Once – or if – legislators on the education conference committee receive a budget target and get into the messy work of crafting a final schools finance bill, they’ll butt heads over two very different plans.
One area that’s sure to stir debate relates to how the state should prepare children for school. House DFLers and Gov. Tim Walz propose renewing funding for 4,000 volunteer preschool slots in public school districts. Senate Republicans want to use those funds for early learning scholarships instead. The scholarships help low-income families pay for care or preschool in whatever program they choose – including in public schools or something else like a private child care center.
Lawmakers have set up a number of early childhood programs going back decades. The mix of funding streams and purposes form a muddled landscape that parents must navigate if they want their child to participate – and especially if they want the state to subsidize that participation. State investment in these programs has shifted and expanded more recently as advocates united around research that shows the wide-ranging long-term benefits of beginning education and development early.
But while everyone acknowledges the value of early learning, they don’t agree on the way to deliver it, in this case, for 4-year-olds. Should Minnesota go the way of its neighbors in Iowa and Wisconsin and pay for universal (and voluntary) preschool? Or should the state prioritize paying for low-income families’ preschooling and leave it to the market to supply those slots, either in public or private venues?
Experimenting but not evaluating
Minnesota has taken steps in both directions in recent years. Under Dayton, who supported universal preschool, lawmakers set aside $50 million for about 4,000 preschool seats under a program it called School Readiness Plus. School districts awarded funding could use it to expand or start preschool programs. Rather than being filled by any student, those slots were for at-risk 4-year-olds, who could attend for free. Families that didn’t meet the at-risk criteria could still send their children, but they had to pay a fee.
The funding will expire with the current budget. DFL lawmakers are scrambling to save it.
Before that, the state launched a pilot program for early learning scholarships in 2011 and has expanded it statewide since then. It gives low-income families up to $7,500 to send their 3- to 5-year-olds to early childhood programs, though the actual amount varies depending on the program. The higher a program ranks in the state’s four-star quality rating system, called Parent Aware, the larger the scholarship.
Initially, scholarships were only available for three- and four-star programs, but, in 2017, the Legislature opened them up to lower-ranked programs, as well, albeit at a lower amount.
So, with experiments running – some for many years – it would seem that the next step is to evaluate their impact and continue with what works. A 2018 report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor notes the difficulty of doing that.
The report reviewed nine childhood programs and financing mechanisms and found a “complex and fragmented” system that places little emphasis on evaluating outcomes. “State law gives priority to meeting goals on school readiness, but the number of children prepared for school is unknown,” the report states.
Authors of the OLA report critiqued a 2016 report to the Legislature by the Minnesota Department of Education on early learning scholarships, saying the “research was flawed” because its conclusions about effectiveness were based on poor comparisons.
MDE contracted with SRI International, a third-party evaluator, to study whether early learning scholarships contributed to kindergarten readiness. The study compared scholarship participants in three- and four-star programs to participants in one- and two-star programs who did not receive a scholarship. Unsurprisingly, it found that children who participated in higher quality programs had better results.
The study should have compared low-income children who attended high quality programs with scholarships to children who attended high quality programs without scholarships, said Judy Temple, a professor at the University of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs and co-director of the Human Capital Research Collaborative. She studies child and family policy. Head Start and school-based pre-K are four-star programs under Parent Aware,
“I wish that the State of Minnesota had a history of doing more evaluations of our public programs,” Temple said. “Compared to other states, we don’t invest very much in rigorous evaluations. As a result, evidence base, particularly for scholarships, is pretty weak.”
Can a ‘funding mechanism’ take credit for outcomes?
Advocates of scholarships say they’re proven to work, and that has permeated Republican messaging around the push for elevating scholarships above other programs vying for state funding.
Multiple studies show children who attended high quality early learning programs with the help of scholarships were better prepared for kindergarten than expected, based on averages for low-income children in their community. That’s why the model has ample community support. The Northside Achievement Zone in Minneapolis said in its latest report that nearly half of children enrolled in one of their partner childhood programs are ready for kindergarten, compared to a third of children who are not enrolled.
The Minnesota Early Learning Foundation, now called Close Gaps by 5, is an advocacy organization led by several prominent Minnesota business people that designed and paid to pilot scholarships in communities.
They designed the model based on research by Art Rolnick and Rob Grunewald performed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which made the case that investing in early learning is good for the economy. Rolnick studies the economics of child development and advocates for the scholarship model. He also is a senior fellow at the Humphrey School and is on the Close Gaps by 5 board.
The scholarship model was designed around four priorities: starting long before preschool, with programs for children from birth; targeting aid at those in most need; demanding high quality; and maintaining flexibility by allowing parents to choose where to send their children.
Maas said they settled on those pillars after reviewing research and talking to parents, not with any particular program in mind. They oppose universal pre-K because they believe it doesn’t fit their priorities.
Rolnick said he can’t understand the argument for any other model that, from his perspective, takes control away from parents in favor of school districts calling the shots. “They want total control,” he said. “They want to tell parents where to go.”
They also don’t want the state to pay to offer free preschool for kids from wealthy families.
“From our perspective, that is a debate about how you see the world or the political landscape. Our perspective is that resources are limited and they’ll continue to be limited. We’re not going to be able to get a billion dollars or more of investment for a while,” Maas said. “It looks like this year there’s going to be another incremental investment. We would continue to say (the best place) is in scholarships.”
In “issue briefs,” the organization says this is “the best” option for closing achievement gaps before children start elementary school.
“We point to research that shows that low-income children in high-quality learning environments make important gains that they sustain over their lifetimes,” said Ericca Maas, Close Gaps by 5 executive director.
But some of the research advocates point to has been criticized for making inadequate or inappropriate comparisons that make the results look better than they are. So, it’s unclear whether scholarships are better than other models that also give low-income children access to high-quality learning programs.
The 2016 MDE report is one example. Another study conducted from 2008 to 2011, before the state adopted the model, evaluated early learning scholarships used in St. Paul. Scholarship recipients who participated in the study made gains in some areas, but researchers found “no significant group differences” when compared to children entering kindergarten who had not received scholarships.
Maas said that the point is that scholarships connect children to the highest quality programs in the state. She’s confident scholarships work because she’s confident Parent Aware does a good job of ranking programs based on set standards.
“Scholarships are just a funding mechanism,” she said. “They don’t do anything for kids. They pay for kids to go to programs. The outcomes that children get from using their scholarships have to do with the programs they’re connected to.”
Decades of evidence
Critics, like Temple and her colleagues at the Human Capital Research Collaborative, say the hype surrounding scholarships isn’t supported by research, but it diverts state dollars from Head Start or school-based programs.
Arthur Reynolds, co-director of the HCRC, puts it bluntly: “Scholarships are the wrong approach. These are really vouchers with reimbursement tied to a flawed Parent Aware system. There is zero evidence of effectiveness.”
Reynolds led the expansion of a Chicago early childhood model in practice since 1967 called the Child-Parent Centers. In 2012, the HCRC brought the model to three districts in Illinois and the district in St. Paul.
He said publicly administered programs deserve the state’s investment based on decades of research in Minnesota and around the country. Data collected over decades on people who attended Child-Parent Centers show it had a long-term impact on their academic, social, and economic outcomes.
The Child-Parent Center approach also has demonstrated success in St. Paul. Children who participated at district-funded preschools started kindergarten months ahead of their classmates who also attended high quality programs, including voluntary pre-K or Head Start, according to a 2017 study published in Child Development.
Reynolds, who is an expert on the characteristics of early learning programs that contribute to long-term positive outcomes, also criticized Parent Aware. A report on the ranking system concluded it “has integrity” as a measuring stick for early care and education programs of all kinds in the state, but Reynolds said it provides only a “weak” assessment of program quality.
For example, it doesn’t give enough weight to small class sizes or other elements known to have lasting effects, he said.
“My real issue is that a four-star program does not ensure sustained or worthwhile investment,” he said. “You don’t have to have perfect evidence. Does the program align with principles of effectiveness that we’ve known for 35-plus years produce sustained gains?”
What’s at stake
Ultimately, the goal of advocates and experts on each side is to expand their respective programs.
Reynolds wants voluntary pre-K to be universally available. Rolnick would have the state grow scholarship funding by tapping into the money it puts into voluntary pre-K and the Child Care Assistance Program, which families use in conjunction with scholarships to afford early learning programs.
Either way, without expansion, Minnesota programs will continue to reach only a fraction of children. Maas estimated less than half of needy children in the state receive scholarships. Reynolds cited rankings that place Minnesota 33rd out of 45 states based on preschool access. He also said only about half of Minnesota kids are considered ready for kindergarten. “It’s really an embarrassing situation,” he said.
That puts pressure on lawmakers to decide the path the state will take to expand early learning access. “There should be a robust discussion about how to structure and create a whole new area of education for the state. In my mind, it warrants a good robust discussion. It’s really, really important,” Maas said. From her experience in Minnesota policymaking, getting it right is critical. “Once you get stuff, it’s hard to change.”
You reach only half the children in need? That is like tolerating a 50% high school drop out rate. Get 100% of needy children in quality programs and tax enough to pay for it.
The problem is when you say tax for it, many middle and working class families struggle to pay for early education and now you are taxing them to pay for those who are low income. Programs that are universal such as all day kindergarten make more sense and then target high risk areas with current programs such as ECCF and subsidized daycare programming. Research shows that programs that involve the parents are more successful, otherwise gains tend to be lost. Again evidence based programming is important.
Key issues in this debate are usually teacher training/ability to cultivate appropriate social skills, emotional self-regulation / selective attention; positive self-concept and pre-academic knowledge and interest in learning, somewhat integrally developed; class sizes; and access. Also, how, if at all, technology is used.
As I recall, a main issue debated is the challenge of controlling teacher quality—if preschools were established in public elementary schools teachers would need to be state certified, usually meaning a 4 year degree. Ideally, this course of study would be strongly infused with science-based curriculum in early childhood and family education. Teachers with this background would command professional teaching salaries with benefits. Alternative home-based or ad hoc facilities might employ teachers with very little to no certification—would they qualify to take part in a voucher system? How would they be evaluated? How about religiously themed programs? As the article points out evaluation has proven difficult due to a variety of quality factors.
The bottom line on teacher quality seems to be that teachers who are adequately trained and have a college degree in a science-based curriculum (and maybe $15k to 25k in student loans) are “universally” needed to consistently provide excellent care and development for vulnerable children, but they are not going to work for $15.00 / per hour—at least for very long—in what can be emotionally taxing employment. Pre-k teachers who will work for $15.00/hr will likely be distressed trying to get by, possibly with children of their own?
Despite some documented positive outcomes, long-term benefits of pre-k conditioning for kindergarten still seem uncertain, likely attributing to the program quality factors listed above.
A related question that should be held in mind as pre-k is debated is whether k-3 teachers are adequately trained to keep successful pre-k children on a multi-dimensional growth path.
The best solution is not going to be the cheapest. Either we commit to prioritizing adequate preparation for the thousands of children who will founder without it—as the large opportunity cost to society continues to grow, or prepare the next generation for productive livelihoods in our changing workplaces and in society.
It’s too bad that the study conducted to evaluate the early childhood portion of ServeMN’s Reading Corps isn’t more widely known and cited. This study identifies the instructional model that produces results. But the K-12 system largely ignores the science of reading with the dreary results reported year after year so why would we trust them to deliver early childhood services? Any gains garnered in any pre-school program are negated by the lack of scientific reading instruction in K-12. An age 3-grade 3 approach using the Reading Corp model is what is needed; anything else is a waste of money.
It seems like people have known for some time that there has been some overselling of the effects of the scholarships. How many times has the U’s voucher advocate made announcements about the “strong results from Frogtown” when few others who know about that evaluation would describe the results that way.
But the comments here suggest that even within the scholarship community there are different views of what the intervention is. Maas says that the voucher is just a mechanism to get children into better quality early ed programs but in Rolnick’s many presentations and media statements, the voucher itself is the market-based intervention that (at least in the early years of speaking tour) was going to unleash the power of the private sector and enable parents to make better choices. But the rating system doesn’t require vouchers to communicate information about quality to parents.
Why wouldn’t everyone want a voucher, the U’s voucher advocate asks? Perhaps because half of the recipients are getting less than $2000 a year when Child Care Aware tells us that the cost of child care is at least three or four times that amount.
Our perspective is that resources are limited and they’ll continue to be limited. We’re not going to be able to get a billion dollars or more of investment for a while,”
A flawed premise from the outset. You’ll never win support for the funding you need by stating from the beginning that you’re only interested in the success of a limited number of kids. Maybe if the options WEREN’T outrageously expensive, such that the only parents of affluence were able to reasonably afford them without subsidy, this argument might have merit, but as it stands all one is stating is that we must make sure the poor have access, to level outcomes with their rich peers, while those in the middle are ignored. Why would any self respecting middle class parent support that? When it comes to equalizing opportunity, any approach that eschews universal support is doomed, politically, from the start as it alienates both the selfish rich (who wouldn’t support anything that threatens their children’s advantage) and the middle class (whose children would receive no benefit).
This view is based on that of what Republicans have cultivated and brought our society too – “what’s in it for me?” and “How much does it cost?”. Progress will never be made if the middle class is divided about this. It’s in the interests of every middle class citizen to expand educational programs like this. The return on the dollars spend is exponential. It does not have to fall on the backs of the middle class to fund this. There is a plenty of money to go around – let’s start with the upper class and corporations. They’ve received more welfare than any other constituency in the country.
Except that it will. If I want my child to compete, today, not in some promised future, long after my kids have aged out of any support that may be forthcoming, I will have already taken the hit. Idealism is fine, but ignoring the day to day practicality of what is ACTUALLY occurring is foolhardy. The argument you’re trying to sell is that its right and proper for middle class parents to pay 14k (using my bill this year for school sponsored pre-k as an example) a year, out of their already limited income, to keep their kids competitive with folks who will pay nothing for the same service. Also, children of the wealthy will receive the same service at no greater cost, which their parents will pay easily. Furthermore, the middle class will be taxed to fund the poor, because no matter what the intentions are at the outset, corporate interests and the wealthy WILL shut down the system until their demands are met. If the middle class is gonna foot the bill for this, they must be included in the benefit. If you need to get the rich on board to make it work, they’ll need to be included. That’s not conservative framing, that’s human nature.
Like Paul Wellstone was fond of reminding us: When we all do well, we all do well.
A true statement, but how is EVERYONE doing well, when middle class kids are priced out of the market?
Although the state has spent millions on gathering kindergarten readiness, there are no useful statistics, yet we continue to throw money at the problem. (Legislative Audit report April 2018).
Researchers from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota have determined the first three years of a child’s life are critical to learning. By age two, they can predict third-grade reading scores. Quality information supported by research from many universities, including Harvard.
Consider that eighteen school districts graduate 100% of eligible students, and 84 have graduation rates over 95 percent. These statistics do not support any “universal” solution.
The legislators are spending millions on programs that don’t appear to be working, AND these programs don’t line up with peer-reviewed research. This is a waste of taxpayer’s funds.
Yet the problem continues and needs a solution because it has an impact on all Minnesotan’s.
Start with what researchers have determined,
• “Indeed, studies show that parents who are knowledgeable about child development are better prepared to support their children’s development. On the other hand, parents with little knowledge are more likely to engage in negative parenting behaviors (e.g., abuse and neglect) that can have harmful long‐term effects on their children’s well-being” Child Trends July 2018. Educate all parents of newborns on best parenting practices.
• Toxic stress, particularly in the first three years of a child’s life, impedes the development of children, again determined by researchers. Physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, accumulated burdens of family economic hardship, without adequate adult support are all symptoms of toxic stress. This is not a problem for MDE; the problem and solution should be housed at the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Supporting the children that are exposed to toxic stress is critical to solving this problem. This, too, is a solvable problem.
So your solution to inadequate educational opportunity is to “solve” poverty? Gee, whoda thunk it? My kids very much enjoyed a fable regarding mice, a cat, and a bell, perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Cute analogy! The only way to ‘solve poverty’ is to educate our way out of it by supporting those most in need at the right time in their lives. Dr. Art Rolnick, the economist, has determined that every dollar invested in our impoverished children returns $16. It is a return generated over a lifetime. However, it starts as soon as the child enters kindergarten, ready. There is less remedial assistance needed, and the teacher is spending more time teaching. This continues all the way up through high school graduation. These kids will be able to enter the workforce and pay taxes. There would be less need for prison cells.
Let’s figure out how to help impoverished children from birth to kindergarten. These kids need full year support, not half days for the school year.
We take a long-term approach to many issues (Gov. Walz reveals plan for 100% clean energy in Minnesota by 2050). We need to take a long-term view on education, based on research by our scientists.
Many franchised daycares operate multiple high-quality daycares, and they can provide statistical results.
With a lack of daycares in Minnesota perhaps a model of a non-profit daycare franchise would be in order. Open to all, payment based on need.