universal pre-kindergarten, early care, and education in ... policy brief.pdf · universal...

Universal Pre-Kindergarten, Early Care, and Education

in Rural New York: Research Findings and Policy

Implications

Lisa McCabe, Ph.D., John W. Sipple, Ph.D.

Hope Casto, Judith Ross-Bernstein

Cornell University

NYRuralSchools.org

March 2009

With support from the

New York State Rural Education Advisory Committee (REAC) and the

New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resources

In 1997, Universal Pre-kindergarten (UPK) was initiated in New York State with the

hopes of offering improved pre-school experiences for New York State’s 4-year-olds.

The UPK program was initially offered to urban, low-income school districts, and

subsequently initiated statewide, with all school districts having access to the state

UPK grants in 2006. This document summarizes the first systemic attempt to

analyze the implementation of UPK in rural areas. We conduced our analyses,

however, in the broader context of early care and education for children ages birth through five. This work has been funded by the Rural Education Advisory

Committee (REAC) since 2007.

This document is intended for:

- Parents, citizens and taxpayers

- Practitioners in both the schools and community-based organizations

- Policymakers at the local, state and federal levels

With this document, we aim to inform a broad range of conversations and

decisions about the design and provision of quality early care, education, and pre-kindergarten services in rural communities. We intend not to prescribe, but rather

to inform, as we argue some flexibility in pre-K policy and regulation is necessary

to allow for the natural variation across local community circumstances.

These conversations should take place at the level of the...

- Local community, including school board meetings

- County and regional collaborative, and

- State

The Rural Education Advisory Committee, receiving funding from the New York State Legislature obtained by the Legislative Commission

on Rural Resources in 2008-2009, commissioned this study. The views and opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the views of REAC or the Legislative Commission on Rural Resources.

Universal Pre-Kindergarten, Early Care,

and Education in Rural New York

With Support from the Rural Education Advisory Committee- 1 -

Summary of Key Recommendations 2Overview 3 Pre-Kindergarten in New York State 4

Partnering with Community Based Organizations (CBO) 4

Research Methods 5

Central Issues LIMITED EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES 6

Problems

Recommendations

COORDINATION ACROSS EARLY EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND PARTNERS 10

Problems

Recommendations

TRANSPORTATION 13

Problems

Recommendations

PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 15

Problems

Recommendations

Future Directions 17REEP Advisory Board 17References 18

Additional Resources 18REAC Description and Membership Back Cover

Table of Contents

New York State Center for Rural SchoolsJohn W. Sipple, Director421 Kennedy HallCornell UniversityIthaca, NY [email protected]://www.NYRuralSchools.org

Rural Education Advisory CommitteeJay Boak, ChairDistrict SuperintendentJefferson-Lewis BOCES20104 NYS Rt. 3 Watertown, NY 13601(315) [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://NYSCenterForRuralSchools.org

http://NYSCenterForRuralSchools.org



- 2 -

Summary of Key Recommendations

I. Flexibility in Pre-K FundingA. Allow school districts the discretion to use state pre-k funds for half- or full-day programs

II. Technical AssistanceA. Assist School Districts in partnering with community-based organizations to meet the State

Education Department (SED) requirement and to realize the benefits (e.g. coordinated,

seamless, high quality, and more efficient programming) from increased interaction in the

community

B. Assist School Districts and Community Based Organization (CBO) pre-k partners to

understand how to:

1. Design and implement full-day pre-k programs or link to wrap-around services

2. Blend and braid multiple revenue streams

3. Meet multiple regulations and oversight agencies (e.g. SED, OCFS, Head Start)

4. Conduct annual community census to assist agency and school district planning

III. Transportation AssistanceA. Require school district transportation of pre-k children and make pre-k children aidable for

transportation aid

B. Ensure sufficient funding for

1. Transportation of pre-k children at mid-day for districts with half-day programs

2. Accommodations for 3- and 4-year-olds on busses (e.g. car seats, bus monitors)

C. Support rural families’ transportation through direct aid to families or expansion of public

transportation options

IV. Fiscal Investment

Invest to sustain and promote quality early care and education programs, by:

A. Maintaining or increasing state pre-k funding

B. Increasing subsidies for infant and toddler care, which is more expensive to provide, to

offset CBO financial losses when 4-year-olds participate in free (to parents) pre-k outside

their programs

C. Incentivizing the recruitment, training and retention of early care and education providers

through:

1. Higher education loan forgiveness

2. Staff salary increases, especially for community-based staff who meet pre-k training

requirements

3. Financial support for provider training through various agencies (e.g Child Care

Resource and Referral, School Districts, OCFS)



- 3 -

OVERVIEW The benefits of early education programs, and pre-kindergarten (pre-k) in particular, are well documented. Some of the strongest evidence for sustained effects of early education p r o g ra m p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o m e s f r o m longitudinal evaluations of high quality, center-based programs including the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program, the Carolina Abecedarian Project, and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. In these studies, which used rigorous evaluation methods, short-term impacts on cognitive outcomes during the elementary years are clear. In addition, long-term benefits include higher high school graduation rates, job earnings, and rates of home ownership, as well as lower rates of teenage pregnancy, arrests for a felony and incarceration in adolescence and adulthood, and lower rates of depressive symptoms (Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002; Reynolds et al., 2007; Schweinhart, Montie, Xiang, Barnett, Belfield, & Nores, 2005; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). These effects are striking not only because they have endured over the lifetime of the children (in one study the children have been followed through age 40), but because of the substantial economic savings to the community and society that accompany these positive outcomes.

In recent years, evidence from evaluations of state pre-k programs demonstrate that children who have participated in such programs show better academic readiness skills (Lamy, Barnett, & Jung, 2005), as well as improved school attendance and performance, and reduced grade retention (Gilliam & Zigler, 2000). In a study of Oklahoma’s universal pre-k, children who participated in the program showed greater gains in early reading, writing and math skills than their similarly-aged peers without such pre-k experience (Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008).

Yet, despite growing evidence about the importance of early care and education for young children’s development and school success, the vast majority of this research has been conducted with urban and/or suburban populations of children. In fact, very little is known about early care and education settings in rural areas of the United States and how these early contexts might impact rural children’s school readiness. In one exception to this trend, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (which is based on a nationally representative sample of children starting at Kindergarten age) found that rural children are more likely than their urban counter parts to live in poverty (21% vs. 18%). In addition, they are less likely to be in center-based child care, and more likely to be in Head Start (a federal program targeted to low-income families) or cared for by relatives, typically in homes that are not part of any regulated child care system (Grace et al., 2006). Rural children are also 60% more likely to be placed in special education in Kindergarten than are non-rural children. Finally, they are also less likely to be proficient in letter recognition and identifying the beginning sounds of words upon entry to Kindergarten when compared to non-rural children (Grace et al, 2006).

With this national context as a backdrop, the Rural Early Education Project (REEP), reported herein, was a three year, multi-method investigation of a much neglected area of research in New York State and across the nation. REEP is the first research, to our knowledge, that specifically examines early education in rural New York State. Specifically, this work: 1) documents the capacities and trends in the early education system across New York, but with a particular emphasis on rural areas; and 2) contributes to our understanding of the issues, complexities and challenges with the current early care and education system in rural New York.



- 4 -

This report includes a summary of the knowledge gained through the REEP. Quantitative and qualitative data form the basis for four key issues. Each issue is accompanied by policy recommendations that flow from the research, as well as input from our Advisory Board (see page 17). The recommendations:

• Often point to areas of further research and/or potential ideas in need of further exploration for their feasibility as rural policy.

• Typically align with recommendations made by other groups (e.g. the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet, Winning Beginning NY) concerned with early education in New York State.

• Are specifically, but not exclusively, aimed at rural populations.

PRE-K IN NEW YORK STATE

In 1997, the New York State Legislature enacted Universal Pre-Kindergarten for four-year olds as part of a bill to improve education. Funding is administered by the State Education Department (SED) in the form of grants to local school districts. Funding levels for individual districts are based on the foundation formula for state education aid. This formula takes into account, among other things, student needs, wealth of the district, and regional cost variations. Per pre-k pupil funding levels currently range from $2,700 to $5,823.

In its first year of operation, 1998-1999, state grants totaled $67 million allocated to districts based on community wealth and the number of eligible 4-year-olds. Over the next eight years, state expenditures reached $300 million. In the 2007-2008 school year, New York’s program underwent some significant changes. First, a substantial increase in funding ($146 million) was added to the budget, bringing total pre-k funding to $446 million. The additional funding made the program available, for the first time, to all

districts in New York State with the exception of nine school districts (ineligible high school and special act districts.) Second, the UPK program was combined with New York’s Targeted Pre-Kindergarten program (which was established in 1966 and provided pre-k funds for low-income children) to create one pre-k program. Funding levels for the current school year (2008-2009) have been maintained and are currently $451 million.

Pre-k funding provides support for half-day programs (minimum 2 1/2 hours), five days per week, during the school year. Teachers are required to have a BA degree and be certified (unless in a licensed program with different educational requirements and a director with certification on site.) There is no specific curriculum mandated, but any curricula used must be aligned with K-12 standards.

PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS

New York State’s pre-k program is unique (with West Virginia) in its requirement that school districts must subcontract a minimum of 10% of funds to community-based organizations (CBOs). This provision encourages school districts and CBOs, such as child care centers and Head Start programs, to collaborate, often for the first time. In fact, by 2006, 60% of the children in New York’s pre-k program were participating outside the school building in community-based settings (Holcomb, 2006). Benefits to these collaborations include a new appreciation for early childhood in the public school system, as well as more efficient spending of public and private dollars (Lekies, Morrissey, & Cochran, 2005). However, these collaborations also pose challenges based on factors such as the lack of an existing infrastructure in the early childhood community, little understanding of early childhood in the public education system, and the inherent difficulties of blending funding streams to create seamless programming (Holcomb, 2006). In addit ion, these partnerships are challenged by the potential



- 5 -

for competition among CBOs and public schools for teachers, 4-year-old children, and other resources. Work with CBOs that have chosen not to participate in the pre-k program suggests that enrollment of 4-year-old children has decreased and teacher recruitment has become more of a challenge in response to the introduction of New York’s state-funded pre-k program (Morrissey, Lekies, and Cochran,2007).

RESEARCH METHODS

In the three years of this research on early care and pre-k in rural New York, the Rural Early Educat ion Pro jec t (REEP) used both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine early education issues in rural settings. First, using data from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), the New York State Department of Education, and the US Census, we examined the availability of early education, capacity, and patterns across New York State, with a special emphasis on rural school districts and counties.

Following this initial capacity study, we engaged in bi-variate and time-series analyses of state-wide pre-k participation trends from 1997-2008. Specifically, these analyses examined district and community factors related to school district pre-k participation.

Finally, the project also conducted five case studies of rural school districts. Districts were

high-need (4 districts) or average need (1 district), were geographically diverse, varied by experience with implementing pre-k (from a district in the pre-k planning stages to a district with more than 20 years pre-k experience) and varied by experience p a r t n e r i n g w i t h c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d organizations (CBOs). Data were drawn from in-depth interviews with school district administrators, teachers, parents and

community based-program directors on topics such as challenges and successes to implementing pre-k, quality of early education programming, school readiness , and partnerships among local early care and education providers and programs.

This report summarizes findings from each of these three research methods. Based on this work, we provide an overview of the salient ea r l y educa t ion i s sues f ac ing ru ra l communities, the key problems they e n c o u n t e r , a n d a s e t o f p o l i c y recommendations to inform the ongoing discussions in Albany and across the state and nation.

REEP research reports and other relevant documents can be found on the Center’s website at NYSRuralSchools.org

US CensusCounty and District

OCFSFacilityData

SEDDistrict and UPK

DataInterviewsDistrict and Community

Leaders

Data Sources used in REEP Analyses



- 6 -

LIMITED EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES



- 7 -

Problem # 1

The capacity (i.e. the proportion of early care and education slots available per child) of rural communities to serve the early care and educational needs of children under age 5 is less than more urban communities. This capacity is lower even when accounting for community wealth. In other words, there are fewer regulated early care and education slots (ages 0 to 5) available per child in rural areas. Lower capacity is especially true in rural, low-income communities and for children under age three. The use of informal, unregulated child care arrangements (e.g. grandparents caring for grandchildren) is common.

Recommendations

I. Continue research to identify barriers and potential solutions to providing additional capacity for early care and education in rural areas.

II. Eliminate barriers to the creation of new, regulated early education programs through:

A. Financial assistance/incentives to new and existing early care and education programs (including regulated, home-based child care) to support child care businesses in low-populated areas.

B. Financial support to local agencies (e.g. Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies) that recruit and train new providers.

III. Support local efforts to maintain capacity through:

A. Transportation assistance (e.g. support of local public transit systems, gas subsidies for families, additional transportation aid to support pre-k grants.)

B. Increased funding for childcare subsidies so more low-income families can afford the options that are

available.IV.Ensure state-funded pre-k programs coordinate with existing child care programs so that capacity does not decrease further, especially for children under three (see Issue #1, Problem #2).

Issue #1LIMITED EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES

Big Four HN Urb_Sub HN Rural Ave. Need Low Need

Infants (0-1.5 yrs) 16.0% 17.2% 5.8% 10.1% 18.7%

Toddlers (1.5-3 yrs) 31.5% 29.4% 8.8% 17.7% 36.2%

Pre-School (3-4 yrs) 29.7% 44.2% 19.2% 20.6% 34.7%

UPK (4 yrs) 62.0% 40.3% 29.8% 15.2% 8.9%

Family (0-4 yrs) 17.3% 14.8% 12.4% 10.2% 4.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% Proportion of Children Served by Age and Location (2006-7)

**Big Four districts include Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers (does not include NYC schools)



- 8 -

Problem # 2Data indicate that the addition of state-funded pre-k between 1997 and 2007 has not created more early education options in rural settings. This finding suggests that when pre-k is implemented, slots in other early education programs (e.g. those in community-based child care centers) may be reduced. Linked to this finding is the practice by which community child care providers serve a broader age range (i.e., birth to 5) where the fees for 4-year-olds subsidize the cost of the more expensive care for infants and toddlers. When community programs have decreased 4-year-old enrollment and lower revenue (due to loss of 4-year-olds to pre-k), possible outcomes include increased fees for infants and toddlers, closure of centers, and reduced capacity to serve the community.

RecommendationsI. Support local efforts to implement state

funded pre-k in ways that complement existing early education programming. Such supports may include, but are not limited to:

A. Increase subsidies for infant and toddler child care, which is more expensive to provide, to offset CBO financial losses when 4-year-olds participate in free pre-k outside CBOs.

B. Funding for community advisory boards that include representation from school districts, CBOs, and Head Start.

C. Technical assistance to support community building/relationships.

D. Funding for districts to partner with CBOs not yet able/qualified to implement pre-k to prepare them for future RFPs and pre-k expansion.

E. Technical assistance for implementing pre-k in CBOs.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

Proportion of School Districts Offering Pre-K by District Wealth and Locale

Big 4* High Need Urb & Sub High Need Rural Ave. Need Low Need Total*Big Four districts include Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers (does not include NYC schools)



- 9 -

Problem # 3

Low-income rural districts are less likely to operate state-funded pre-k programming when compared to their low-income urban/suburban counterparts. Rural districts without pre-k programming tend to be those with the sparsest populations (fewest children per square mile).

Recommendations

I. Technical assistance (TA) specifically targeted to rural school district needs and challenges. TA may take the form of, but is not limited to:

A. Assistance from state government agencies.

B. Mentoring and support from rural districts with pre-k programs to those without.

II. Provide stable, long-term funding for state pre-k programs so that districts not yet operating pre-k programming can be assured that the program will not need to be eliminated soon after its creation.

III. Encourage school districts to invite partnering CBOs to operate pre-k in school buildings with available space.


“I have eight children in my classroom this year who were in last year’s pre-k within the building and those children are amazing. I mean, what I’ve seen in them compared to the children who didn’t come from the pre-k within the building is just outstanding…they’re to be commended, the two pre-k teachers….what they have done is given [the kids] the background, the nursery rhymes, and the social interaction.” (Kindergarten Teacher)

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

Pre-K Participation by Sparsity in High Need Rural Districts

K-1

2 St

uden

ts/S

quar

e M

ile

No Pre-K Yes Pre-K



- 10 -

COORDINATION ACROSS EARLY EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND PARTNERS



- 11 -

Problem #1

NYS requires that school districts subcontract at least 10% of pre-k funds to CBO partners in the community. This requirement fosters connections between the early care and education and K-12 systems which can lead to more efficient and higher quality programming for young children. However, some rural school districts are challenged to meet the requirement due to the small numbers of potential partners, confusion about the qualifications for community partners, and concerns about how to trust and oversee programs operated by community partners.

Recommendations

I. Support community planning/advisory boards for pre-k that include representation from school districts, CBOs, Head Start, and other local partners.

II. Provide technical assistance for community partnership development and pre-k program oversight issues.

III. Target technical assistance to districts who have received waivers from the 10% subcontract requirement in the past.

Problem #2

Early education, special education and K-12 operate as separate systems with different goals, funding streams, regulation and oversight, making it difficult to create seamless and integrated programming for children.

Recommendations

I. Provide technical assistance for addressing the complexities involved in blending and braiding funding across programs, as well as in meeting standards and regulations from multiple oversight agencies.

II. Provide financial support for programming that crosses systems and encourages program integration including activities such as:

A. Joint professional development training for both early care and education and K-12 activities.

B. Visits by Kindergarten and pre-k teachers to each other’s programs.

C. Joint curriculum planning for pre-k and Kindergarten teachers.

Issue #2COORDINATION ACROSS EARLY EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND PARTNERS

“But the whole idea of the 10%, how do you even begin to administer that? And how do they [CBOs] use it [the money]? And what accountability do they have to the school?”(School District Administrator)



- 12 -

Problem #3

School districts have difficulty connecting and engaging with parents due to the geographic isolation of some families and parents’ own negative experiences in school. These issues challenge schools’ ability to positively interact with families before children begin pre-k or Kindergarten. Such isolation also results in challenges with early identification of children with special needs under the age of four.

Recommendations

I. Provide funding to support transportation (e.g. new bus routes, school district vans, gas subsidies, etc.) so children and parents can more easily access services provided by the school.

II. Provide flexibility in funding to support home visits by school district teachers, early education providers, and special education providers.

III. Provide funding for educating the public about school district services (e.g. radio/tv ads about pre-k availability).

IV. Provide technical assistance and funding to encourage school districts to conduct a yearly community census to identify families before children reach school-age.

Issue #2COORDINATION ACROSS EARLY EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND PARTNERS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1998

-199

9

1999

-200

0

2000

-200

1

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5

2005

-200

6

2006

-200

7

2007

-200

8

Big 4* High Need Urb & Sub High Need Rural Ave. Need Low Need Total

Percent of 4-year-olds in Pre-K Programs by District Wealth and Locale

*Big Four districts include Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers (does not include NYC schools)



- 13 -

TRANSPORTATION



- 14 -

Problem #1

Access to early care and education services is challenging and costly for poor and rural families. Lack of public transportation coupled with greater distance to services adds substantial costs (in dollars and time) for rural families seeking out early care and education.

Recommendations

I. Examine co-sponsored (e.g., county, village, Head Start, healthcare-agency, school district) opportunities to transport children and parents to services or services to homes.

II. Explore provision of gas subsidies for parents needing to travel great distances to bring children to early care and education programming.

III. Explore opportunities to coordinate across municipal and county agencies to improve public transportation.

Problem #2

Relative transportation costs for rural school districts are higher than for more populated areas because of the need to transport over greater distances sometimes with only partially filled buses. Moreover, additional mid-day bus runs are needed to transport half-day pre-k children home or to other service providers.

Recommendations

I. Require school districts to provide transportation to pre-k children and make pre-k children aidable for school district transportation aid.

II. Ensure sufficient transportation funding to cover mid-day bus runs for districts with half-day, pre-k programs and to make accommodations for 3- and 4-year-olds on busses (e.g. car seats, bus monitors).

Issue #3TRANSPORTATION

We felt it was really important to provide transportation as part of the program. We saw that would be a very large barrier to why families wouldn’t be able to participate in the program. So I think that that is a huge barrier and youneed to [provide transportation] in a rural area because we don’t have any public transportation and because our school district is so large [in square miles].(School District Administrator)



- 15 -

PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION



- 16 -

Problem #1The state-funded pre-k program provides funding for 2.5 hours of programming on school days. Parents in some districts have expressed an interest in full-day programming. In addition, elementary school teachers see benefits to full-day programming with 4-year-old children. Full-day programming can also reduce transportation costs by eliminating a mid-day bus run.

RecommendationsI. Provide flexibility in current funding or

additional funding so districts may operate a full-day program if they choose to do so.

II. Provide additional funding to transport children from elementary schools to CBOs to allow full-day, wrap-around programming.

III. Support partnerships with CBOs who are willing to provide state-funded pre-k with wrap around care at their program (see Issue 2, Problem 1).

Problem #2Meeting the higher level staffing requirements for pre-k is difficult in CBOs where salaries and benefits are significantly lower and staff educational requirements are lower.

RecommendationsI. Increase funding for teacher preparation

and loan forgiveness programs so more CBO teachers are able to meet the required pre-k educational training.

II. Increase funding to support CBO staff salaries (for staff who meet required pre-k training) that are equitable with salaries in elementary schools.

III. Explore ways to increase benefits to CBO staff (e.g. CBO access to unions).

Issue #4PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

“The big push now is that they know their numbers and they know their letters and...they can write their name. All of which is very nice coming into Kindergarten because the state has pushed the rubric down so far that what they expect from us now is what used to happen in Kindergarten. But if a child has the social skills and the ability to follow the room’s routine you can teach them. But when they come in and...they’re disruptive and they’re all over the classroom, that to me is not school ready.” (Kindergarten Teacher)



- 17 -

The Rural Early Education Project (REEP) began in 2006 with funding from the Rural Education Advisory Committee which received its funding from the Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. The REEP work is guided by REAC and this Advisory Board who provided input for the research process, interpretation of findings, and policy recommendations.

Moncrieff CochranProfessor EmeritusCornell Early Childhood ProgramFamily Life Development CenterCornell University

Margaret CouturePrincipalSouth Seneca City School District

Ron DoughertyREAC Advisory Board MemberRural Education Advisory Committee

Kathleen DownesPrekindergarten TeacherIthaca City School District

Robert FrawleyDirectorEarly Childhood Comprehensive ServicesHead Start Collaboration Project

Cindy GallagherDirectorEarly Education and Reading InitiativesNY State Department of Education

Stephen HamiltonAssociate Provost for OutreachCornell University

Larry KileyExecutive Director of the Rural Schools Association of New York StateRural Education Advisory Council

Henry RicciutiProfessor Emeritus, Human DevelopmentCornell University

Sage RuckterstahlProgram Services DirectorNYS Child Care Coordinating Council

Karen SchimkePresident and CEOSchuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR REEP

1) Continue to monitor the implementation of pre-k in New York State, especially in times of fiscal stress. Once pre-k programs are established in schools or through subcontracting, how well do they survive budget cuts?

2) Continue to explore the nature of school district/CBO partnerships and arrangements in light of broader community and county collaborations. Fragmented assets and resources are the norm in many rural counties, and any gains in collaboration is likely to be fruitful and more efficient.

3) Assess the impact of pre-k programming on Kindergarten and early grade indicators and outcomes. Models for evaluation of pre-k programs should be developed, ensuring impact on a broad variety of indicators including but far beyond 3rd grade test scores.

4) Explore the relationship between pre-k implementation and long-term special education costs. Does pre-k programming lead to reduced special education participation or more children who participate in special education for longer periods of time?



- 18 -

REFERENCES

Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003) Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. Social Policy Report, XVII, No. 1. Society for Research in Child Development.

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. 2002. Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42-57.

Gilliam, W.S. & Zigler, E.F. (2000). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 441-473.

Gormley, W.T. Phillips, D. & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science, 320, 1723-1724.

Grace, C., Shores, E.F., Zaslow, M., Brown, B., Aufseeser, D., & Bell, L. (2006). Rural disparities in baseline

data of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: A chartbook. (Rural Early Childhood Report No. 3). Mississippi State, MS: National Center for Rural Early Childhood Learning Initiatives, Mississippi State University Early Childhood Institute.

Holcomb, B. (2006). A diverse system delivers for pre-k: Lessons learned in New York State. Washington, DC: Pre-K Now.

Lamy, C., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K. (2005). The effects of Oklahoma’s early childhood four-year-old program on young children’s school readiness. http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/ok.pdf

Lekies, K.S., Morrissey, T.W., & Cochran, M. (2005). Raising all boats: Community-based program as partner in Universal Prekindergarten. Ithaca, NY: The Cornell Early Childhood Program, Cornell University.

Morrissey, T.W., Lekies, K.S., & Cochran, M.M. (2007). Implementing New York's universal pre-kindergarten program: An exploratory study of systemic impacts. Early Education and Development, 18(4), 573-596.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J., Suh-Ruu, O., Robertson, D., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based early childhood intervention: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 161, 730-739.

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. 1997. The High/Scope Perry preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12,117-143.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Sipple, J. W., McCabe, L.A., & Ross-Bernstein, J. (2007). Assessing capacity: Early childhood education in rural New York State. Department of Education, Cornell University.

Sipple, J. W., McCabe, L. A., & Ross-Bernstein, J. (2008, January). The capacity of early care and education in rural New York State. (Research and Policy Brief Series, Issue 13). Community and Rural Development Initiative, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University. Available at http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/upload/01-2008-RPB.pdf

Sipple, J. W., McCabe, L.A., Ross-Bernstein, J., & Casto, H. (2008). Educational services for preschool children in rural New York State: Links among community-based organizations, pre-kindergarten programs, and school districts. Department of Education, Cornell University

Sipple, J. W., McCabe, L.A., Ross-Bernstein, J., & Casto, H. (2008). The movement toward Universal Pre-Kindergarten: 1998-2008 in New York State. Department of Education, Cornell University.

Copies of these studies and other relevant information and documents can be accessed at the website for the NYS Center for Rural Schools www.NYRuralSchools.org

http://www.NYRuralSchools.org

http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/ok.pdf

http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/ok.pdf





- 19 -

- NOTES -



- 20 -

- NOTES -



With Support from the Rural Education Advisory Committee

REAC Membership:Alan Pole (Chair, ’05-’08)District SuperintendentDCMO BOCESNorwich, NY (2007-2008)

Jay Boak (Chair, ’08-’11)District SuperintendentJefferson-Lewis BOCESWatertown, NY

Ronald DoughertyBoard President Broom-Tioga BOCES

Edward EngelBoard Vice President, Genesee Valley BOCES

Lawrence A. KileyExecutive DirectorRural Schools Association of New York StateCornell UniversityIthaca NY

Marjorie McCulloughBoard MemberGenesee Valley BOCES

Max Pfeffer, PhDProfessor and ChairDevelopment SociologyCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

Samuel ShevatFmr. SuperintendentCobleskill-Richmondville CSD

Renee WilliamsAssistant Superintendent Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School DistrictHoneoye Falls, NY

Ex. Officio:Peter ApplebeeAssistant DirectorNYS Division of BudgetAlbany, NY

Ronald BrachExecutive DirectorNYS Legislative Commission on Rural ResourcesAlbany, NY

Deborah CunninghamCoordinator for Educational Management ServicesNYS Education DepartmentAlbany NY

Rural Education Advisory Committee & NYS Center for Rural SchoolsOriginally created by the New York State Legislature to promote rural education pursuant to Chapter 766 of the Laws of 1990 as amended, the Rural Education Advisory Committee (REAC) is comprised of nine members appointed by the Governor, Legislature, Commissioner of Education, and Cornell University, and reflects the diversity of the state’s rural population, geographic areas and broad-based community interests. The Commissioner of Education, or his or her designee, serves as chair of the Committee.

In 2006, REAC wrote a Request for Proposal (RFP; with funding from the bi-partisan Legislative Commission on Rural Resources) to examine the implementation of Universal Pre-K and early care in rural communities across NY State, ages birth through five. The authors of this document were awarded the grant - the first of three one-year grants - the Rural Early Education Project was formed. This report represents a culmination of these three years in a single document outlining our policy recommendations for early care and pre-kindergarten (pre-k) in rural NY.

On September 26th 2008, Governor Paterson signed S-7124/A-10201 creating the New York State Center for Rural Schools, housed at Cornell University. Supported by the Senate, Assembly, Governor and the Bi-Partisan Legislative Commission on Rural Resources, the Center has drawn interest across the state. The Center has begun connecting constituents, building capacity for research and programmatic support to schools, and fostering research on timely and important problems facing rural schools and the communities they serve. By statute, REAC serves as the Advisory Committee for the Center for Rural Schools and John W. Sipple currently serves as its Director. For more information see http://www.NYSRuralSchools.org

http://www.NYSCenterForRuralSchools.org

http://www.NYSCenterForRuralSchools.org

universal pre-kindergarten, early care, and education in ... policy brief.pdf · universal...

Documents