ACCESSING EARLY EDUCATION AND
CARE
1
Access: Who gets in? To what?
For how long? To what end?
2
EEC Mission Delivers a Call to Action:
Provide the foundation that supports all
children in their development as lifelong
learners and contributing members of the
community, and to support families in their
essential work as parents and caregivers.
What is “the foundation” that supports all
children.. and how does it support families?
Department of Early Education and Care Strategic Plan. Putting Children and Families First, 2009
EEC’s Three Year Strategic
Directions Provide a Roadmap…


Create and implement a system to improve and support
quality statewide.
Increase and promote family support,
access and affordability.
Create a workforce system that maintains worker diversity
and provides resources, supports, expectations, and core
competencies that lead to the outcomes we want for
children.
 Create and implement an external and internal
communications strategy that advocates for and conveys
the value of early education and care to all stakeholders and
the general public.
 Build the internal infrastructure to support achieving the
vision.

Do all children have access to
“the foundation?”
How much is enough?
Department of Early Education and Care Strategic Plan. Putting Children and Families First, 2009
Access in Context
20%
7%
Total Capacity
Total Subsidies
100%
5
Total Population
Birth - 13
Of the one million children aged birth – 13 in MA, we have the
capacity to serve 27% in licensed or license exempt sites and
support 7% via all EEC subsidies.
Of our total capacity,
• 62% is in Large Group and School Aged sites,
• 22% in Family Child Care,
• 10% in Public School Pre School
• 3% in Head Start
• 2% in Exempt Public School Out of School Time
• And approximately .3% in Informal Care
EEC: Committed to Fulfilling our Mission in
an Environment of Limited Resources.
Mission: Serve ALL children and All Programs
Communities
with multiple
needs
Federal Funding
Requirements
Target
Resources
Subsidized
children
Programs
that take
subsidies
Low income families.
Educationally at risk children
6
Research
supports
prioritization
Some Key Questions on Access:






What do families and children currently have access to?
Are there differences in the needs of different
demographics?
How much is enough? Can there be too much?
What is the impact of absenteeism on those that have
access?
What is the relationship between access and quality?
What does this say about how EEC should prioritize its
work?
Evidence-based answers to these questions
are only beginning to emerge…
7
Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in Early
Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature
(Aug 2010)
“Q-DOT” a multi-year, federally funded project
examining:
• Is a certain dosage needed before quality can be
linked with child outcomes?
•Do certain thresholds of quality need to be met
before more positive outcomes for children are
seen?
•Do quality and child outcomes depend on features
of quality in relation to specific aspects of
development ?
Resulting in the design of a new study of dosage,
thresholds, and features of quality. Due out in 2012
8
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in
Early Childhood Settings: A Review of the Literature, OPRE 2011-5. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.
Summary of Q DOT Findings to Date:

9
Noted research found that across a period of
years, an increase in the number of spells
that young children spent in care observed to
be of high quality was found to be associated
with a decrease in the gap on achievement
measures associated with the income-to-needs
ratio of the children’s family. Three or more
spells of high quality care virtually eliminated
the gap.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Q-DOT Definition of “Dosage”
In the literature, dosage has been operationalized in
one of two primary ways:
1. the amount or timing of current participation in
early care and education (hours of participation per
day or week, or days of attendance in the current
year) and as
2.
the amount or timing of cumulative participation
in ECE (total hours or days of participation over a
period of years.)
“Both current and total cumulative actual participation
have emerged as potentially of importance,
especially when considered in combination
with quality.”
10
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Q DOT. Key Findings on Dosage
11

An increase in positive cognitive and social emotional
outcomes (and in some studies, decrease in negative
outcomes) when children attend high quality early care
and education program for more time.

Sustained exposure to high quality care has been found
to narrow the gap on measures of achievement
between low income and higher income children.

Greater exposure to center-based care to be associated
with stronger cognitive outcomes in young children.
Results are inconsistent for social outcomes.

A cluster of results point to greater overall participation
in early care and education (irrespective of type and
quality) as associated with less positive social
outcomes in young children. Yet the pattern of results
is not consistent across studies. Negative patterns of
social behavior may be linked to more exposure to
larger size groups of children.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Dosage findings Point to a need for:
12

Further analyses involving the joint examination of dosage
with ECE quality and ECE type.

Better understanding of the extent of exposure to high
quality ECE that may be associated with positive
outcomes in young children. To date, the studies considering
more sustained dosages of high quality have used global
measures of quality.

Future work looking at the specific quality features that
young children most benefit from in sustained dosages.

Future analyses of dosage that moves beyond measures of
program operation (for example, whether a particular program
is offered part day or full day; part year or full year), to
measures of individual children’s actual participation.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). P 18-19
Q-DOT on Thresholds:
13

The central question is whether young children benefit
especially (or only) from participation in early
childhood settings that are at or above a certain
level of quality.

It is only in recent work that researchers have
examined whether the relationship between quality
and child outcomes is nonlinear, and contrasting the
strength of the relationship between quality and child
outcomes in different segments of the quality range….
we see emerging evidence that quality and child
outcomes are associated more strongly in the
higher portions of the quality range.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Q DOT on Quality:

14
The underlying goal in considering
quality features is to discern which
specific aspects of quality would be
of greatest importance, especially at
sufficiently high levels and for sustained
periods, in order to support children’s
positive development. In very recent
work on this issue, a corollary has been
added: which features are most
important to which child outcomes?
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Q- DOT on the Development of QRIS
Nationwide:
15

“greater emphasis is being placed on choosing
measures of quality that reflect both a safe
and positive overall environment as well as an
environment that supports early learning and
provides a strong foundation for academic
achievement…”

“There is a particular focus on the
contribution that higher-quality early care and
education can make to narrowing the gap
in measures of school readiness that
emerge by kindergarten entry.”
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010). P 5.
Q DOT Future Considerations:



16
These findings need to be placed in the
context of research on high quality early
intervention studies.. studies that show
sustained effects.. have involved more than
one year of participation.
This review..underscores the need to more
systematically take into account not only the
level of quality but also the duration of
exposure.
A high priority for future steps will be to work
towards greater understanding of how
dosage and quality interact to influence
the care experiences of young children.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M. (2010).
Turning to data specific to
Massachusetts…
17
2006 Findings of EEA Survey of MA Families

Fully 92% of children receive early education and care from
someone other than a parent at least once a week.

On average, children under age seven receive regular early
education and care from 2.3 providers other than parents or
other guardians.





18
27% receive early education and care from one non-guardian
provider,
27% from two,
20% from three providers,
13% from four or five providers, and
5% regularly receive early education and care from six or more
providers.

Parents use e.c.e. providers an average of 3.9 days each
week, for an average of 27 hours per week.

Single parents use providers more days per week than married
parents—4.37 days, compared to 3.80 days.
Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris Anderson, Opinion Dynamics
Corporation, May 2006
Findings of the 2006 EEA Survey of
Families in MA (Cont.)
19

In selecting early education and care arrangements,
parents indicate that issues of quality are of greater
importance than issues of cost and convenience.

Latino and black parents are more likely than white
parents to say it is important that early education and
care programs prepare children for school, and they are
less likely to think their current arrangements are
doing so.
Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris Anderson, Opinion Dynamics
Corporation, May 2006
National Center for Children in Poverty
Access Related Data (2009)
20
21
22
23
Levels of education for
Massachusetts residents,
ages 25-64
24
Education Level:
%
Less than ninth grade
3.6%
Ninth to 12th grade, no diploma
5.3%
High school graduate (including
equivalency)
24.4%
Some college, no degree
17.0%
Associate degree
8.3%
Bachelor’s degree
24.0%
Graduate or professional degree
17.4%
August 2010 © Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc. (From 2008 American Community Survey, U.S.
Census Bureau Data)
25
26
Considering MA today, we must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
27
Examine relationships between licensed
capacity, availability of subsidies, and
the early education and care needs in
terms of amount, location, and duration
of families.
Analyze the relationship between
availability of care for children and the
number of threats to their success in
school and life.
Continue to build upon the relationship
between access and quality as the QRIS
develops.
Allow developing field of research
inform future design.
Maternal/Child Health Risk and Total Licensed ECE
Capacity:
28
Circle size denotes population 0-5
Total Licensed Capacity, by type, in high
need communities:
29
Total ECE Subsidies, by type, in high need
communities:
30
Level 4 Schools and Population 0-5
31
Circle size denotes population 0-5
Total Subsidies, Level 4 schools and
Community Resources
32
Circle size denotes population 0-5
Total Subsidies and Rates of Absence in
Subsidized Care:
33
Circle size denotes population 0-13
USING WEAVE: EEC Can Compare ECE Capacity,
Subsidized Care, Risk Factors, EEC Grants and
other Community Resources…
We Can SHOW:
•Capacity
34
of all licensed programs, by type and capacity (total and by
age group.)
•License exempt/ Public School
•Head Start/Early Head Start
•Informal Child Care
•Inclusive Programming
•Where subsidized care is in total.
•Where different types of subsidy is: income eligible, DTA, Supportive,
Teen and Homeless
•Subsidy by age of child: inf/todd, prek, school age
•Service need
•ECMH Grantees
•CFCE Grantee sites
•CCR&Rs and Outpost Sites
•Early Intervention
•Homeless Shelters
•Libraries / Museums
•Zoos Aquariums and other community resources
USING WEAVE:
We Can COMPARE: Location and amount of subsidy to risk factors:
•Poverty
•Child maltreatment
•Teen Pregnancy
•Unemployment
•Absenteeism
•Multiple risks (maternal and child health indicators) to all subsidized,
Head Start and Public School care
Total capacity to demographic data on population:
number of children 0-5, 6-12. (is this possible?)
Children with Disabilities
35
And we can ASK:
•Are there gaps between population and capacity? Ages of children and
capacity by age group?
•Is there alignment between location of subsidy and risk factors?
•Is homeless subsidy located where homelessness is greatest?
•If there is a mismatch – should contracts be moved or vouchers be made
more available? What about types of care: ie is Head Start located in
areas of greatest poverty?
Required: Embracing Core Beliefs on
Parent Involvement:
1.
2.
3.
4.
All parents have dreams for their
children and want the best for them
All parents have the capacity to
support their children’s learning
Parents and educators should be equal
partners
Responsibility for building these
partnerships rests primarily with
educators.
Which will result in proven benefits for
families and children.
(Henderson, Mapp, Johnson and Davies)
A Pathway to an Integrated System:
Assumption: Education Begins at Birth.
EEC Mission:
Provide the foundation
that supports all children in
their development as
lifelong learners and
contributing members of the
community, and to support
families in their essential
work as parents and
caregivers.
Indicators:
Access to
Resources in
the
Community
Supports for
parents as
first teachers
Support for
educators to
offer highest
quality care
Access
Interventions:
Research
Best
Practice
Develop
Purchasing
Standards
Develop
Networks/
Systems
Gather
and Share
Data
Outcomes:
Parent
Involvement
Coordinated
Services
Quality
On-Going
Evaluation to
inform future
design
Positive
Child
Outcomes
Decouple
access from
work
requirements
Readiness
for School
Discussion and Questions
38
Sources:

QDOT:

NCCP:

MA Education Levels:

EEA:

Family Involvement: Henderson, Mapp, Johnson and Davies.
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L. and Burchinal, M.
(2010). Quality Dosage, Thresholds, and Features in Early Childhood Settings: A Review of
the Literature, OPRE 2011-5. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Center for Children in Poverty; MA Early Childhood Profiles,
MA Demographic Profiles, MA Family economic Security Profiles, (2009) nccp.org
August 2010 © Lumina Foundation for
Education, Inc. (From 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Data)
For Strategies for Children, Inc, Early Education for All. By John Gorman, Chris
Anderson, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, May 2006 A statewide survey of primary caregivers
of children under age seven living in Massachusetts.
Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family/School Partnerships. 2010

WEAVE Data Sources:




39

Current EEC Data from: eCCIMS, CCIMS, Billing, Grant and Licensing
Databases
MA Library Consortium
National Center for Charitable Statistics, Urban Institute
http://nccs.urban.org/
High Risk Communities: MA HV Needs Assessment, DPH (2010)
US Census (2000)