1

ACCESSING EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE

Access: Who gets in? To what? For how long? To what end?

2

EEC Mission Delivers a Call to Action:

Provide the foundation that supports all children in their development as lifelong learners and contributing members of the community, and to support families in their essential work as parents and caregivers.

What is “the foundation” that supports all children.. and how does it support families?

Department of Early Education and Care Strategic Plan. Putting Children and Families First, 2009

EEC’s Three Year Strategic Directions Provide a Roadmap…

Create and implement a system to improve and support quality statewide.

Increase and promote family support, access and affordability.

Create a workforce system that maintains worker diversity and provides resources, supports, expectations, and core competencies that lead to the outcomes we want for children.

Create and implement an external and internal communications strategy that advocates for and conveys the value of early education and care to all stakeholders and the general public.

Build the internal infrastructure to support achieving the vision.

Do all children have access to “the foundation?”

How much is enough?

Department of Early Education and Care Strategic Plan. Putting Children and Families First, 2009

Access in Context

5

Of the one million children aged birth – 13 in MA, we have the capacity to serve 27% in licensed or license exempt sites and support 7% via all EEC subsidies.Of our total capacity,

• 62% is in Large Group and School Aged sites,• 22% in Family Child Care,• 10% in Public School Pre School• 3% in Head Start• 2% in Exempt Public School Out of School Time• And approximately .3% in Informal Care

EEC: Committed to Fulfilling our Mission in an Environment of Limited Resources.

6

Federal Funding Requirements Target Resources

Research supports prioritization

Mission: Serve ALL children and All Programs

Some Key Questions on Access:

What do families and children currently have access to? Are there differences in the needs of different

demographics? How much is enough? Can there be too much? What is the impact of absenteeism on those that have

access? What is the relationship between access and quality? What does this say about how EEC should prioritize its

work?

Evidence-based answers to these questions are only beginning to emerge…

7

Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in Early Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature (Aug 2010)

8

“Q-DOT” a multi-year, federally funded project examining:

• Is a certain dosage needed before quality can be linked with child outcomes? •Do certain thresholds of quality need to be met before more positive outcomes for children are seen? •Do quality and child outcomes depend on features of quality in relation to specific aspects of development ?

Resulting in the design of a new study of dosage, thresholds, and features of quality. Due out in 2012

Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in Early Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature, OPRE 2011-5. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.

Summary of Q DOT Findings to Date:

Noted research found that across a period of years, an increase in the number of spells that young children spent in care observed to be of high quality was found to be associated with a decrease in the gap on achievement measures associated with the income-to-needs ratio of the children’s family. Three or more spells of high quality care virtually eliminated the gap.

9Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Q-DOT Definition of “Dosage”

In the literature, dosage has been operationalized in one of two primary ways:

1. the amount or timing of current participation in early care and education (hours of participation per day or week, or days of attendance in the current year) and as

2. the amount or timing of cumulative participation in ECE (total hours or days of participation over a period of years.)

“Both current and total cumulative actual participation have emerged as potentially of importance,

especially when considered in combination with quality.”

10Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Q DOT. Key Findings on Dosage An increase in positive cognitive and social emotional

outcomes (and in some studies, decrease in negative outcomes) when children attend high quality early care and education program for more time.

Sustained exposure to high quality care has been found to narrow the gap on measures of achievement between low income and higher income children.

Greater exposure to center-based care to be associated with stronger cognitive outcomes in young children. Results are inconsistent for social outcomes.

A cluster of results point to greater overall participation in early care and education (irrespective of type and quality) as associated with less positive social outcomes in young children. Yet the pattern of results is not consistent across studies. Negative patterns of social behavior may be linked to more exposure to larger size groups of children.11

Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Dosage findings Point to a need for: Further analyses involving the joint examination of dosage

with ECE quality and ECE type.

Better understanding of the extent of exposure to high quality ECE that may be associated with positive outcomes in young children. To date, the studies considering more sustained dosages of high quality have used global measures of quality.

Future work looking at the specific quality features that young children most benefit from in sustained dosages.

Future analyses of dosage that moves beyond measures of program operation (for example, whether a particular program is offered part day or full day; part year or full year), to measures of individual children’s actual participation.

12Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). P 18-19

Q-DOT on Thresholds:

The central question is whether young children benefit especially (or only) from participation in early childhood settings that are at or above a certain level of quality.

It is only in recent work that researchers have examined whether the relationship between quality and child outcomes is nonlinear, and contrasting the strength of the relationship between quality and child outcomes in different segments of the quality range…. we see emerging evidence that quality and child outcomes are associated more strongly in the higher portions of the quality range.

13Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Q DOT on Quality:

The underlying goal in considering quality features is to discern which specific aspects of quality would be of greatest importance, especially at sufficiently high levels and for sustained periods, in order to support children’s positive development. In very recent work on this issue, a corollary has been added: which features are most important to which child outcomes?

14Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Q- DOT on the Development of QRIS Nationwide:

“greater emphasis is being placed on choosing measures of quality that reflect both a safe and positive overall environment as well as an environment that supports early learning and provides a strong foundation for academic achievement…”

“There is a particular focus on the contribution that higher-quality early care and education can make to narrowing the gap in measures of school readiness that emerge by kindergarten entry.”

15Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). P 5.

Q DOT Future Considerations:

These findings need to be placed in the context of research on high quality early intervention studies.. studies that show sustained effects.. have involved more than one year of participation.

This review..underscores the need to more systematically take into account not only the level of quality but also the duration of exposure.

A high priority for future steps will be to work towards greater understanding of how dosage and quality interact to influence the care experiences of young children.

16Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).

Turning to data specific to Massachusetts…

17

2006 Findings of EEA Survey of MA Families

Fully 92% of children receive early education and care from someone other than a parent at least once a week.

On average, children under age seven receive regular early education and care from 2.3 providers other than parents or other guardians. 27% receive early education and care from one non-guardian provider, 27% from two, 20% from three providers, 13% from four or five providers, and 5% regularly receive early education and care from six or more

providers. Parents use e.c.e. providers an average of 3.9 days each week,

for an average of 27 hours per week.

Single parents use providers more days per week than married parents—4.37 days, compared to 3.80 days.

18 Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris Anderson, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, May 2006

Findings of the 2006 EEA Survey of Families in MA (Cont.)

In selecting early education and care arrangements, parents indicate that issues of quality are of greater importance than issues of cost and convenience.

Latino and black parents are more likely than white

parents to say it is important that early education and care programs prepare children for school, and they are less likely to think their current arrangements are doing so.

19 Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris Anderson, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, May 2006

National Center for Children in Poverty Access Related Data (2009)

20

21

22

23

Levels of education for Massachusetts residents,

ages 25-64

24

Education Level: %

Less than ninth grade 3.6%

Ninth to 12th grade, no diploma 5.3%

High school graduate (including equivalency)

24.4%

Some college, no degree 17.0%

Associate degree 8.3%

Bachelor’s degree 24.0%

Graduate or professional degree 17.4%

August 2010 © Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc. (From 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau Data)

25

26

Considering MA today, we must:

1. Examine relationships between licensed capacity, availability of subsidies, and the early education and care needs in terms of amount, location, and duration of families.

2. Analyze the relationship between availability of care for children and the number of threats to their success in school and life.

3. Continue to build upon the relationship between access and quality as the QRIS develops.

4. Allow developing field of research inform future design. 27

Maternal/Child Health Risk and Total Licensed ECE Capacity:

28 Circle size denotes population 0-5

Total Licensed Capacity, by type, in high need communities:

29

Total ECE Subsidies, by type, in high need communities:

30

Level 4 Schools and Population 0-5

31 Circle size denotes population 0-5

Total Subsidies, Level 4 schools and Community Resources

32Circle size denotes population 0-5

Total Subsidies and Rates of Absence in Subsidized Care:

33 Circle size denotes population 0-13

USING WEAVE: EEC Can Compare ECE Capacity, Subsidized Care, Risk Factors, EEC Grants and other Community Resources…

We Can SHOW:

•Capacity of all licensed programs, by type and capacity (total and by age group.)•License exempt/ Public School •Head Start/Early Head Start•Informal Child Care•Inclusive Programming•Where subsidized care is in total.•Where different types of subsidy is: income eligible, DTA, Supportive, Teen and Homeless•Subsidy by age of child: inf/todd, prek, school age•Service need•ECMH Grantees•CFCE Grantee sites•CCR&Rs and Outpost Sites•Early Intervention•Homeless Shelters•Libraries / Museums•Zoos Aquariums and other community resources34

USING WEAVE:

We Can COMPARE: Location and amount of subsidy to risk factors:•Poverty•Child maltreatment•Teen Pregnancy•Unemployment•Absenteeism•Multiple risks (maternal and child health indicators) to all subsidized, Head Start and Public School careTotal capacity to demographic data on population:number of children 0-5, 6-12. (is this possible?)Children with Disabilities

And we can ASK: •Are there gaps between population and capacity? Ages of children and capacity by age group?•Is there alignment between location of subsidy and risk factors?•Is homeless subsidy located where homelessness is greatest?•If there is a mismatch – should contracts be moved or vouchers be made more available? What about types of care: ie is Head Start located in areas of greatest poverty?

35

Required: Embracing Core Beliefs on Parent Involvement:

1. All parents have dreams for their children and want the best for them

2. All parents have the capacity to support their children’s learning

3. Parents and educators should be equal partners

4. Responsibility for building these partnerships rests primarily with educators.

Which will result in proven benefits for families and children.

(Henderson, Mapp, Johnson and Davies)

A Pathway to an Integrated System:

EEC Mission: Provide the foundation

that supports all children in their development as lifelong learners and

contributing members of the community, and to support families in their essential

work as parents and caregivers.

Indicators:

Outcomes:

Interventions:

Assumption: Education Begins at Birth.

Parent Involvement

Parent Involvement

Coordinated Services

Coordinated Services QualityQuality

Research Best

Practice

Develop Purchasin

g Standards

Develop Networks/Systems

On-Going Evaluation to inform future

design

Gather and Share

Data

Positive Child

Outcomes

Positive Child

Outcomes

Decouple access from

work requirements

Readiness for School

Readiness for School

Discussion and Questions

38

Sources: QDOT: Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M.

(2010). Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in Early Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature, OPRE 2011-5. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

NCCP: National Center for Children in Poverty; MA Early Childhood Profiles, MA Demographic Profiles, MA Family economic Security Profiles, (2009) nccp.org

MA Education Levels: August 2010 © Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc. (From 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau Data)

EEA: For Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris Anderson, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, May 2006 A statewide survey of primary caregivers of children under age seven living in Massachusetts.

Family Involvement: Henderson, Mapp, Johnson and Davies. Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family/School Partnerships. 2010

WEAVE Data Sources: Current EEC Data from: eCCIMS, CCIMS, Billing, Grant and Licensing Databases MA Library Consortium National Center for Charitable Statistics, Urban Institute http://nccs.urban.org/ High Risk Communities: MA HV Needs Assessment, DPH (2010) US Census (2000)

39