give parents more objective informa-tion about programs, so that they cancompare their options.Develop ways for experienced parentsto help new parents find quality pro-grams.Give parents more concrete images ofquality programs and better mecha-nisms for learning about quality earlycare and education.Give parents information about howissues of race, culture, and languageaffect children's development.Expand parenting education pro-grams in high schools.Increase the family-friendliness of work

places. Work places must implement family-supportive policies effectively and mustaddress work-family issues as a part of thecompany's overall business strategy. Thedirect benefits of family-friendly work placesto employers and employees need to be

broadly communicated and adopted, as dostrategies to implement such policies. Ongo-ing technical assistance and training need tobe provided to employers on the specifics ofmaking businesses family-friendly places,building on work already undertaken. *.;

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

34 THE RECOMMENDATIONS

A fri r-r-1

171..il a1AND PLACES:

CO NIME DATI :57V, 7, AND V

It's the end of a long day, and Mike Taylor is back at the Elm Street Center

to pick up the twins. He pauses outside to listen, trying to pick out his kids'

voices from the chorus of lively chatter. He opens the door and looks around.

Julie, a veteran staff member, is sitting with several children as they draw, lis-

tening intently to them, and recalling with them the events of their day. In the

far corner, Doug, a newer staff member, is trying out an idea he learned from

a class at the community college. Though tired, Mike takes time to look

around; the place does seem pleasant and clean. He wonders what makes the

teachers so competent and the place so comfortable. Are the teachers certified?

Is the center regulated?

ome of the ingredients of quality early careand education programs are obvious toMikethe attention that staff give to each

child; the familiar routines that punctuate eachday; the cleanliness of the room and good condi-tion of the toys. But other ingredientsequallyimportant to quality programsare less obviousto most parents. Why are Julie and Doug so goodwith children? How do they know just what to doand when to do it? How does the settingtheplacereally affect what the staff and the chil-dren do?

Quality 2000 looked at what it takes for earlycare and education practitioners to do their jobswell in the settings in which children spend theirdays.c We studied how staff are licensed and pre-pared in other fields and other nations, lookingparticularly at alternative, inventive approaches to

NOT BY CHANCE

credentialing and professional development! Weinvestigated the relationship between programquality and staff training and facility licensure, dis-cerning ways to improve current practices. Weexamined whether and how policies are put inplace to safeguard children's health and safety inearly care and education facilities.

This research supports the widely held viewthat a wonderful, knowledgeable teacher canmake an immense difference for children andtheir families; but at the same time, it refutes thenotion that some individuals are simply born tohe great teachers or caregivers, and that quality isavailable only to the fortunate few who chance tobe in their care. It asserts that given excellent,ongoing training and appropriate working condi-tions, many caregivers can nurture and engage

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

young children, leading to the secure attachmentsthat are so crucial to healthy development.

On the basis of our investigations, we pre-sent three recommendations: first, that all staffresponsible for children be licensed; second, thatthe content of professional training and educa-tion be expanded; and third, that all states rigor-ously enforce facility licensing, eliminate exemp-tions, and streamline regulatory requirementsand processes.

RECOMMENDATION IV:REQUIRE STAFF TO BELICENSEDBy the year 2010, states will require all staffresponsible for children in centers and familychild care homes to hold licenses. To achievethese licenses, staff will need to complete highlevels of training and education and demon-strate their abilities; to maintain these licens-es, ongoing training and educationlifelonglearningwill be required.

The more training and education practitionershaveboth general education and early

childhood-related training and educationthemore skilled they are at helping young childrenthrive and achieve their potentia1.43 As practition-ers attend more training and become better edu-cated, there are increases in their sensitivity andresponsiveness, in the complexity of children'splay with each other, and in the frequency of chil-dren being securely attached to them.44 Well-trained and educated practitioners are less harshand restrictive than staff with less preparation,45and they help children become ready to succeedin school and in life. In family child care, a recentstudy has also shown that increased training led tochildren who were more securely attached totheir providers and who spent more time engagedin activities and less time wandering aimlessly.46Early childhood-related training and educationseem to be particularly important for practition-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 36

ers working with infants47 and toddlers.48 Train-ing and education can also help practitionersform better relationships with parents, communi-cate with them more regularly, and develop ser-vices and activities to meet their needs.

Despite these benefits, across the nationtraining requirements are sparse and professionaldevelopment opportunities are limited, particu-larly when compared to other fields in the U.S.49The contrast between early care and education inthe U.S. and other nations is startling, as well.Other industrialized countries, particularly west-ern European countries and Japan, require signif-icantly more training and education of early careand education practitioners.5° But most Ameri-cansincluding parentsdo not view educationand training as important for people who workwith young children.51 The belief that anyone cando a good job caring for young children persists,despite growing evidence that early childhoodteaching is complex and demands certain skills.52Licensing practitioners would establish cleartraining requirements and create the frameworkfor the development of necessary skills.

We advocate creating a system for licensingindividuals becausewhile difficult to achievewe believe that it holds the best promise forincreasing the compensation of staff; increasingthe professionalism of the field; promot-ing the creation andcoordinationof quality train-ing and educa-tion; promoting I I I

career mobility;and increasing I I I I I

the efficiency of I I I I I

facility licensing.gSuch a systemmust promote careermobility so that indi-viduals may movefrom one level toanother and from one

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

' I '

,^f

role to another with ease. The system should con-tinue to promote facility licensure which shouldbe linked to individual licensure, but facility licen-sure should not be the primary tool to assure thatindividuals working with young children are wellprepared. Rather, individual licenses should speci-fy the preparatory and ongoing training staff needto work with children. Open access to entry-levelpositions in the field should continue, but train-ing, education, competency, and licenses shouldbe required for all staff members who have respon-sibility for groups of young children. This recom-mendation is designed to work hand-in-hand withRecommendation V concerning the expansion ofavailable training and education, and Recommen-dation VI concerning facility licensing.

Individual licensing offers five key benefits.It would help to:a Prevent harm to children and assure the

quality of programs;533 Increase the recognition and rewards for

early childhood workers;Facilitate training coherence and coordina-tion;Encourage career mobility, building careerlattices with horizontal and vertical jobopportunities; andImprove the cost-efficiency of facility licens-ing, since detailing staff training and educa-tion as part of the facility licensing process iscumbersome for program directors andlicensing staff alike.54

While there are many approaches to individ-ual licensing, we offer one that can serve as anexample. This approach calls for a series of threelicenses for early care and education workers:

All center directors and directors of familychild care support services would berequired to have Early Childhood Adminis-trator Licenses. To obtain this license, anindividual would need at least a bachelor'sor master's degree in early childhood edu-cation or child development from anaccredited institution,'" including at least 15

NOT BY CHANCE

credits in early childhood administration,certification in first aid, and demonstratedcompetency in management and workingwith children and families.

li All teachers in centers would be required tohave Early Childhood Educator Licenses.Teachers of three- and four-year-old chil-dren in public schools would have theoption of obtaining public school teachercertification/licenses or the Early Child-hood Educator License. To obtain the EarlyChildhood Educator License, an individualwould need to have at least an associate's orbachelor's degree in early childhood educa-tion or child development from an accredit-ed institution;56 have practicum experiencewith the age group with which they wouldwork; be certified in pediatric first aid; anddemonstrate competence in working withchildren and families.

3 All assistant teachers in centers, as well aslead providers in large family child carehomes, would be required to have EarlyChildhood Associate Educator Licenses. Toobtain the license, an individual working in acenter would need to have a Child Develop-ment Associate (CDA) or equivalent; an indi-vidual working in a large family child carehome would need to have a CDA, the revisedNational Association for Family Child Care(NAFCC) accreditation, or equivalent certifi-cation. Each of these certifications requiresat least 120 clock hours of formal educationin early childhood development and educa-tion and the demonstration of the compe-tencies needed to work with young childrenand their families. They would also need tohave practicum experience with the agegroup with which they would work, and cer-tification in pediatric first aid.Individuals who do not have training or edu-cation in child development or early child-hood education, but who have an interest inand aptitude for working with young chil-dren and families, and a commitment toseeking training in the field, would have

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

access to entry-level jobs as assistants in child

care centers or in large family child care

homes or as providers in small family child

care homes. Such assistants, as long as they

are actively pursuing training that will lead

to licensing, would be considered an inte-

gral part of the profession.

This approach to licensing dramatically

advances current practice by calling for a coher-

ent system of licensure. It also requires all staff

responsible for young children to have high levels

of formal training and education and to demon-

strate their competency. This approach also allows

flexibility in that a range of educational degrees

or achievements can satisfy the requirements for

the licenses. Further, it fosters vertical (up the

career ladder) and horizontal (from setting to set-

ting) career mobility. Finally, this approach takes

an initial step toward promoting the compatibility

of early care and education and public school

licensure systems.While offering numerous benefits, this

approach also demands new and challenging

roles for government and professional entities.

State governments would need to collaboratewith

the early care and education field in managing

the licensing process by means of professional

licensing boards. The professional licensing

boards could establish standards for each level of

licensure and identify appropriate assessments for

individuals to demonstrate competency. Staff

must be able to afford the education and training

required to secure and maintain individual licens-

es, so an incentive system must be created early

on. Moreover, if practitioners are to be expected

to pursue training and education, their wages

must be raised so that they are comparable to

wages in other fields requiring similar levels of

responsibility, education, and experience.

STRATEGIES

Any system for licensing individuals will require

dedication and focusfrom the early care and

education field, state administrators, and training

and higher education institutions throughout the

countryto build a quality system on the existing

professional development capacity in states and

communities. The following strategies are

designed to facilitate the transition to a system for

licensing the individuals who are responsible for

young children.IV1. Make grants available to states to plan

and implement individual licensing systems.

Grants should be made to states to begin the

planning and implementation of individual

licensure systems, assuring that adequate

compensation accompanies new licensure

requirements. The proposed licensing sys-

tems should consider which entities (e.g.,

state licensing boards) should oversee the

process, identify and administer assess-

ments, grant licenses, and handle com-

plaints. The individual licenses must be

required by states, ultimately, though the

license itself could be awarded by a non-pub-

lic entity. Proposals, undergirded by princi-

ples of equitable compensation, should be

developed collaboratively by professional

groups and should specify how the transi-

tion to the new system of licensing individu-

als will be made.IV2. Determine appropriate amounts of ongoing

training and educationfor staff in different roles

as well as mixtures of staff that might be appro-

priate. Ongoing training and educationrequirements for other occupations in the

United States should be reviewed as a first step

in determining the requirements for main-

taining individual licenses in early care and

education. Once the requirements for ongo-

ing training (both amounts and types) have

been determined, advocates should work in

each state to revise facility licensing and to

shape future individual licensing systems.

grj 1V3. Develop and pilot approaches for assessing

staff competency at each level of licensure. Iden-

tify one or more professional organizations

to work in concert with the field and state

professional development groups to develop

4`;,1C` 31/1 THE RECOMMENDATIONS

ra--1

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

and pilot model assessments for licensingindividuals. It will be important to search theearly care and education field and relatedfields for appropriate assessment models,which could include portfolios, observations,demonstrations, and for some topics, exams.IV.4. Link all training and education to acade-mic credit. All training and educationrequired for individual licensing should beof sufficient quality and rigor to warrant aca-demic credit; this will help staff attain initialand advanced degrees. Specifically, it will beimportant to work early on in the states toassure that academic credit is granted forthe Child Development Associate (CDA)and the revised National Association forFamily Child Care (NAFCC) accreditation.IV.5. Promote accreditation of two- and four-year college early childhood education and childdevelopment programs. A key part of the infra-structure, supporting systems for licensingindividuals, is a mechanism to ensure thequality of certificate programs, associate'sdegrees, and bachelor's degrees at institu-tions offering preparation in early child-hood education and child development.IV.6. Provide supports and incentives for staff to

obtain voluntary advanced individual certifi-cates, above and beyond what is required byindividual licensing. Individual licenses repre-sent just the minimum training, education,and competency that staff should berequired to have to perform their roles. Vol-untary, higher-level certificates, such asthose at the masters level offered by theNational Board of Professional TeachingStandards (NBPTS), encourage staff to con-tinue to increase knowledge and skills.N.7. Increase financial assistance for education,training, and compensation. To facilitate thetransition to a well-qualified, appropriatelypaid work force, existing grant, loan, andloan-forgiveness programs need to be

NOT BY CHANCE

expanded. Appropriate standards for com-pensation need to be developed, with newfinancial programs targeted to early care andeducation students and workers created. It iscrucial that the current vitality and diversity ofthe early childhood work force be maintainedas we move toward a quality early care andeducation system. Financial assistance andappropriate compensation levels are requisiteto this end.

RECOMMENDATION V:EXPAND THE CONTENTOF TRAINING ANDEDUCATION

By the year 2010, the content of education andtraining for early care and education staff willbe expanded to: (1) address the needs ofdiverse children and families; and (2) imple-ment effective approaches to instruction, man-agement, and leadership.

The content of education and training forearly care and education staffpractitioners,

administrators, and leadersis a foundation of aquality early care and education system. TheChild Development Associate (CDA) competen-cies are well respected by the field as the basicareas in which knowledge and skill are needed towork with young children. All training and educa-tion sequences should, at a minimum, addressthese competency areas: establish and maintain asafe, healthy learning environment; advance phys-ical, intellectual, and creative competence; sup-port social and emotional development and pro-vide positive guidance; establish positive andproductive relationships with families; ensure awell-run, purposeful program that is responsive toparticipant needs; and maintain a commitment toprofessionalism.57

.33 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

More trainingparticularly at intermediateand advanced levelsneeds to be developed andmade available to pre- and in-service practitionersin the following areas:58

Engaging and supporting families: Trainingand education programs need to include contentrelated to parent development and family sup-port, to help staff-family alliances develop andflourish,59 and to engage families meaningfully inearly care and education programs.

Developing cultural competency: Early careand education staff work with an increasingly cul-turally diverse pool of young children and fami-lies, so training in cultural sensitivity, culturalcompetence, and culture-linked curriculum isincreasingly necessary.

Observing and assessing children: As wemove toward a child-based results approach,practitioners will need more training in beingkeen observers of children's behavior, skills, andinteractions. Such training will enhance reflec-tive practice.

Working with mixed-age groups, workingwith larger groups, and team teaching:Training curricula need be revised to accommo-date more flexible, adaptive teaching strategies,such as mixed-age groups, team teaching, and col-laboration with other staff members.

Working with infants and toddlers: There isan immediate need for better training and educa-tion for practitioners working with children frombirth to age three, as the quality of these pro-grams trails behind the quality of programs forthree- and four-year-olds.89 Such training shouldfocus on effective practices with infants and effec-tive practices with families.

Working, with children with special needs:Since the early 1990s, the Americans with Disabili-ties Act has accelerated the inclusion of young chil-

dren with disabilities into community early care andeducation programs. Staff training to implementthis approach is necessary.

Promoting ethical behavior: Codes of ethicshelp to distinguish a profession and also guidepractitioners. Because early care and education,like other professions, deals with sensitive issues,staff need training in how to handle matters ofconfidentiality, rights, and values with children,families, and colleagues.

Working across human service disciplines:As part of interprofessional collaboration and ser-vice integration efforts, early care and educationstaff need to be able to work with staff from a rangeof human services, including schools, health depart-ments and initiatives, family support programs, jobtraining and placement organizations, child wel-fare, and economic development agencies.61

Developing management and leadership:In addition to expanding the types of trainingavailable to practitioners, the development ofmanagement and leadership capacity is necessaryfor promoting and maintaining a quality system.

STRATEGIES

riV1. Revise and develop curricula and sequencesfor practitioners to address the broad-basedknowledge and skills they need to be competent

in early care and education programs. Workwith state licensing boards for early care andeducation to require staff to have appropri-ate ranges of skills to earn and maintainlicenses, including appropriate preparatoryand ongoing course work. Work with col-leges and community organizations to offersuch courses. Curriculum should considertransdisciplinary approaches so that earlycare and education practitioners developperspectives from allied disciplines as well asin-depth knowledge of early childhood ped-

agogy.62

Ata THE RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

riV2. Promote a variety of strategies at the local,

state, and national levels to help staff strengthen

leadership and management skills. Leadershipdevelopment should be promoted at thelocal, state, and national levels by means ofprofessional associations and other organiza-tions.63 There should be a focus on creatingand expanding professional associations forprogram administrators who have strongpotential to be leaders. Mentoring programsshould be promoted, allowing skilled andexperienced staff to work with individualswho are newer to the field, passing on knowl-edge and successful approaches.64 And final-ly, leadership programs might be created tospan the human services at the local, state, ornational level. By working and trainingtogether, staff from a range of human ser-vices can broaden their understanding of thecomprehensive needs of children, families,and communities; increase staff knowledgeof a range of fields; increase coordinationamong fields; and build their capacity forcollaborative advocacy.

RECOMMENDATION VI:ELIMINATE EXEMPTIONSAND STREAMLINE ANDENFORCE FACILITYLICENSING

By the year 2010, all early care and educationprograms offering their services to the publicwill be required to be licensed, and facilitylicensing will be streamlined and enforced.

Wen it comes to health and safety, parentsshould never be forced to take their

chances. Consumers should have the right toknow that early care and education programsoffering their services to the public are regulat-edthat basic safeguards and quality standardsare in place to protect their children from harm

30

NOT BY CHANCE

while they are in these programs.65 Most parentsassume that these safeguards are in place, butfacility licensing requirements are far from uni-versal. It has been estimated that nationwide,about 40 percent of all early care and educationprogramsincluding family child care homes,church-based programs, part-day programs, andschool-based programsare legally exempt fromstate regulation.66 Legally exempting programsundermines public confidence in early care andeducation, the quality of the overall system, andthe equity of the early care and education market.

While the vast majority of programs foryoung children should be licensed, there arethree categories of care situations that statesshould not have an obligation to license. Statesshould not be obligated to license people caringfor only related children (care by "kin"), or peo-ple caring for just the child or children of onefriend (care by "kith"). Neither kin nor kith care-givers are offering a service to the public at large;these caregivers are caring for children because ofthe relationship with the family. Nor should statesbe obligated to license providers caring for thechild or children of just one familyin theprovider's homebecause the parents are ineffect hiring the provider to offer a service to justtheir family; this situation is not significantly dif-ferent from parents hiring a nanny or au pair towork in the family's home, and the state is notobligated to license such employer-employee situ-ations. If, however, public funds are received bythese individuals, they must assure that their ser-vices promote children's safety, health, and devel-

opment.However, all programs that are available to the

general public should be required to meet stan-dards that protect children's well-being and fosterequity in the early care and education industry.The standards to which programs are held mustbe comparable, although they should be adaptedto the particular type of facility. To this end, statefacility licensing should be streamlined to focuson essential safeguards of safety, health, and

41 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

development, and to complement the system oflicensure called for in Recommendation IV. Mea-sures that will streamline and coordinate facilitylicensing include:67

Regulating essential aspects of programs,including setting standards for the physicalfacility and equipment, health supplies andpractices, nutrition, and child immuniza-tions, as well specifying the licenses staff arerequired to hold and background require-ments for any unlicensed staff;Eliminating any regulations that are notneeded to protect children from harm andthat do not promote essential health, safety,and child development. Appeals, waivers,and licensing records can be studied to iden-tify regulations that themselves may causeharm or undermine quality;Coordinating the standards and inspectionsof the range of agencies with regulatoryauthority for early care and education pro-grams (such as state and local facilitylicensers, local departments of health, firedepartments);Using plain language and user-friendly ter-minology for the regulations that are impor-tant for children and families, and placingthese points at the beginning of regulatorydocuments; andEliminating unnecessary procedural redtape, and placing the remaining proceduralred tape and rights of licensees at the end ofregulatory documents.While state facility licensing should be

streamlined, it should maintain standards forstaffing levels. Such standards should allow pro-grams options, however, to group children andorganize staff in ways that maximize quality. Pro-grams need alternatives to the single approach oflow child-staff ratios, same-age groups, and staticgroup size promoted by facility licensing in manystates. Research is needed to examine the interac-tions among teacher training and education, chil-dren's characteristics, group size, and child-adult

ratios to identify the range of combinations ofthese variables that can lead to quality for chil-dren and families.

It is not enough to have standards for facilitylicensing that promote children's safety, health,and development and that do not exempt pro-grams; standards must be enforced. State monitoringand enforcement systems should employ positive,incentive-based strategies to encourage and facili-tate all programs to meet licensing standards. Forthe few programs that are consistently unable tomeet licensing standards, licensing staff should usemore corrective strategies, including technicalassistance; where necessary, programs should beclosed.

Finally, although states should retain themain responsibility for the development and pro-mulgation of facility licensing requirements,national regulatory coherence should be promot-ed by means of a set of national licensing guide-lines, developed with broad-based participation.

STRATEGIES

W.I. Advocate to change state facility licensingstatutes to cover all early care and educationprograms, except for "kith and kin." As neces-sary, develop interim approaches to reduc-ing exemptions, for example, by requiringpreviously exempted programs to complywith a limited number of health and safetyrules. Create campaigns in each state toinform parents, providers, and the public atlarge of the prevalence of legally unlicensed(i.e., exempt) programs, the possible risksthey present to children, and the benefits oflicensing.VL2. Work to streamline and coordinate facility

licensing.Create coordinated systems from thecurrently separate, fragmented licens-ing by health, building safety, fire safety,and other authorities at the state andlocal levels.

4zii.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Exempt family child care homes fromlocal zoning restrictions and condi-tional use permits, as some states andcommunities have already chosen todo.

31 Explore the roles that communityorganizations could play in supportingthe facility licensing process for bothcenter-based programs and familychild care homes.

VL3. Identify how state and local facility licens-

ing can give programs options in grouping chil-

dren and organizing staff while maintainingquality. Following are options that states might

consider:68

State facility licensing for centerscould allow and encourage mixed-agegroups.Staff facility licensing could give pro-grams the option of regulating theirstaffing levels by group size or pro-gram size, in order to allow programsmore flexibility in staff deploymentthroughout the day.If research demonstrates that well-qual-ified teachers can work with largernumbers of children and maintain orincrease quality, programs could begiven the option of having better qual-ified staff and higher child-staff ratios.States should not, however, give pro-grams the option of altering child-adultratios if staff are better qualified untilcareful research demonstrates whetherthis approach maintains quality.

NOT BY CHANCE

n.4. Commission a review of state-of-the-artmonitoring and enforcement approaches in early

care and education, and innovative approaches

from other fields. Consider the followingincentive-based monitoring and enforce-ment approaches:693 Calibrating the number of monitoring

visits, the amount of licensing fees, andthe cost of insurance with programs'histories of violations (e.g., fewer mon-itoring visits and lower licensing andinsurance fees if few or no violations).

3 Developing innovative ways for parentsto become involved in the monitoringand enforcement process.

3 Using "indicator checklists" to increasethe efficiency of program monitoring.Developing approaches to peer moni-toring in which program staff workwith other programs to assess andimplement regulations.Encouraging staff to report programviolations, using existing "whistle-blow-ing" laws to afford job protections.

111 Invoking reasonable sanctions andpenalties for programs with seriousviolations and programs that do notcorrect identified violations.Closing programs that present animmediate threat to children or thatdo not address serious violations inreasonable periods of time.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1

43

VI.5. Develop the capacity of licensing staff and

give them the appropriate resources to enforcefacility licensing. Licensing staff need exper-tise in early childhood education and thecapacity to think creatively about enforce-ment." Developing a certificate for licensingstaff would clarify the skills and knowledgeneeded by these important players in theearly care and education infrastructure;revising Civil Service requirements for licens-

ing staff to require such a certificate wouldimprove the effectiveness of facility licensing.VI.6. Promote the utilization of national guide-

lines for faculty licensure. National guidelinesdeveloped by The American Public HealthAssociation in conjuntion with the Ameri-can Academy of Pediatrics should be pro-moted. The federal government should pro-vide incentives to encourage states toimplement the guidelines.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

44THE RECOMMENDATIONS

THE PURSE, THE PUBLICAND THE POWER:

ECOMMENDATIONS VII AND 71:12

The twins are finally asleep, and Mike and Sandy Taylor sit down at the kitchen

table to talk and figure. The roofing business is slow, and the bill from theElm

Street Child Care Center is running about ten thousand dollars a year for the

two children. What to do? They might be able to swing the tuition for one, but

certainly not for both. They don't know where to turn. The program at thechurch

is less expensive but has a long waiting list, and they earn just over the limit for

the subsidized program downtown. Sandy thinks maybe they should keep the

twins at Elm Street for the morning and send them to Miss Ryan for the rest of

the day, but Mike reminds her that there's no way to get them from oneplace to

the other. They can't leave work and the programs don't provide transportation,

much less coordinate services or curricula with each other. Maybe they should

split up the children, but that would be more expensive and the kids would be on

two different schedules. Mike and Sandy are in a state of shock; they always

knew they'd have to struggle to figure out how to pay for the twins to go to col-

lege, but they never imagined that their kids would have to drop out of

preschool! Who knew child care could be so complicated!

finance and governance structures mightseem to be the province of bureaucrats andpolicy mavens, far removed from the day-to-

day realities of most Americans. But in fact, theTaylors and parents like them across the nation aredramatically affected by the ways in which individ-ual programs, and the early care and educationsystem as a whole, are funded, organized, and gov-erned. Adequate funding and effective gover-

NOT BY CHANCE

nance are two keys to moving beyond chance andassuring equitable access to good programs.Today, three out of four program dollars comefrom parents' pockets, with the result that mostearly care and education programs are severelyunderfunded. Despite the growing demand forearly care and education, federal, state, and localresponsibilities are not clearly delineated. Over-laps and gaps abound in eligibility, fees, program-ming, and other crucial matters, raising practical

,45

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

dilemmas for families like the Taylors and policydilemmas for decision-makers at all levels. Whichfamilies and programs should receive governmentfunding for early care and education, and howshould such funding be distributed and chan-neled? How should myriad programs and spon-sors be managed and coordinated? Quality 2000has examined existing policies and mechanisms,and has concluded that if a quality early care andeducation system is to be achieved, governmentand business funding must increase and theremust be coordinated, rational governance process-es at national, state, and local levels.

RECOMMENDATION VII:RAISE NEW FUNDS ANDSET ASIDE TEN PERCENTFOR QUALITY ANDINFRASTRUCTURE

By the year 2010, a broad array of groupsincluding the public at large, business, govern-ment, parents, and community organizationswill generate the needed new funds for a qualityearly care and education system. Additionally, 10percent of all public early care and education fundswill be invested directly in the infrastructure.

Adequate funding is a key to solving the qua!-ty problem and assuring equitable access to

good programs. Today, underfunding affects vir-tually every program and every effort to improvequality. Government funding covers only one-quarter of the costs of running the nation's earlycare and education programs; parents pay therest. When parent and government outlays forfull-time early care and education are combined,the total averages $3,000 to $5,000 per child peryearsignificantly less than the roughly $5,800taxpayers lay out to educate each school-agedchild.71 And yet, this lower amount must cover35 to 50 hours per week for 50 to 52 weeks peryear, compared with 30 hours of education aweek for about 40 weeks a year for school-age

children.72 The absence of adequate resourcesmeans that programs cannot provide many of thekey elements of early care and education thathave been shown to produce good results forchildren.

If the quality crisis is to be solved, the costsof a quality early care and education system mustbe shared by the government, business, parents,and community organizations.73 The governmentmust bear considerable additional costs becausewhile parents with young children must pay whatthey can afford, they cannot bear the full cost ofquality programs single-handedly. This recom-mendation calls for continuation of mixed fund-ing of early care and education and the expansionof government and business investment. Inreturn, it foresees increased results, in the form ofhigher national productivity and enhanced devel-opment and achievement for children.

Specifically, the public must acknowledge itsrole and pick up more of the tab for early careand education. As with investments in public edu-cation, the publicnot simply the direct con-sumersderive merit benefits.74 Consequently,the publicnot simply the direct consumersshould be responsible for funding American earlycare and education. We therefore call forincreased public spending. Revenue-generatingapproaches to early care and education should beprogressive, requiring those who earn more tocontribute more.

Employers also stand to benefit directlyfrom a quality early care and education system,which would enable employees to devote moreattention to work and less to arranging for andworrying about care for young children. Allemployers should contribute directly to fundingthe early care and education system by means ofsome kind of tax (e.g., payroll tax, corporateincome tax). Contributions, both cash and in-kind donations, should also continue to beencouraged from community organizations suchas houses of worship, United Ways, and volunteergroups. In addition to promoting quality in pro-grams, these contributions facilitate community

46THE RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ti

linkages and help establish early care and educa-tion within the array of essential community ser-vices.

As public investments in early care and edu-cation increase, a larger percentage of govern-

ment fundingwe estimate at least 10percentneeds to be

invested direct-s ly into building

and maintain-/ ing the infra-

0 I structure, includ-ing support forresource and refer-

/ ral agencies; par-e ent information and

engagement; datacollection, planning,governance, and eval-uation; practitionerprofessional develop-

ment and licensing; facility licensing, enforce-ment and improvement; program accreditation;and other quality improvement activities. Part ofthis 10 percent of funds must support inventivefinancing approaches for enhancing salaries andbenefits, and for improving and expanding thephysical facilities (centers and family child carehomes) in which children spend their days.

The remaining government funds for earlycare and educationwe estimate about 90 per-centshould be used to help parents pay forearly care and education programs, to sustain pro-grams directly, and to help working parents affordto take time off from work to care for their ownchildren. Government funding should make upthe difference between what parents can afford topay for programs based on their incomes, and thefull cost of quality programs. The full cost of qual-ity programs should include increased salaries forearly care and education staff, who must be com-pensated at levels comparable to personnel withsimilar education and experience in other fields.

NOT BY CHANCE

In this vision of increased public funding ofearly care and education, parents would continueto be able to choose among programs run by avariety of service providersincluding non-prof-its, for-profits, family child care, Head Start,schools, houses of worship, and others. However,some of the public funds for early care and edu-cation programs would be used to directly sup-port programs in low-income communities, givingthem the means to provide the comprehensiveservices needed by children and families living inpoverty. These funds must be used to expandHead Start (and Head Start-like services) so that itforms the core of services for low-income chil-dren. Such direct supports must be preserved soas to maintain durable, secure programs in low -income, migrant, and other targeted communi-ties. While parents should be free to choose careby friends and relatives (kith and kin), if the gov-ernment helps to pay for this form of care, it alsohas the responsibility to assure that these servicespromote safety, health, and development.

While parents need access to quality earlycare and education, they also need to have theoption of caring for their own very young chil-dren. Although many parents would like to stay athome and care for their infants, many do not havethe financial resources to stop working when theirchildren are very young. Part of public fundingfor early care and education should go towardhelping to provide paid parental leave for theworking parents of very young children. Paidparental leave is the major approach to providingcare for very young children in most industrial-ized countries; they recognize that the cost ofquality infant programs is extremely high, andthat there are great benefits to both infants andparents of parental care during the early monthsand years. While parents should have the choiceof enrolling infants in early care and educationprograms while they work, working parentsshould also have the option of taking time off tocare for their infants themselves.

47BEST COPY AVAILABLE

STRATEGIES

VII.1. Estimate the actual cost of a comprehen-sive quality early care and education system.The field has not yet developed consensuson the early care and education system itwants and how much this system would cost.In making such estimates, early care andeducation professionals need to work close-ly with funding and financing experts, usingcost calculation approaches that other fieldshave found useful. Such an analysis shouldalso estimate the revenues that the early careand education system would generate inboth the short- and long-term. For example,a well-funded early care and education sys-tem could help more parents enter the workforce,_thereby generating tax revenue ontheir earnings. Longer-term cost-benefitaccounting also needs to be used to deter-mine the extended benefits of a quality earlycare and education system, including sav-ings in special education, corrections, publicassistance, and other social services.VII.2. Identify and implement strategies for rais-

ing the compensation of early care and educa-tion staff. Increasing the compensation ofstaff is crucial to a quality early care and edu-cation system,75 but raising wages in a free-market, mixed-sector system is not a simplematter. One approach would be to raisewages by means of the funds parents aregiven to help pay for programs. Alternatestrategies include giving funds directly toprograms, earmarking them for wages andinstituting a refundable tax credit for earlycare and education staff.VII.3. Develop model approaches to fundingpaid parental leave. The goal is to keep gov-ernment, employer, and employee costsunder control, while providing levels ofassistance to working parents that wouldenable them to stay home and care for theirown infants.

V11.4. Identify several revenue-generation mech-

anisms to cover the costs of a quality early careand education system. Because it is unlikelythat any single revenue-generation strategywill yield sufficient funding, several optionswill need to be considered and implementedwith the understanding that each mecha-nism has advantages and disadvantages.Some possible mechanisms include individ-ual and corporate income taxes; federalpayroll taxes and trust funds; and new salesor excise taxes. It may be possible to intro-duce new approaches to savings and loansthat would not generate new governmentrevenue for early care and education, butwould create mechanisms and incentives forparents and those planning to be parents tosave more of their own money to pay forearly care and education, and/or to borrowmoney, which they would repay over a num-ber of years. Other possibilities for generat-ing new funds for early care and educationinclude expanding the populations eligibleto receive the school aid formula; cuttingother government expenditures to raisesome of the needed funds; and raising fundsfor early care and education as part of a larg-er revenue-generation package designed tosupport a range of social services that fami-lies need. None of these approaches is easyto sell to the public or policy makers, buteach would help improve the amount offunding available to support early care andeducation.V11.5. Clarify the funding roles of parents; feder-

al, state, and local governments; employers; andcommunity organizations. To fill the gaps in

funding and eliminate duplication ofefforts, the funding roles should be deter-mined and responsibilities divided amongvarious stakeholders. Parents currently pro-vide the bulk of early care and educationfunding, and should continue to pay whatthey can, based on family income. Govern-ment funding should make up the differ-

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ence between what parents can afford to payand the full cost of quality programs. Inregard to the division of funding responsi-bility among federal, state, and local govern-ments, each level of government might spe-cialize in those activities which it is bestequipped to perform.76VII.6. Develop model approaches for distributing

funds to parents to help them pay for early care

and education. State-level agencies (perhapsthe "State Early Care and Education Boards"discussed in the next recommendation) maybe best suited to administering funds for thispurpose. In helping parents pay for pro-grams, mechanisms should be used that pro-mote parent choice, such as vouchers, directpayments to programs of parents' choice,and/or tax credits. Parents should receiveassistance paying for early care and educa-tion programs based on a sliding scale linkedto parents' income. A key point is that incases where family income increases overtime, public assistance for early care andeducation decreases proportionately but isnot completely cut off.77

rig VII. 7. Create a targeted, coordinated initiativefocused on funding a quality early care and edu-

cation system. Generating increased revenuesfor early care and education is crucial toimproving quality and equity. But scholar-ship and knowledge of how to do thisremain embryonic. Therefore, focusedresearch is needed to carry out the analysesmentioned above. Such an effort might beadded to the portfolios of existing projectsor organizations, or a new project or collab-oration may be created.

NOT BY CHANCE

RECOMMENDATION VIII:CREATE LOCAL ANDSTATE EARLY CARE ANDEDUCATION BOARDS

By the year 2010, every state will have a per-manent State Early Care and Education Boardand every county or school district will have apermanent Local Early Care and EducationBoard, responsible for the infrastructure andgovernance of early care and education pro-grams.

Aicross our nation today, early care and educa-on is a non-systeman accumulation of

insufficient, ineffective, and uncoordinatedmechanisms for funding and governance. Pro-grams have proliferated on a govern-as-you-gobasis. Federal, state, and local responsibilities arenot clearly delineated.78 There are countless over-laps and gaps in policy, eligibility, fees, program-ming, and other crucial matters. This reportrefutes the common assumption that our mixeddelivery system is the way it has to be.

To move toward a coordinated system ofearly care and education and to create continuityof services for young children and their families,we recommend the creation of governance enti-

ties, to be known as State Early Care and Educa-tion Boards and Local Early Care and EducationBoards, in every state and locality. This recom-mendation may seem to run against prevailingpolitical currents by calling for the establishmentof permanent State and Local Early Care andEducation Boards, particularly at a time when thepopularity of government and its bureaucracies isat an all-time low. Yet, at the same time, the rec-ommendation acknowledges and follows currentpolitical trends by calling for the devolution ofauthority to state and local levels, providing forthe effective utilization of government resources,and requiring clear accountability.

A

43BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Modeled after successful state coordinatinginitiatives, State Early Care and Education Boardswould be the mechanisms by which states wouldmeet their responsibility to ensure quality andachieve agreed-upon child-based results. In part,the State Boards would:

Institute an ongoing, consolidated stateplanning process to improve the quality ofearly care and education services through-out the state and across the sectors;Coordinate, oversee, and administer fundsfor quality early care and education pro-grams and infrastructure statewide;Set eligibility criteria, subsidy levels, andparental leave conditions;Determine how to allocate funds to parentsfor programs and parental leave;Establish a process to develop state stan-dards for results for young children in earlycare and education programs that would

align with national goals;Gather and analyze data on results, and usethese data to improve quality; andFacilitate collaboration, service integration,and comprehensive service delivery by fos-tering linkages with health, mental health,social, and family support services.

State Boards would be composed of appoint-ed or elected board members, including equalnumbers of parents/consumers, practitioners, com-munity and state leaders (including representativesof the corporate sector), and government agencystaff. State Boards would work closely with stateexecutive agencies, special task forces and commis-sions, and the Local Early Care and EducationBoards. They would have modest staff to help themcarry out their functions. Where a state-level gov-erning board or coordinating council already exists,the State Early Care and Education Board could bebuilt from this organization, or created in collabo-ration with the existing body. It should be notedthat the State Early Care and Education Boardswould have primary responsibility for the develop-ment and oversight of the early care and education

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

system; such Boards, however, will also coordinateclosely with already existing state boards (health,mental health) that serve young children.

At the local level, a handful of governanceand planning entities have emerged across thenation, making notable progress 'in linking earlychildhood services, streamlining service delivery,and increasing programmatic efficiency. However,these local governance and planning entities areidiosyncratic, politically fragile, and in many casesdependent on short-term philanthropic or corpo-rate support. To legitimize this local governancefunction and to make it durable within early careand education nationwide, we call for the estab-lishment of permanent Local Early Care and Edu-cation Boards that would be geographicallyaligned with school districts.

Local Boards would collaborate with schoolboards, but would be distinct entities. If local col-laborations or councils exist that are dedicated toearly care and education, Local Boards could be

built from them, or could be created in collabora-

tion with them. They would be composed of equalnumbers of parents/consumers, practitioners(including representatives from the non-profit, for-

profit, and public programs), community leaders

(including representatives from the corporate sec-tor), and local government agency staff. They

would have modest staff to help them carry

out their functions.School

boards haveresponsibilityfor both the gov-ernance and pro-vision of educa-tion for childrenfrom age five

to eighteen. LocalEarly Care and Edu-cation Boards, in

contrast, would focuson the governanceand coordination of 1

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

early care and education for children from birthto age fiveinfluencing, shaping, and leveragingquality from the mixed-sector free-market deliverysystem in early care and education. Building onthe strong capacity at the local level to understandthe unique strengths, needs, and priorities ofcommunities,79 Local Boards would:

El Involve consumers and other citizens in acomprehensive needs assessment and plan-ning for early care and education;

II Make decisions on how to use local infra-structure funds that they receive from theState Boards to promote the availability ofquality programs;Establish performance benchmarks forchild results and services that align withstate standards for child results and nationalgoals, customizing the standards and goalsto local strengths, needs, priorities, andresources;Provide a local vehicle for citizens to holdgovernment accountable for meeting theneeds of young children; and

A Provide a forum for coordinating serviceswith allied fields (heath, mental health, edu-cation, social services, and family support)so that all children receive the full spectrumof services needed to foster their healthydevelopment.Finally, the governance roles reserved for

the federal government are responsibilities forwhich it has a comparative advantage. The feder-al government should:

Establish broad goals for child results thatcan guide states as they develop standardsfor child results, and can guide communitiesas they develop benchmarks to meet statestandards and national goals;

I Coordinate the collection of uniform dataon child results nationwide to provide anational picture of progress useful for poli-cy, planning, and accountability;

NOT BY CHANCE

Hold states (and indirectly communities)accountable for moving toward and achiev-ing the goals for child results; andPromote innovation, best practices, andlearning among states, localities, and pro-grams by funding and evaluating demon-stration projects; facilitating state and localnetworking to exchange information onbest practices; and developing resources andproviding other technical assistance to statesand localities.

STRATEGIES

ElVIII. 1 . Provide demonstration funds to statesthat prepare plans to establish State Early Careand Education Boards that are well conceivedand supported by a variety of stakeholders. Sup-

port for establishing State Boards, or aug-menting the work of existing State Boards,should be procured and distributed on ademonstration basis to a select group ofstates. These states should demonstrate howthey will: allocate infrastructure funds tostate and local levels; administer state infra-structure funds; leverage state funds to pro-mote coordination across sectors and fields;determine state standards for child results;and hold Local Early Care and EducationBoards accountable.

-?7.4-52 V1112. Make demonstration funds available to

localities that develop plans for establishingLocal Early Care and Education Boards that arewell conceived and supported by a range ofstakeholders. Support for establishing LocalBoards, or augmenting the work of existingLocal Boards, should be given to localitiesthat show evidence of building consensus onlocal benchmarks for child results and ser-vices, and effective planning and assess-ment.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

51

VI1 3. Use incentives and supports to hold Early

Care and Education Boards accountable forachieving the agreed-upon results for young chil-

dren. High-performing Boards (at the stateand local levels)--those making continualimprovement in the percentages of childrenachieving desired resultscould be givenincreased flexibility (e.g., being able to

approve their own funding plans and grantthemselves waivers of funding, program,and administrative requirements) and per-haps additional funds to expand services.80Lower-performing Boards would receivetechnical assistance and targeted funding toimprove child results. Ilf;

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

52' THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Par t 3

REA:L.121:N

VISIQ

The eight recommen-dations set forth inthis report constitute a

vision for a quality early care and educationsystem for America's children and families.Together, these recommendations and thestrategies that accompany them posit a newway to think about early care and education,and suggest a wide range of action steps. Theintent is to conceive a quality early care andeducation system with forethought and plan-ning, not by dictum and not by chance. Yetthe questions remain: How can paper-and-

pencil recommendations be transformedinto reality, particularly in the current policy

context? To achieve this vision, where do webegin? Which efforts should have high prior-ity? Who should do what?

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

53

REALIZINGTHE VISION

o address these questions, Quality 2000

examined a range of existing initiatives orprograms in the field that can and must

be built upon. Some of these efforts are ground-ed in strong traditions of the field; others are newand promising endeavors. We then zeroed in onthree key strategies: conceptual exploration; com-prehensive demonstration; and broad-basedmobilization. The report concludes with a call toaction, suggesting who should do what to begin to

carry out the vision.

EXEMPLARY TRADITIONSAND PROMISING EFFORTSA key lesson drawn from analysis of successfulsocial reform efforts is that the strengths of a fieldneed to be identified, recognized, and built onnot steamrolled over. Together, exemplary tradi-tions and innovative efforts create the foundationupon which reform must stand.

The American early care and educationfield is blessed with venerable traditionsaunique set of beliefs that undergird practice inthe field and that should be safeguarded as thenation moves toward a new early care and educa-tion system. These traditions include:

A durable commitment to parents and to theright of parents to select, run, and create theprograms their children attend: Strategies forreform should build on the exemplary traditionof parent choice and engagement.

NOT BY CHANCE

Responsiveness to the whole child and a deter-mination to extend this commitment to peda-gogical practice: High-quality early care and edu-cation programs have never simply focused onchildren's cognitive growth, but have supportedchildren's learning and growth across the variousdomains of development: social, emotional, lin-guistic, creative, physical, moral and ethical. Com-prehensive, individualized, hands-on learning forchildrenand for the staff who work with themmust be preserved.

A durabk commitment to social justice: Thefield has long sought to provide growth and learn-ing opportunities for children and the adults whocare for them (both parents and practitioners)from all economic and social backgrounds. It hasfostered anti-bias efforts, recognizing the impor-tance of the early years in staving off prejudice andintolerance. It has worked to infuse practice withrespect for and recognition of various cultures inways that are being modelled in other fields.

Innovative efforts across the country to improveearly care and education have developed impres-sive precedents and inventive strategies whichmust also be supported.' These newer effortsbuild on and push the limits of the traditions ofthe field. Quality 2000 studied exemplary effortsthat address a range of significant challenges,including:

Improving the professional development ofearly care and education workers: Noteworthyinitiatives are creating career development sys-

54 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

tems for states; providing technical assistance oncareer development; developing new practitionercredentials or certificates; experimenting withways to increase career mobility; and pilotinginnovative courses and mentor training projects.

Strengthening facility licensing: A number ofstates are improving or expanding facility licens-ing; some are experimenting with new approach-es to group size, monitoring, and enforcement.

Generating new revenue sources: Many effortsare now underwayat the national, state andlocal levelsto secure a more adequate resourcebase for early care" and education. A number ofstates and communities across the nation areexperimenting with tax plans that generate rev-enue for early care and education. Some are usingbonds and loan guarantee programs to raisemoney to build and renovate facilities. Severalstates are providing, or considering, paid mater-nity leave using state-wide temporary disabilityinsurance.

Creating governance and accountability mech-anisms: A host of innovative governance andaccountability efforts have been launched at thenational and state levels. Many states are receivingtechnical assistance to help them develop com-prehensive systems of programs and services foryoung children and their families. A number ofinitiatives are focusing on cross-sector efforts forchildren and families. Many states and communi-ties are working toward setting specific standardsfor measuring progress toward assuring the well-being of children and families.

Parent engagement: A number of initiatives withnationwide reach have made parent and publicengagement their focus. At the national level, sev-eral projects are working to increase publicunderstanding of the importance of the first threeyears of life, and to make existing early care andeducation programs more supportive of families.

55BEST COPY AVAILABLE

At the state and local levels, numerous child careresource and referral agencies are focusing oncreative strategies for helping parents becomeeffective consumers of early care and education.

Family support and parent education: Severalinnovative efforts address early care and educa-tion as part of a larger effort to provide more com-prehensive family-supportive services for youngchildren and families.

The full Not By Chance report offers exam-ples of specific initiatives in each of these areas.Clearly, the early care and education field is richwith traditions and innovative quality-improve-ment efforts.

REFORM STRATEGIES

For any significant reform to take hold, three chal-lenges must be met there must be an appropriateknowledge base; an effective, coherent social strat-egy; and sufficient political will.2 Because realiza-tion of the vision presented in this report requiresnothing less than large-scale reform, we have usedthese three challenges as a framework for ourreform strategy. To ensure an adequateknowledge base, we callfor conceptualexploration inareas in whichinformation is

lacking. To meetthe need for aworkable socialstrategy, we call forcomprehensivedemonstration of aquality system inte-grating all of the keycomponents. Finally,to generate public will

Innovative efforts acrossthe country to improveearly care and educationhave developed impres-sive precedents andinventive strategies whichmust also be supported.

REALIZING THE VISION

and commitment, we call for broad-based mobiliza-tion with an emphasis on building capacity for par-ent advocacy, communication, and judicial action.

Conceptual ExplorationThe knowledge base concerning young childrenand early childhood education has been substan-tially enriched by research and practice in recentdecades.3 Indeed, in shaping the eight recom-mendations contained in this report, we havedrawn upon this knowledgeboth practical andtheoretical. But as we worked toward specifyinghow to implement those recommendations, wefound the knowledge base to be insufficient inseveral crucial areas, especially RecommendationI (Use a Wide Range of Approaches to AchieveQuality in Programs); Recommendation II (Focuson Goals and Results for Children); and Recom-mendation VII (Raise New Funds and Set AsideTen Percent for Quality and Infrastructure).

While much work has been done on pro-gram quality, more research is needed to discernthe appropriate balance between teacher qualifi-

cations, their experiences, student make-up and child-adult

ratios. Work isalso needed to

a advance under-standing regard-ing early care

and education asnourishing envi-ronments foradults. With regardto goals and results,

desired results havenot been delineated,and methods for col-lecting information

that fully respect young children's developmentallevels and effective accountability mechanismsand safeguards have not been discerned. Finally,analytic work is also needed regarding fundingamounts and funding mechanisms. We need to

NOT BY CHANCE

better understand the relationship between suchmechanisms and delivery systems, and the rela-tionship between funding strategies and fundingamounts.

Comprehensive DemonstrationThe exemplary efforts reviewed by Quality 2000,and many other initiatives now underway, areimpressive in their own right. Yet, even takentogether they are not sufficient to achieve a com-prehensive quality early care and education sys-tem throughout the country. Severe resource con-straints and constant pressure to meet the risingdemand for services have limited the scale of mostchange efforts in early care and education. Mostreform initiatives have operated independentlyfrom one another, and the goals they haveachieved, while important, have tended to beshort-term or to affect a limited number of chil-dren. Most have addressed a single aspect of thequality crisis. Hundreds and thousands of milesseparate many of the most promising efforts inthe field, and the occurrence of multiple reformsin the same community or state is usuallyserendipitous, with minimal coordination ofeffort. In no community or state are all the piecesof the early care and education system beingreformed simultaneously.

Because a quality early care and educationsystem cannot be achieved piecemeal, our secondstrategy for reform is to launch a comprehensivedemonstration effort in a handful of communitiesand states. We need to experiment with imple-menting a quality early care and education sys-tem, including quality programs, parent engage-ment and information, and all the components ofthe infrastructure professional development,facility licensing, funding and financing, and gov-ernance. The goal is to implement all eight rec-ommendations in a handful of locations, by pro-viding the necessary resources and supports to asmall number of promising communities andstates. It may be desirable to select demonstrationcommunities and states that already have a highconcentration of efforts and show commitment to

5.0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

reform. Government, corporate, and foundationfunds will need to be combined to provide suffi-cient resources, and funding will need to extendbeyond the conventional three- to five-year timeframe. Efforts to implement a quality early careand education system will need to be evaluatedcarefully to distill lessons within and across theprojects and to document the results for children,families, communities, and policy. The compara-tive benefitsincluding cost efficiencieswillneed to be clearly documented.

Broad-based .MobilizationThe third challenge of reform is to generate pub-lic willthe widespread conviction that reform isboth necessary and feasibleacross the nation.To accomplish this, we suggest building capacityfor:

Parent Advocacy: Parents of young childrenreside in every state and every congressional dis-trict; together, they constitute a powerful politicalforce and an essential lever for change. But at pre-sent, there is no organization for parents of youngchildren analogous to those that have beenformed by and for parents of children with specialneeds, nor for that matter, similar to the Ameri-can Association of Retired People (AARP). Orga-nizing parents for advocacy must begin at thelocal level so parents can address the immediateand concrete issues that concern them daily.4Early care and education programs, child careresource and referral agencies, family supportprograms, and Local Early Care and EducationBoards can help support local parent mobiliza-tion around young children, but ultimately theseefforts must be led by parents themselves. Theselocal efforts can link up to create informal stateand national advocacy networks, and to influencestate funding and policy decisions. Eventually,permanent state and national organizations maybe created to represent the interests of parents insustained ways in state and federal policy debates.Providing advocacy training and support is a key

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

strategy for sparking parent action. Parent leaderscan be trained to be community leaders, with par-ents at the helm of the training itself. Trainingneeds to "help parents have the voice they don'tthink they have . . . and give them the tools tospeak for their children."5

Broad-based Constituency: Parents alone arenot sufficient to mobilize the kinds of change dis-cussed in this report. They must be joined by abroad-based constituency committed to advanc-ing the well-being of young children and theirfamilies. Such a constituency must be composedof power voices, leaders in media, business andindustry, members of the clergy, and lay citizens.The development of such a constituency must bestrategically planned over time, using the intellec-tual and fiscal resources of many.

Effective Public Communication: Effective com-munication to the public is an essential compo-nent of generating public will and mobilizingbroad-based constituencies. The challenge is tobuild capacity for ongoing communication. Clear-ly defining and naming the problem is the firststep, as experience in other fields suggests. For

example, scientists had been monitoring risinglevels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sincethe early 1970s, but not until the name "globalwarming" was introduced by a NASA meteorolo-gist in testimony before Congress in mid-1988 didthe issue become a matter of public debate.6 Asproblems are named, they must be carefully posi-tionedthat is, associated with the right set ofissues. Developing a communications strategyincludes mobilizing the media, the most potentforce in shaping public opinion and attitude. Cov-erage needs to be far more balanced, conveying

the importance of quality and the importance ofearly care and education. Moreover, the durablecapacity for effective communication within earlycare and education and with those concernedabout the needs of young children must beadvanced.

REALIZING THE VISION

Judicial Action: Court action has often been thekey to durable systemic reform in the UnitedStates. Up to now, early care and education hasrarely looked to the judicial arena as a means ofadvancing its agenda. In part, this may reflect thefact that judicially-propelled change can be slow,often requiring years of litigation, diligent moni-toring of court decisions, and numerous follow-uplawsuits. In spite of these challenges, the earlycare and education field needs to consider creat-ing a capacity for judicial action to augment otherreform efforts. Language in legislation that makesearly care and education services an entitlementhas already proven to be a strong statutory basisfor litigation. Discrimination is another possiblebasis for judicial action in early care and educa-tion, aimed at extending programs to more youngchildren.

THE PLAYERS

Together, the eight recommendations presentedin this report constitute a vision of early-care andeducation that cannot be realized without sweep-ing reform. Realizing this vision will require thecarefully choreographed efforts of a range of indi-viduals, organizations, and institutions. In earlycare and education, as in other fields, achievingsynergy in the efforts of multiple players, at multi-ple levels, and in multiple systems, is essential.The key to such synergy is coordination and col-laboration. Reformers need to devise specificstrategies for change, discerning what is appropri-ate at each level of government, for each set ofplayers, based on their unique strengths. To thatend, we must generate a set of appropriate, non-duplicative, and coordinated actions.

The Quality 2000 recommendations envisiona general division of primary responsibility: the fed-eral government should focus on making pro-grams more affordable to parents; states shouldfocus on assuring the quality of programs; andlocal governments should focus on assuring avail-abilityassessing local needs, addressing gaps, and

NOT BY CHANCE

BEST COPT Ai/MIAMI

coordinating services.7 Naturally, these general(and non-inclusive) roles are not the exclusivepurview of each level of government, but providesome idea of how primary responsibility might be

differentiated across governmental levels. Nationalorganizations might carve out distinct roles forthemselves that capitalize on their strengths, fullyunderstanding that coalitions will need to beformed and re-formed, depending on the issuesunder consideration. All players need to worktogether, focusing both internally (particularly onbuilding a quality infrastructure), and externally(particularly on coordinating efforts with otherfields, such as education, family support, social ser-vices, health care, economic development, andhousing).

The following pages suggest the parts that awide range of actors, organizations, and sectorscan play in a broad nationwide effort to achieve aquality early care and education system. We havematched each group of actors with specificresponsibilities, but we are mindful of the factthat to get the job done, all of these players willoften work together, across the boundaries thattend to divide different levels of government anddifferent disciplines.

TO THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS,AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION

Increase funding substantially for qualityearly care and education, investing inimproved compensation, a quality infrastruc-ture, quality programs, and paid parentalleave. Assure that all families who want toenroll their young children in quality earlycare and education can afford to do so.Assure wages for early care and educationstaff that are commensurate with their expe-rience, education, and training. Use federalfunds, to the greatest extent possible, toleverage additional state and local funds.

511 Lead and coordinate the movement to buildconsensus on child-based resultstheknowledge and skills children need to be

so

ready for, and do well in, the critical earlyyears of school. Establish broad goals forchild-based results that can guide states inthe development of standards and commu-nities in the development of benchmarks tomeet state standards and national goals.These goals should be linked to goals forchildren in kindergarten through gradethree.Coordinate the collection of uniform dataon child-based results nationwide, providinga national picture of progress that can beused for policy, planning, and accountability.

111 Hold states accountable for moving towardand achieving child-based results. In theprocess, use data_to track state and commu-nity achievement; publicize the resultsbroadly; and provide rewards to states thatshow continual improvement and targetedassistance to those that do not.

E Provide incentives for states and localities toestablish governance structures for earlycare and education, such as State Early Careand Education Boards and Local Early Careand Education Boards.With broad-based input, develop nationalguidelines for facility licensing standards,and provide incentives for state considera-tion and adoption.Promote innovation, best practices, andinformation sharing by funding and evaluat-ing demonstration projects; facilitating stateand local networking; developing supportiveresources; and providing other technicalassistance to states and localities.

TO THE GOVERNORS,LITE LEGISLATORS,

STATE ADMINISTRATORS,LVD STATE LEADERS

Create a governance structure for early careand education in every state, such as StateEarly Care and Education Boards, to insti-tute ongoing, consolidated state planning

BEST COPY AVAILABLE -

processes aimed at improving the quality ofearly care and education services.Establish state standards for results forpreschool-age children, based on the state'sunique needs and priorities, elaborating onfederal goals for young children.Augment federal funds for early care andeducation with state funds.Devise mechanisms for distributing earlycare and education funds that allow forbuilding and maintaining the infrastructure.Help parents pay for programs and providepaid parental leave.Hold localities accountable for movingtoward and achieving agreed-upon localbenchmarks for young children.Pilot and evaluate facility licensing systemsthat eliminate exemptions of programs fromlicensing; support enforcement; streamlinestandards; give programs a range of optionsfor organizing children and staff; and com-bine incentive-based and more correctivestrategies for effective enforcement.Pilot and evaluate a system to license allpractitioners who have responsibility forgroups of young children, in part by passingindividual licensing laws and establishingstate licensing boards designed to assurethat staff are prepared for their roles andpursue lifelong learning. Link all requiredtraining to academic credit. Make sure thattraining and education are affordable bothfor staff currently in the field and for thosewho wish to prepare for careers in early careand education.

II Create incentives for programs to becomeaccredited.

TO LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS,LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS, ANDCOMMUNITY LEADERS

Create a local governance structure for earlycare and education in every school districtor county, such as Local Early Care and Edu-

REALIZING THE VISION

cation Boards, responsible for the availabili-ty and coordination of the care and educa-tion of children from birth to age five.Set in motion an ongoing planning process,involving consumers and other communitymembers, to assess community needs, coor-dinate efforts, and address remaining gapsin programs and the infrastructure.Establish performance benchmarks for ser-vices and results for young children, basedon broad consensus among consumers andother community members. These bench-marks should adapt state standards andnational goals for child-based results to localstrengths, needs, priorities, and resources.Augment federal and state funds for earlycare and education with local funds.Allocate local infrastructure funds in waysthat improve program availability, includingcoordinating existing programs, providingincentives for the development of new ser-vices to address unmet needs, and fundingdemonstration projects.Ensure that every community has the capac-ity to help parents be effective consumers ofearly care and education programs and tosupport family child care providers. Createincentives for all early care and educationprograms to become accredited.Engage early care and education workers,and all those concerned about young chil-dren, in community-wide improvementefforts.

TO PARENTS

Secure the knowledge and take the time tofind quality programs for young children.Contribute toward the cost of children'searly care and education programs, basedon family income.Be partners in children's programs, partici-pating on a regular basis in ways that meetthe needs of the children and the programs.

NOT BY CHANCE

Lend voice to discussions of how to definequality, establishing goals, results, as well asstandards for facility licensing, accredita-tion, and teacher education curricula.Work together with other parents, and withearly care and education professionals, toadvocate for a quality early care and educa-tion system.

TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Contribute funds directly to a quality earlycare and education system by means of apayroll tax or corporate income tax.Provide family-friendly workplaces foremployees, encouraging supervisors torespond with understanding to the concernsof working parents; allowing flexibility inscheduling the work day; and giving employ-ees time to participate in children's pro-grams and family events.Enable parents to take time off from work tocare for their infants; protect employees'jobs while they are home; and contribute tothe funding of paid parental leave.

TO EARLY CARE AND EDUCATIONADVOCATES AT THE NATIONAL,STATE, AND LOCAL LEVELS

Work collaboratively and simultaneouslytoward a shared vision of a quality early careand education system, with an emphasis onadequate funding and direct investment in aquality infrastructure. Each organizationneeds to fulfill its unique mission, whileworking collaboratively toward coordinatedreform. Durable systemic reform will

require the cooperative support of all of theorganizations in the field.Work with allied fields and organizations topromote understanding of, and support for,early care and education.

6 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

SI Work with the media to create a sustainedcapacity for communication, keeping select-ed messages about early care and educationin the public consciousness and on policymakers' agendas.Use the court system to advance systemicreform in early care and education.

TO PRACTITIONERS ANDADMINISTRATORS OF EARLY CAREAND EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Help to identify goals and results, and thenwork toward using these results day-to-daywith children: Use information about child-based results to improve pedagogy andinstruction. Share information with parents.Help develop positive organizational cli-mates in all early care and education pro-gramsclimates that nurture children, staff,parents, and families.Support the implementation of flexible, cre-ative staffing patterns.Work to create partnerships with parents inprograms in ways that meet the needs of par-ents, children, and programs.Help to promote a strong pluralistic societyby nurturing the cultural, ethnic, and lin-guistic diversity of children and families.Learn about differences from the children,families, and staff in programs and in theneighborhood. Hire staff who represent thechildren and communities served by theprogram.

U Help promote a quality infrastructure. Earlycare and education practitioners and admin-istrators can themselves be effective advo-cates for quality, and can also help to informand mobilize parents.

U Help integrate services for children andfamilies in communities.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TO EARLY CARE AND EDUCATIONPROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Create model standards for individuallicenses.Expand the capacity to accredit all two- andfour-year college early childhood educationand child development programs.Develop leadership and management train-ing programs, including mentorship pro-grams and leadership training for earlychildhood educators and others acrosshuman services at the local, state, andnational levels.Work to integrate parents' perspectives intoprevailing definitions of quality, based onparents' .needs and their desires for theirchildren.

TO TRAINERS OF EARLY CARE ANDEDUCATION PRACTITIONERS

Work to establish more training and educa-tion opportunities, particularly at the inter-mediate and advanced levels, that cover:working with parents and families; workingwith mixed-age groups and more flexiblegrouping of children; multiculturalism;observing and assessing children; workingwith infants and toddlers; and working withchildren with special needs.Work to increase the credit-bearing trainingavailable to practitioners and administratorsthroughout communities, as well as to mak-ing articulation agreements among two- andfour-year colleges the norm.Create mechanisms to grant credit fordemonstrated knowledge and skills gainedfrom direct experience with children andprevious non-credit training.Work with management training programsto customize programs, tracks, and coursesappropriate for early care and education.

6_1

-CIREALIZING THE VISION

TO RESEARCHERS

Support efforts to specify goals and results.Provide knowledge of human developmentand assessment that can guide national,state, and local efforts. Link assessments ofprogram quality to the achievement ofnational child results, state standards, andlocal benchmarks for child results.Conduct controlled experiments and evalu-ations of different approaches to achievingquality programs, in particular having betterqualified staff work with more children,organizing children in mixed-age groups,and allowing child-staff ratios to vary basedon the activity. Demonstrate which practicessupport quality.Expand research on the quality of individualclassrooms and family child care homes toconsider the quality of organizational cli-mates. What characteristics of quality pro-gramsnot just individual classroomsleadto specific, child-based results?Tie all research efforts on quality programsand young children to the quality of theinfrastructure.Consider quality from the perspective ofchildren over the course of the day andfrom year to year. Design research that notonly examines the quality of individual pro-grams, but tracks children across programsduring a given year and examines the conti-nuity of children's lives.

3 Broaden the range of researchers and coor-dinate research that examines young chil-dren and early care and education, specifi-cally including researchers from economics,political science, public health, law, andmedicine.

TO THE PRIVATE ANDPHILANTHROPIC SECTORS

Support the development of comprehensive,model early care and education systems, withall components working synergistically to

NOT BY CHANCE

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

achieve quality for children and families.Support the creation of quality communityand statewide early care and education sys-tems that can provide models for states andcommunities across the country.Support the conceptual exploration dis-cussed earlier in this chapter, includinginvestigating goals and results; a range ofapproaches to achieving quality programs;and promising approaches to raising newfunds for early care and education.

Today, an unprecedented number of innovativeefforts in early care and education constitute anascent reform movement. The rough planks fora change agenda are already in placeisolatedand incomplete, to be sure, but promising never-theless. Five or ten years ago, there was little talkof an early care and education system; few daredto look beyond individual programs to discern oraddress the field's common infrastructure needs.Now, in contrast, communities and states acrossthe nation are beginning to address such issues asprogram quality, parent engagement, profession-al development, licensing and accreditation, gov-ernance, and financing. These disparate effortsmust be heralded, supported, and linked to createa coherent movement for change in the early careand education field.

611

The question is no longer whether a reformmovement in early care and education is going totake place. The question is: will reform remainhaphazard and loosely organized, or will it har-ness the crucial supports needed to surge forwardwith a coherent vision and strategy? The quality ofdaily life for millions of American children andfamilies hinges on how the United States solvesor fails to solvethe quality crisis in early careand education. We must not wager our children'sfutures. What is at stake is nothing less than thenation's vitality and well-being as we move into anew millennium.

64

t .

Ni ...J.dcr-sra T2,3 5

177:4 .4 0-4 \ tJ.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1

APPENDIX A:CONSULTANT-PA TNTERS

Reconsidering Program QualityDeborah Phillips, National Research Council

Defining the Essential Functions of theInfrastructure and Change StrategiesNancy Kolben, National Association of Child Care

Resource and Referral AgenciesPatty Siegel, National Association of Child Care

Resource and Referral Agencies

Discerning Governance and Business RolesWilliam Gormley, Georgetown Graduate Public Policy

Program

Training and CredentialingAnne Mitchell, Early Childhood Policy Research

NOT BY CHANCE

Facility LicensingCarol Stevenson, The David & Lucile Packard

Foundation

Funding and FinancingMartin Gerry, Center for the Study of Family,

Neighborhood, and Community Policy, Universityof Kansas

Cheryl Hayes, The Finance Project

Results and AccountahilitvSharon Rosenkoetter, Associated Colleges of Central

Kansas

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

APPENDIX B:TASK FORCE

PARTICIPANTS'

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONSAND CHANGE STRATEGIESTASK FORCE

Meetings:March 1993, May 1993, August 1993, and June

GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESSROLES TASK FORCE

Meetings:August 1993, December 1993, April 1994, and

1994 November 1994

Task Force Co-Chairs:Nancy Kolben and Patty Siegel, National Association

of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies

Task Force Members:Dwayne Crompton, KCMC Child Development

CorporationKaren Hendricks, American Academy of PediatricsKaren Hill-Scott, Crystal StairsAnne Mitchell, Early Childhood Policy ResearchGwen Morgan, Wheelock CollegeDelia Pompa, Education ConsultantTom Schultz, National Association of State Boards of

EducationJule Sugarman, Center for Effective Services for

ChildrenHelen Taylor, Administration for Children, Youth, and

Families

,fleeting Consultants:Helen Blank, Children's Defense Fund

Ellen Galinsky, Families and Work InstituteBarbara Reisman, Child Care Action Campaign

I. Affiliations indicated as of Task Force meeting dates.

C.

Task Force Members:Rex Adams, Mobil CorporationGordon Ambach, Council of Chief State School

OfficersMichael Bailin, Public/Private VenturesGordon Berlin, Manpower Demonstration Research

CorporationBarbara Bowman, Erikson InstituteNorton Grubb, School of Education, University of

California at BerkeleyWilliam Gormley, Graduate School of Public Policy,

Georgetown UniversitySheila Kamerman, School of Social Work, Columbia

UniversitySusan Rose-Ackerman, Yale Law SchoolLester Salamon, Institute for Policy Studies, Johns

Hopkins University

TRAINING AND CREDENTIALINGTASK FORCE

214eetings:March 1994, July 1994, October 1994, and June 1995

Task Force Chair:Anne Mitchell, Early Childhood Policy Research

65

BEST COP x' MAILABLE

APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

Task Force Members:Sue Bredekamp, National Association for the

Education of Young ChildrenRichard Clifford, Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Center, University of NorthCarolina

Diane Trister Dodge, Teaching StrategiesYolanda Garcia, Santa Clara County Office of

EducationStacie Goffin, Ewing Marion Kauffman FoundationBetty Hutchinson, National-Louis UniversityJoan Lombardi, Administration for Children, Youth,

and FamiliesKathy Modigliani, Wheelock CollegeEvelyn K Moore, National Black Child Development

InstituteGwen Morgan, Wheelock CollegeCarol Phillips, Council for Early Childhood

Professional RecognitionArthur Wise, National Council for Accreditation of

Teacher Education

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

G6NOT BY CHANCE 9

APPENDIX C:PARTICIPANTS IN

RELATED MEETINGS'

FACILITY LICENSING

Washington, D.C. Meeting:March 1993

Meeting Participants:Helen Blank, Children's Defense FundHarriet Fields, National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing

Home ReformWilliam Gormley, Graduate School of Public Policy,

Georgetown UniversityPaulene Koch, Delaware Department of Services for

Children, Youth, and FamiliesGwen Morgan, Wheelock CollegeDeborah Phillips, National Research Council, Board

on Children and FamiliesRuth Ruttenberg, Ruth Ruttenberg and Associates, Inc.

San Francisco Meeting:April, 1993

Meeting Participants:Eugene Bardach, University of California at BerkeleyDavid Dodds, Community Care Licensing Division,

California Department of Social ServicesErica Grubb, AttorneyNettie Hoge, Consumers UnionPat McGinnis, California Advocates for Nursing Home

ReformDavid Roe, Environmental Defense FundCarol Stevenson, Child Care Law Center

FOR-PROFIT PERSPECTIVES

April 1995

Meeting Participants:Carol Hammer, La Petite AcademyTom McClellan, Kinder Care Learning CentersBill VanHuys, Childtime Childcare

t

Beverly Clark, Massachusetts Independent Child CareAssociation

Nancy Granese, Hogan and HansonMissy Webb, Virginia Child Care AssociationRoger Neugebauer, Child Care Information ExchangeLynn White, National Child Care Association

FUNDING AND FINANCING

Roundtable on Financing for EarlyCare and Education:2June 1994

Meeting Participants:Glenda Bean, Arkansas Department of EducationHelen Blank, Children's Defense FundBarbara Blum, Foundation for Child DevelopmentCynthia Brown, Council of Chief State School OfficersCharles Bruner:Child and Family Policy CenterBarbara Curry, Lexington-Fayette Urban County

GovernmentIra Cutler, The Annie E. Casey FoundationEllen Dean, Pew Charitable TrustsMargaret Dunkle, Institute for Educational LeadershipBarbara Dyer, National Academy of Public

AdministrationFrank Farrow, Center for the Study of Social PolicyMark Friedman, Center for the Study of Social PolicyRobert E. Fulton, National Center for Children in

Poverty, Columbia UniversityEllen Galinsky, Families and Work InstituteSid Gardner, Center for Collaboration for Children,

California State UniversityPeter Gerber, The MacArthur Foundation

1. Affiliations indicated as of Task Force meeting dates.

2. This meeting was held in conjunction with The Finance Project:Toward Improved Ways and Means of Financing Education and Other

Children's Services.

67 APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Martin Gerry, The Austin Project, University of TexasStacie Coffin, Ewing Marion Kauffman FoundationSteven Gold, Center for the Study of the States, State

University of New YorkCheri Hayes, The Finance ProjectSonia Hernandez, Office of the Governor of TexasJudith E. Jones, National Center for Children in

Poverty, Columbia UniversityKate Kelleher, The Finance ProjectRobert H. Koff, The Danforth FoundationLinda Kohl, Office of the Governor of MinnesotaAnne C. Kubisch, Roundtable on Comprehensive

Community Initiatives for Children and Families,The Aspen Institute

Michael Levine, The Carnegie Corporation of New YorkJanet Levy, The Danforth FoundationElise Lipoff, The Finance ProjectTrinita Logue, Illinois Facilities FundJoan Lombardi, U.S. Department of Health and

Human ServicesKathy Martin, Missouri Department of Social ServicesLinda McCart, National Governors' AssociationAstrid E. Merget, U.S. Department of Health and

Human ServicesShelby Miller, ConsultantWilliam A. Morrill, National Center for Service

Integration, MathTech, Inc.Nina Sazer O'Donnell, NSO AssociatesBarbara Reisman, Child Care Action CampaignDonna Rhodes, C.S. Mott FoundationJohn Riggan, The Conservation CompanyDouglas B. Roberts, Treasurer, State of MichiganLisbeth B. Schorr, Harvard University Project on

Effective ServicesTom Schultz, National Association of State Boards of

EducationRobert G. Schwartz, Juvenile Law CenterAnn Segal, U.S. Department of Health and Human

ServicesSusan Hirsch Simmons, Miriam and Peter Haas FundRalph Smith, Philadelphia Children's NetworkThomas J. Smith, Public/Private VenturesLouis Stoney, Stoney AssociatesJule M. Sugarman, Center for Effective Services for

ChildrenAlexandra Tan, The Finance ProjectBarbara Willer, National Association for the Education

of Young ChildrenJudy Wurtzel, U.S. Department of Education

NOT BY CHANCE

Funding and Financing a Quality Earl\' Careand Education Srstem:'October 1994

Meeting Participants:Steve Barnett, Rutgers Graduate School of EducationHelen Blank, Children's Defense FundMark Friedman, Center for the Study of Social PolicyMartin Gerry, Center for the Study of Family,

Neighborhood, and Community Policy, Universityof Kansas

William Gormley, Georgetown Graduate Public PolicyProgram

Deanna Gomby, The David and Lucile PackardFoundation

Karen Hill-Scott, Crystal StairsMarsha Regenstein, The Economic and Social

Research InstituteJule Sugarman, Center for Effective Services for

Children

ACCOUNTABILITY4

Issues Forum on Child-Based Outcomes,Meeting 1:June 1995

Meeting Participants:Larry Aber, National Center for Children in Poverty,

Columbia UniversityBarbara Blum, Foundation for Child DevelopmentSue Bredekamp, National Association for the

Education of Young ChildrenCynthia Brown, Council of Chief State School OfficersCharles Bruner, Child and Family Policy CenterBettye Caldwell, Arkansas Children's HospitalEllen Galinsky, Families and Work InstituteStacie Coffin, Ewing Marion Kauffman FoundationSarah Greene, National Head Start AssociationKenji Hakuta, School of Education, Stanford UniversityMary Kimmins, Maryland State Department of

EducationLuis Laosa, Educational Testing ServiceMary Larner, The David and Lucile Packard FoundationMichael Levine, The Carnegie Corporation of New YorkJoan Lombardi, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services

3. This meeting was co-sponsored by Quality 2000 and The David

and Lucile Packard Foundation.

4. These meetings were co-sponsored by the W. K. Kellogg Founda-tion, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and Quality 2000.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE63

John Love, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.Samuel J. Meisels, University of MichiganJanice Molnar, Ford FoundationKristin Moore, Child TrendsFrederic Mosher, The Carnegie Corporation of New

YorkDeborah Phillips, National Research CouncilCraig Ramey, Civitan International Research Center,

University of Alabama at BirminghamSharon Rosenkoetter, Bush Center in Child

Development and Social Policy, Yale UniversityLisbeth Schorr, Harvard University Working Group on

Early LifeDiana Slaughter-Defoe, School of Education and

Social Policy, Northwestern UniversityRobert Slavin, Johns Hopkins UniversityValora Washington, The W.K. Kellogg FoundationDavid Weikart, High/Scope Educational Research

FoundationCharles E. Wheeler, Walter R. McDonald & AssociatesSheldon White, Department of Psychology and Social

Relations, Harvard UniversityEmily Wurtz, Education Aide to Senator Jeff BingamanNicholas Zill, Westat, Inc.

Issues Forum on Child-BasedOutcomes, Meeting 2:

January, 1996

Meeting Participants:Barbara Blum, Foundation for Child DevelopmentBarbara Bowman, Erikson InstituteSue Bredekamp, National Association for the

Education of Young ChildrenCynthia Brown, Council of Chief State School OfficersNancy Cohen, Yale University, Bush Center in Child

Development and Social PolicyEllen Galinsky, Families and Work InstituteEugene Garcia, Graduate School of Education,

University of California BerkeleySharon L. Kagan, Yale University, Bush Center in

Child Development and Social PolicyLuis Laosa, Educational Testing ServiceMichael Levine, Carnegie Corporation of New YorkJohn Love, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.Kristin Moore, Child TrendsMichelle Neuman, Yale University, Bush Center in

Child Development and Social PolicyGregg Powell, National Head Start AssociationSharon Rosenkoetter, Associated Colleges of Central

KansasJack Shonkoff, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis

University

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Gary J. Stangler, Missouri Department of SocialServices

James Ysseldyke, National Center on EducationalOutcomes, University of Minnesota

"LESSONS FROM THE PAST"

Meeting:May 1993

Meeting Participants:Barbara Bowman, Erikson InstituteUric Bronfenbrenner, College of Human Ecology,

Cornell UniversityElinor Guggenheimer, New York Women's AgendaSheila Kamerman, School of Social Work, Columbia

UniversityJulius Richmond, Department of Social Medicine,

Harvard Medical SchoolJune Sale, University of California at Los Angeles

Child Care ServicesSheldon White, Department of Psychology and Social

Relations, Harvard UniversityDocia Zavitovsky, Child Development SpecialistEdward Zigler, Bush Center in Child Development

and Social Policy, Yale University

PARENT PERSPECTIVES

Meeting:December 1992

Meeting Participants:Duane Dennis, Baltimore City Child Care Resource

and Referral CenterElaine Fersh, Parents United for Child CareShelly Hettleman, Parent ActionSandra Hofferth, The Urban InstituteBetty Holcomb, Working Mother MagazineKaty Hopke, Mothers ClubsNancy Kolben, National Association of Child Care

Resource and Referral AgenciesMary Ann Patterson, Children's Services of Fairfax

CountyToni Porter, Center for Family Support, Bank Street

College of EducationBarbara Reisman, Child Care Action CampaignRosalie Streett, Parent ActionYasmina Vinci, National Association for Child Care

Resource and Referral AgenciesCaroline Zinsser, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund

69APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

CONFERENCE SESSIONS FORFEEDBACK FROM THE FIELD

Families and Work Institute's CommunityDevelopment Forum: February 1993, August 1994

National Association of Child Care Resource andReferral Agencies Conference

(NACCRRA): February 1994, February 1995, February1996

National Association for the Education of YoungChildren Conference (NAEYC): November 1994,November 1995, November 1996

NAEYC Professional Development Conference: June 1995

FEEDBACK ON DRAFT VISIONOF A QUALITY EARLY CARE ANDEDUCATION SYSTEM,Lawrence AberMartha AndersonGordon BerlinLynson Moore BoboBarbara BowmanHelen BlankSue BredekampCynthia BrownMary Beth BruderJ. Patrick ByrneHedy ChangRichard CliffordJoan CostleyDiane DodgeDeborah EatonEmily FenichelElaine FershRichard FieneEllen GalinskyAndrea GenserMartin GerryStacie CoffinYolanda GarciaWilliam GormleySarah GreeneKenji HakutaCheri HayesKaren HendricksBruce HershfieldPauline Koch

5. We are grateful for the feedbackboth formal and informalofcolleagues on drafts of the vision for a quality early care and educa-

tion system that underlie this report, and on drafts of the report itself.

We apologize if we have inadvertently omitted anyone from these lists

of people who provided comments on drafts.

60

NOT BY CHANCE

BEST COPY AVAILABLE'

Nancy KolbenKaren KrohBetty HutchinsonSheila KamermanPatricia KreherMary LarnerMichael LevineMary Kay LeonardJoan LombardiShelby MillerAnne MitchellKathy ModiglianiGwen MorganEvelyn MooreElizabeth MostophaporCarol PhillipsDeborah PhillipsDelia PompaToni PorterDarlene RagozzineMarsha RegensteinBarbara ReismanGail RichardsonSharon RosenkoetterNicholas ScaleraThomas SchultzLawrence SchweinhartMichelle SeligsonPatty SiegelJule SugarmanCandice SullivanHelen TaylorTheresa VastYasmina VinciClaudia WayneBernice WeissbourdBarbara WillerCaroline Zinsser

FEEDBACK ON DRAFTFINAL REPORT

Hedy ChangDeborah EatonEmily FenichelEllen GalinskyWilliam GormleyPauline KochMichael LevineAnne MitchellKathy ModiglianiGwen MorganElizabeth MostophaporLawrence SchweinhartTheresa VastBarbara Willer

APPENDIX D:COMMISSIONED

WORKING PAPERS

RECONSIDERING PROGRAMQUALITY

Expanding the Lens on Child Care: International Approach-es to Defining Quality Jennifer Bush, Graduate Pub-lic Policy Program, Georgetown University; andDeborah Phillips; Ph.D., National Research Coun-cil, Institute of Medicine

Parents' Perspectives on Quality in Early Care and Educa-tion Mary Larner, Ph.D., National Center for Chil-dren in Poverty, Columbia University

Multicultural Perspectives on Quality in Early Care andEducation: Culturally-Specific Practices and UniversalOutcomes Nancy E. Cohen, Bush Center in ChildDevelopment and Social Policy, Yale University;and Delia Pompa, Education Consultant

Approaches for Improving the Quality of Family Child Care:Lessons Learned from a Decade of Demonstrations andSystemic Changes Shelby H. Miller, Early ChildhoodProgram and Policy Consultant

Reconsidering Quality in Early Care and EducationDeborah Phillips, Ph.D., National ResearchCouncil, Institute of Medicine

DEFINING THE ESSENTIALFUNCTIONS AND CHANGESTRATEGIESA Vision for an Early Care and Education System Quality

2000 Essential Functions and Change StrategiesTask Force

The Essential Functions of the Early Care and EducationSystem: Rationale and Definition Quality 2000 Essen-tial Functions and Change Strategies Task Force.Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., Editor

Communications Strategy for Policy Agenda Setting Kathy

Bonk, Communications Consortium; and Mered-ith Wiley, J.D., M.P.A., Columbia Graduate Schoolof Journalism

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The IAF and Education Reform: Organizing Constituentsfor Change Ernesto Cortes, Jr., Industrial AreasFoundation

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The Syn-chrony of Stakeholders in the Law Reform Process H.

Rutherford Turnbull, LI.B., LI.M., and Ann P.Turnbull, Ed.D., Beach Center on Families andDisability, University of Kansas

Toward Democratic Practice in Schools: Key Understandings

About Educational Change Ann Lieberman, Ed.D.,Diane Wood, and Beverly Falk, Ed.D., TeachersCollege, Columbia University

Transforming Access Into Influence.: The Alchemy of Citizen

Participation in U.S. Politics Christopher Howard,Ph.D., Department of Government, College ofWilliam and Mary

Approaches to Social Change: Lessons for Early Care andEducation Eliza Pritchard, Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D.,and Nancy E. Cohen, Bush Center in Child Devel-opment and Social Policy, Yale University

DISCERNING GOVERNANCEAND BUSINESS ROLES

Promoting High-Quality Family Child Care Kathy

Modigliani, Ed.D., Wheelock CollegeAlternative Approaches to Regulation of Child Care: Lessons

From Other Fields Katherine L. Scurria, J.D.Finding Common Ground in the Early Childhood Field: An

Examination of the For-Profit Sector's Views of Govern-

ment Roles in Early Care and Education Katherine L.Scurria, J.D. and Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., BushCenter in Child Development and Social Policy,Yale University

Options for Government and Business Roles in Early Careand Education: Targeted Entitlements and UniversalSupports William Gormley, Ph.D., Graduate School

APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

of Public Policy, Georgetown University; andSharon L. Kagan, Ed.D. and Nancy E. Cohen,Bush Center in Child Development and SocialPolicy, Yale University

TRAINING AND CREDENTIALING

International Approaches to Training and Credentialing inEarly Care and Education Eliza Pritchard, BushCenter in Child Development and Social Policy,Yale University

Preparation and Credentialing: Lessons From Other Occupa-tions for the Early Care and Education Field AnneMitchell, Early Childhood Policy Research

A Proposal for Licensing Individuals who Practice EarlyCare and Education Anne Mitchell, Early Child-hood Policy Research

6. This Working Paper was a joint product of Quality 2000 andThe Finance Project: Toward Improved Ways and Means of FinancingEducation and Other Children's Services.

7. Research for this publication was co-sponsored by the NationalCenter for Service Integration, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda-

tion, and Quality 2000. Report is available from the Child and FamilyPolicy Center, 100 Court Ave., Suite 312, Des Moines, IA 50309.

8. This Working Paper is based on a forum co-sponsored by theW. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York,

and Quality 2000.

NOT BY CHANCE

FUNDING AND FINANCING

Financing Children's Services: Exploring the Options6 Mar-

tin H. Gerry, J.D., The Austin Project, The Univer-sity of Texas at Austin

RESULTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Toward Systemic Reform: Service Integration for Children

and Families7 Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., Bush Cen-ter in Child Development and Social Policy, YaleUniversity; Stacie Coffin, Ed.D., Ewing MarionKauffman Foundation; Eliza Pritchard and SaritGolub, Bush Center in Child Development andSocial Policy, Yale University

Considering Child-based Outcomes for Young Children: Defi-

nitions, Desirability, Feasibility, and Next Steps6

Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., Sharonitosenkoetter,Ed.D., and Nancy Cohen, Bush Center in ChildDevelopment and Social Policy, Yale University

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NOTES

a. Quality 2000 includes and considers all children

from birth to age eight as potential beneficiaries of

early care and education: children with and without

special needs; children who are mono-, bi-, andmultilingual; children .from families that are eco-nomically advantaged, middle-income, working

poor, dependent on public assistance; and children

from single-parent, two-parent, traditional, andnon-traditional families. Within the birth to ageeight range, this report focuses primarily on birth

to age five. We use the term "infants and toddlers"

to refer to children from birth to age three;"preschoolers" to refer to children who are agesthree to five; "young children" includes youngstersfrom birth to age eight.

b. Throughout this report, we use the term "parents"

to include those with primary caretaking responsi-

bility for children, regardless of biological rela-

tionship. "Families" are broadly construed toinclude those individuals whom parents and chil-

dren define as being part of their families, often

those who have ongoing contact and responsibility

for the well-being of children.c. Throughout this document, the term "early care

and education programs" is used to refer to both

center-based and home-based services that provide

non-parental care and education for young chil-

dren. Center-based programs include non-profit

and for-profit child care, Head Start and othercomprehensive development programs, school-

based prekindergarten programs, and part-daynursery schools; home-based programs include

family child care. The term "early care and educa-

tion" was chosen to unite child care and earlychildhood education services and to emphasize

that all programs with responsibility for young chil-

dren necessarily provide both care and education;

the question is just how well they do it.

The Quality 2000 initiative focused on early care

and education programs for children from birth to

the age of school entry, usually at five. Quality 2000

did not address directly before-school, after-school,

and school-vacation programs for children age five

Ilr 73

to 13. Discussions with representatives from the

school-age child care community illustrated thatschool-age programs span several fields, including

early care and education, youth development, andcrime prevention. As a result, Quality 2000 does

not make specific recommendations regardingschool-age child care, although parts of the vision

could be expanded to embrace such programs.

d. Throughout this document, the term "kin" refers

to individuals who are caring for related childrenonly. The term "kith" refers to individuals who are

caring for the child or children of one unrelatedfamily. Care by kith and kin is not regarded as a

public service.e. We use the terms "workers," "staff," and the "work

force" generically, referring to those who work in

the early care and education field, including those

who work in center-based programs, family child

care homes, resource and referral agencies, train-

ing institutions, public and private agencies, andresearch organizations. More narrowly, we use the

term "administrator" for those who administer ordirect programs, services, or systems. Individuals

who work directly with children, irrespective of set-

ting, are called "practitioners." "Teachers," "assis-

tant teachers," and "aides" work with children incenter-based programs while "providers" work with

children in, and usually run, family child care

homes.f. The term "professional development" refers to all

the ways in which early care and education workers

increase their skills and knowledge to providequality programs for children and parents. Profes-

sional development encompasses "general educa-

tion" and "early childhood-related training andeducation." "General education" is any coursework

not related to young children or their families that

is offered by formal, academic institutions, such as

high schools, vocational schools, colleges, and

graduate programs. "Early childhood-related train-

APPENDICES. NOTES. AND REFERENCES

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ing and education" is any instruction directly relat-ed to young children and their families, in areasincluding child, human, and family development,early childhood education, child psychology, andearly childhood administration. It encompassestraining offered at conferences, by communityorganizations, and by mentors, as well as more for-mal academic courses offered by high schools,vocational schools, colleges, and graduate pro-grams. General education and early childhood-related training and education can be pursued inpreparation for working in a particular positionwith young children ("preservice" professionaldevelopment), or to improve one's skills whileemployed in early care and education settings

61

NOT BY CHANCE

g.

("inservice" or "ongoing" professional develop-ment).It is important to emphasize that licensing individ-uals cannot replace facility licensing; licensingboth individuals and facilities works to protect chil-dren from harm and ensure basic health, safetyand development. Licenses for individuals wouldspecify the required preparatory and ongoingtraining and education and level of competencythat staff must have; facility licenses, meanwhile,would specify basic standards to ensure that facili-ties promote the health, safety, and developmentof children, including which licenses individualsmust hold to be hired for a particular role.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

,74

REFERENCES

FOREWORD

1. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver.

2. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver.

3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997, Summer). Is there aJewish Agenda for America? Reform Judaism. 25(4),16.

Part OneTHE QUALITY CRISES: REALITIES,ROOTS, SIGNIFICANCE, TIMING

1. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver.

2. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of earlychildhood programs on cognitive and school out-comes. The Future of Children: Long-term outcomes ofearly childhood programs, 5(3), 25-50; Carnegie TaskForce on Learning in the Primary Grades (1996).Years of promise: A comprehensive learning strategy for

America's children. New York, NY: Carnegie Corpo-ration of New York; Gomby, D. S., Lamer, M. B.,Stevenson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E.(1995). Long-term outcomes of early childhoodprograms: Analysis and Recommendations. TheFuture of Children: Long-term outcomes of early child-hood programs, 5(3), 6-24; Peisner-Feinberg, E. S.(1995). Effects of child care on children by family income

level: The costs, quality, and child outcomes in child care

centers study. Paper presented at a child care work-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE'5

shop, Board on Children and Families, February21, 1995. Chapel Hill, NC: Department of Psychol-ogy, University of North Carolina; Phillips, D. A.(Ed.). (1995). Child care for low-inconre families: Sum-mary of two workshops. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press; Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., &Weikart, D. P., with Barnett, W. S. & EpsteirreAF.S6(1993), SignOcant benefits: The High/Scope PerryPreschool Study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Press; Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-terin effects of early childhood programs on socialoutcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children:Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs, 5(3),

51-75.3. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.

(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver.

4. Fosberg, S. (1981). Family day care in the UnitedStates: Summary of findings -Final report of NationalDay Care Home Study (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA. AbtAssociates; Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., &Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family childcare and relative care. New York, NY: Families andWork Institute.

5. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver.

6. Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Nabors, L. A., &Bryant, D. M. (1995). Quality of center child care andinfant cognitive language development. Unpublishedmanuscript. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Gra-ham Child Development Institute and Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

7. Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Hol-comb, P. (1991). National child care survey, 1990.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

8. Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Hol-comb, P. (1991). National child care survey, 1990.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press;

APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

Kisker, E., Hofferth, S., Phillips, D., & Farquhar, E.(1991). A profile of child care settings: Early educationand care in 1990, Vol. I. Princeton, NJ: MathematicaPolicy Research Inc.; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., &Phillips, D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers andthe quality of care in America: Final report of the Nation-

al Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: ChildCare Employee Project.

9. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Poorpreschool-aged children: Numbers increase but most not

in preschool. Washington, DC: Author (93-111).10. Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Hol-

comb, P. (1991). National child care survey, 1990.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

11. West, J., Germino Hausken, E., & Collins, M.(1993). Profile of preschool children's child care andearly program participation. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

12. Carnegie Task Force on Learning in the PrimaryGrades (1996). Years of promise: A comprehensivelearning strategy for America's children. New York, NY:Carnegie Corporation of New York.

13. National Center for Children in Poverty. (1996).One in four: America's youngest poor. New York, NY:National Center for Children in Poverty, ColumbiaSchool of Public Health.

14. U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics. (1995). 1995 nationalhousehold education survey. Washington, DC: Author.

15. U.S. Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations. (1994). Child care: The need for federal-state-local coordination. Washington, DC: Author;U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Child care:Working poor and welfare recipients face service gaps.Washington, DC: Author. (94-87).

16. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995a). Earlychildhood centers: Services to prepare children for school

often limited. Washington, DC: Author (95-21).17. Hofferth, S. L. (1995). Caring for children at the

poverty line. Children and youth services review, / 7(1-2):1-31; Phillips, D. A., Voran, M., Kisker, E.,

Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994). Child care forchildren in poverty: Opportunity or inequality?Child Development, 65, 440-456.

18. Morgan, G., Azer, S. L., Costley, J. B., Genser, A.,Goodman, I. F., Lombardi, J., & McGimsey, B.(1993). Making a career of it: The state of the statesreport on career development in early care and education.

Boston, MA: The Center for Career Developmentin Early Care and Education, Wheelock College.

NOT BY CHANCE

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

19. The Center for Career Development in Early Careand Education, Wheelock College. (1995). Childcare licensing regulation: Data compiled by The Centerfor Career Development in Early Care and Education.Boston, MA: Author.; Kisker, E., Hofferth, S.,Phillips, D., & Farquhar, E. (1991). A profile of childcare settings: Early education and care in 1990, Vol. I.Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

20. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in

America: Final report of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care EmployeeProject.

21. Adams, G. (1990). Who knows how safe? The status ofstate efforts to ensure quality child care. Washington,DC: Children's Defense Fund.

22. Willer, B., Hofferth, S., Kisker, E., Divine-Hawkins,P., Farquhar, E., & Glantz, F. (1991). The demandand supply of child cam in 1990: Joint findings from theNational Child Care Survey 1990 and A Profile of Child

Care Settings. Washington, DC: National Associationfor the Education of Young Children.

23. Infant School Society of Boston. (1828). Constitu-tion and by-laws. Boston: T. R. Marvin.

24. Ross, E. D. (1976). The kindergarten crusade: Theestablishment of preschool education in the United States.

Athens: Ohio University Press.25. Gomby, D. S., Larner, M. B., Stevenson, C. S.,

Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-termoutcomes of early childhood programs: Analysisand Recommendations. The Future of Children:Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs, 5(3), 6-24; Hayes, C. D., Palmer, J. L., & Zaslow, M. J.(Eds.). (1990). Who cares for America's children?Washington, DC: Panel on Child Care Policy,National Research Council, National AcademyPress; National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development. (1996). Infant child care andattachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early

child care. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services; Phillips, D. A., &Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in childcare: Review of research. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Qual-ity in child care: What does the research tell us? (pp. 1-

19). Washington, DC: NAEYC.26. Kagan, S. L., Goffin, S., Golub, S., & Pritchard, E.

(1995). Toward systemic reform: Service integration for

young children and their families. Falls Church, VA:National Center for Service Integration. Availablefrom the Child and Family Policy Center, 100Court Ave, Suite 312, Des Moines, IA 50309.

27. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995b). Earlychildhood programs: Multiple programs and overlappingtarget groups. Washington, DC: Author (95-4FS).

28. Goodman, I. F., & Brady, J. P. (1988). The challengeof coordination. Newton, MA: Education Develop-ment Center, Inc.; Sugarman, J. (1993). Buildinglocal strategies for young children and their families.Washington, DC: Center in Effective Services forChildren; U.S. General Accounting Office.(1995a). Early childhood centers: Services to preparechildren for school often limited. Washington, DC:Author (95-21); U.S. General Accounting Office.(1995b). Early childhood programs: Multiple programsand overlapping target groups. Washington, DC:Author (95-4FS).

29. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs ofYoung Children.. (1994). Starting points: Meeting theneeds of our youngest children: the report of the Carnegie

Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. New

York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York, p. 9.30. Barnes, H. V., Goodson, B. D., & Layzer, J. I., with

Beckford, I., Bernstein, L., Colen, H., Hailey, L.,Johnston, K., & Moss, M. (1995). National evalua-tion of family support programs research review volume1: Summary of findings. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associ-ates; Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn,M. (1994). The study of children in family child careand relative care. New York, NY: Families and WorkInstitute; Gomby, D. S., Lanier, M. B., Stevenson,C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs:Analysis and Recommendations. The Future of Chil-dren: Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs,5(3), 6-24; Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S.(1987). Child care quality and children's socialdevelopment. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537-543;Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in

America: Final report of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care EmployeeProject.

31. Gomby, D. S., Lanier, M. B., Stevenson, C. S.,Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-termoutcomes of early childhood programs: Analysisand Recommendations. The Future of Children:Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs, 5(3), 6-

24; Poersch, N., Adams, G., & Sandfort, J. (1994).Child care and development: Key facts. Washington,DC: Children's Defense Fund; Schweinhart, L. J.,Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P., with Barnett, W. S.& Epstein, A. S. (1993). Significant benefits: TheHigh/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Ypsi-

lanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

32. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care inAmerica: Final report of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care EmployeeProject.

33. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of EconomicsUniversity of Colorado at Denver.

34. Committee for Economic Development. (1993).Why child care matters: Preparing young children for amore productive America. New York, NY: Committeefor Economic Development; Galinsky, E., Fried-man, D. E., & Hernandez, C. A. (1991). The GIMP-rate reference guide to work-family programs. New York,

NY: Families and Work Institute.35. Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Hol-

comb, P. (1991). National child care survey, 1990.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

36. Meyers, M. K. (1993). Child care in JOBS employ-ment and training program: What difference doesquality make? Journal of marriage and the family, 55,767-783.

37. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of earlychildhood programs on cognitive and school out-comes. The Future of Children: Long-term outcomes ofearly childhood programs, 5(3), 25-50; Gomby, D. S.,Lanier, M. B., Stevenson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., &Behrman, R. E. (1995). Long-term outcomes ofearly childhood programs: Analysis and Recom-mendations. The Future of Children: Long-term out-comes of early childhood programs, 5(3), 6-24; Schwein-hart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P., withBarnett, W. S. & Epstein, A. S. (1993). Signantbenefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study throughage 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press; Yoshikawa,H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhoodprograms on social outcomes and delinquency.The Future of Children: Long-term outcomes of earlychildhood programs, 5(3), 51-75.

38. Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P.,with Barnett, W. S. & Epstein, A. S. (1993). Signifi-cant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Studythrough age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

39. Phillips, D. A., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (1994). Cul-tural diversity in early education: Results of a workshop.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

40. Bowman, B. T., & Stott, F. M. (1994). Understand-ing development in a cultural context: The chal-lenge for teachers. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New(Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriate prac-tices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 119-

7:APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

134). New York, NY: Teachers College Press; Mallo-ry, B. L., & New, R. S. (Eds.). (1994). Diversity &developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges forearly childhood education. New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

41. Quality 2000 Essential Functions and ChangeStrategies Task Force. (1993). A vision for an earlycare and education system: A Quality 2000 WorkingPaper. New Haven, CT: Yale University Bush Centerin Child Development and Social Policy.

42. Morgan, G., Azer, S. L., Costley, J. B., Genser, A.,Goodman, I. F., Lombardi, J., & McGimsey, B.(1993). Making a career of it: The state of the statesreport on career development in early care and education.

Boston, MA: The Center for Career Developmentin Early Care and Education, Wheelock College.

43. Phillips, D. A., & Zigler, E. (1987). The checkeredhistory of child care regulation. In E. Rothkopf(Ed.), Review of research on education, Vol. 14 (pp. 3-41). Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

44. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of EconomicsUniversity of Colorado at Denver.

45. Committee for Economic Development. (1993).Why child care matters: Preparing young children for amore productive America. New York, NY: Committeefor Economic Development; Fernandez, J. (1986).Child care and corporate productivity. Lexington, MA:D. C. Heath and Company.

46. Kamerman, S.B., & Kahn, A. J. (1995). Startingright: How America neglects its youngest children andwhat we can do about it. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-versity Press; Sugarman, J. (1993). Building localstrategies for young children and their families. Wash-ington, DC: Center in Effective Services for Chil-dren. Zigler, E. and Finn-Stevenson, M. (1996)Funding Child Care and Public Education. In TheCenter for the Future of Children, Financing ChildCare: Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile PackardFoundation.

Part TwoTHE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Katz, L. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A.(1990). The case for mixed-age grouping in early educa-tion. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

NOT BY CHANCEat

2. Hayes, C. D., Palmer, J. L., & Zaslow, M. J. (Eds.).(1990). Who cares for America's children? Washing-ton, DC: Panel on Child Care Policy, NationalResearch Council, National Academy Press;Phillips, D. A., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators ofquality in child care: Review of research. In D.Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does theresearch tell us? (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC:NAEYC; Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coe-len, C. (1979). Children at the center: Final results ofthe National Day Care Study. Boston: Abt Associates.Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C.(1979). Children at the center: Final results of theNational Day Care Study. Boston: Abt Associates.

3. Love, J. M., Ryer, P., & Faddis, B. (1992). Caringenvironments: Program quality in California's publiclyfunded child development programs. Portsmouth, NH:RMC Research Corporation.

4. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team.(1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child carecenters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics,University of Colorado at Denver; Whitebook, M.,Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989). Who cares? Childcare teachers and the quality of care in America: Finalreport of the National Child Care Staffing Study. Oak-land, CA: Child Care Employee Project.

5. Richardson, G., & Marx, E. (1989). A welcome forevery child: How France achieves quality in child care-Practical ideas for the United States. New York, NY:The French-American Foundation.

6. Jorde Bloom, P. (1996). The quality of work life inearly childhood programs: Does accreditationmake a difference? In S. Bredekamp & B. A. Willer(Eds.), NAEYC accreditation: A decade of learning and

the years ahead (pp. 13-24). Washington, DC:National Association for the Education of YoungChildren; Pope, S., & Stremmel, A. (1992). Orga-nizational climate and job satisfaction among childcare teachers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 21, 39-52.

7. Lally, J. R., Griffin, A., Fenichel, E., Segal, M., Szan-ton, E., & Weissbourd, B. (1995). Caring for infantsand toddlers in groups: Developmentally appropriatepractice. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/TheNational Center for Clinical Infant Programs.

8. Phillips, D. A., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (1994). Cul-tural diversity in early education: Results of a workshop.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.9. Chang, H. N., Tobiassen, D. P., & Muckelroy, A. (in

press). Looking in, looking out: Defining early care andeducation in a diverse society. San Francisco, CA: Cal-ifornia Tomorrow; Derman-Sparks, L., & the ABC

73 BEST COPY AVAIIABLE

Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools forempowering young children. Washington, DC: Nation-al Association for the Education of Young Chil-dren; Phillips, C. B. (1994). The movement ofAfrican-American children through socioculturalcontexts: A case of conflict resolution. In B. L. Mal-lory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentallyappropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood edu-

cation (pp. 137-154). New York, NY: Teachers Col-lege Press.

10. Phillips, C. B. (1994). The movement of African-American children through sociocultural contexts:A case of conflict resolution. In B. L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriatepractices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp.137-154). New York, NY: Teachers College Press;Phillips, D. A., &Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (1994). Cul-tural diversity in early education: Results of a workshop.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.11. Jorde Bloom, P. (1996). The quality of work life in

early childhood programs: Does accreditationmake a difference? In S. Bredekamp & B. A. Willer(Eds.), NAEYC accreditation: A decade of learning and

the years ahead (pp. 13-24). Washington, DC:National Association for the Education of YoungChildren; Bredekamp, S., & Glowacki, S. (1995).The first decade of NAEYC accreditation: Growth andimpact on the field. Paper prepared for an Invita-tional Conference sponsored by The RobertMcCormick Tribune Foundation and the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.Wheaton, IL; Cost, Quality, & Child OutcomesStudy Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomesin child care centers. Denver, CO: Department ofEconomics, University of Colorado at Denver;Whitebook, 1996; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., &Phillips, D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers andthe quality of care in America: Final report of the Nation-

al Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: ChildCare Employee Project; Zellman, G. L., &Johansen, A. S. (1996). The effects of accreditationon care in military child development centers. InS. Bredekamp & B. A. Willer (Eds.), NAEYC accred-itation: A decade of learning and the years ahead (pp.25-30). Washington, DC: National Association forthe Education of Young Children.

12. Morgan, G. (1995). Licensing and accreditation: Howmuch quality is "quality?" Paper prepared for anInvitational Conference sponsored by The RobertMcCormick Tribune Foundation and the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.Wheaton, IL.

BEST COPY AVAUABLE

F

13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.(1996). Healthy child care America. Washington, DC:Author.

14. American Academy of Pediatrics, Advisory Com-mittee on Immunization Practices and AmericanAcademy of Family Physicians. (1996). Recom-mended childhood immunizations schedule/Unit-ed States. Pediatrics, 97, 143-144.

15. National Association of Child Care Resource andReferral Agencies. (1996). Creating and facilitatinghealth linkages: The role of child care resource and refer-

ral. Washington, DC: Author.16. Kamerman, S. B. (1989). Child care, women, work

and the family: An international overview of childcare services and related policies. In Lande, J. S.,Scarr, S., and Gunzenhauser (Eds.) Caring for chil-dren: Challenge to America. (pp. 93-110). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Kontos, S.(1992). Family day care Out of the shadows and intothe limelight. Washington, DC: National Associationfor the Education of Young Children; Shuster, C.,Finn-Stevenson, M., & Ward, P. (Eds.). (1990). Thehard questions in family day care: National issues andexemplary programs. New York, NY: National Councilof Jewish Women Center for the Child.

17. Cohen, N. E. (1992). Increasing the quality of fam-ily child care homes: Strategies for the 1990s. Child& Youth Care Forum, 21(5), 347-359; Lamer, M.(1994). In the neighborhood: Programs that strengthenfamily day care for low-income families. New York:National Center for Children in Poverty; Miller, S.H. (1996). Quality infrastructure for family childcare. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.), Rein-venting early care and education: A vision for a qualitysystem (pp. 193-210). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Shuster, C., Finn-Stevenson, M., & Ward, P.(Eds.). (1990). The hard questions in family day care:National issues and exemplary programs. New York,NY: National Council of Jewish Women Center forthe Child.

18. Miller, S. H. (1996). Quality infrastructure for fam-ily child care. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.),Reinventing early care and education: A vision for aquality system (pp. 193-210). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass; Modigliani, K. (1991). Training pro-grams for family child care providers: An analysis of tencurricula. Boston, MA: Wheelock College FamilyChild Care Project.

19. Fiene, R. (1994). The case for national early careand education standards: Key indicator/predictorstate child care regulations. National Association forRegulatory Administration Licensing Newsletter, 8;

73APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

Fiene, R. (1995). Using a statistical indicator method-ology for accreditation. Paper prepared for an Invita-tional Conference sponsored by The RobertMcCormick Tribune Foundation and the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.Wheaton, IL.

20. Shore, R. (1994). Family support and parent educa-tion: Opportunities for scaling up. Report of a meet-ing convened by Carnegie Corporation of NewYork, November 16-17, 1994. New York, NY:Carnegie Corporation of New York.

21. Schorr, L. B. (1994). The case for shifting toresults-based accountability. In N. Young, S. Gard-ner, S. Coley, L. Schorr, & C. Bruner (Eds.), Mak-ing a difference: Moving to outcome-based accountabilityfor comprehensive service reforms (pp. 13-28). FallsChurch, VA: National Center for Service Integra-tion.

22. Hofferth, S. L., & Chaplin, D. (1994). Child carequality versus availability: Do we have to trade one forthe other? Washington, DC: The Urban InstitutePress; Phillips, D. A., Mekos, M., Scarr, S., McCart-ney, M., & Abbott-Shim, M. (in press). Within andbeyond the classroom door: Defining quality in typicalchild care.

23. Kagan, S. L., Rosenkoetter, S., and Cohen, N. E. (inpress). Considering child-based outcomes for young chil-

dren: Definitions, desirability, feasibility, and next steps.New Haven, CT: Bush Center in Child Develop-ment and Social Policy, Yale University.

24. Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T (Eds.). (1992).Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assess-ment for young children. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children;Agee, J. L. and California State Department ofEducation. (1988). Here they come: Ready or not! Areport of the School Readiness Task Force. Sacramento,CA; California State Department of Education;National Association for the Education of YoungChildren. (1988). Position statement on standard-ized testing of young children 3 through 8 years ofage. Young Children, 43(3), 42-47.

25. FairTest: National Center for Fair and Open Test-ing. (1990). Fallout from the testing explosion: How100 million standardized exams undermine equity andexcellence in America's public schools (3rd ed.). Cam-bridge, MA: Author; National Association of EarlyChildhood Specialists in State Departments ofEducation. (1987). Unacceptable trends in kinder-garten entry and placement. Unpublished paper.

NOT BY CHANCE

26. Shepard, L. A. (1994). The challenges of assessingyoung children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,206-213.

27. Meisels, S. J. (1987). Uses and abuses of develop-mental screening and school readiness testing.Young Children, 42, pp. 4-6, 68-73.

28. Schorr, L. B. (1994). The case for shifting toresults-based accountability. In N. Young, S. Gard-ner, S. Coley, L. Schorr, & C. Bruner (Eds.), Mak-ing a difference: Moving to outcome-based accountabilityfor comprehensive service reforms (pp. 13-28). FallsChurch, VA: National Center for Service Integra-tion.

29. Kagan, S. L., Rosenkoetter, S., and Cohen, N. E. (inpress). Considering child-based outcomes for young chil-dren: Definitions, desirability, feasibility, and next steps.

New Haven, CT: Bush Center in Child Develop-ment and Social Policy, Yale University.

30. Kagan, S. L., Coffin, S., Golub, S., & Pritchard, E.(1995). Toward systemic reform: Service integration foryoung children and their families. Falls Church, VA:National Center for Service Integration. Availablefrom the Child and Family Policy Center, 100Court Ave, Suite 312, Des Moines, IA 50309.

31. Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood pro-grams. Washington, DC: National Association forthe Education of Young Children.

32. Bronson, M. B., Pierson, D. E., & Tivnan, T.(1984). The effects of early education on chil-dren's competence in elementary school. Evalua-tion Review, 8, 615-629; Brofenbrenner, U. (1974).A report on longitudinal evaluations of preschool pro-grams, Vol. II: Is early intervention effective? Washing-ton, DC: Office of Child Development, Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.

33. Bronson, M. B., Pierson, D. E., & Tivnan, T.(1984). The effects of early education on chil-dren's competence in elementary school. Evalua-tion Review, 8, 615-629; Laosa, L. M. (1980). Mater-nal teaching strategies in Chicano andAnglo-American families: The influence of cultureand education on maternal behavior. Child Develop-ment, 51, 759-765.

34. Dunst, C. (1995). Key characteristics and features ofcommunity-based family support programs. Chicago, IL:

Family Resource Coalition.35. Family Resource Coalition. (1996). Guidelines for

practice. Chicago, IL: Family Resource Coalition.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

454

36. Weissbourd, B. (1987). A brief history of familysupport programs. In S. L. Kagan, D. R. Powell, B.Weissbourd, & E. F. Zig ler (Eds.), America's familysupport programs (pp. 38-56). New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

37. Miller, L., & Anderson, C. (1995). Empowering par-ents: Developing support, leaderships, advocacy, andactivism. CCAC Issue Brief #2. New York, NY: ChildCare Action Campaign.

38. Olmstead, P. P., & Lockhard, S. (1995). Do parentsand teachers agree? What should young children be learn-

ing? Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation.

39. Gormley, W. T. (1995). Everybody's children: Childcare as a public problem. Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution.

40. Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1993).The changing workforce: Highlights of the NationalStudy. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute;Staines, G. L., & Galinsky, E. (1991). Parental leaveand productivity: The supervisor's view. New York, NY:Families and Work Institute.

41. Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the childrenwe share. Phi Delta Kappan, 701-712; Henderson, A.T., Marburger, C. L., & Ooms, T. (1986). Beyond theback sale: An educator's guide to working with parents.Columbia, MD: The National Committee for Citi-zens in Education.

42. Kagan, S. L. (1994). Defining America's commitmentsto parents and families: An historical-conceptual perspec-

tive. Commissioned paper for The Ewing MarionKauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO.

43. Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers:Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 10, 541-552; Cost, Quality, & ChildOutcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, andchild outcomes in child care centers. Denver, CO:Department of Economics University of Coloradoat Denver; Fosberg, S. (1981). Family day care in theUnited States: Summary of findings-Final report ofNational Day Care Home Study (Vol. 1). Cambridge,MA: Abt Associates; Phillips, D. A., & Howes, C.(1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Reviewof research. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in childcare: What does the research tell us? (pp. 1-19). Wash-ington, DC: NAEYC; Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz,F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the center: Finalresults of the National Day Care Study. Boston: AbtAssociates; Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V, &

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

82

Weikart, D. P., with Barnett, W. S. & Epstein, A. S.(1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope PerryPreschool Study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Press; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., &Phillips, D. (1989). Who cares? Child care teachers andthe quality of care in America: Final report of the Nation-al Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: ChildCare Employee Project.

44. Howes, C., Smith, E., & Galinsky, E. (1995). TheFlorida child care quality improvement study. New York:

Families and Work Institute.45. Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers:

Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 10, 541-552; Berk, 1985; Howes, 1983;Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C.(1979). Children at the center: Final results of theNational Day Care Study. Boston: Abt Associates;Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in

America: Final report of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care EmployeeProject.

46. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (1995). Thefamily child care training study: Interim Report. NewYork: Families and Work Institute.

47. Phillips, D. A., Mekos, M., Scarr, S., McCartney, M.,& Abbott-Shim, M. (in press). Within and beyond theclassroom door: Defining quality in typical child care.

48. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1989).Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care inAmerica: Final report of the National Child CareStaffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child Care EmployeeProject.

49. Mitchell, A. (1996). Licensing: Lessons from otheroccupations. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.),Reinventing early care and education: A vision for aquality system (pp. 101-123). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.50. Pritchard, E. (1996). Training and professional

development: International approaches. In S. L.Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early careand education: A vision for a quality system (pp. 124-141). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

51. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M.(1994). The study of children in family child care andrelative care. New York, NY: Families and Work Insti-tute; Lamer, M. (1996). Parent perspectives onquality in early care and education. In S. L. Kagan& N. E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and edu-cation: A vision for a quality system (pp. 21-42). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

APPENDICES, NOTES, AND REFERENCES

52. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs ofYoung Children. (1994). Starting points: Meeting theneeds of our youngest children: the report of the Carnegie

Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. New

York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.53. American Public Health Association & American

Academy of Pediatrics. (1992). Caring for our chil-dren: National health and safety performance stan-dards-guidelines for out-of-home child care programs.Washington, DC and Elk Grove Village, IL:

Authors.54. American Public Health Association & American

Academy of Pediatrics. (1992). Caring for our chil-dren: National health and safety performance stan-dards-guidelines for out-of-home child care programs.Washington, DC and Elk Grove Village, IL:

Authors.55. National Association for the Education of Young

Children. (1995). Guidelines for preparation of earlychildhood professionals: Associate, baccalaureate, andadvanced levels. Washington, DC: Author.

56. National Association for the Education of YoungChildren. (1995). Guidelines for preparation of earlychildhood professionals: Associate, baccalaureate, andadvanced levels. Washington, DC: Author.

57. Council for Early Childhood Professional Recogni-tion. (1992). Child Development Associate assessmentsystem and competency standards. Washington, DC:Author.

58. Morgan, G., Azer, S. L., Costley, J. B., Genser, A.,Goodman, I. F., Lombardi, J., & McGimsey, B.(1993). Making a career of it: The state of the statesreport on career development in early care and education.

Boston, MA: The Center for Career Developmentin Early Care and Education, Wheelock College;Willer, 1995):

59. Lally, J. R., Griffin, A., Fenichel, E., Segal, M., Szan-ton, E., & Weissbourd, B. (1995). Caring for infantsand toddlers in groups: Developmentally appropriatepractice. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/TheNational Center for Clinical Infant Programs.

60. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs ofYoung Children. (1994). Starting points: Meeting theneeds of our youngest children: the report of the Carnegie

Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. New

York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York; Cost,Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995).Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care cen-ters. Denver, CO: Department of Economics, Uni-versity of Colorado at Denver.

siNOT BY CHANCE

61. Hooper-Briar, K., & Lawson, H. A. (1994). Servingchildren, youth and families through interprofessionalcollaboration and service integration: A framework foraction. Oxford, OH: The Danforth Foundation andThe Institute for Educational Renewal at MiamiUniversity.

62. Moore, E. K. (1997). Diverse leaders catalyst for sys-tems change to achieve high-quality early education: TheAfrican American Early Childhood Leadership ResourceCenter. Washington, DC: National Black ChildDevelopment Institute.

63. Miller, S. H. (1996). Quality infrastructure for fam-ily child care. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.),Reinventing early care and education: A vision for aquality system (pp. 193-210). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

64. Breunig, G. S., & Bellm, D. (1996). Early childhoodmentoring programs: A survey of community initiatives.Washington, DC: National Center for the EarlyChildhood Workforce; Whitebook, M., Hnaticuk,P., &, Bellm, D. (1994). Mentoring in early care andeducation: Refining an emerging career path. Washing-ton, DC: National Center for the Early ChildhoodWork Force; Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (1995).The potential of mentoring: An assessment of the Cali-fornia early childhood mentor teacher program. Wash-ington, DC: The National Center for the EarlyChildhood Work Force.

65. Adams, G. (1995). How safe? The status of state effortsto protect children in child care. Washington, DC: Chil-dren's Defense Fund.

66. Adams, G. (1990). Who knows how safe? The status ofstate efforts to ensure quality child care. Washington,DC: Children's Defense Fund.

67. Gormley, W. T. (1995). Everybody's children: Childcare as a public problem. Washington, DC: Br000k-ings Institution; G. Morgan, personal communica-tion, March 22, 1996; U.S. ACIR, 1994):

68. Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C.(1979). Children at the center: Final results of theNational Day Care Study. Boston: Abt Associates.

69. The Center for Career Development in Early Careand Education, Wheelock College. (1995). Childcare licensing regulation: Data compiled by The Centerfor Career Development in Early Care and Education.Boston, MA: Author; Gormley, W. T. (1995). Every-body's children: Child care as a public problem. Wash-ington, DC: Brookings Institution.

70. Gormley, W. T. (undated). Regulatory enforcementstyles. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

52

.41

71. U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics. (1994). National public edu-cation financial survey for fiscal year 1993. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

72. Casper, L. M. (1995). What does it cost to mind ourpreschoolers? Current Population Reports: HouseholdEconomic Studies. P70-52. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce; Cost, Quality, & ChildOutcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, andchild outcomes in child care centers. Denver, CO:Department of Economics, University of Coloradoat Denver; Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S.,& Holcomb, P. (1991). National child care survey,1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press;Sugarman, J. (1995a). Comparison of expenditures forpublic school education and early childhood programs.Washington, DC: Center on Effective Services forChildren.

73. Mitchell, A., Stoney, L, and Dichter, H. (1997).Financing Child Care in the United States: An illustra-tive catalogue of current strategies. Kansas City, MO:E. W. Kauffman Foundation and Pew CharitableTrusts.

74. Gerry, M. (1995). Quality 2000: Options for financinga quality early care and education system. Lawrence,KS: Center for the Study of Family, Neighborhood,and Community Policy.

75. The Center for the Future of Children. (1996).Financing Child Care. Los Altos, CA: The David andLucile Packard Foundation. Willer, B. (Ed.).(1990). Reaching the full cost of quality in early child-hood programs. Washington, DC: National Associa-tion for the Education of Young Children.

76. Rivlin, A. (1992). Riviving the American dream: Theeconomy, the states, and the federal government. Wash-ington, DC: Brookings Institution.

77. Stangler, G. (1995). Lifeboats vs. safety nets: Whorides ... who swims. In Dollars and sense: Diverse per-spectives on block grants and the Personal Responsibility

Act (pp. 67-72). Washington, DC: The Finance Pro-ject and the Institute for Educational Leadership.

78. Marzke, C., & Both, D. (1994). Getting started: Plan-ning a comprehensive services initiative. Falls Church,VA: National Center for Service Integration.

79. Gormley, W. T. (1996). Governance: Child care,federalism, and public policy. In S. L. Kagan & N.E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and educa-tion: A vision for a quality system (pp. 158-174). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

r 83,

80. Sugarman, J. (1995b). Thinking about new strategiesfor programs that serve children, youth and families.Washington, DC: Center on Effective Services forChildren.

Part ThreeREALIZING THE VISION

1. Knitzer, J., & Page, S. (1996). Mapping and trackingstate initiatives for young children and families. NewYork: National Center for Children in Poverty.

2. Richmond, J. & Kotelchuck M. (1984). Commen-tary on Changed Lives. In J. R. Berrueta-Clement,L. J. Schweinhart, & D. P. Weikart, Changed lives:The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youthsthrough age 19 (pp. 204-210). Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

3. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs ofYoung Children. (1994). Starting points: Meeting theneeds of our youngest children: the report of the Carnegie

Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. New

York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York;Hayes, C. D., Palmer, J. L., & Zaslow, M. J. (Eds.).(1990). Who cares for America's children?Washington,DC: Panel on Child Care Policy, National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press; Phillips, D. A., &Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in childcare: Review of research. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Qual-ity in child care: What does the research tell us? (pp. 1-

19). Washington, DC: NAEYC.4. Cortes, E. (1996). Organizing communities and

constituencies for change. In S. L. Kagan & N. E.Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and education: Avision fora quality system (pp. 247-266). San Francis-co, CA: Jossey-Bass.

5. Neyer, C. (1993, July 15). Leadership programs'goal: To empower parents to defend their chil-dren. The Hartford Courant, p. D4.

6. Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planningfor the future in an uncertain world. New York, NY:Doubleday.

7. Gormley, W. T. (1996). Governance: Child care,federalism, and public policy. In S. L. Kagan & N.E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and educa-tion: A vision for a quality system. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

APPENDICES. NOTES. AND REFERENCES

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").