Four Years Later, Progress and Pitfalls for State Advisory Councils on Early Childhood

This guest post was written by Christina Satkowski, a former program associate for the Early Education Initiative and author of the 2009 New America paper,  The Next Step in Systems-Building: Early Childhood Advisory Councils and Federal Efforts to Promote Policy Alignment in Early Childhood. Christina recently received a foreign policy graduate degree from Georgetown University and spent a year in Jordan as a Fullbright Research Scholar exploring education issues in the Mideast.

Back in 2009, states were given a promising opportunity to address a chronic problem in early childhood policy. The stove-piped and uncoordinated nature of programs like Head Start, state pre-K and federally-funded special education programs meant that some children and their families were unable to access valuable services and the programs themselves do not reach their full potential. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “stimulus”), Congress approved a $100 million grant program to support the work of state-level advisory councils designed to lead the effort to build comprehensive and effective systems of early childhood programs in their state.

A new report examines how that money was spent. It shows that many states have embarked on needed projects, from data system development to better evaluation of the quality of preschool classrooms. But it also leaves several unanswered questions: What will happen in the states that did not take the grants? And are these councils are structured well enough to catalyze cooperation throughout the PreK-3rd continuum, especially after the federal funding dries up next year?

Four years ago, as states were preparing their grant applications, I talked to early childhood leaders in all 50 states to gauge the success existing efforts to coordinate services for young children in their state. The lessons learned from these early experiences, summarized in New America’s November 2009 report, The Next Step in Systems-Building, left us cautiously optimistic about how successful the new advisory councils would be.

Last month, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which administers the advisory council grants, released its update – a 192-page status report on the progress of each state council near the end of the grant’s 3-year term. Let’s start with the good news.

The ACF awarded grants to 45 states, plus the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories. The size of each grant, ranging from $500,000 to $11.2 million, was based on the size of the state’s at-risk population under age five. In return, states were required to match 70 percent of the grant and appoint certain representatives to the council to ensure a comprehensive membership. The ACF also directed the grantee states to focus on seven key activities, including developing an early childhood needs assessment, establishing data systems and enhancing teacher training programs.

According to the ACF report, most of the advisory councils have gone above and beyond the seven stipulated areas of activity. Many councils prioritized research and the development of longitudinal data systems with unique child identifiers, which will help policymakers identify gaps in services and provide a base of knowledge that can guide future program and policy decisions. In several states, the advisory council undertook detailed studies of services in individual communities and developed kindergarten readiness assessments. In New Mexico, the council supports the use of geo-mapping tools to identify communities with the greatest need for the state’s limited early childhood resources.

The advisory councils also brought a renewed focus to the quality of training provided to early childhood educators by engaging institutions of higher education, assessing the content and alignment of early education training and offering scholarships. Several councils have engaged parents, community leaders and businesses as they developed policy ideas, while others collaborate with similar advisory councils that operate at the local level.

Moreover, it appears that at least some councils, appointed by governors and invigorated by the grant funds, are more visible than their predecessors and have established themselves as policy leaders in their states. Colorado’s advisory council successfully led the effort to secure the state’s $29.9 million Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund Grant.

What is troubling is that five states (Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, North Dakota and South Dakota) did not apply or could not meet the requirements of the grant – namely the 70 percent state match. This is not to say that there are not any collaboration efforts underway in these states – there are – but these are states that have historically lagged behind in access to early education programs, and the foregone grant is a missed opportunity to catch up with their neighbors.

Another concern is that, as state advisory councils move forward in their work, starting next year they will have to do it all without the extra funding provided by the federal grant. States drew from a variety of sources, including tobacco funds and private gifts, to meet the required 70 percent match. Some of these funding streams may not be sustainable in the long-term. States will need to plan carefully to make sure that the ongoing and future work of advisory councils does not fall victim to budget shortfalls.

Another key issue that councils will need to address is quality. Many of the activities the councils have already undertaken, such as professional development and longitudinal data collection, encourage improvement in the quality of education provided to early learners. Several councils participated in the development of a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) in their state. Florida’s council deserves a gold star for supporting the implementation of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) in some early childhood settings. Other councils that have not made quality a priority should follow the example of these states.

In our 2009 report we expressed concern that the stated focus of the councils was children aged birth through 5. We cannot stress enough that early education is best viewed as a continuum that extends well into the early elementary grades. Children benefit most when standards, curricula and teacher training are aligned from the prekindergarten years through third grade and beyond. Still, while many councils led the effort to reevaluate early learning standards for children 5 and under, only a handful noted that they worked to link these standards to the P-20 system. The Massachusetts council was alone in reporting that it had undertaken assessment, screening, and curriculum alignment in for children from birth to age eight.

And many of the same problems that undercut previous efforts to coordinate policy – leadership changes, budget shortfalls – still plague the state councils today. As many state early childhood programs are still imperiled by budget cuts, and with President Obama’s proposed preschool plan potentially on the horizon, the potential for these councils to make an impact on the lives of young children and their families will increase further still. The next step for the state advisory councils is to make sure that they do not lose the momentum they developed over the last four years.