Greg  Abbott’s  Educating  Texans  Plan:  Pre-­‐K  —  Third  Grade     List  of  Recommendations   Elevate  and  Advance  Effective  Programs  Targeted  at  Grades  PK-­‐3     Literacy  and  Numeracy  Professional  Development     Recommendation:  To  improve  teacher  skills  and  student  learning  in  critical  early  years,  establish  a   pilot  program  to  create  Reading  Excellence  Teams  which  will  be  made  available  on  an  optional  basis  to   schools  with  low  third  grade  reading  scores.     Recommendation:  Create  Literacy  Achievement  Academies  with  a  curriculum  focused  on  reading,   writing,  and  incorporating  technology,  designed  to  improve  the  professional  development  of  teachers   in  the  critical  area  of  literacy.       Recommendation:  Create  Math  Achievement  Academies  modeled  on  the  Texas  Reading  Initiative’s   Reading  Academies  that  will  train  K-­‐3  teachers  in  numeracy  instruction  and  technology.     Effective  Pre-­‐K  Programs     Recommendation:  Provide  funding  to  districts  that  opt  to  implement  a  gold  standard,  high  quality,   accountable  prekindergarten  program  with  the  goal  of  demonstrating  long-­‐term  prekindergarten   success.     Recommendation:  Require  prekindergarten  providers  that  receive  state  funding  to  set  benchmarks   and  evaluate  improvement,  and  to  report  this  data  to  TEA.     Recommendation:  Develop  research-­‐based  professional  development  for  prekindergarten  teachers   that  incorporate  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines  and  standards  to  promote  classroom  best   practices.       Recommendation:  Given  the  established  deficiencies  in  the  Head  Start  program,  develop  a  strategic   plan  to  encourage  parents  of  eligible  four-­‐year-­‐old  children  to  enroll  their  children  in  state-­‐based   prekindergarten  programs,  rather  than  Head  Start.   1   Background  of  Recommendations Early  Elementary  Education A  child’s  early  learning  years  lay  the  foundation  for  all  that  is  to  come.  Prekindergarten  (pre-­‐k)  and   elementary  grades  K-­‐3  play  a  critical  role  in  a  child’s  educational  development;  this  is  the  period  during  which   gaps  that  develop  prior  to  a  child  starting  kindergarten  are  either  solidified  or  eliminated.1  Education  policy   and  practices  must  strengthen  the  emphasis  placed  on  this  pivotal  stage  of  a  child’s  development  in  a  way   that  recognizes  needs  in  order  to  optimize  academic  learning.     Family  background  has  the  most  decisive  effect  on  student  achievement,  contributing  to  a  large  performance   gap  between  children  from  economically  disadvantaged  families  and  those  from  middle-­‐class  homes.2  Pre-­‐k   programs  that  target  at-­‐risk  children  have  increasingly  been  looked  to  as  a  means  of  closing  this  gap.  While   there  is  some  evidence  to  suggest  that  high  quality  pre-­‐k  increases  a  child’s  chances  of  succeeding,  the   general  understanding  concerning  what  constitutes  “high  quality”  is  far  from  universal.  Studies  argue  that   children  who  attend  high  quality  programs  are  less  likely  to  be  held  back  or  require  special  education  and  are   more  likely  to  graduate.3  Many  of  the  studies  promoting  the  long-­‐term  benefits  of  pre-­‐k  are  either  outdated   or  suffer  from  low  internal  or  external  validity.  Others  focus  on  small  programs,  which  are  difficult,  if  not   impossible,  to  scale  to  a  large  population  of  children.  Here  in  Texas,  the  quality  of  state-­‐funded  pre-­‐k   programs  is  largely  unknown,  as  information  regarding  pre-­‐k  is  seldom  collected.  If  Texas  is  serious  about   implementing  high  quality  pre-­‐k,  there  is  a  need  for  greater  transparency  of  pre-­‐k  programs.  This  will  increase   districts’  ability  to  share  information  and  facilitate  the  diffusion  of  classroom  best  practices.  Transparency  will   also  enable  policymakers  to  assess  the  return  on  taxpayers’  investment  in  state-­‐funded  pre-­‐k  by  providing  the   necessary  information  to  hold  school  districts  and  private  providers  accountable  for  the  quality  of  their  pre-­‐k   programs.  This  type  of  transparency  and  accountability  is  sorely  lacking  under  the  current  model.     Rather  than  thinking  of  pre-­‐k  and  elementary  education  as  discrete  elements  of  the  educational  continuum,   pre-­‐k  through  third  grade  must  be  considered  as  an  integrated  and  comprehensive  educational  program.  At  a   policy  level,  this  means  that,  until  improvements  are  made  in  grades  K-­‐3,  any  returns  on  the  state’s   investment  in  prekindergarten  will  fail  to  realize  its  potential  impact.  Accordingly,  the  state  must  also  invest   in  professional  development  for  teachers  in  grades  K-­‐3  in  order  to  ensure  that  children  are  building  strong   foundational  skills  in  literacy  and  mathematics.                                                                                                                       1  http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/earlylearning/k3-­‐assessment.pdf    Murray,  Charles.  Read  Education.  New  York:  Crown  Forum,  2008.   3  http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=19434   2 2   By  the  year  2025,  Texas  should  see  the  number  of  students  scoring  Satisfactory  or  better  on  statewide  third   grade  assessments  double  over  current  levels.  At  the  same  time,  the  state’s  fourth  grade  NAEP  reading  and   math  scores  should  continue  to  improve  until  Texas  ranks  among  the  top  ten  states  nationally.  To  accomplish   these  goals,  Texas  must  commit  to  a  plan  for  improving  student  achievement  starting  in  the  2016-­‐2017   school  year.  After  five  years,  when  the  plan’s  initial  year’s  kindergarteners  reach  the  fourth  grade,  the  state   will  be  able  to  evaluate  the  results  from  statewide  third  grade  assessments  and  fourth  grade  NAEP  reading   and  math  scores  and  compare  them  with  current  scores.  This  will  enable  policymakers  and  education   practitioners  to  reevaluate  the  plan  and  make  improvements  as  necessary  to  ensure  Texas  remains  on  track   to  meeting  its  goals.         3   4th  Grade  NAEP   Reading  Performance   by  State   Texas  must  be   in  the  top  10                 Source:  NAEP   http://nationsreportcard. 4   gov/reading_math_2013 /#/state-­‐performance   4th  Grade  NAEP   Math  Performance   by  State   Texas  must  be   in  the  top  10               Source:  NAEP   http://nationsreportcard. 5   gov/reading_math_2013 /#/state-­‐performance   Literacy  and  Numeracy  Professional  Development   Recommendation:  To  improve  teacher  skills  and  student  learning  in  critical  early  years,  establish  a   pilot  program  to  create  Reading  Excellence  Teams  which  will  be  made  available  on  an  optional  basis  to   schools  with  low  third  grade  reading  scores.     Reading  is  the  most  fundamental  and  important  academic  skill  children  can   learn  in  their  earliest,  formative  years  in  school.  It  serves  as  the  foundation   on  which  all  other  learning  is  built.  Without  proficient  reading  and   comprehension  skills,  every  other  school  subject  is  nearly  incomprehensible.   Problematically,  many  students  are  not  reading  at  a  satisfactory  level.  This   is  becoming  a  national  crisis:  according  to  the  most  recent  National   Assessment  of  Educational  Progress,  only  35  percent  of  fourth  graders  were   at  or  above  proficiency  in  reading.4  In  Texas,  only  28  percent  of  students   score  above  proficiency,  while  71  percent  score  ‘Basic’  or  below  (see   graphic).5     NAEP  Achievement  Level  Definitions   Advanced   This  level  signifies  superior  performance.   This  level  represents  solid  academic  performance  for  each  grade   assessed.  Students  reaching  this  level  have  demonstrated   Proficient   competency  over  challenging  subject  matter,  including  subject-­‐ matter  knowledge,  application  of  such  knowledge  to  real  world   situations,  and  analytical  skills  appropriate  to  the  subject  matter.     Basic   This  level  denotes  partial  mastery  of  prerequisite  knowledge  and  skills   that  are  fundamental  for  proficient  work  at  each  grade.   6 Source:  NAEP     Because  reading  is  such  a  critical  skill,  all  students,  including  those  in  low  performing  schools,  should  be   taught  by  well-­‐trained,  specialist  literacy  teachers,  who  have  access  to  a  wide  range  of  educational  support   and  training.                                                                                                                       4  “What  level  of  knowledge  and  skills  have  the  nation’s  students  achieved?”  NAEP.   http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/what-­‐knowledge   5  “Focus  on  individual  state  results,”  NAEP.  http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/comparison-­‐graphs?st0=TX   6  http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/nathowreport.asp   6   While  teachers  often  learn  a  great  deal  during  off-­‐campus  professional  development  exercises,  they  can  have   a  difficult  time  replicating  those  lessons  and  may  revert  to  established  routines  once  they  have  returned  to   their  own  classrooms.  An  initiative  is  needed  which  would  give  schools  with  unsatisfactory  scores  on  early   reading  assessments  the  option  of  inviting  highly  trained  reading  instruction  specialists  into  K-­‐3  classrooms  to   teach  alongside  existing  staff.  This  model  of  professional  development  provides  teachers  with  training  they   can  immediately  apply  in  their  own  classes.7  Under  existing  law,  chronically  low  performing  schools  are   required  to  take  actions  to  improve  academic  outcomes,  or  else  risk  closure  or  reconstitution.8  Reading   improvement  teams  would  give  these  campuses  an  additional  tool  to  avoid  such  consequences.     Each  school  district  is  required  to  administer  a  reading  instrument  at  the  kindergarten,  first,  and  second   grade  levels.9  The  instruments  that  districts  administer  must  be  selected  from  a  list  prepared  by  the   commissioner  of  education  or  by  a  district  level  committee.10  Reading  instruments  must  be  based  on   scientific  research  of  reading  skills  development  and  reading  comprehension.11  Under  this  proposal,  once  a   particular  school  has  requested  a  reading  improvement  team  on  the  basis  of  low  third  grade  reading  scores,   the  team  will  work  with  the  campus  and  review  the  results  of  the  reading  diagnostics  administered  in   kindergarten  through  second  grade  to  determine  the  grades  and  classrooms  to  which  the  teams  will  be   assigned  based  on  need.       The  Texas  Center  for  Reading  and  Language  Arts  in  the  College  of  Education  at  The  University  of  Texas  at   Austin  had  a  successful  history  of  providing  reading  instruction  to  teachers  across  the  State  of  Texas  as  part  of   Governor  George  W.  Bush’s  Reading  Initiative.  With  a  $2  million  appropriation,  teams  of  expert  teacher   mentors  could  be  deployed  to  poor  performing  schools  to  coach  educators  by  teaching  alongside  them  in  the   classroom.  This  program  could  be  evaluated  after  the  initial  year  of  operation,  and  considered  for  potential   expansion.                                                                                                                                           7  “Why  Professional  Development  Matters,”  Hayes  Mizell,  Learning  Forward,  2010.   http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0   8  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §30.107   9  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §28.006(c)   10  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §28.006(c)   11  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §28.006(c)   7   Recommendation:  Create  Literacy  Achievement  Academies  with  a  curriculum  focused  on  reading,   writing,  and  incorporating  technology,  designed  to  improve  the  professional  development  of  teachers   in  the  critical  area  of  literacy.       Educators  and  administrators  should  endeavor  to  continuously  review  and  improve  their  skills  and  expertise.   Every  teacher  should  commit  to  continuing  professional  development.  Professional  development  is  one  of   the  few  strategies  schools  have  to  strengthen  teachers’  performance  levels.12  Districts  should  evaluate   available  professional  development  offerings—from  courses  for  novice  teachers  designed  to  accelerate  their   growth  and  development,  to  advanced  training  for  the  most  accomplished  teachers—and  assist  staff  in   choosing  and  completing  the  programs  that  are  best  suited  for  them.13  In  turn,  educators  have  a   responsibility  to  apply  the  lessons  learned  in  professional  development  exercises  to  increase  student   achievement.       In  1996,  Governor  Bush  announced  the  Texas  Reading  Initiative,  which  led  to  the  launch  of  Texas  Reading   Academies  in  1999.  The  Initiative  provided  support  for  teacher  training  and  the  implementation  of  scientific,   research-­‐based  programs  to  support  students  in  their  reading  development  in  the  primary  grades.       To  implement  the  Literacy  Achievement  Academies,  the  Texas  Education  Agency  (TEA)  coordinated  with  the   Texas  Center  for  Reading  and  Language  Arts  and  Education  Service  Center  Region  XIII  in  developing  four-­‐day   reading  academies  for  first  grade  teachers.  Although  the  academies  were  voluntary,  they  proved  to  be  very   popular  among  kindergarten  and  first  grade  teachers;  during  the  four  years  the  Academies  were  in  operation,   more  than  30,000  teachers  completed  the  training.  Teachers  who  chose  to  participate  in  the  four-­‐day   academy  received  a  stipend  of  $600  for  attending.  The  Education  Service  Center  (ESC)  paid  this  stipend   directly  to  each  teacher,  and  participants  were  required  to  attend  all  four  days.  Teachers  gained  valuable   knowledge  on  how  best  to  assist  children  in  their  classroom  to  gain  strong  reading  foundations  for  the   future.14     The  Legislature  appropriated  $7  million  to  the  Governor’s  Texas  Reading  Initiative  in  1998  and  $25  million  in   1999.  Funding  at  this  level  continued  through  the  next  biennium;  however,  appropriations  to  support  the   reading  academies  under  the  Governor’s  Reading  Initiative  fell  off  starting  in  the  77th  Legislative  Session,   before  the  impact  of  the  reading  academies’  training  could  be  seen.  By  the  time  students  of  teachers  who   had  completed  the  training  reached  the  fourth  grade,  Texas  saw  a  spike  in  fourth  grade  NAEP  reading  scores:   the  average  score  rose  four  points,  from  215  in  2003  to  219  in  2005  and  increased  by  another  point,  to  220,   in  2007.15                                                                                                                       12  “Why  Professional  Development  Matters,”  Learning  Forward,  2010.   http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0   13  http://www.ed.gov/teaching   14  First  Grade  Teacher  Reading  Academies,  Jim  Nelson,  Dec.  28,  1999  (TEA  Correspondence)   http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/taa/com991228.html   15  http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/   8   16 Source:  NAEP       The  state  should  provide  funding  for  this  important  model  of  professional  development.  To  implement  this   renewed  initiative,  TEA  partner  with  the  Texas  Center  for  Reading  and  Language  Arts  in  the  College  of   Education  at  UT  Austin  and  the  state’s  20  ESCs  to  train  teachers  in  grades  K-­‐3  through  reading  and  writing   academies  modeled  after  those  implemented  under  Governor  George  Bush’s  Reading  Initiative.  A  technology   element  would  also  be  included  to  train  educators  in  best  practices  for  teaching  technological  literacy.   Teachers  who  participate  in  the  Reading  Academies  and  complete  the  training  would  receive  a  $1,000   stipend  to  cover  travel  expenses.  An  initial  appropriation  of  $15  million  per  year  for  the  academies  would  be   funded  from  General  Revenue.       In  addition  to  the  training  participants  receive  during  the  four-­‐day  program,  the  entire  academy  program,   including  lesson  plans  and  training  modules,  would  be  available  through  online  portals.  Web  portals  have   been  shown  to  effectively  supplement  the  face-­‐to-­‐face  training  teachers  complete  in  the  Academy  setting.                                                                                                                                                   16  http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/   9   Recommendation:  Create  Math  Achievement  Academies  modeled  on  the  Texas  Reading  Initiative’s   Reading  Academies  that  will  train  K-­‐3  teachers  in  numeracy  instruction  and  technology.     Over  the  next  ten  years,  employers  in  the  STEM  fields  will  require  one  million   more  graduates  with  backgrounds  in  science,  technology,  engineering,  and   mathematics  than  US  colleges  and  universities  are  on  track  to  produce.17   Mathematics  is  the  foundational  skill  for  nearly  all  STEM  pathways,  and  students’   future  understanding  of  mathematics  depends  on  an  early  foundation  that  is   based  on  a  high  quality,  challenging,  and  accessible  mathematics  education.   Young  learners  in  every  setting  should  experience  mathematics  through   effective,  research-­‐based  curricula  and  teaching  practices,  which  in  turn  requires   that  teachers  have  the  support  of  policies,  organizational  structures,  and   resources  that  enable  them  to  succeed  in  this  challenging  and  important  work.18     In  2013,  only  seven  percent  of  Texas  fourth  graders  achieved  an  ‘Advanced’   score  on  the  NAEP  mathematics  assessment,  and  34  percent  scored  at   ‘Proficient’.  The  remaining  59  percent  scored  at  ‘Basic’  or  below  (see  graphic).19     A  number  of  years  ago,  TEA  collaborated  with  professors  at  SMU  to  develop  a  new  math  curriculum  to  help   kindergarteners  in  Dallas  master  the  numeracy  skills  they  need  before  starting  first  grade.20  The  Research  in   Mathematics  Education  (RME)  research  unit  at  SMU’s  Simmons  School  of  Education  and  Human  Resources   has  studied  the  results  of  the  curriculum  and  seen  dramatic  improvement  in  students,  particularly  those  who   do  not  have  significant  exposure  to  math  or  numbers  at  home  and  are  at-­‐risk  of  falling  behind.21  RME  has  also   collaborated  with  TEA  on  professional  development.22  RME  studied  a  project  that  provided  resources  to   educators  to  support  learning  achievement  in  mathematics  for  students  who  were  struggling  in  grades  5-­‐8.23                                                                                                                       17  “Report  to  the  President:  Engage  to  Excel,”  President’s  Council  of  Advisors  on  Science  and  Technology,  Feb.  2012.   http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-­‐engage-­‐to-­‐excel-­‐final_2-­‐25-­‐12.pdf   18  “What  Is  Important  in  Early  Childhood  Mathematics?”  NCTM,  Oct.  2013.  http://www.nctm.org/earlychildhoodmath/   19  http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/comparison-­‐graphs?st0=TX   20  “Dallas  Kindergartners  Mastering  Math  Skills,”  CBSDFW.com,  May  2,  2013.  http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/dallas-­‐ kindergartners-­‐mastering-­‐math-­‐skills/   21  http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/dallas-­‐kindergartners-­‐mastering-­‐math-­‐skills/   22  2012  Research  in  Mathematics  Conference,  SMU,  Feb.  24,  2012.   http://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Simmons/Research/RME/docs/RME_ConferenceReport_2012.ashx   23  Research  in  Mathematics  Education:  MSTAR.http://www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/RME/Explore/MSTAR   10   The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  College  of  Natural  Science’s  UTeach  Program  was  founded  in  1997  as  a  way   to  prepare  secondary  teachers  in  STEM  fields  and  is  a  collaboration  between  the  Colleges  of  Natural  Sciences   and  Education.24  UTeach  has  proven  so  effective,  that  it  is  now  being  replicated  at  universities  across  the   country.25     Leveraging  existing  and  proven  research  and  resources,  the  state  should  develop  Math  and  Technology   Academies  for  teachers  in  grades  K-­‐3  that  mirror  the  Reading  Academies  first  implemented  under  Governor   Bush’s  Texas  Reading  Initiative.  The  academies  would  consist  of  four  to  five  days  of  collaborative,  researched-­‐ based  professional  development  training  for  math  teachers  across  the  state.  As  was  the  case  with  the  Texas   Reading  Academies,  teachers  who  participate  would  be  eligible  for  a  subsidy  following  their  completion  of   the  training.  The  academies  would  be  supported  with  General  Revenue,  amounting  to  $15  million  per  year.                                                                                                                           24  https://uteach.utexas.edu/About    http://www.uteach-­‐institute.org/replicating-­‐uteach   25 11   Effective  Pre-­‐K  Programs   Support  for  universal  prekindergarten  has  been  growing  in  certain  political  spheres  over  the  last  year  and  a   number  of  proposals  and  initiatives  have  garnered  attention  from  the  media.  While  fostering  early  childhood   development  is  an  important  educational  goal,  studies  show  that  existing  prekindergarten  programs  fail  to   produce  lasting  benefits.26  Expanding  the  population  of  students  served  by  existing  state-­‐funded  programs   without  addressing  the  quality  of  existing  prekindergarten  instruction  or  how  it  is  being  delivered  would  be   an  act  of  negligence  and  waste.       Approximate  Pre-­‐K  Costs,  Current  and  Estimated   27 Source:  Texas  Education  Agency       Since  the  late  1960s,  prekindergarten  education  (pre-­‐k)  has  been  hailed  as  a  means  of  leveling  the  playing   field  for  low-­‐income  children  between  the  ages  of  three  and  four  years  old.  The  existing  federal  preschool   program,  Head  Start,  was  created  in  1965  as  part  of  President  Johnson’s  War  on  Poverty.  The  program   promotes  school  readiness  in  children  up  to  age  five  from  low-­‐income  homes  by  enhancing  their  cognitive,   social  and  emotional  development.28  In  addition  to  Head  Start,  state-­‐funded  and  private  preschools  provide   additional  options  to  parents  of  young  children.                                                                                                                       26  http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-­‐dubious-­‐promise-­‐of-­‐universal-­‐preschool   http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487020&menu_id=2147483718   28  Office  of  Head  Start.  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs   27   12   Studies  of  district  level  pre-­‐k  programs  in  Tulsa,  New  Jersey,  and  Boston  have  garnered  attention  among   supporters  of  pre-­‐k  expansion.  However,  these  studies  did  not  measure  the  impact  of  pre-­‐k  after  the  initial   year,  and  additional  design  problems  negatively  affected  their  internal  and  external  validity.2930  The  effects  of   universal  pre-­‐k  programs  in  Georgia  and  Oklahoma  were  studied  by  comparing  NAEP  score  gains.  While  these   studies  rated  high  on  external  validity,  their  internal  validity  suffers  as  a  consequence  of  design.  Nonetheless,   the  results  showed  only  a  very  small  difference  between  NAEP  gains  in  Oklahoma  and  Georgia  compared  to   other  states  without  universal  pre-­‐k.  Finally,  the  recent  evaluation  of  the  Tennessee  Voluntary  Pre-­‐K  Program   was  the  only  other  study  to  earn  an  A  on  both  internal  and  external  validity,  along  with  the  Head  Start  Impact   Study.  The  findings  of  the  two  evaluations  are  also  similar:  some  favorable  results  that  fail  to  last.  In  fact,  in   the  Tennessee  evaluation  of  results  at  the  end  of  first  grade,  children  who  had  not  attended  the  program   produced  more  favorable  results  than  children  who  had.       Recent  Programs   Program/Research   Reported  Impact   (after  initial  year)   Internal   Validity   External   Validity   Head  Start   None   A   A   District  Programs,     e.g.  Tulsa   Unknown  (research  design  does  not  allow  follow-­‐up   after  pre-­‐k)   B   B   B   A   A   A   Georgia  &  OK  Universal   Tennessee  Voluntary  Pre-­‐ K   +   (very  small  at  best)   —     31 Source:  EducationNext                                                                                                                     29  http://educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/    When  evaluating  the  result  of  any  study,  one  should  always  consider  the  external  and  internal  validity.  Internal  validity  deals  with   how  well  the  study  was  designed  to  evaluate  causal  relationships  and  correct  for  unrelated  factors.  Results  with  very  high  internal   validity  are  able  to  demonstrate  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  program  in  question  had  a  causal  impact  on  the  outcomes  it  was   intended  to  influence.  External  validity,  or  generalizability,  gauges  the  extent  to  which  the  results  of  a  study  may  be  applied  beyond   the  sample  For  more  information,  see  “Does  Pre-­‐K  Work?  It  Depends  How  Picky  You  Are,”  Grover  J.  Whitehurst,  EducationNext,  Feb.   27,  2014.  Available  online  at:  http://educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/  Also  see:  “External  Validity,”   http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Samples/externalvalidity.html   31  http://educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/   30 13   Still,  other  research  shows  that  high  quality  prekindergarten  programs  have  very  real  benefits  over  a  lifetime,   including  an  increase  in  lifetime  wages  and  reductions  in  crime  and  use  of  public  assistance  programs.32  This   evidence  suggests  that  any  initiative  to  expand  or  reform  government  funded  prekindergarten  must  be   underpinned  by  rigorous  analysis  of  the  programs  which  purportedly  produce  long-­‐lasting  results  and  a  solid   understanding  of  the  programs’  major  components.  However,  nearly  all  of  the  studies  that  have  reported   lasting  positive  impacts  from  pre-­‐k  after  the  initial  year  are  decades  old  and  score  poorly  in  terms  of  validity.   Two  such  preschool  programs,  the  HighScope  Perry  Preschool  program  and  the  Chicago  Child-­‐Parent  Center   (CPC)  program  included  parent  education  and  support.  These  programs  were  also  much  more  expensive  on  a   per  child  basis.  Proponents'  claims  that  the  higher  program  costs  pay  for  themselves  in  the  form  of  higher   career  income  and  lower  rates  of  criminal  behavior  are  debatable  in  light  of  concerns  regarding  the  reliability   of  the  evaluations.33       Programs  from  the  1960s  and  1970s   Program/Research   Reported  Impact   Internal  Validity   External  Validity   (after  initial  year)   Perry  Preschool   +   A-­‐   C   Abecedarian   +   B+   C   Chicago  Child  Parent   +   C   B   B   C   Head  Start  in  the  1960s   +   (for  mortality)   34 Source:  EducationNext     The  state  began  requiring  districts  to  offer  prekindergarten  classes  in  1984,  following  the  passage  of  House   Bill  72  during  the  second  called  session  of  the  63rd  Legislature.  As  filed,  only  four-­‐year-­‐olds  that  were   identified  as  having  a  language  or  learning  disability  were  eligible  for  the  program;  however,  an  early   committee  substitute  expanded  eligibility  to  include  children  from  poverty  level  families  who  were   educationally  disadvantaged,  as  defined  by  eligibility  for  the  free  and  reduced-­‐price  school-­‐lunch  program.   The  committee  substitute  also  made  offering  prekindergarten  classes  a  local  option;  however  that  provision   was  later  removed.  Supporters  of  requiring  districts  to  offer  preschool  argued  that  strong  early  childhood   education  was  too  critical  to  leave  to  the  vagaries  of  local  school-­‐board  politics.                                                                                                                       32  “Overlooked  Benefits  of  Prekindergarten,”  Karen  Schulman,  NIEER,  March  2005.   http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report6.pdf   33  “The  Dubious  Promise  of  Universal  Preschool,”  David  J.  Armor  and  Sonia  Sousa,  National  Affairs,  Winter  2014.   http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-­‐dubious-­‐promise-­‐of-­‐universal-­‐preschool   34  “Does  Pre-­‐K  Work?  It  Depends  How  Picky  You  Are,”  Grover  J.  Whitehurst,  EducationNext,  Feb.  27,  2014.   http://educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/   14   Current  law  (Texas  Education  Code  Sec.  29.153),  requires  a  district  to  offer  prekindergarten  classes  if  the   district  identifies  15  or  more  eligible  children  who  are  at  least  four  years-­‐old.35  A  district  may  offer  classes  if  it   identifies  at  least  15  eligible  children  who  are  at  least  three  years  of  age.36  A  child  is  eligible  for  enrollment  if   the  child  is  at  least  three  years-­‐old  and:     1. Is  unable  to  speak  and  comprehend  the  English  language;   2. Is  educationally  disadvantaged  (eligible  to  participate  in  the  national  free  or  reduced-­‐price  lunch   program);     3. Is  homeless;   4. Is  the  child  of  an  active  duty  member  of  the  U.S.  armed  forces  who  is  ordered  to  active  duty;   5. Is  the  child  of  a  member  of  the  U.S.  armed  forces  who  was  killed  or  injured  while  serving  on  active   duty;  or   6. Is  or  ever  has  been  in  the  conservatorship  of  the  Department  of  Family  and  Protective  Services   following  an  adversary  hearing  held  as  provided  by  Family  Code  Sec.  262.201.37       Currently,  1,040  school  districts  offer  a  state-­‐supported  prekindergarten  program.38  A  prekindergarten  class   offered  under  Sec.  29.153  is  to  be  operated  on  a  half-­‐day  basis,  and  a  district  may  not  charge  tuition  from   parents  of  children  who  qualify.39  Districts  may  supplement  state  funding  to  expand  prekindergarten  to  full-­‐ day  and  may  charge  tuition  to  parents  whose  children  do  not  meet  the  statutory  eligibility  requirements.   Although  the  Education  Code  requires  that  a  school  district’s  prekindergarten  program  be  designed  to   develop  skills  necessary  for  success  in  the  regular  public  school  curriculum,  funding  for  prekindergarten   programs  is  not  tied  to  outcomes  and  there  is  no  required  curriculum.40  Indeed,  the  “program  requirements”   stipulated  in  Sec.  29.1532,  Education  Code,  are  scant  and  do  not  articulate  clearly  desired  objectives.       Texas  Public  Prekindergarten  Enrollment  (2012  -­‐  2013  School  Year)   Four-­‐year-­‐olds  enrolled   205,056   FSP  Eligible  Four-­‐year-­‐olds   196,296   Three-­‐year-­‐olds  enrolled   22,120   FSP  Eligible  Three-­‐year-­‐olds   21,130   Total  Enrollment   227,568   Total  FSP  Eligible   217,565     While  the  model  for  prekindergarten  programs  outlined  in  the  Education  Code  is  capable  of  achieving  some   benefits,  structurally  the  program  suffers  in  that  it  does  not  set  and  measure  clear  objectives,  nor  does  it   contain  a  mechanism  for  controlling  cost  growth.  By  amending  Texas’  prekindergarten  approach  to  focus  on   outcomes,  promote  competition,  and  minimize  regulatory  obstacles  that  stifle  local  innovation,  the  state   stands  to  gain  improved  educational  outcomes,  which  are  critical  to  future  academic  success.                                                                                                                   35  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §29.153(a)    Id.   37  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §29.153(b)   38  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487020&menu_id=2147483718   39  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §29.153(a)   40  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §29.1532(a)   36 15     Recommendation:  Provide  funding  to  districts  that  opt  to  implement  a  gold  standard,  high  quality,   accountable  prekindergarten  program  with  the  goal  of  demonstrating  long-­‐term  prekindergarten   success.     The  Texas  Education  Code  specifies  that  districts  receive  payment  for  a  half-­‐day  of  prekindergarten  for   eligible  (low-­‐income)  three  and  four  year  olds.  This  equates  to  roughly  $3,650  per  student  per  year;  however,   the  Education  Code  does  not  tie  that  funding  to  outcomes  in  any  way.  Any  increased  investment  in  state-­‐ funded  pre-­‐k  must  tie  outcomes  to  funding,  and  must  provide  incentives  for  private  providers  to  offer  high   quality  prekindergarten  programs  that  meet  the  educational  goals  established  by  the  state.       To  be  eligible  to  receive  state  funds  under  this  proposed  increased  investment  in  pre-­‐k,  a  district  or  district-­‐ affiliated  prekindergarten  provider  would  have  to  meet  specified  requirements  in  terms  of  curriculum,   teacher  quality,  academic  performance,  and  parental  involvement.  This  proposal  would  leave  the  existing   pre-­‐k  rules  untouched,  but  would  create  an  additional  option  for  program  providers  meeting  the  following   criteria:       1. All  pre-­‐k  programs  must  implement  the  most  rigorous,  high  quality  curriculum.   2. All  teachers  for  the  enhanced,  high  quality  pre-­‐k  program  must  hold  a  Child  Development  Associate   (CDA)  credential  or  equivalent,  in  addition  to  holding  a  bachelor’s  degree  or  above.   3. Teachers  and  staff  must  be  required  to  develop  a  culture  of  inclusion  by  engaging  with  families,   assess  families’  attitudes  toward  prekindergarten,  and  adapt  their  curriculum  and  teaching  methods   to  the  families  served  in  a  way  that  achieves  the  goals  of  more-­‐rigorous  guidelines.     4. The  programs  must  use  strategies  to  communicate  with  families,  including  family  conferences,  new   family  orientations,  and  individual  conversations,  with  the  goal  of  achieving  parental  involvement  and   participation.41   5. The  programs  must  establish  methods  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of  the  gold  standard  pre-­‐k   programs,  as  measured  by  student  progress.  Results  of  the  progress  measures  should  be  made   available  to  parents,  teachers,  school  districts,  and  the  state.   The  academic  success  of  the  gold  standard  programs  will  be  reviewed  after  five  years.  After  five  years,  when   the  plan’s  initial  year’s  kindergarteners  reach  the  fourth  grade,  the  state  will  be  able  to  evaluate  the  results   from  third  grade  assessments  and  fourth  grade  NAEP  reading  scores  and  compare  them  with  current  scores.   This  will  enable  policymakers  and  education  practitioners  to  update  the  plan  to  facilitate  even  greater   academic  gains  during  the  second  half  of  the  plan.                                                                                                                 41   http://families.naeyc.org/accredited-­‐article/10-­‐naeyc-­‐program-­‐standards#2   16   10-­‐Year  Evaluation  Schedule  for  a  Program  Enacted  in  2016 Year Grade Test 2016 Kindergarten 2017 1st  grade 2018 2nd  grade 2019 3rd  grade STAAR  EOC 2020 4th  grade NAEP 2021 Kindergarten 2022 1st  grade 2023 2nd  grade 2024 3rd  grade STAAR  EOC 2025 4th  grade NAEP       Under  this  new  option,  the  participating  district  would  receive  an  enhanced  funding  allocation  equal  to  the   current  half-­‐day  ADA  formula  funding  plus  an  additional  $1,500  allotment  per  eligible  four-­‐year-­‐old  per  year,   if  the  program  in  which  they  are  enrolled  meets  the  standards  required  by  the  state.     After  five  years,  the  state  would  look  at  average  student  gains  at  each  site.  Providers  that  fail  to  show   consistent  improvement  in  student  gains  on  the  kindergarten  readiness  assessment—or,  in  the  case  of   already  high-­‐performing  programs,  cease  to  demonstrate  strong  performance—would  be  subject  to  TEA   review  and  may  be  required  to  make  changes  to  their  programs  in  order  to  remain  eligible  for  enhanced   funding.  Additionally,  schools  and  providers  would  be  required  to  make  progress  implementing  their  parental   involvement  plans.     Parental  involvement  is  crucial  to  a  child’s  success  in  pre-­‐k,  as  parents  are  truly  the  most  influential  teacher  in   a  child’s  life.  Participating  in  this  program  would  require  schools  to  develop  a  written  parental  involvement   plan,  and  then  assess  parental  attitudes  toward  education  and  assess  the  level  of  parental  involvement.   Teachers  and  schools  should  maintain  a  dialogue  with  parents  to  determine  the  parents’  views  on  child   rearing  and  updates  on  their  child’s  progress.  There  are  many  strategies  that  can  be  used  to  commence  and   reinforce  this  communication,  and  those  decisions  should  be  made  at  the  local  level.  Schools  with  low   parental  involvement  may  need  to  develop  strategies  to  raise  awareness  of  parental  responsibilities.  Schools   with  high  parental  involvement  may  simply  need  to  outline  expectations  for  parents.  The  programs  could  use   a  variety  of  strategies  to  communicate  with  families,  such  as  new  family  orientations,  classroom  observations,   and  individual  parent-­‐teacher  conferences.     17   Providing  state  funding  for  an  across-­‐the-­‐board  expansion  of  prekindergarten  without  first  addressing  quality   would  be  a  disservice  to  Texas  students  and  would  further  have  an  inequitable  impact  on  those  districts  that   have  taken  the  initiative  to  implement  full-­‐day  prekindergarten  using  local  funds.  Many  districts  have  already   decided  for  themselves  that  full-­‐day  prekindergarten  is  a  worthwhile  investment  and  secured  funding  for   expansion;  in  many  instances  voters  in  the  district  affirmatively  opted  into  a  full-­‐day  program  by  voting  to   approve  bond  packages  or  to  increase  the  sales  tax  rate.  Until  information  on  the  quality  of  prekindergarten   programs  statewide  is  available  and  the  benefits  are  readily  discernible,  decisions  to  fund  expansion  to  full-­‐ day  programs  should  be  reserved  to  the  option  of  the  local  school  district.  Nonetheless,  districts  with  existing   full-­‐day  programs  stand  to  benefit  from  the  enhanced  prekindergarten  option,  as  improvements  to  the  half-­‐ day  program  create  externalities  that  enhance  the  full-­‐day  program  as  well.    Similarly,  any  three-­‐year-­‐olds   enrolled  a  gold  standard  pre-­‐k  class  will  benefit  from  quality  enhancements  implemented  by  a   prekindergarten  provider  participating  in  the  program.       Most  schools  that  offer  full-­‐day  pre-­‐k  do  so  through  federal  Title  I,  II,  and  III  funding.  This  is  the  approach   Houston  ISD  has  adopted  to  expand  its  prekindergarten  program  to  full-­‐day.  Houston  ISD  and  Dallas  ISD  also   charge  non-­‐eligible  students  tuition  to  attend  the  district’s  full-­‐day  prekindergarten  program.4243  The  City  of   San  Antonio  and  Fort  Worth  ISD  have  also  expanded  their  prekindergarten  offerings.  Residents  of  San   Antonio  voted  to  increase  the  city’s  sales  tax  by  ⅛  of  a  cent  to  fund  high  quality,  full-­‐day  pre-­‐k  for  eligible   four-­‐year-­‐olds.44  Last  fall,  Fort  Worth  residents  approved  a  $390  million  bond  package  that  includes  funding   to  expand  the  district’s  full-­‐day  prekindergarten  program  to  an  additional  3,000  children.45                                                                                                                                               42  http://www.houstonisd.org/Page/72961    TEA  has  ruled  that  districts  are  not  permitted  to  enroll  non-­‐eligible  students  into  pre-­‐kindergarten  programs  until  all  eligible  three-­‐ year-­‐olds  and  four-­‐year-­‐olds  have  been  enrolled.   44  http://www.mysanantonio.com/elections/article/Voters-­‐approve-­‐Castro-­‐s-­‐Pre-­‐K-­‐plan-­‐4014635.php   45  http://keranews.org/post/fort-­‐worth-­‐voters-­‐approve-­‐bonds-­‐new-­‐schools-­‐expanded-­‐pre-­‐k   43 18   Availability  of  Full-­‐Day  Prekindergarten  in  Texas’  10  Largest  School  Districts   46 Rank   District   2011-­‐2012  District  Enrollment   Full-­‐day?   1.     Houston  ISD   203,066   Yes   2.     Dallas  ISD   157,575   Yes   3.     Cypress-­‐Fairbanks  ISD   107,960   No   4.   Austin  ISD   86,528   Yes   5.     Ft.  Worth  ISD   83,109   Yes   6.     Northside  ISD   98,110   No   7.     Fort  Bend  ISD   69,449   No   8.   North  East  ISD   67,439   No   9.     Arlington  ISD   64,703     No   10.     Aldine  ISD   64,300   Yes   47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56     Until  a  very  high  quality,  statewide  half-­‐day  prekindergarten  is  achieved,  the  Legislature  should  not  mandate   full-­‐day,  but  rather  lawmakers  should  allow  schools  to  make  that  decision  based  on  the  needs  of  their   community  while  still  rewarding  schools  who  manage  a  quality  program.  Multiple  outlets  exist  to  fund  such  a   program,  and  many  school  districts  take  advantage  of  those  methods.  Providers  will  be  afforded  flexibility   with  regard  to  curriculum  development;  however,  curriculum  objectives  should  track  the  Texas   Prekindergarten  Guidelines  and  incorporate  research-­‐based  strategies  and  classroom  best  practices.                                                                                                                       46  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147505144&menu_id=692&menu_id2=796&cid=2147483661    http://www.houstonisd.org/Page/72601   48 http://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001475/Centricity/Domain/98/Evaluation/10-­‐11/FinalRpts/EA11-­‐171-­‐2-­‐Prekindergarten-­‐ FINAL.pdf   49  http://www.cfisd.net/dept2/studentservices/registration/regist-­‐prek.htm   50 http://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dre-­‐ reports/rb/12.53_RB_a_Prekindergarten_Program_Student_Academic_Performance_2012-­‐2013_0.pdf   51 http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/aug/05/progress-­‐texas/liberal-­‐group-­‐says-­‐rick-­‐perry-­‐ended-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐100000-­‐c/   52  http://www.nisd.net/schools/kinder/pre-­‐k   53  http://www.fortbendisd.com/departments/academics/special-­‐programs/prekindergarten   54  http://www.neisd.net/curriculum/CurComp/ece/documents/PKReg2013-­‐14flyer-­‐3.pdf   55  http://www.aisd.net/AISD/Default.aspx?alias=www.aisd.net/aisd/pk   56  http://www.aldine.k12.tx.us/universal_includes/news/specific_articles.cfm?articleID=6039   47 19   Returning  to  the  principle  question  of  quality,  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines  offer  detailed   descriptions  of  expected  behaviors  across  multiple  skill  domains  that  should  be  observed  in  four-­‐  to  five-­‐year-­‐ old  children  by  the  end  of  their  prekindergarten  experience.  The  guidelines  are  developed  to  be  useful  to  a   broad  audience  including  school  districts,  Head  Start  programs,  child  care,  and  most  importantly  by  children’s   families.  In  1999,  the  Commissioner  of  Education  convened  a  working  group  of  educators  and  community   members  to  draft  guidelines  for  a  prekindergarten  curriculum.  In  2007,  the  Commissioner  directed  the  State   Center  for  Early  Childhood  Development  to  facilitate  the  revision  of  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines  and   convened  a  similar  work  group  to  collaborate  with  national  researchers  and  state  and  expert  local   stakeholders.  Over  100  experts  met  to  discuss  recent  research  and  form  writing  teams.  In  May  2008,  the   Commissioner  approved  the  new  guidelines  and  presented  the  guidelines  to  SBOE  for  inclusion  in  instruction.       The  guidelines  provide  a  means  to  align  prekindergarten  programs  with  the  Texas  Essential  Knowledge  and   Skills  (TEKS).  Because  there  is  no  state-­‐required  prekindergarten  curriculum,  use  of  these  guidelines  is   voluntary.  Texas  Education  Code  §29.153  contains  some  statutory  requirements  concerning  prekindergarten,   but  the  proposed  partnership  model  would  provide  more  incentives  to  improve  quality.       Prekindergarten  providers  who  receive  state  funding  will  be  expected  to  employ  capable  staff.  The   qualifications  to  teach  early  childhood  are  different  from  those  required  to  teach  first  grade,  or  even   kindergarten.  Research  shows  that  teacher  education  has  a  very  low  correlation  with  cognitive  and  social-­‐ emotional  outcomes  in  preschool  programs.57  Teaching  basic  numeracy  and  vocabulary  to  four  year-­‐olds  does   not  require  years  of  formal  study;  instead,  learning  in  early  childhood  is  more  experiential  and  nurturing,  and   individuals  with  an  associates  degree  are  no  less  capable  of  providing  quality  care  and  instruction  as  their   peers  in  more  formal  K-­‐12  settings.       Because  districts-­‐affiliated  pre-­‐kindergarten  providers  who  participate  in  the  gold  standard  program  would   be  required  to  improve  overall  quality,  taxpayers  would  benefit  due  to  the  fact  that  the  state  would  only  be   paying  for  certain  four  year-­‐olds,  yet  educational  outcomes  should  improve  for  all  children  enrolled  in  an   affiliated  provider’s  program.  Furthermore,  district-­‐affiliated  operators  could  offer  care  to  eligible  children  for   the  entire  year,  boosting  productivity  of  working  parents  who  would  otherwise  have  to  reduce  hours  in  the   summer  in  order  to  care  for  children.       The  cost  of  this  program  will  be  wholly  dependent  on  the  number  of  districts  that  participate  as  well  as  the   number  of  children  who  are  enrolled;  however,  the  estimated  cost  in  the  2016-­‐2017  biennium  is,  at  most,   $118  million.  The  estimate  assumes  an  initial  enrollment  of  40  percent  of  the  existing  prekindergarten   population,  with  a  ten  percent  increase  in  each  subsequent  year.58                                                                                                                   57  http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-­‐dubious-­‐promise-­‐of-­‐universal-­‐preschool    Note:  This  40%/10%  assumption  is  based  on  LBB  analysis  of  HB  130  (81R)  by  Patrick.  That  bill  is  similar  to  what  we  are  proposing   (optional  "enhanced"  quality  pre-­‐k  for  the  currently-­‐eligible  population).  The  fiscal  note  "assumes  that  40  percent  of  students   currently  served  in  tuition-­‐free  prekindergarten  programs  would  be  served  in  the  Enhanced  Quality  Full  Day  program  in  FY2010  and   that  participation  increases  by  10  percent  per  year  for  the  next  three  years."     Assuming  complete  buy-­‐in  and  using  2012-­‐2013  enrollment  numbers,  allocating  enhanced  funding  for  all  eligible  four-­‐year-­‐olds  will   cost  an  additional  $294,444,000  annually.     58 20   Recommendation:  Require  prekindergarten  providers  that  receive  state  funding  to  set  benchmarks   and  evaluate  improvement,  and  to  report  this  data  to  TEA.     State  funding  for  prekindergarten  should  be  contingent  on  the  results  pre-­‐k  programs  produce,  although   currently  pre-­‐k  assessments  are  not  required  under  law.  For  districts  that  do  not  opt-­‐in  to  the  gold  standard   program,  benchmarks  will  be  necessary  to  evaluate  improvement.  Until  information  is  readily  available  to   show  how  the  state’s  prekindergarten  programs  are  performing,  Texas  cannot  hope  to  improve  its  approach   to  prekindergarten  instruction.       The  Texas  Education  Code,  Sec.  29.154,  requires  the  Commissioner  of  Education,  in  consultation  with  the   Commissioner  of  Human  Services,  to  monitor  and  evaluate  prekindergarten  programs  as  to  their   developmental  appropriateness.  Under  Sec.  28.006,  Reading  Diagnosis,  each  school  district  must  administer  a   reading  instrument  in  kindergarten,  first  and  second  grades,  and  the  superintendent  must  report  the  results   to  the  TEA  Commissioner.59  Additionally,  the  code  requires  the  State  Center  for  Early  Childhood  Development   to  develop  and  adopt  a  school  readiness  certification  system  for  certifying  the  effectiveness  of   prekindergarten  programs;  however,  the  system  is  available  to  program  providers  on  a  voluntary  basis.60     In  order  to  equip  the  Commissioner  of  Education  with  the  data  necessary  to  properly  evaluate   prekindergarten  programs,  lawmakers  should  amend  the  Education  Code  to  require  school  districts  with   prekindergarten  programs  to  administer  assessments  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  school  year.       There  are  at  least  three  methods  of  assessing  students  at  the  prekindergarten  level61:       ● Direct  Assessments,  norm  referenced  standardized  tests:  A  typical  question  on  a  direct  assessment   might  ask  the  child  to  identify  the  letter  B  and  provide  three  options.  The  child  receives  credit  for   correctly  identifying  the  letter.  Direct  assessments  are  in  some  views  deficient  because  they  do  not   capture  the  full  spectrum  of  the  students  skill  set  and  cannot  truly  be  used  to  determine  quality  of   the  program.   ● Observation  Checklists  and  Scales:  Assessment  under  this  method  requires  that  teachers  informally   watch  students  within  the  daily  routine  and  observe  their  mastery.  This  option  does  provide  a  more   complete  capture  of  the  student’s  progress  but  is  contingent  on  teachers  being  well-­‐trained  in  the   method.  Such  assessments  are  also  labor  intensive.     ● Child’s  Work  (Portfolio):  Assessing  children’s  work  acts  as  a  complement  to  a  teachers  observed   progress.  This  method  does  not  capture  the  entire  picture  of  a  student’s  progress  and  tends  to  be   labor  intensive  for  teachers.       Most  states  employ  one  or  both  of  the  first  two  assessments  methods.  Texas  is  one  of  only  four  states  not  to   require  any  assessment.62                                                                                                                       59  Tex.  Ed.  Code  §28.006(c)  and  (d).    Tex.  Ed.  Code  §9.161(a)   61  https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PIC-­‐PRE-­‐K.pdf   62  Download  PDF  at:  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ece/faq/full.aspx   60 21   With  respect  to  which  assessments  to  use,  in  order  to  preserve  local  control  and  provide  schools  with   necessary  operational  flexibility,  the  state  should  avoid  granting  any  one  testing  organization  a  monopoly   over  prekindergarten  evaluations.  Instead,  TEA  should  publish  a  list  of  approved  assessments  that  districts   may  use.  Districts  will  report  the  results  to  the  agency.       Recommendation:  Develop  research-­‐based  professional  development  for  prekindergarten  teachers   that  incorporate  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines  and  standards  to  promote  classroom  best   practices.       The  Education  Code  provides  that:  “a  school  district’s  prekindergarten  program  shall  be  designed  to  develop   skills  necessary  for  success  in  the  regular  public  school  curriculum,  including  language,  mathematics,  and   social  studies.”63  Aside  from  this  directive,  there  are  no  state  level  requirements  for  prekindergarten   curriculum  or  instruction.  In  an  effort  to  align  prekindergarten  programs  with  the  Texas  Essential  Knowledge   and  Skills  (TEKS),  TEA  has  developed  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines.  The  guidelines  provide  challenging   yet  achievable  skills  and  concepts  children  in  high  quality  prekindergarten  should  be  able  to  master.   Organized  into  ten  skill  domains,  the  guidelines  support  integration  of  curriculum  and  build  connections   between  disciplines.64       Because  use  of  the  guidelines  is  voluntary,  the  potential  for  wide  variation  among  programs  has  long  been  an   issue.  If  efforts  to  make  Texas’  public  education  system  number  one  in  the  nation  are  to  be  successful,   additional  efforts  will  be  necessary  at  the  prekindergarten  level  to  ensure  that  all  programs  are  striving  to   meet  the  state’s  high  standards.  Research  consistently  shows  that  teacher  quality  is  the  most  important   school-­‐related  factor  impacting  student  achievement.65  If  prekindergarten  is  closing  the  achievement  gap   between  educationally  disadvantaged  children  and  their  peers  from  more  affluent  backgrounds,   prekindergarten  teachers  should  be  competent  and  comfortable  in  their  knowledge  of  the  guidelines,  and   highly  trained  in  classroom  strategies  that  incorporate  the  guidelines  standards.  Accordingly,  the  state,   through  its  regional  Education  Service  Centers,  should  invest  $2  million  to  develop  and  offer  a  two-­‐to-­‐three   day  long  training  seminar  during  the  summer  designed  to  help  prekindergarten  teachers  most  effectively   utilize  the  Texas  Prekindergarten  Guidelines  to  design  and  implement  a  comprehensive  curriculum.                                                                                                                                       63  TEC  §29.1532.    http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147497221   65  http://www.epi.org/publication/books_teacher_quality_execsum_intro/   64 22   Recommendation:  Given  the  established  deficiencies  in  the  Head  Start  program,  develop  a  strategic   plan  to  encourage  parents  of  eligible  four-­‐year-­‐old  children  to  enroll  their  children  in  state-­‐based   prekindergarten  programs,  rather  than  Head  Start.     Head  Start  is  distinct  from  public  school  prekindergarten.  In  2012,  there  were  90,869  children  enrolled  in  a   Head  Start  program  in  Texas.66  Head  Start  is  funded  through  individual  providers  requesting  funds  from  the   US  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  (bypassing  the  state).  President  Obama  has  proposed  $8.6   billion  dollars  for  Head  Start  in  his  recently  released  budget.67  The  program  serves  approximately  one  million   children  in  the  50  states,  at  an  approximate  cost  of  $8,000  per  child,  more  than  twice  the  per  pupil  cost  of   state-­‐funded  prekindergarten.68     Head  Start  originated  as  a  pilot  program  and  one  component  of  President  Johnson’s  War  on  Poverty.  While   the  Office  of  Head  Start  describes  the  program  as  promoting  “the  school  readiness  of  children  ages  birth  to   five  from  low-­‐income  families  by  enhancing  their  cognitive,  social  and  emotional  development,”69  the   program  offers  a  number  of  additional  benefits,  including  health,  nutrition,  and  social  services.70  For  this   reason,  the  program  is  administered  by  the  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services,  rather  than  the  U.S.   Department  of  Education.  Children  from  birth  to  age  five  who  are  from  families  with  incomes  below  the   poverty  guidelines  are  eligible  for  Head  Start  services.  Foster  children  and  children  from  homeless  families,   and  families  receiving  public  assistance  such  as  TANF  or  SSI  are  also  eligible.71     Enrollment  in  the  early  1970s  stood  at  around  400,000  students.  The  program  costs  roughly  $2  billion  per   year,  measured  in  2011  dollars,  equal  to  a  per  capita  cost  of  between  $2,000  and  $3,000.  Enrollment   remained  steady  throughout  the  1980s,  as  did  funding;  however,  between  1990  and  2000,  the  program  grew   rapidly.  Enrollment  nearly  doubled,  and  annual  costs  reached  nearly  $7  billion.  From  2000  to  2008,   enrollment  remained  stable,  but  appropriations  increased.  The  additional  funding  was  used  to  update  the   curriculum  and  pay  for  teachers  who  were  better-­‐trained,  in  part  in  response  to  early  evaluations  which   showed  that  Head  Start  produced  only  very  modest  gains,  which  tended  not  to  last  once  a  child  entered   elementary  school.                                                                                                                       66 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5938-­‐head-­‐start-­‐enrollment-­‐by-­‐age-­‐ group#detailed/2/45/false/868,867,133,38,35/1830,558,559,1831,122|/12570   67  http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/14/spending-­‐deal-­‐revives-­‐head-­‐start-­‐program/   68  http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/opinion/do-­‐preschool-­‐programs-­‐ready-­‐children-­‐for-­‐school-­‐or/nfCKT/   69  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs   70  http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf   71  http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-­‐system/operations/mgmt-­‐admin/eligibility-­‐enroll/income/PovertyGuideline.htm   23       While  Head  Start  is  the  largest  federally  funded  program  for  children  under  five,  in  recent  years  there  has   been  a  push  among  parents  and  policy  makers  toward  state-­‐funded  pre-­‐k  programs.  By  2008,  more  children   ages  three  and  four  were  enrolled  in  state-­‐funded  pre-­‐k  than  were  enrolled  in  Head  Start.72  In  2011,  45   percent  of  Texas  four-­‐year-­‐olds  participated  in  state  prekindergarten,  compared  to  nine  percent  in  Head   Start.73  Taking  into  account  private  preschool,  roughly  85  percent  of  four-­‐year-­‐olds  in  Texas  are  enrolled  in   some  form  of  center-­‐based  care.74     Decreasing  educational  gaps  between  at-­‐risk  and  middle-­‐class  children  is  critically  important  to  Texans’  future   success.  It  is  also  the  reason  why  Head  Start  targets  low-­‐income  children  and  why  state-­‐funded   prekindergarten  programs  in  Texas  serve  certain  classes  of  eligible  students.  Much  is  made  of  the  idea  of   universal  preschool.  President  Obama,  New  York  City  Mayor  de  Blasio  and  New  York  Governor  Cuomo  have   all  expressed  support  for  the  idea  in  the  last  year.7576  In  fact,  the  best  available  evidence  raises  serious  doubts   that  a  large  public  investment  in  the  expansion  of  pre-­‐k  for  four  year-­‐olds  will  have  the  long-­‐term  effects   claimed  by  supporters.77  Lawmakers  instead  should  improve  Texas’  current  framework  to  better  serve  the   existing  eligible  students.78                                                                                                                       72  “Head  Start  and  State  Pre-­‐K:  Competing,  Collaborating  and  Evolving,”  Christina  Satkowski,  New  America  Foundation,  Sept.  8,  2009.   www.newamerica.net/blog/early-­‐ed-­‐watch/2009/head-­‐start-­‐and-­‐state-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐competing-­‐collaborating-­‐and-­‐evolving-­‐14411   73  http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2011-­‐EarlyChildhoodEducation-­‐CEP.pdf   74  http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2011-­‐EarlyChildhoodEducation-­‐CEP.pdf   75  “Pre-­‐K’s  promise  vs.  the  actual  evidence,”  David  J.  Armor,  NY  Daily  News,  Jan.  22,  2014.  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pre-­‐ k-­‐promise-­‐actual-­‐evidence-­‐article-­‐1.1587022   76  http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-­‐dubious-­‐promise-­‐of-­‐universal-­‐preschool   77  educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/   78  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pre-­‐k-­‐promise-­‐actual-­‐evidence-­‐article-­‐1.1587022#ixzz2uXvNH7ws   24   Numerous  studies  have  looked  at  the  effects  of  Head  Start  on  cognitive  learning  and  social-­‐emotional   development.  Among  the  strongest  evaluations  of  the  Head  Start  program  in  the  last  50  years,  both  in  terms   of  external  and  internal  validity,  is  the  National  Head  Start  Impact  Study.  The  study  was  a  randomized  trial   that  used  a  sample  that  is  nationally  representative  of  Head  Start  centers  and  included  follow-­‐up  through  the   end  of  the  third  grade.79  The  study,  which  was  conducted  by  the  U.S.  Department  of  Health  and  Human   Services  and  published  in  December  2012,  found  a  small  number  of  favorable  outcomes  in  program   participants.  However,  in  kindergarten  through  third  grade,  there  were  no  appreciable  differences  between   those  children  who  had  attended  a  Head  Start  program  and  those  who  had  not.80       After  49  years,  the  results  of  the  Head  Start  program  have  been  so  disappointing  that  they  inspired  Time   Magazine  columnist  Joe  Klein  to  call  for  the  program’s  abolishment,  writing:     “In  these  straitened  times,  we  need  world-­‐class  education  programs,  from  infancy  on  up.  But  we  can   no   longer   afford   to   be   sloppy   about   dispensing   cash—whether   it's   subsidies   for   oil   companies   or   Head  Start—to  programs  that  do  not  produce  a  return.”81       According  to  a  recent  House  Budget  Committee  report,  HHS’s  own  research  demonstrates  the  Head  Start   program,  as  a  whole,  is  failing  to  prepare  children  for  school.82  A  study  commissioned  by  HHS  and  published   in  2010  found  that  Head  Start  has  little  to  no  impact  on  children’s  cognitive  and  social-­‐emotional  skills,  health   status,  or  parenting.83  The  results  of  a  2012  follow-­‐up  study  yielded  even  worse  outcomes:  by  the  time  the   three-­‐year-­‐old  cohort  reached  the  end  of  third  grade,  there  was  suggestive  evidence  of  a  negative  outcome,   with  the  parents  of  the  children  in  the  Head  Start  group  reporting  a  significantly  lower  grade  promotion  rate   than  the  parents  of  the  non-­‐Head  Start  group.84       The  primary  goal  of  any  prekindergarten  program  is  to  ensure  that  children,  particularly  those  identified  as   “at-­‐risk”,  are  “school-­‐ready”  by  the  time  they  enter  kindergarten.  Evaluations  of  Head  Start’s  performance   clearly  show  that  the  program  is  not  adequately  meeting  this  goal,  despite  spending  more  than  $8,000  per   pupil.  As  Texas  implements  changes  to  improve  public  prekindergarten  offerings  across  the  state,  a  strategy   should  be  put  in  place  to  encourage  parents  of  children  currently  enrolled  in  Head  Start  to  take  advantage  of   the  superior  educational  opportunities  prekindergarten  offers.                                                                                                                       79  http://educationnext.org/does-­‐pre-­‐k-­‐work-­‐it-­‐depends-­‐how-­‐picky-­‐you-­‐are/    Id.   81  http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html   82  http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/war_on_poverty.pdf   83  “Head  Start  Impact  Study:  Final  Report,”  Westat,  Chesapeake  Research  Associates,  Abt  Associates,  Ronna  Cook  Associates,  The   Urban  Institute,  American  Institutes  for  Research,  Decision  Information  Resources,  Inc.  for  U.S.  Department  of  Health  and  Human   Services,  Jan.  2010.   84  Michael  Puma,  Stephen  Bell,  Ronna  Cook,  Camilla  Heid,  Pam  Broene,  Frank  Jenkins,  Andrew  Mashburn  and  Jason  Downer,     84 “Third  Grade  Follow-­‐Up  to  the  Head  Start  Impact  Study:  Final  Report,”  U.S.  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services,     84 Administration  for  Children  and  Families,  Office  of  Planning,  Research,  and  Evaluation,  Oct.  2012.   80 25   Most  children  currently  eligible  for  Head  Start  are  concurrently  eligible  for  state-­‐funded  prekindergarten   under  the  existing  requirements.  This  means  the  state  is  already  obligated  to  commit  Foundation  School   Program  (FSP)  funding  for  these  children  should  they  enroll  in  state  prekindergarten  instead  of  Head  Start.   Generally,  federal  Head  Start  eligibility  requirements85  provide  for  the  automatic  eligibility  of  “children  from   low-­‐income  families,”  defined  as  families  below  the  poverty  line  or  eligible  for  public  assistance.86   Additionally,  homeless  children  are  automatically  eligible;  as  are  up  to  35  percent  of  participants  with  income   below  130  percent  of  the  federal  poverty  line  under  certain  conditions87,  and  up  to  ten  percent  of   participants  from  the  area  served  who  would  benefit  from  Head  Start  but  are  not  otherwise  eligible.8889       There  is  no  excuse  for  allowing  these  children’s  academic  prospects  to  be  squandered  in  a  failing  federal   program  that  has  been  shown  to  have  no  significant  positive  effect  on  student  learning,  when  there  is  a   robust  network  of  high  quality  prekindergarten  providers  available  at  the  state  level.  The  federal  government   has  no  rightful  place  in  the  provision  of  education  at  a  local  level.  This  should  be  a  state  and  local   responsibility.       All  children  who  participate  in  Head  Start  are  potential  future  Texas  public  school  children.  This  means  that   ultimate  responsibility  for  their  academic  success  falls  on  the  state,  not  the  federal  government.  If  the  federal   government  fails,  the  state  pays  the  price.  Under  the  program  envisioned  here,  children  who  attend  state-­‐ funded,  high  quality  prekindergarten  will  benefit  from  an  environment  and  curriculum  designed  to  prepare   them  for  success  in  K-­‐12.  In  order  to  ensure  that  all  children  at-­‐risk  for  poor  achievement  receive  quality   prekindergarten  instruction,  the  state,  through  TEA  and  HHSC,  should  make  a  concerted  effort  over  the  next   five  years  to  recruit  eligible  children  into  a  prekindergarten  program  through  targeted  mail-­‐outs  and   community  outreach.  Increasing  the  number  of  children  served  by  state  prekindergarten  will  increase  the   cost  of  the  prekindergarten  program.  The  average  cost  per  pupil  per  year  for  half-­‐day  prekindergarten  is   $3,650.  Accordingly,  recruiting  the  entire  future  Head  Start  population,  which  in  2012  consisted  of  43,297   four-­‐year-­‐olds,  could  cost  as  much  as  $158,034,050.       However,  the  state  also  probably  stands  to  realize  cost  savings  from  getting  more  children  out  of  Head  Start   and  into  state  prekindergarten,  as  children  who  otherwise  would  have  enrolled  in  Head  Start  might  otherwise   be  better-­‐prepared  by  the  time  they  start  kindergarten.                                                                                                                     85  42  U.S.  Code  §  9840    See:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/9840     87  42  U.S.  Code  §  9840(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)   88  42  U.S.  Code  §  9840(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I)   89  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/9840     86 26