Student Achievement Leadership Team

Resource Kit #14Understanding the value of high-quality pre-K

August 2007

Ohio School Boards Association8050 North High Street, Suite 100

Columbus, Ohio 43235-6481(614) 540-4000 • fax (614) 540-4100

ContentsMessage from OSBA President Martha F. Rothey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

OSBA’s role — the Pew grant initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Expanding voluntary preschool education — the federal role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

NIEER — your resource for pre-K education research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The NIEER report — state-funded preschool education, a long and winding road . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Comparison — how does Ohio stack up? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

On the Ohio legislative front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

An Ohio school district — one success story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Essential tips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Pre-K resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The OSBA Student Achievement Leadership Team consists of the followingschool board members:Martha F. Rothey, OSBA president and chair, Findlay City, (419) 424-8900Linda R. Anderson, Fostoria City, (419) 435-1686Walter S. Armes, Whitehall City, (614) 231-0349Billie Brandon, Mid-Ohio ESCBarbara Cowling, Streetsboro City, (330) 626-5313Cathye J. Flory, Logan-Hocking Local (Hocking) & Tri-County Career Center, (740) 385-6365Larry E. Holdren, Washington County ESC & Washington County JVSD, (740) 989-2447Sharon E. Manson, Waverly City & Pike County Area JVSD, (740) 947-2973Dr. Florence M. Newell, Cincinnati City, (513) 731-8683Linda F.R. Omobien, Akron City, (330) 867-6571Gail Requardt, East Muskingum Local (Muskingum) & Mid-East Career and Technology Centers,

(740) 844-0025William Spahr, Xenia Community City & Greene County Career Center, (937) 376-1614

For more information on the OSBA Student Achievement Initiative, contact one of the SALT members or:

Ohio School Boards Association8050 North High Street, Suite 100

Columbus, Ohio 43235-6481(614) 540-4000 • fax (614) 540-4100

Web site at www.osba-ohio.org

8050 North High Street, Suite 100, Columbus, Ohio 43235-6481

(614) 540-4000 • (800) 589-OSBA • fax: (614) 540-4100

www.osba-ohio.org

Dear school board members, superintendents and treasurers:

We all know children begin learning at birth. The question we need to ask as school boardmembers and administrators is, “When is the right time to begin a formal education?”

Studies have shown that high-quality prekindergarten education provides students a solidfoundation on which to begin kindergarten. They will have fewer problems learning, fewerproblems socializing and more academic success throughout their school careers.

Unlike public K-12 education, which has Ohio state standards for each grade level, pre-K orpreschool programs vary greatly. Ask a dozen board members to define pre-K and you will get adozen different answers. While virtually all Ohio school districts provide pre-K for at-risk students,not many have programs for all 3- and 4-year-olds. Some districts offer it for 4-year-olds, but mostdistricts are limited to just what they have to provide by law.

Gov. Ted Strickland raised the bar for high-quality pre-K when he included between $5 million to$12 million in his budget for new early childhood education programs. At one time, Ohio wasleading the nation in funding and innovation in this vital area. Today, other states have taken thatleadership role.

The state school boards associations in Ohio, Kansas and Texas were invited by the NationalSchool Boards Association to participate in a grant funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Thepurpose of the 2-year initiative is to inform local school board members, state policymakers andthe general public about the short- and long-term benefits of high-quality pre-K education.One purpose of the grant is to increase awareness of high-quality pre-K in the three states. Thisresource kit contains information to help you decide if pre-K is right for your district.

Please take a moment to read and learn more about this important issue. We hope you find thisinformation helpful.

Martha F. Rothey2007 OSBA president board member, Findlay City

OSBA’s role — the Pew grant initiativeOhio was selected by the National School BoardsAssociation to participate in a grant programsponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Stateschool boards associations in Kansas and Texasare joining OSBA and NSBA in the program. Thepurpose of the two-year initiative is to informlocal school board members, state policymakersand the general public about the short- and long-term benefits of high-quality pre-K education.

OSBA staff members serving on the project areScott Ebright, deputy director of communicationservices; Maryse Gonzalez, secretary of legislativeservices; Kathy LaSota, deputy director of searchservices and board development; and DonnaWilliams, management development specialist.

Representatives of the three state associations metwith leaders of the national movement for qualitypre-K education at NSBA’s Washington office inNovember to kick off the initiative. A secondmeeting was held in Kansas in June to revieweach state’s progress and learn how three schooldistricts conducted their pre-K programs.

In addition to learning about the present state ofpre-K education in the United States during thetwo meetings, the group gained a valuableunderstanding of the grant and how the threestate associations could contribute to its success.

Each of the three states is approaching the grantin a unique way. Kansas, with a small association staff, named four staff members to itsteam, complemented by early childhoodeducation experts from the University of Kansas,Kansas State University and the state departmentof education. Two Texas Association of SchoolBoards staff members are working with a numberof other organizations in the Lone Star state.Ohio’s diverse team plans to work with a broadspectrum of stakeholders. Each state developed an action plan, vision andgoals. OSBA’s efforts will focus on creating a

climate of readiness for voluntary, quality,universal pre-K for Ohio’s children. This will berealized when our members and theirconstituents understand the definition and believein the benefits of quality pre-K programs; whensuccessful public models have been identified andcan be replicated; when new public and privatefunding sources are identified; and whencurrently available resources are used creatively toprovide needed programs.

The OSBA plan first was presented to management,then to the OSBA Board of Trustees at its Jan. 20meeting. Ohio was once considered the front-runner in pre-K education, but other states havepassed us. Several groups are actively involved inincreasing early childhood educationopportunities.

OSBA staff members are reaching out to otherOhio groups interested in this issue. They have met with the Community Solutions Group,another Pew Charitable Trusts grant recipient, todiscuss potential collaboration, and are attendingmeetings of the Ohio School Readiness Group.

One of the Pew grant’s goals is to learn what isworking in various states and sharing that knowledge. OSBA’s pre-K team members areparticipating in monthly conference calls withtheir counterparts from Kansas and Texas, as wellas the grant leadership team at NSBA. The threestate teams will meet twice a year during the two-year grant. Ohio will be hosting such a meeting inMay.

Gonzalez and LaSota spoke during a session onpre-K education at the NSBA national conventionin April. An OSBA Management DevelopmentSeries workshop in early February was the firstseminar to feature the topic. In addition, a pre-Ksession will be conducted during CapitalConference.

page 2

page 3

By Chrisanne L. Gayl NSBA

The first five years of life are a time ofenormous growth for children. The cognitive,social and emotional skills that childrendevelop during their early years are essentialbuilding blocks for their entire educationallives. The pace of learning, however, dependson whether and to what extent they encounterand engage in supporting environments.

As the National Research Council reported in“Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers,”“there can be no question that theenvironment in which a child grows up has apowerful impact on how the child develops.”Given this reality, preschool educationprograms play a critical role in setting apositive trajectory for student success and canhelp close some achievement gaps that existamong children even before they enter school.

Yet, despite the importance of early childhoodeducation on the continuum of learning, thefederal government has been slow to engage inefforts to develop or encourage pre-kindergarten programming for 3- and 4-yearolds. In fact, it is estimated that the U.S. Department of Education spends only 1 to 1.5% of its $57.6 billion annual discretionarybudget on preschool education.

Instead, the federal government’s primaryfocus over the past few decades has been on subsidizing childcare options for low-incomefamilies through programs administered by theU.S. Department of Health and HumanServices. HHS administers the Child Care Development Block Grant and TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families programs, whichtogether provide more than $8 billion infederal resources for childcare.

Head Start is the one notable exception thataddresses education outcomes. However, evenat $6.8 billion, this program only reachesfamilies that are living at or below 100% of thepoverty line. Head Start also is designed tofocus on a broader spectrum of services forchildren and their families than primarilyschool readiness.

With the onset of No Child Left Behind,preschool has emerged as an importantstrategy to increase school readiness andimprove student achievement in elementaryschool and beyond. As states and districtsstruggle to meet the law’s accountabilitybenchmarks, they have begun to recognize thathigh-quality early education is critical toensuring that every child who enterskindergarten will be well prepared toundertake a challenging curriculum and meethigh standards. School board members arechallenged to implement cost-effectiveprograms that will have a positive andsustainable impact on increasing studentachievement.

This policy briefly examines efforts currentlyunder way to prepare our children for school,what the research tells us works and how thefederal government can help school districtsimplement effective programs. First though,we must set a context for the role that earlychildhood education plays in the United States’overall system of education and how thiscompares to other parts of the world.

In 2004, there were nearly 8 million childrenages 3 to 4 in the United States. Among them,40% of 3-year-olds and 66% of 4-year-olds wereenrolled in some type of preschool program,according to the National Center for EducationStatistics. This may seem like a substantialnumber of children that are being served, but

Expanding voluntary preschool education — the federal role

the educational focus and quality of theseprograms vary substantially.

In addition, these enrollment figures arerelatively low compared with the formalschooling that children receive in otherdeveloped countries. For example, Belgium,France, and Italy enroll 95% of children ages 3 to 6 in universal, voluntary and free preschool programs. Other countries, such asEngland, Sweden, Hungary, Japan, and Russia,all have higher percentages of 4-year-olds andyounger enrolled in school than the UnitedStates.

No substantial evidence suggests thatpreschool enrollment has an impact on cross-national indicators of student performance, buta strong correlation exists among countrieswith high percentages of children enrolled inpreschool and later student performance oninternational assessments. In fact, almost all ofthe nations referenced above outperformed theUnited States on the 2003 Trends inInternational Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS), which measures fourth-grade mathachievement. In addition, Sweden, Hungary,and England scored higher than the UnitedStates on reading achievement as measured bythe 2001 Progress in International ReadingLiteracy Study.

For the United States to compete on a levelplaying field with our internationalcompetitors, it seems only reasonable that wemust devote more time and resources to ensurethat our children have the same opportunity todevelop the necessary skills to be successful inschool.

State programsWhile the federal government has tended tooverlook the importance of early education, many states have made significant strides inestablishing and/or expanding preschool

programs in recent years. Currently, 41 statesand the District of Columbia operate sometype of pre-K program. During the 2004-2005school year, states spent $2.84 billion on theseprograms.

Today, 801,900 children — approximately 10%of the nation’s 3- and 4-year-olds — and 17%of all 4-year olds — are enrolled in statefunded pre-K initiatives. To pay for theseprograms, states rely on a variety of resources,including general revenues, lottery sales,special excise taxes on cigarettes and beer, andtobacco settlement funds. A few states,including —Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma,Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin, eveninclude financing for pre-K in their school-funding formula.

But while states have been active in promotingpreschool, the scope and quality of theseprograms has been uneven. Some states contentthemselves with targeting services towardspecific populations of students (low income,disabled, English language learners) to addressa particular deficiency with a subset of thepopulation, while others, such as Oklahomaand Georgia, have adopted a universalapproach. And some states do not offer anypublicly funded pre-K at all.

The quality of preschool programs also variesdepending on the amount of state investmentand what policymakers decide to focus theirresources on. Often, states are forced to maketrade-offs between variables such as thepercentage of highly trained teachers and staff,small class sizes and low teacher child ratios.As a result, the National Institute for EarlyEducation Research (NIEER) reports that onlysix states met at least nine of the 10 qualitybenchmarks used to assess program quality.Another six states met no more than threeindicators. Given these disparities, the federalgovernment has a legitimate role in helping to

page 4

provide quality programs for children thatotherwise would not have access to theseservices.

Research findingsAccording to numerous studies, programs thatprovide children with developmentallyappropriate stimulation can improve schoolreadiness and academic performance in theearly grades. Children who participate in high-quality preschool programs also demonstrategreater interest in learning, are less likely torepeat a grade or require special educationclasses and are more likely to graduate fromhigh school and attend college. Many of theseeffects are compelling incentives for districts toinvest in preschool programs.

Academic achievementSeveral national and state studies have shownthat students who attend preschool programsscore higher on academic assessments thanpeers who do not attend preschool. Forexample, the nationally representative EarlyChildhood Longitudinal Study, which providesdata on 14,000 children from birth throughage 5, indicates that students who participatedin preschool programs scored higher onreading and math tests than children who didnot participate.

A more tailored study from NIEER, whichused a rigorous approach to control for measured differences between children (andtheir families) who attend and do not attend preschool, found that “graduates” frompublicly funded pre-K programs in Michigan,New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina andWest Virginia performed substantially better onvocabulary, math and print awarenessassessments compared to nonparticipants.Overall, children in these programs postedscores that were 31% higher in vocabulary, 44% higher in math and 85% higher in print

awareness (including recognition of letters,letter sounds and book concepts) compared tochildren who did not participate in a program. Studies also have shown that these cognitivebenefits are particularly powerful amongchildren from low-income and minorityfamilies who tend to obtain, on average, lowerreading assessment scores than their moreaffluent peers without some type ofintervention. As a result, preschool can help tomitigate some gaps in children’s skills andknowledge that are present before childrenbegin school and tend to worsen over time.

An analysis of Oklahoma’s universal pre-kindergarten program has shown greater increases in cognitive development amongchildren in on free-and-reduced-priced lunchprograms and among certain racial and ethnicgroups. For example, Hispanic children in thestudy increased letter word identificationscores by 4.15 points and applied problem-solving scores by 4.97 points, compared towhite children, who experienced gains of 3.02and 0.85, respectively.

Long-term impactBesides the effects on young children’scognitive growth, preschool programs have demonstrably positive effects on the futurelives of young children as measured by avariety of educational and social indicators.Much of this data can be traced to longitudinalstudies of three well-designed and well-implemented model programs — the PerryPreschool Project the Carolina AbecedarianProject and the Chicago Parent CentersProgram. Together, these projects have shownthat students who attended preschool weremore likely to graduate from high school, lesslikely to repeat a grade in school, less likely tobe arrested for a violent crime by age 18, lesslikely to become teen parents and more likelyto be employed and have higher earnings than

page 5

their peers who did not attend. In addition, all three studies show significantlylower rates of special education services forstudents who attended preschool. Forexample, only 15% of the Perry participantsrequired special education services, comparedwith 34% of children from the control group.For Abecedarian, 48% of the control groupreceived special education services versus 24%for pre-K children. In the Chicago ParentCenters Program, the gap was 11 percentagepoints (14% to 25%) in placements betweenpre-K participants and nonparticipants.

Economic benefitsMany of the benefits that high-qualitypreschool education provides have asignificant impact on reducing school districtcosts, as well as federal, state and localgovernment expenditures. A cost/benefitanalysis done by the Committee forEconomic Development reports that targetedpreschool programs can generate $2 to $16in long-term net benefits for students andtaxpayers for every dollar invested. Viewedanother way, these programs provide anannual return on the initial investment ofabout 7% to 18%.

According to research by Clive Belfield, aschool district’s investment in earlyeducation largely pays for itself by reducingthe cost of high-priced interventions such asspecial education placement and graderetention. In the near term, Belfield contendsthat K-12 education can expect to retainfrom 30 to 40% of the overall state fiscalbenefits.

Depending on various expansion scenarios,the cost savings in subsequent years canoffset up to 75% of preschool expansioncosts, translating into K-12 savings rangingfrom 36 to 77 cents for every dollar spent onpreschool.

Quality mattersThe benefits of preschool education thataccrue both to individuals and the communityare impressive; however, the amount of thisbenefit varies greatly depending on the qualityof each program. Factors such as teachertraining, class size, teacher-child ratios andcomprehensive learning standards play animportant role in determining the quality of aprogram, and ultimately in influencing childoutcomes.

According to NIEER, students experience largegains when programs share similar characteristics, such as highly educatedteachers, teacher-child ratios of 1 to 10 orlower, support for teachers’ ongoingprofessional development and intellectuallychallenging curricula. In addition, teacherswho have at least a bachelor’s degree andspecialized training in early childhoodeducation are most likely to have a positiveimpact on their students. Yet along withimproving quality come additional costs forstates and school districts, which makestackling this challenge ever more difficult.

Legislation sought by NSBAUnfortunately, access to and the quality ofpreschool programs is far from uniform. Manychildren are placed in mediocre childcaresettings without the tools and instructionnecessary to achieve their full potential.Regulations governing class size, teacher-child ratios, and teacher qualifications in preschoolprograms vary from state to state, or evenwithin states. Additionally, some parents andpolicymakers have concerns that, from a socialstandpoint, 3- and 4-year olds should not be ina structured school setting.

NSBA believes that the federal government hasan appropriate role to play in addressing theseand other challenges to help provide voluntary

page 6

high quality preschool education for all 3- and4-year old children.

With the 110th Congress, NSBA urgespolicymakers to incorporate the followingrecommendations as key components of anyfederally funded voluntary preschool plan.These policy ideas form the foundation ofNSBA’s advocacy agenda upon which we willcontinue to build over the next year.

NSBA seeks federal legislation that will create anew grant program that will increase fundingover the next five years to develop, expand,and sustain voluntary quality preschoolprograms for participating 3- and 4-year olds.Although the federal government currentlyinvests in a variety of early childhoodprograms, these resources do not necessarilygo to support programs that focus ondeveloping the cognitive, social and emotionalskills that help children become ready forschool.

NSBA believes that Congress should focus itsattention on establishing a new, separatefunding stream that is dedicated to assistingschool districts seeking such programming andother qualified providers in creating, expandingand improving school readiness programs. Justas such programs would not be compulsory forschool districts to operate, they would beavailable only to those children ages 3-4 whoseparents wish to enroll them. The design of thedelivery system should not operate as or fosteran education voucher system, or come at theexpense of K-12 funding.

NSBA proposes that federal legislation requirefederally funded preschool programs to adoptdevelopmentally appropriate early educationstandards that are aligned with state K-12academic content standards. Preschoolprograms should increase their emphasis ondevelopmentally appropriate pre-reading,

pre-mathematics and language skills that arepart of an overall coordinated system oflearning that supports student achievement.Such standards should be aligned bothvertically and horizontally so they are logicallyconnected, meaningful and provide achievablesteps of learning. In doing so, however, youngchildren should not be pressured by high-stakestesting, and recognition should be given forexpected variations in individual developmentamong young children.

The federal government should require outsidepre-K providers that receive federal funding tocollaborate with local school districts to ensurethat programs are reflective of the expectationsof local schools. In instances where pre-Kservices are offered by outside providers, NSBAbelieves school districts should have a role indesigning these programs to ensure that theyare well articulated with the kindergartenprograms that students will attend in theircommunities. The federal government shouldcreate incentives for states to upgrade theirteacher certification and licensure systems toensure all preschool instructors are highlyqualified.

Congress should provide dedicated resourcesto states to phase in over time certificationrequirements for preschool instructors. Allinstructors should possess a bachelor’s degreeand some type of specialized training in earlychildhood education. Such resources should beused to develop career ladders for existingpreschool instructors to meet these newrequirements, as well as to increase teachercompensation.

Congress should devote specific resources tohelp school districts develop and implementjoint training and professional developmentprograms for Pre-K-3 instructors. Coordinatedprofessional development is essential forinstructors to increase their awareness of the

page 7

connections from child development andacademic instruction in young children. Theseprofessional development academies will help ensure a more seamless transition frompreschool to kindergarten, and kindergarten to the elementary grades.

The federal government should provide toolsand incentives to replicate effective models andimprove program quality. Congress shouldencourage states and local service providers toadopt policies that have been shown to beeffective. These include: reducing class size,limiting teacher-student ratios, adopting full-day instruction and implementing rigorouscurriculum. In addition, the administrationshould work to disseminate best-practiceresearch on new and effective models that havestrong impacts on student outcomes.

ConclusionPublicly funded preschool programs areessential to improving our education systemand providing a solid foundation on whichevery child can build. By giving children aquality education early on, we can have atremendous impact on their future educationalsuccess. With the passage of No Child LeftBehind, the stakes are now higher than everfor school districts as they struggle to meet theaccountability benchmarks for their students. Yet, the current system of early education isdisjointed and the federal investment is weak.Although states have made progress in thisarea over the past few years, our nation is stilla long way from matching the efforts of manyof our global competitors. The federalgovernment must do more to help implementand expand voluntary quality programs thatwill make a significant impact on the futuresuccesses of our children.

Chrisanne L. Gayl (cgayl@nsba.org) is director of federal programs for the National School Boards Association.

page 8

Selected References

Barnett, W.S.; Hustedt, J.L.; Robin, K.B., & Schulman, K.L., “The State of Preschool. 2005 State Preschool Yearbook,” New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2005.

Barnett, W.S.; Lamy, C.; & Jung, K. (2005). “The effects of state prekindergarten programs on young children's school readiness in five states.” http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DoclD=129.

Belfield, Clive R. “The Fiscal Impacts of Universal Pre-K: Case Study Analysis for Three States,” Working Paper No.6 (Washington, D.C.: Invest in Kids Working Group,March 2005).

Committee on Economic Development, “The Economic Promise of Investing in High-Quality Preschool: Using Early Education to Improve Economic Growth and the Fiscal Sustainability of States and the Nation,” Washington, D.C.: 2006.

“Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers,” Barbara I. Bowman; M. Suzanne Donovan; and M. Susan Burns, editors, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington,D.C., 2001.

Gormley Jr., W.; Gayer, T, Phillips, D.; and Dawson B., “The Effects of Universal Pre-K on Cognitive Development,” American PsychologicalAssociation, 2005. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2004, NCES 2005 2006(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,2005).

page 9

NIEER — your resource for pre-K education research

The National Institute for Early EducationResearch (NIEER) supports early childhoodeducation initiatives by providing objective,nonpartisan information based on research.

The goal of NIEER is to produce andcommunicate the knowledge base required toensure that every American child can receivea good education at ages three and four. Theinstitute seeks to provide policymakers withtimely information addressing the practicalproblems they face. The Institute offersindependent research-based advice andtechnical assistance to four primary groups:policymakers, journalists, researchers andeducators.

NIEER was established at RutgersUniversity’s Graduate School of Educationwith a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts.The institute is part of the trusts’ 7-10 yeargrant-making strategy to ensure universal,

voluntary access to high-quality earlyeducation for 3- and 4-year old children. For more information about the trusts’ early education initiative, visitwww.pewtrusts.org.

In January 2002, the Rutgers UniversityCenter for Early Education Research (CEER)was merged with NIEER. Past and currentsupporters of research performed by thecenter and the institute include: CarnegieCorporation of New York; The Fund for NewJersey; Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; TheDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation; ThePrudential Foundation; The Schumann Fundfor New Jersey (Lighthouse Early ChildhoodInitiative); Smith Richardson Foundation;Tulsa Community Foundation, and the U.S.Department of Education’s Office ofEducational Research and Improvement(OERI).

“The State of Preschool 2006: State PreschoolYearbook” is the fourth in the series of NIEER’sannual reference volumes tracking state-funded preschool education programs. Itspurpose is to provide a compendium of dataon state efforts to offer preschool education, aswell as analyses of key measures of programsprogress: access, quality standards andresources.

The following is a reprint of the NIEER“2005-2006 Yearbook Executive Summary.” The entire NIEER yearbook, with cross-statecomparisons and individual state descriptionsand extensive details, can be viewed atwww.nieer.org.

In 2005-2006, state-funded preschooleducation reached new highs and at least onenew low in the three areas tracked by oursurvey of the states: access, quality standards,and resources. Thirty-eight states enrollednearly 950,000 children in their pre-K programs.Enrollment rose over previous-year levels,enough to make state pre-K the largest sourceof public preschool education. About two-thirds of these children are served in publicschools; one-third are in other settings, such asprivate childcare and Head Start. States alsomade real progress in improving qualitystandards in 2005-2006. Sixteen states raisedtheir quality standards enough to meet NIEERbenchmarks that they had not previously met,some more than one standard. For the firsttime, two states — Alabama and NorthCarolina — met all 10 of the NIEERbenchmarks for state standards. Total statespending for prekindergarten increased tonearly $3.3 billion. However in many states,funding did not keep up with increased

enrollments and inflation. After adjusting forinflation, funding per child fell to the lowestlevel since NIEER began collecting such datain 2001-2002.

Hidden behind the national picture istremendous variation among states. Accessranges from universal availability to noavailability; quality standards from excellent topoor; and funding varies from state to state byseveral orders of magnitude.

Oklahoma continues to lead the nation as theonly state to close in on universal enrollment,and it does so with high standards. In addition,evaluations of Oklahoma’s pre-K programprovide evidence that this is a program thatworks.

Total enrollment in state-funded pre-K rose to942,766 children in 2005-2006, including 805,807 at age 4. This represents a 40%increase in the number of 4-year-old childrenenrolled in state pre-K over the past five years.Thus, state preschool education now serves 20% of the 4-year-old population in the U.S. The 130,709 increase over the prior year for 4-year-olds reflected Florida’s new commitmentto serve all 4-year-olds (it had no stateprogram the year before) and incrementalincreases in other states. Enrollment at age 3increased to 119,602, a gain of 8,598 children.A very small number of children are served atyounger ages. State pre-K continues to beessentially a program for 4-year-olds in moststates. Only 26 states offered pre-K to 3-year-olds, and only five states served more than10% of that age group. As the need foreducation of young children does not begin atage 4, this is a cause for concern. It also points

page 10

The NIEER report — state-funded preschool education,a long and winding road

to the need to coordinate with other publicprograms that serve larger numbers of childrenat age 3, such as Head Start and government-funded childcare.

Although many states still fall short, 2005-2006 was a banner year for improvement instate quality standards. NIEER specifies 10benchmarks for state standards relating toprogram quality. Programs that meet thebenchmarks correspond at least roughly intheir design to programs demonstrated toproduce substantial gains in children’s learningand school success. These benchmarks may beviewed as necessary, though not entirelysufficient, conditions for highly effectivepreschool education. Sixteen states met morebenchmarks in 2005-2006 than they did in2004-2005. The most common area ofimprovement was in the adoption ofcomprehensive learning standards. Theprograms in Alabama and North Carolina metall 10 benchmarks, and six more stateprekindergarten initiatives achieved nine of the10. At the other extreme, 10 states failed tomeet at least half of the benchmarks.

Before adjusting for inflation, total spendingon state prekindergarten increased by $380million, or 13%, from the previous programyear. Florida’s new program contributed morethan half of that increase. States spent anaverage of $3,482 per child on their preschooleducation programs in 2005-2006. This is anew low, and marks the fourth year in a rowthat average inflation-adjusted funding perchild declined. Although Florida’s low per-child spending contributed to this decline,many other states failed to increase funding inproportion to growing enrollments andinflation. As educational effectiveness requiresadequate funding, the continuing decline inalready low state expenditure per child causesconcern.

The decline in per-child expenditure can beattributed to: (1) increases in enrollment that outrun increases in funding and (2) states’failure to keep up with inflation. States face aconstant temptation to increase the number ofchildren served without a proportionateincrease in expenditure. When enrollmentincreases outpace funding growth, states runthe risk that effectiveness will deteriorate.Inflation can have equally insidious effects. Asinflation in the state and local governmentsector of the economy runs about twice ashigh as in the overall economy, increases inpreschool education funding that might lookgenerous before inflation can be budget cutsafter inflation takes its toll. The effects ofinflation add up quickly over the years. Since2001-2002, inflation-adjusted state pre-Kspending per child has declined by more than 17%.

Key findings for 2005-2006 in each of thethree main topic areas are highlighted below.

Access• Thirty-eight states funded one or more statepre-K initiatives. There were 12 states withoutstate-funded pre-K.

• Florida, which had no state pre-K in theprior year, launched a new initiative to serveall 4-year-olds in response to a voter approvedconstitutional amendment. Florida added105,896 children to the state pre-K rolls in2005-2006.

• State pre-K initiatives served 942,766children. In addition to Florida, 27 other statesincreased their enrollments over the previousyear. Nine states served fewer children, onestate served the same number of children and12 states continued to serve none.

page 11

page 12

• State pre-K programs continued to focusprimarily on 4-year-olds. Twenty percent of thenation’s 4-year-olds were enrolled, up from the17% served in the previous year and 14%served in 2001-2002. This is a 40% gain in just5 years.

• Only 3% of the nation’s 3-year-olds wereenrolled, virtually the same percentage servedin 2001-2002. Just five states served more than10% of their 3-year-olds: Arkansas, Illinois,Kentucky, New Jersey and Vermont. Nearlyhalf the states (24) served no 3-year-olds.

• Oklahoma (70% enrollment) and Georgia(51% enrollment) were the only states to servemore than half of their children at age 4 in2005-2006. However, Florida and Vermont (47% enrolled) are poised to overtake Georgia.Texas (44% enrolled) ran a surprising fifth,especially since Texas has not announced agoal of serving all 4-year-olds.

• State-funded preschool education employeddiverse delivery systems in many states, withone-third of the children served outside thepublic schools.

• Head Start and preschool special educationalso serve many children under age 5, so notall children would enroll in a state-funded pre-K program, even if made universally available.However, not all services provided by HeadStart and special education are alternatives tostate preschool education — sometimes theyare supplemental or collaborative services. Forexample, some children receiving specialeducation services under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) may alsoattend state pre-K or Head Start. State pre-Kand Head Start may also jointly serve children.For example, state funds may supportenhanced quality or increased hours in HeadStart, or each program might fund a half-day ofservices to provide a full day of education.

Quality standards• Alabama and North Carolina met all 10 ofNIEER’s quality benchmarks. Six additionalstate preschool initiatives met nine of the 10benchmarks — Arkansas, Illinois, Oklahoma,and Tennessee, as well as the NonpublicSchools Early Childhood DevelopmentProgram in Louisiana and New Jersey’s Abbottprogram.

• States are developing policies that establishstronger and more uniform quality standards.Nineteen programs in 16 states made policychanges that increased the number ofbenchmarks met by their quality standards, aremarkable single-year improvement. Thenumber of state initiatives meeting fewer thanfive benchmarks decreased from 15 to 11.

• Twenty states did not require all state pre-Kteachers to hold at least a bachelor’s degree.Eight of these states did not require any statepre-K teachers to have a bachelor’s degree.Eight more exempted at least some teachersoutside the public schools, and four hadmultiple pre-K initiatives, at least one of whichdid not require a bachelor’s degree of allteachers. Ten states did not require all teachersto have specialized preparation in theeducation of preschool children. At a timewhen the national No Child Left Behind law ispressing for every child in kindergarten orabove to have a “highly qualified” teacher, it isstriking that a number of states fail to requireeven the most basic qualifications of preschoolteachers.

•Twenty-eight states used regular site visits tomonitor local programs as part of a continuousquality improvement process. Such efforts are akey way for states to maintain and improveprogram effectiveness.

Resources• Total state spending for pre-K initiativesreached $3.27 billion. To put this inperspective, state governments spent morethan $250 billion on grades K-12. Thus, statesspent about one penny on preschool educationfor every $1 they spent on K-12.

• Total state pre-K spending grew by $380million (without accounting for inflation), or13%. Florida’s new program accounted for 60% of that increase.

• Average state spending per child enrolledwas $3,482. States varied greatly in their per-child spending. The top-ranked state — NewJersey — spent $9,854 per child. Three statesspent less than $2,000 per child and 12 spentnothing.

• Some states provide all of the funding forstate pre-K programs. Others depend on localschool districts and other sources of funds, aswell. States that fund preschool educationthrough the same public education fundingformula as K-12 education combine state andlocal dollars to fund the program. Localschools may use federal education dollars, aswell. Some states fund programs that are alsosupported by government-funded childcare,Head Start, and other funds. In some states,the state pre-K dollars may only pay for acertain portion of hours and days, even thoughproviders that offer full-day, year-roundservices deliver the program. Despite cost-sharing arrangements, whenever the state per-child expenditure is set far below the level ofK-12 funding (for an equivalent number ofhours), it cannot help but limit quality andeffectiveness.

• Florida’s new program is particularlyworrisome because it enrolls so many children

in a program that has very low per-childfunding (it ranks 35th of 38 states) and lowquality standards.

• Inflation is a hidden drag on the progress ofpreschool education. From 2001 to 2005, stateand local government cost inflation was acumulative 18%, compared to 10% for theoverall economy. This is not widelyunderstood, and it seems likely that the publicunderestimates how much more money isneeded each year just to maintain preschooleducation service levels. Flat funding, or evenmodest increases in funding, can mean asubstantial decrease in real financial supportonce inflation is taken into account.

• Inflation-adjusted spending per childdeclined in 25 of 37 states (Florida’s initiativewas new and not included here). In otherwords, real spending per child declined intwice as many states as it increased. Worse yet,nominal spending per child (that is, withoutany adjustment for inflation) declined in 14states. In a few states (North Carolina, forexample) spending declines may be explainedby the fact that high startup costs in the initialyears of a new program decline as the programgoes to scale. However, this explanationjustifies reductions in spending per child onlyin states that adequately funded their programsfrom the start.

What qualifies as a state preschoolprogram?The NIEER yearbook focuses on state-fundedpreschool initiatives meeting these criteria:

• The initiative is funded, controlled anddirected by the state. • The initiative serves children of pre-K age,usually 3-year-olds and/or 4-year-olds.Although initiatives in some states serve

page 13

page 14

broader age ranges, programs that serve onlyinfants and toddlers are excluded.

• Early childhood education is the primaryfocus of the initiative. This does not excludeprograms that offer parent education, but doesexclude programs that mainly focus on parenteducation.

• The initiative offers a group learningexperience to children at least two days perweek.

• State-funded preschool education initiativesmust be distinct from the state’s system forsubsidized childcare. However, preschoolinitiatives may be coordinated and integratedwith the subsidy system for childcare.

• The initiative is not primarily designed toserve children with disabilities, but mayinclude children with disabilities.

• State supplements to the federal Head Startprogram are considered to constitute de factostate preschool programs if they substantiallyexpand the number of children served andthe state assumed some administrativeresponsibility for the program. Statesupplements to fund quality improvements,extended days or other programenhancements, and that expand enrollmentminimally, are not considered equivalent to astate preschool program.

Quality Standards ChecklistThe Quality Standards Checklist is in no waymeant to be an exhaustive catalog of all thefeatures of a high-quality program. Rather, itrepresents a set of minimum criteria needed toensure effective pre-K programs, especiallywhen serving disadvantaged children. Four ofthe items NIEER uses to rate the quality ofstate pre-K programs involve teacher

credentials and training. State pre-K policiesare evaluated based on whether programsrequire teachers to have a bachelor’s degree;whether they require teachers to havespecialization in preschool education; whetherthey require assistant teachers to have at least aChild Development Associate (CDA) orequivalent credential; and whether they requireteachers to have at least 15 hours of annual in-service training.

Teacher qualifications receive this emphasis inthe quality checklist because research hasshown this area to be critical in determiningthe quality of a program. Better education andtraining for teachers — both before they beginworking with children and on an ongoing basisas they update their skills and knowledge —can improve the interaction among childrenand teachers. This, in turn, affects children’slearning.

Class size and staff-child ratios are alsoemphasized in the Quality Standards Checklist. States are expected to limit classsizes to 20 at most, and to have no more than10 children per teacher. With smaller classesand fewer children per teacher, children havegreater opportunities for interaction withadults and can receive more individualizedattention. The importance of class size andstaff-child ratios in determining the quality ofprograms has been confirmed by severalstudies.

Early learning standards are another criticalfactor in determining the quality of a state’spre-K program. Statewide early learningstandards offer programs guidance and ensurethat they cover the full range of areas essentialto children’s learning and development. Statesshould have comprehensive early learningstandards covering all areas identified asfundamental

by the National Education Goals Panel —children’s physical well-being and motordevelopment; social and emotionaldevelopment; approaches toward learning;language development; and cognition andgeneral knowledge. These standards should bespecifically tailored to the learning ofpreschool-age children so that it is appropriatefor their level of development, and should berequired by the state or actively promoted foruse in state pre-K classrooms.

The Quality Standards Checklist also addressesthe comprehensive services that pre-Kprograms should be expected to offer.Programs should provide at least one meal;vision, hearing, and health screenings andreferrals; and additional parent involvementopportunities, such as parent conferences, or

support services, such as parent education.These items are included because preparingchildren for success in school involves notonly their cognitive development, but alsotheir physical health and social and emotionalwell-being.

The Quality Standards Checklist focuses onstate pre-K policy requirements, rather thanimplementation of those policies. However, thechecklist does include an indicator of whetherstates are taking steps to monitor programs’implementation of the quality standards. Whilepolicies requiring strong state quality standardsare essential, it is also necessary to have ameans of ensuring that programs meet thosestandards.

page 15

page 16

State rankings and quality checklist sums

page 17

Percent of national population enrolled Average state spending per childenrolled (2006 dollars)

3-year olds 4-year olds

United States

National access

page 18

This national profile provides a summary ofstate-funded pre-K data across the United Statesin the 2005-2006 academic year. The focus ison access to state preschool, quality standards,and spending presented in national, rather thanstatewide, totals and averages. During the2005-2006 year, 38 states funded pre-Kinitiatives. Some states offered multipleprograms, so across the states there were 48distinct preschool education initiatives in total.

Nationwide, 942,766 children participated instate pre-K initiatives in 2005-2006. Qualitystandards varied enormously across the states.Almost half of the state preschool educationinitiatives failed to meet the importantbenchmark of requiring a bachelor’s degree orhigher for all lead teachers. State pre-Kspending totaled nearly $3.3 billion during the2005-2006 academic year. Some state pre-Kinitiatives reported financial support from localand federal sources, in addition to statefunding, adding at least $400 million to thetotal spending in these initiatives. Still, totalspending per child enrolled was much less forstate pre-K than for grades K-12 in publicschools.

Ohio Ohio established the Public School PreschoolProgram (PSP) in 1990 after a 4-year pilot initiative was successful. PSP funding isawarded to public schools, which maysubcontract with Head Start and privatechildcare centers to offer services. PSPprograms initially followed the federal HeadStart Performance Standards, but now thestate requires programs to use its EarlyLearning Program Guidelines. These guidelinesaddress all aspects of program services andmanagement. Three- and 4-year old children

from families with incomes at or below 200%of the federal poverty level (FPL) qualify forservices, although families earning above 100% of the FPL pay fees on a sliding scale.Programs may also enroll children fromfamilies above 200% of the FPL, but theseservices are usually paid for either by districtfunds or parent tuition.

Ohio also operated a separate state-fundedHead Start initiative from 1990 until 2005.State funds to supplement funding for thefederal Head Start program were reducedsignificantly over time and replaced withfederal Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) funding that introduced morestringent eligibility requirements. The resultwas a large drop in enrollment between 2002and 2004 due to changes in eligibility criteria.In 2005-2006, Ohio eliminated its Head Startinitiative entirely and replaced it with the EarlyLearning Initiative (ELI), which is completelyfunded by TANF. While the new initiative hasan educational component that mirrors PSPand is viewed as a companion to that initiative,the goal of these TANF funds is to supportworking families.

Enrollment occurs on a rolling basisthroughout the calendar year, and incomeeligibility is reassessed every 6 months. Iffamily income exceeds 195% of the FPL, TANFfunding is terminated within a month of a childbeing determined ineligible. Children maycontinue to be served in the program if otherfunding is available. Due to the potential forongoing fluctuation in children’s eligibilitystatus, ELI does not meet our criteria for a pre-K education program. As a result, data onELI are not included in this report.

Comparison — how does Ohio stack up?

page 19

Percent of state population enrolled State spending per child enrolled (2006 dollars)

3-year olds 4-year olds

Ohio

Ohio access

House Bill (HB) 119, known as the biennialbudget, included changes for early childhoodeducation and preschool programs.

School district preschool programOhio Revised Code Section (RC) 3301.53 and3313.646 now permits any school district toestablish a preschool program. Previously, aschool district could establish a preschoolprogram if it was eligible for poverty-basedassistance and able to demonstrate that thedistrict’s need for the program could not bemet by an existing childcare program.However, the appropriations section of the newprovision (RC 269.10.20) requires the newprograms to be eligible for poverty-basedassistance in order to receive funding in FiscalYear (FY) 2008 and FY 2009.

Early childhood education Under HB 119, the appropriations for earlychildhood education, previously called publicpreschool, was increased by $12 million in FY 2008 and $5.5 million in FY 2009.

Staff qualifications for earlychildhood programs RC 3301.311 postpones from FY 2008 until FY2010 the requirement that teachers for state-funded early childhood programs establishedprior to July 1, 2006, have at least associatedegrees. Fiscally, this provision allows an earlychildhood program to continue to receive statefunding through FY 2009, even if all of itsteachers do not have associate degrees.

The new provision also sets new deadlines forstate-funded early childhood programsestablished on or after July 1, 2006, as follows: • Beginning July 1, 2011, all teachers musthave an associate degree; • Beginning July 1, 2012, half of all teachersmust have bachelor’s degrees.

Fiscally, a new early childhood program couldcontinue to receive state funding through FY2010, even if all of its teachers do not haveassociate degrees, and through FY 2011 even if half of its teachers do not have bachelor’sdegrees.

On the Ohio legislative front

page 20

Program description It is the goal of the Early Learning Programthat every child we serve will enterkindergarten healthy and prepared for success.To reach this goal, the Early Learning Program,through its network of partnerships, provides acomprehensive and integrated early care andeducation program focusing on the wholechild. This includes a curriculum addressingchildren’s cognitive, developmental and socio-emotional needs; medical and dentalscreenings and referrals; nutritional services;parent involvement activities; and referrals tosocial service providers and mental healthservices. The Early Learning Program offersHead Start, Early Head Start, and Ohio’s EarlyLearning Initiative (ELI). These programs,offered in public schools, childcare centers andschool-linked family resource centers, lay thefoundation for school achievement for years tocome.

Hamilton County ESC is an ERSS (EducationalRegional Service System) serving southwestOhio counties and school districts, Pre-Kthrough 12.

The Early Learning Program serves 861federally funded Head Start children, birth toage 5, and over 526 state TANF-funded ELIchildren, 3- and 4-years old. These programsare operated on part-day, full-day and year-round sessions to meet the needs of familiesworking, in school and in training.

Children and families served Low-income families that meet the FederalPoverty Level guidelines of 185% or lower areserved. The children represent a high risk forfailure in school.

Funding Federal Head Start funding ranges from $4,700to $6,200 per child for half-day or full-daysessions, and the state TANF ELI funding is$10,438 per child (effective July 1, 2007) forfull day/full year.

Benefits This program gives children the basic social,emotional and academic tools, as well as thehealth care they need, to be better studentsand improves schools and communities.

Keys to success A. Leadership and ESC governing boardsupport;B. Quality teachers and excellent learningenvironment;C. Parent/family involvement;D. Strong linkages and coordination withrelated early care and education systems;E. Blending funding to meet thecomprehensive services.

page 21

An Ohio school district — one success story

Hamilton County Educational Service Center Early Learning Program

School districts that decide to expand fundingfor preschool programs for all students shouldensure success by targeting the needs of thecommunity, strengthening and complementingexisting programs, and disseminatinginformation. The following are 10 suggestedsteps for success:

1. Know the research. Making the case forvoluntary quality pre-K programs for allchildren is straightforward once people see thefacts. This includes understanding the keycharacteristics of good pre-K programs.

2. Build public awareness about the qualities ofgood pre-K programs and their influence onstudent outcomes. Share this information withyour colleagues, parents and the community.

3. Remember that high-quality pre-K programswill be most effective when they arecomplemented by continued investments inhigh-quality elementary and secondaryeducation. Consider creating a continuum ofinstructional practices and policies from atleast pre-K through third grade; beyond wouldbe even better.

4. Take a fresh look at your options. Onemajor difference between approaches can beunderstood by asking: Does the delivery modelallow families more or less freedom of choicewhen choosing a provider of pre-K education?

5. Explore your funding mechanisms. Bothgeneral revenues and dedicated funds cansupport pre-K programs. Other options mightinclude endowments, foundations andscholarship programs. Leverage the existingsystem to build upon the infrastructure alreadyin place.

6. Work closely with providers of pre-K inyour community. A mixed delivery servicemodel, in which a variety of public and privateschools and community agencies offerprograms, works well in many states and isrequired by several.

7. Maintain parental choice. Children and theirfamilies vary greatly, and therefore, a diverseset of solutions is preferable to a single one.Surveys show consistent public support forparents to have options when choosing aprovider to care for and educate their youngchildren. Government policies that support amarket-based approach create a level playingfield for providers, which in turn enables awide variety of organizations to operate,leading to more choices.

8. Form effective coalitions. Identify and workwith pre-K supporters at your local and stateeducation agencies; OSBA and other educationrelated advocacy organizations; the businesscommunity, local colleges and universities;other local and state policymakers; and pre-Kprogram providers in your community. Pre-Kis one of the few issues that easily garnerbipartisan support.

9. Don’t reinvent the wheel. There may behighly successful pre-K programs open to allstudents on a voluntary basis and operated bypublic school districts right in your backyardor across the state. Find out how they definetheir keys to success and customize theirmodels.

10. Check out the resources that have beencompiled for you at OSBA through the Pewinitiative. These should help you in yourefforts to establish a voluntary quality pre-Kprogram for all students.

page 22

Essential tips

For additional information on this topic, seethese suggested resources:

Thinking P-12 Pew Center for Public Education pre-KInitiative

NSBA’s Center for Public Educationwww.centerforpubliceducation.orgThe center will be building a pre-K section onits Web site with research, information,materials, online discussions and more.

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER): www.nieer.orghttp://nieer.org/yearbook/

The Pew Charitable Trustswww.pewtrusts.orgThe Pew trusts are a major force in support ofuniversal pre-K for 3- and 4-year olds. ThePew Web site has information about its pre-K initiative, along with media resources,fact sheets and other content related to pre-K.Includes links to other Pew grantees:www.pewtrusts.org/ideas/index.cfm?issue=26

Pre-K Now www.preknow.org Pre-K Now is a national advocacy organizationthat promotes high quality pre-K education forall 3- and 4-year olds. Its work is focusedprimarily on state policy. The group’s site has alot of good resources for state advocates,including reports, fact sheets, public opinionpolls and materials that can be downloaded.Sign up for its pre-K electronic news service.

Other useful sites: Committee for Economic Development www.ced.org

CED has several publications aimed at thebusiness community that make the case foreffective pre-K programs.

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Studyhttp://nces.ed.gov/ecls/Kindergarten.aspAn ongoing study through the U.S.Department of Education’s National Center forEducation Statistics, the Early ChildhoodLongitudinal Study, Kindergarten class of1998-99 (ECLSK) is tracking the schoolexperiences of a representative sample ofchildren from kindergarten through middleschool. NCES has also followed a birth cohortfrom 9 months to 2 years of age. Neithersurvey picks up 3- and 4-year olds, but there’sstill interesting information about schoolreadiness.

Foundation for Child Developmentwww.fcd-us.org/ourwork/index.htmlThe Foundation for Child Development is anational, private philanthropy focused onchildren and families. One of its four maininitiatives is PK-3: A New Beginning forPublicly Supported Education, which promotesa universally available pre-K program for 3-and 4-year olds aligned to K-12 standards.

Publications

Economic benefits Cost Benefit Analysis of Universally Accessible Pre-Kindergarten Education inTexas, The Bush School of Government &Public Service, Texas A&M University. http://bush.tamu.edu/academics/mpsa/capstone/projects/TECEC2006/ACostBenefitAnalysisofHigh-QualityUniversally-AccessiblePre-KindergartenEducationinTexas.pdf

page 23

Pre-K resources

page 24

Educational benefits: The Effects of State Pre-Kindergarten Programson Young Children’s School Readiness in Five States, NIEERThis study looks at the effects of state fundedprograms in Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma,South Carolina and West Virginia. http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=129

The Effects of Universal Pre-K on CognitiveDevelopment (Gormley): Another study of Oklahoma's pre-K programhttp://www.apa.org/journals/releases/dev416872.pdf

Funding pre-K programs: Missed Opportunities? The Possibilities andChallenges of Funding High Quality Preschoolthrough Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act. Center for Law and Social Policy http://www.clasp.org/publications/missed_opp.pdf

Steve Barnett, National Institute for EarlyEducation Research Early literacy: Policy and practice in the preschool years http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/10.pdf

Increasing the effectiveness of preschoolprograms http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/11.pdf

Fact sheets:

Children’s social and emotional development http://nieer.org/resources/factsheets/1O.pdf

Danielle Ewen, Center for Law and SocialPolicy Using TANF for Early Childhood http://www.clasp.org/publications/tanf_early_childhood.pdf

Albert Wat, Pre-K Now Funding the future http://www.preknow.org/documents/FundingtheFuture_Feb2006.pdf

Pre-K Now Dollars and sense http://www.preknow.org/documents/DollarsandSense_May2007.pdf

New cost benefit data Enriching Children,Enriching the Nation: Public Investment inHigh-Quality Prekindergarten Robert G. Lynch, Economic Policy Instituteexecutive summary http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/book_enriching