U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–610 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–832 

EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING: THE STRONG START FOR AMERICA’S 

CHILDREN ACT 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING, 

FOCUSING ON THE ‘‘STRONG START FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN ACT’’ 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DEREK MILLER, Staff Director 

LAUREN MCFERRAN, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions, opening statement ............................................................................... 1 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 5 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 35 

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 42 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

WITNESSES—PANEL I 

Pepper, John E., Jr., Retired Chairman and CEO, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH ........................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Taveras, The Honorable Angel, Mayor of Providence, Providence, RI ................ 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Barnett, W. Steven, Ph.D., Director, National Institute for Early Education 

Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ ......................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Whitehurst, Grover J. (Russ), Ph.D., Director, Brown Center on Education 

Policy, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC ................................................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Tadeo Saenz-Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of Inspire Development 

Centers, Sunnyside, WA and Board Member and CEO Affiliate President of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association ....... 50 

National Indian Head Start Directors Association, Jacki Haight, President ................................................................................................................ 53 

Letter to Senator Casey from Angel Taveras, Mayor, Providence, RI ......... 54 

Response of Steven Barnett to questions of: 

Senator Murray ......................................................................................... 55 

Senator Casey ............................................................................................ 56 

Response of Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst to question of Senator Casey ..... 56 

(III) 

(1) 

EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY EARLY 

LEARNING: THE STRONG START FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN ACT 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Alexander, Murray, Casey, Franken, 

Whitehouse, and Murphy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. 

I want to thank, first of all, all of our witnesses for being with 

us today to examine the Strong Start for America’s Children Act, 

a bill that will greatly expand access to high quality early learning 

experiences for children from birth through kindergarten. 

I introduced this bill last November along with Congressman 

George Miller and Congressman Richard Hanna on the House side. 

Already, it has received broad support from more than a quarter 

of the members of both the Senate and the House. The bill enjoys 

bipartisan support in the House but, unfortunately, is supported on 

only one side of the aisle here in the Senate and, of course, I am 

hopeful that that situation will change through the process of our 

hearings and mark-up. 

This legislation has received support from organizations that you 

would expect to be associated with early childhood bills—early 

childhood advocates, and professionals, and researchers—who have 

dedicated their professional lives to the study of what is developmentally appropriate for children. But Strong Start also has support from retired generals, top business leaders, law enforcement 

organizations, local chambers of commerce, pediatricians, and other 

health professionals. They are all urging us to invest in high quality early learning for very young children. 

As a matter of fact, I remember when we had our press event 

for rolling out the bill, Congressmen Hanna, Miller, and myself, 

and there were others there. There was the Sheriff of Hennepin 

County, MN, whom I did not know, but he had been invited, and 

he was the last speaker, and he was in his sheriff ’s uniform, and 

he introduced himself as the Sheriff of Hennepin County. He said, 

2 

‘‘But more importantly, I am the person you pay later. I am the 

person you pay later if you do not invest in early childhood education.’’ 

In drafting this legislation, we learned from the success of States 

that have developed systems of early childhood development and 

education, particularly for preschool-aged children. We talked to researchers to make sure our proposals have a solid basis in evidence. We talked to organizations representing Governors, and 

school districts, teachers and community-based early learning providers to make sure that what we put together can be successfully 

implemented on the ground. 

Last month, when I was in Iowa for a field hearing on early 

childhood learning, we visited a preschool in Des Moines, the 

Mitchell School. Their staff was well-trained, they had small class 

sizes, and used developmentally appropriate curricula. But here is 

the catch: because of inadequate funding, they could only offer preschool for only 3 hours a day. So people are coming there, dropping 

their kids off, 3 hours later, they had to have somebody come and 

pick them up. Research strongly indicates that a full day of preschool yields far better results for children than just a couple of 

hours. 

On a practical level, as I said, a part-day structure can make it 

tough on families who have to knit together transportation and 

childcare arrangements to make preschool work. So this bill would 

help States, like Iowa and others, to offer full-day programs for 

children so that parents do not have to think about picking up 

their kids just a couple of hours after they have dropped them off. 

Some argue that we have a proliferation of early learning programs and we should determine how to better coordinate them. I 

agree with that, which is why in the Strong Start bill, we ask 

States to coordinate and align their efforts. Others argue that we 

should simply look to the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

that we recently passed as the answer to early childhood education. 

I would like to make it clear that, while I am proud of our efforts 

to reauthorize that longstanding program, the bill that passed the 

Senate made only modest changes to improve a childcare program 

that had not been reauthorized in 18 years. So it is really a bill 

that is 18 years old or more, and we authorized it with modest, 

minor changes. The problem is, we know a lot more today than we 

did 18 years ago. 

The most frustrating argument is that we already invest a significant amount of money in early childhood and that new investments are not needed, but I think reality suggests otherwise. Given 

that only 1 in 6 children eligible for childcare subsidies receive 

them, 1 in 6; fewer than half of children eligible for Head Start receive its services; and fewer than 1 in 20 infants and toddlers eligible for Early Head Start have access to those programs, 1 in 20. 

So to say that we have already invested a significant amount is 

just not so. We can, and should, do more to ensure that young children are given every opportunity to have access to quality early 

learning opportunities. 

Currently, 43 States offer preschool. Indiana was among a few 

States that did not provide State-based support for preschool; but, 

recently, Governor Pence was able to advance a measure to get the 

3 

State started in providing preschool. As Governor Pence put it, 

‘‘This is our shining moment to get out there and say, ‘Yes, we are 

crazy about kids and we want to support these initiatives,’ ’’ and I 

agree with that. 

I am eager to work with any Senator who is willing to be a part 

of this legislative effort. But I just do not think we can wait any 

longer to take action on what, I believe, is one of the most important issues over which this committee has jurisdiction. So accordingly, we will have our hearing. I look forward to having mark-up 

sessions on this legislation next month, May. That is sort of the 

process that we will go through. 

And now, I will yield to Senator Alexander for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to the witnesses. We are glad you are here and appreciate your coming. 

Today’s hearing, as Senator Harking said, is about his proposal, 

which mirrors the President’s proposal. I believe there is a better 

way to do it, and I am developing legislation that would implement 

that, and hope it will be considered when we have our committee 

mark-up next month. 

There is not any question about whether early learning is important. That question is: what is the best, next step? What is the best 

way to do it? And I believe the best way to do it is to provide States 

with the flexibility to use some or all of the more than $22 billion 

in Federal money that we already spend on 45 different early childhood education programs, and allow States to use it in the way 

that best meets their needs. 

We learn a lot from our witnesses such as you are. Earlier on 

this subject, the Louisiana Superintendent of Schools, John White, 

talked about his State’s effort, and what they were doing to provide 

the basic conditions for parents and children to have quality 

choices and access to preschool education. 

He explained the greatest barrier, in his words, to implementing 

the pre-Kindergarten program for children zero through four in 

Louisiana, one that meets the basic conditions, is not necessarily 

funding but, ‘‘The fragmentation of our country’s early childhood 

education system.’’ 

He used Head Start as an example. He said that $120 million of 

Federal funding going to Louisiana annually for Head Start, 

‘‘Skirts State-level input, virtually institutionalizes fragmentation, and guarantees incoherence and access to quality 

for parents, and teachers, and children alike.’’ 

According to the Government Accountability Office, which issued 

its report in 2012, the Federal Government already funds 45 different early childhood and preschool programs, including 33 that 

permit the use of funds to provide support of related services to 

children from birth through age five, and 12 programs where the 

explicit purpose is to provide childhood and preschool or childcare 

services. So a total of 45 programs plus 5 tax provisions that subVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
4 

sidize private expenditures in the area of early childhood and preschool programs. 

This year, Congress appropriated more than $15 billion for the 

12 programs that are explicitly focused on early childhood. That includes $8.6 billion for Head Start; $250 million for Race to the Top; 

$790 million in grants on Disabilities Education Act; $5.3 billion on 

the Child Care and Development Block Grant; and then there is 

another $3 billion a year on early childhood and preschool tax credits and exclusions for employer-provided care. 

One of our witnesses, Dr. Whitehurst, has estimated that when 

you add up the other 33 programs that indirectly support early 

childhood and preschool programs or childcare, the total Federal 

spending in this area is more than $22 billion a year today. That 

is a lot of money. 

That is about the same amount that the U.S. Department of 

Education spends on K through 12 education through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is about the same amount of 

money that I propose we take from our Federal education dollars 

from K through 12 and create a $2,100 scholarship for 11 million 

low-income children. It is a lot of money that we are spending 

today. We are not spending it as well as we could. And in addition, 

States spend another $5 billion on preschool education, according 

to the National Institute for Early Education Research, and add to 

that local and private spending. 

The General Accounting Office says this has created a, ‘‘Fragmentation of effort, some overlap of goals of activities, confusion 

among families and other program users.’’ 

So what should we do? I suggest that what we did with the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant should be a guide. First, the 

program enabled, instead of mandating. It enabled parents to go to 

school or work. It pays for their childcare while they do that. 

Second, it is a voucher. It enables parents to choose that 

childcare. 

Third, it is a grant to States. It gives the States the flexibility 

to say what the Louisiana Superintendent said he wanted to do. 

If that were our guide, what could we do with this $22 billion 

dollars we already spend? Tennessee’s share would be about $440 

million. If given that kind of flexibility, we could increase the number of childcare vouchers from 39,000 to 139,000. Or, we could expand the State-funded voluntary preschool program from 18,000 to 

109,000 children. Or, we could expand Head Start from about 

17,000 3- and 4-year-olds, to 56,000 children. 

What we should not do is fall back into the familiar Washington 

pattern of a grand promise, lots of Federal mandates, and sending 

the bills to Governors to pay in the end. 

The bill that we are talking about today, Senator Harkin’s bill, 

has $27 billion in new funding over 5 years, but it has many expensive Washington mandates which, in effect, create a national school 

board for preschool education. 

I hardly have time to list them all. Washington would decide the 

ages of children to be served; staff qualifications; teacher salaries; 

maximum class sizes; length of the school day; vision, dental, and 

health screenings; nutritious meals; physical activity programs; 

5 

health and safety standards; development-appropriate standards 

and curriculum. All that would be decided here, not locally. 

This is an extremely expensive requirement that would require 

States to expand their activities, and they would need to develop 

and implement performance measures and targets on school readiness, readiness gaps, special education placements, grade retentions, more and more provisions looking like a national school 

board. 

We have millions of children who need this kind of early education. We can do better than create a national school board 

through 45 programs plus one more. And then, send the bill to the 

States. The States would pay only 10 percent of the cost in the first 

year, but that would rise to 50 percent, and then you have got the 

maintenance of effort provision which is already causing States to 

struggle. This is the same Medicaid model that I saw as Governor. 

Medicaid was 8 percent of the State budget when I was Governor; 

today it is 30 percent. 

I suggest that we do have an alternative. That we should take 

the advice of our witnesses, at least some of them, and say that the 

right way to take the next step is to spend the $22 billion Federal 

dollars we are already spending in a way that enables States and 

parents to choose the very best early childhood experience for their 

child. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

I will just introduce our witnesses, and then we will start. I will 

introduce them first, then we will have you make your opening 

statements. 

I want to thank all of you for participating. All of your statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety. I read 

them over last evening. They are great statements, each one of 

them. 

Let me first start by welcoming our first witness, John Pepper. 

Mr. Pepper is the former chairman and CEO of Procter & Gamble. 

Currently, he serves on the advisory board of Ready Nation, an organization of business leaders who work to strengthen the economy 

through proven investments in children. 

Over the past 25 years, Mr. Pepper has devoted himself to early 

childhood and youth development. He was a founder of Every Child 

Succeeds, an organization that provides home visitation to at-risk 

children from birth through age three, and is a cofounder and 

member of the executive committee of the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, one of the Nation’s most successful mentoring and tutoring organizations. Mr. Pepper, thank you for being here. 

And now, I am going to yield to Senator Whitehouse for purposes 

of an introduction. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased 

to be able to introduce a Rhode Island witness to the HELP committee, Hon. Angel Tavares, who is the 37th mayor of our capital 

city, Providence. I have known the mayor for many years now, and 

I am very proud of his service and his dedication to our capital city 

and to the State of Rhode Island. 

6 

Mayor Tavares can personally attest to the importance of Head 

Start and early childhood education. His life journey from Head 

Start through Harvard to becoming the mayor of our capital city 

exemplifies the opportunity that Head Start has provided to millions of children across our country, and thousands of children in 

our home State of Rhode Island. 

I am particularly proud of Providence for many reasons: our diverse neighborhoods, our strong community ties, our historic buildings, our world-class restaurants and academic institutions, our artistic flare. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. 

Providence is a pretty special place and it has been a special 

place in education as well, first under mayor, and now Congressman Cicilline, and then and now under Mayor Tavares. 

In 2012, Mr. Chairman, Providence was 1 of just 14 communities 

across the entire United States to be designated as an all-American 

city by the National League of Cities because of the mayor’s plan 

to ensure all students are reading on grade level by third grade. 

And Providence Talks, which is an early intervention program 

designed to boost vocabulary development for low-income children, 

recently won the $5 million grand prize from the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayors Challenge out of a field of over 300 applicants. 

Today, you will hear a unique perspective about Head Start from 

an elected leader of a major American city who is a living example 

of the benefits of early childhood education. His story is proof that 

a strong start can empower students to pursue and achieve their 

dreams. 

I am pleased to have the chance to introduce Mayor Tavares 

today, and welcome him to our committee. 

And thank you for the privilege of introducing him, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse and Mayor 

Tavares, we welcome you here. Your leadership in Providence has 

been well noted, not only in Rhode Island, but around the country, 

and we thank you for being here to share your experiences, and 

what you have done in Providence, and your own personal background. 

Next, I would like to introduce Dr. Steven Barnett. Dr. Barnett 

is the Board of Governors’ professor of education and director of the 

National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University. His research includes studies on the economics of early care 

and education, including costs and benefits, the long term effects 

of preschool programs on children’s learning and development, and 

the distribution of educational opportunities. 

For several years, Dr. Barnett has led the publication of the 

widely heralded series of State preschool yearbooks, providing annual State-by-State analysis of progress in public pre-K. Dr. 

Barnett, we welcome you also. 

And finally, I would like to welcome Dr. Russ Whitehurst. Dr. 

Whitehurst is the Brown chair in education studies, senior fellow, 

and director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. His work at Brookings focuses on choice and competition in education, teacher effectiveness, accountability, and preschool services. 

7 

Dr. Whitehurst was the first director of the Institute of Education Science, and is widely acknowledged as making important 

contributions in that position to the quality of education research, 

and we welcome you here also, Dr. Whitehurst. 

We will start, Mr. Pepper. As I said, your statements will be 

made part of the record. 

I just want to note that at 10:30 we have a vote and so where 

we are at that time, we will recess for a few minutes while we run 

over. It is just one vote and then we will be back to pick it up. 

Mr. Pepper, please go ahead and proceed as you so desire. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. PEPPER, JR., RETIRED CHAIRMAN 

AND CEO, PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, CINCINNATI, OH 

Mr. PEPPER. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin, Senator 

Alexander, Senator Casey, and Senator Whitehouse. 

I look forward to being here today because I am talking about 

a subject that I, personally feel, has more to do with the future of 

our Nation and our economy than any other single initiative we 

could be talking about. 

I come here at the age of 75 deeply worried about the future of 

our Nation and our continued failure with whatever means are 

needed to provide quality early childhood development for all our 

youngsters, 0 to 5. And if we do not do it pretty soon, we are going 

to have a big problem in this Nation, expanding from what it already is. 

As you heard, I am the former chairman and CEO of P&G, I am 

also the former chairman of the Walt Disney Company, and part 

of the Ready Nation organization. I am finding that business leaders today in larger numbers than I have ever seen before are deeply concerned about scaling what we know works in the area of 

early childhood education. Why? There are a number of reasons 

that you well know, and I will cover them briefly. 

People are worried and getting tired of talking about a growing 

skills gap; an inability to find people who can fill the jobs that need 

to be done today. We have all learned by now that the growth of 

the brain from 0 to 5 is about 90 percent of what happens. We are 

also learning that what happens during that period of time has everything to do with what happens afterwards, and how ready a 

child is to enter kindergarten has predictable consequences whether they are ready to read by the end of the third grade, and that 

has predictable consequences on whether they will dropout. 

We know from a myriad of studies that this pays out and in financial terms, as somebody in business, what I call is the financial 

no-brainer. The only question is how strong is the return on investment? You will see 2 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1. I do not believe the 10 

to 1s, but I have seen enough and gone over enough studies to feel 

that this is something that is rare in business, and that is something with enough evidence that you get behind it and make it 

happen on a scaled basis. 

I would emphasize the concern that I and others have about our 

global position. It is not like we are the only people who know this 

is important and 90 percent of the children in most Western European countries are already receiving, 90 percent, quality early K. 

China has advanced a plan that will have 70 percent of their 3- 

8 

and 4-year-olds by the year 2020 receiving not 1, not 2, but 3 years 

of quality pre-K education. 

This is a new world and unless we take positive action, whatever 

that means may be to get this scaled from where it is today, where 

maybe 1 out of 4, or 1 out of 5 children are getting what they need, 

we have a cancer in this Nation. 

Finally, we are now very encouraged by this. The public is getting it. We have done research studies in southwestern Ohio, we 

have done them nationally, and got 85 percent men and women in 

this country of all parties saying all children should have quality 

pre-K. People are ahead of the legislators. 

Fortunately, and I have studied this, I think we do have a piece 

of legislation in front of us in the Strong Start for America that has 

a great deal that is right about it. We have done a lot of work in 

the business community seeing what we can rally behind. These 

are elements of this bill that we like. 

It clearly recognizes the leadership role of the States and of the 

money needed to go through. And, yes, as Senator Alexander says, 

we have got to coordinate money at the State level so it is efficiently done, including the private sector. 

It is voluntary. It is voluntary for the States. It is voluntary for 

parents. It does not do mandates. It sets reasonable, and this could 

be argued, quality standards. Now, maybe there is something that 

needs to be worked there; I am not the expert. It focuses on children most in need and one thing I love about it is it takes the 

whole of continuum of 0 to 5 and does not bifurcate this into different silos. 

You could say, ‘‘Let the States do it,’’ and many are progressing— 

cities like Denver—but it is my fear that unless there is Federal 

support of the right kind, our progress—despite the valiant effort 

of cash-strapped States—is going to be incremental and far too 

slow to achieve the improvement that we need. 

I am sure that most everyone will agree with the substantive 

points about the need for quality early childhood education, and 

there could still be some debate about how it works, though I think 

the body of evidence is really compelling. But there will be the concerns about the cost. Can we afford all this? Where will we find the 

money? And believe me, I take these concerns seriously, and I do 

not trivialize the response to them. We are talking about a lot of 

money, and we have a big deficit to deal with. 

However, in response to those fiscal concerns, I would say two 

things. First, if I could draw a comparison with my business career, 

Procter & Gamble, I would say we are faced here, as we in business sometimes are, with a transformational investment opportunity; transformational. It is one being demanded, I submit, by 

our consumers, in this case, the public. It is being pursued by our 

competitors, in this case, other Nations, though I hope they are 

also allies. And it is critical for the long-term success, and indeed 

I believe the vaiability, of a company, or in this case our Nation 

and our economy. Furthermore, based on the best conservative estimates I have seen, it pays out. It comes back, I think, at least 2 

to 1. 

That, folks, is an investment which we as executives in a business would take as our responsibility to make. To figure out how 

9 

to make it happen and not do it sometime in the future when we 

have worked through all the things, but do it real fast, because 

every year we pass without doing it is another generation of kids. 

And yes, of course, we need to make it as sound as possible in the 

execution, but we ought to get about that with a sense of urgency. 

One last part on the cost, I think it has to be put in the context 

as all of you would of our total Federal budget. I have got no idea 

how much money will eventually be put behind this. He said $27 

billion over 5 years; that is about $5 billion a year. But if one were 

to say it would end up in the range of $5 to $10 billion per year; 

that would represent a fraction of Federal spending; less than 1 

percent of total discretionary spending; less than one-quarter of 1 

percent of the total Federal budget. 

I do not make light of those numbers. They are easy to use, but 

they are a relative piece of perspective, it seems to me, and I would 

submit in terms of the long-term importance of this to our Nation 

of not having a quarter, 30 percent of our kids growing up not 

ready to do it, and we know that fact. We need to act on what we 

know to be true and that is find a way to get this scaled in the 

next few years so it is not 25 or 30 percent, but it is 80 or 90 percent. 

I hope and pray, having been down here in Washington on this 

subject more than once that the way will be found to get a bipartisan piece of legislation about on this soon and not waiting for 

some whole new presidency or something. And get something done, 

which all of you know, we have got to do, and that is get this quality education development to all of our kids. 

I thank you for letting me express these deeply felt convictions 

and hopes, and I will stop there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pepper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN E. PEPPER, JR. 

SUMMARY

ReadyNation/America’s Edge is an organization that includes dozens of current 

and former CEO’s dedicated to strengthening our companies, our economy and our 

Nation through proven investments in children. Providing quality early development 

and education to our children—especially the most vulnerable—will determine the 

future of our Nation and its economy more than any other initiative we can take. 

Business leaders are deeply worried about the current and growing skills gap— 

an inability to find individuals with the skills our companies now require. We know 

we are not going to close that gap unless we start early to prepare our children for 

academic success, as 90 percent of brain development occurs by age 5. This early 

development determines a child’s readiness for kindergarten, which greatly affects 

their likelihood of future academic success. 

I support the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. I believe the Federal Government has a crucial role to play in jump starting the effort and funding at the 

State and local levels to bring to scale programs that work. We know that high quality early childhood development and education programs are a sound fiscal investment. Based on the most conservative cost estimates available, this investment will 

pay for itself with an ROI of at least 2:1. 

The Act contains specific provisions which business leaders like myself embrace, 

including recognizing the leadership role of the States, providing the flexibility to 

direct funds to multiple delivery systems, setting reasonable and needed quality 

standards, demanding accountability, and maintaining voluntary participation, at 

both the State and the individual level. 

Various polls have consistently shown that the majority of the American public 

support these programs and our international competitors are pursuing similar investments. While the cost of this bill warrants serious consideration, we are faced 

here, as we in business occasionally are, with a ‘‘transformational investment opporVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
10 

tunity.’’ Without such Federal support I fear our progress, despite the valiant effort 

of cash-strapped States, will be far too slow to achieve the improvement in scale we 

need. 

Failing to meet the need for these services has an impact on our global competitiveness. The Strong Start for America’s Children Act is an opportunity to truly 

change the landscape of how our youngest children are educated, with potentially 

far-reaching consequences for the long-term viability of our Nation and its economy. 

I hope you will act in a bi-partisan fashion to advance this legislation so that we 

do develop the more skilled and educated workforce that will fuel our economic 

growth and keep the United States as a leader in our competitive global economy. 

Good morning Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, members of the 

committee and guests. 

Thank you for inviting me here today. I am grateful for this opportunity to 

present my thoughts to you today because I believe that providing quality early care 

and development to our children, especially the most vulnerable, will determine the 

future of our Nation and its economy more than any other initiative we can take. 

I speak to you as the former chairman and CEO of Proctor & Gamble and as a 

member of Ready Nation/America’s Edge, an organization that includes dozens of 

current and former CEO’s dedicated to strengthening our companies, our economy 

and our Nation through proven investments in children. 

Why are business leaders speaking out as never before in support of quality early 

childhood education? There are several reasons: 

1. We are deeply worried about the current and growing skills gap—an 

inability to find individuals with the skills our companies now require. 

Driving these gaps are the rising education requirements for jobs of the future. 

Experts predict that of the 55 million job openings through 2020, 65 percent will 

require postsecondary education. Yet nationwide, 20 percent of our high school students fail to 

even graduate on time and the rates of high school graduation in impoverished 

areas are generally much worse. 

2. We know we are not going to close that gap unless we start early—90 

percent of brain development occurs during the ages 0–5. 

In order for American businesses to compete successfully in a global economy, employees must have the knowledge, skills and abilities to be communicators, collaborators and critical thinkers. Research confirms that the foundation for these social 

and fundamental education skills is developed during a child’s earliest years. 

The first 5 years of life are a unique period of brain development, which lays the 

foundation for life-long learning. The achievement gap starts to open as early as age 

2 or 3, when research shows that low-income children know half as many words as 

higher income children. Children also show a significant achievement gap in math 

by kindergarten entry. And early math skills predict later skills in both math and 

reading. By the time children reach kindergarten, they are not only far behind in 

vocabulary, but on pre-literacy and pre-math skills as well. This disparity can hurt 

our ability to build the science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce 

that our country so urgently needs. 

3. We know that being ready for kindergarten has everything to do with 

what follows and we know that we have proven programs that get kids 

ready. 

A longitudinal research study in my own region of southwest Ohio shows that 86 

percent of kids who were ready for kindergarten were reading on grade level by the 

end of the third grade. Only 59 percent of kids who were not ready for kindergarten 

were reading on grade level. ‘‘So what?’’ someone might ask. Kids not reading on 

grade level by third grade are four times more likely to drop out than those that 

are; and 11 times more likely if they are poor. 

High-quality early childhood education can prepare children to start school ready 

to learn. It can bring student performance up to grade level, boost graduation rates, 

and lead to a greater likelihood of attaining a 4-year degree and being employed 

consistently. Recent studies of high quality State programs demonstrate that early 

childhood education programs—if they are of high enough quality—can deliver solid 

results. 

By the time at-risk children in disadvantaged districts served by New Jersey’s 2- 

year pre-kindergarten program reached the 4th and 5th grades, they were threequarters of an academic year ahead in math, compared to their peers who did not 

attend, and two-thirds of an academic year ahead in literacy. Attending preschool 

also cut the likelihood of being held back in school by 40 percent and the likelihood 

of needing special education services by 31 percent. 

11 

State programs in Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and others also 

showed positive academic gains. These recent studies reinforce long-term studies of 

high-quality early education programs that show impressive education outcomes: 

For example, a long-term study of the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan 

tracked two groups of children in a randomized study. Children who participated 

in the program were 44 percent more likely to graduate from high school. 

Children who participated in the Abecedarian early learning program in North 

Carolina were four times more likely to graduate from a 4-year college and 42 percent more likely to be consistently employed as adults. 

A long-term study of Chicago’s Child-Parent Centers found that participants in 

the pre-K program were 29 percent more likely to have graduated from high school. 

4. We know from myriad studies that high quality early childhood development and education programs are a sound fiscal investment. 

In business, we rarely have the luxury of making an investment decision with as 

much evidence as we have to support the economic value of investing in early childhood development and education. 

Long-term studies show that high-quality early learning programs cut crime, welfare and other societal costs so much that they save money. A study by Steve Aos 

of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found net economic benefits of $22,000 per child served. 

Put bluntly, in my terms, they are a financial no-brainer. The only question is 

‘‘how strong is the ROI?’’ The answer: Two or three or more to one. It is rare that 

we in business have as much evidence on the economic value of an initiative as we 

have on investing in early childhood development and education. 

5. The unmet need for these services and the impact on global competitiveness. 

Other countries are doing far more than we are in supporting the development 

of our youngest. Today, less than half of our 3- and 4-year-olds are in quality preK programs. Yet, some other developed countries are covering 90 percent of their 

children. And it’s not only ‘‘developed’’ countries. China has committed to having 70 

percent of its 3- and 4-year-olds receiving not 1, or 2 but 3 years of pre-K by the 

year 2020. 

The sad truth is that in 2012, more than half of our States served 30 percent or 

fewer of their 4-year-olds. Another 10 States did not even have State pre-school programs. 

Given the strong research, it is easy to see why parents across the country want 

to get their children into high quality pre-school programs. Unfortunately for many, 

high quality pre-K is as out of reach as college tuition. Early learning programs that 

meet high-quality benchmarks cost an average of $9,000 per child, per year, depending on the State. That can be as much as in-State tuition at public universities, 

which is way beyond what many working families can afford for their preschoolers. 

And while policymakers, educators and parents in many States would love to see 

quality pre-K offered to more children, virtually all face financial challenges that are 

making that very difficult. 

We need public investments, from State and Federal sources, to help families afford pre-K. States that have been working hard to do the right thing for their families have been making progress, but it’s such an issue of national interest that it 

needs to be a State and a Federal priority. 

Given what we know about the positive impact of early development and the huge 

gap we have today in providing it, this will be a long-term cancer until we scale 

proven programs to all children in need. 

6. Finally, we are advocating strongly for this because we know the public wants it. 

Various polls have consistently shown that the American public agrees on the importance of all children having the benefit of quality pre-K. A recent poll found more 

than 85 percent think that ensuring that children get a strong start should be a 

national priority. A majority support adding revenue to fund it. 

THE STRONG START FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN ACT (S. 1697)

Fortunately, we have an opportunity before us to truly change the landscape of 

how our youngest children are educated. 

The Strong Start for America’s Children Act, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin, 

would create and fund a State-Federal partnership that would enable States across 

the country to provide high quality pre-K for 4-year-olds from low- and moderateincome families in the Nation. It would also expand access to high-quality early development programs from birth through age 3. 

12 

I am glad the Strong Start for America’s Children Act is in front of you. I believe 

the Federal Government has a crucial role to play in jump starting effort and funding at the State and local levels to scale programs that work. 

I am very pleased that this Act contains specific provisions, which business leaders embrace: 

1. It recognizes the leadership role of the States, providing flexibility to direct 

funds to multiple delivery systems at the local level, including the private sector; 

2. It is voluntary, for the States and for the parents; 

3. It sets reasonable and needed quality standards and it demands accountability; 

4. It focuses on children most in need; and 

5. It provides support for the entire 0–5 development continuum. 

Without such Federal support I fear our progress, despite the valiant effort of 

cash-strapped States, will be far too slow to achieve the improvement in scale we 

need. 

Many people are understandably concerned about the cost of such programs in a 

time when budget cuts are the norm. But failing to invest in children when they 

are very young means a higher cost to society, and business, down the road. 

I take these concerns seriously, and I wouldn’t trivialize a response to them. We 

are talking about a lot of money, and we have a big deficit to deal with. However, 

in response to such fiscal concerns I would say two things. 

First, if I could draw a comparison to my business career, we are faced here, as 

we in business occasionally are, with a transformational investment opportunity. 

It is one being demanded by our consumers (the public), it is being pursued by 

our competitors, and it is critical to the long term success and perhaps very viability 

of the company—or in this case the Nation and its economy. Furthermore, based 

on the most conservative cost estimates available, this investment will pay for itself 

at least 2:1. 

That ladies and gentleman is an investment which we as executives would take 

as our responsibility to make; we would find a way to do it, and do it now—not 

later, obviously being sure that it is as sound as possible in its execution. 

Also, the cost of this program, it seems to me, has to be put in the context of the 

total Federal budget. While I have no idea of the amount of funding that would 

eventually be attached to the programs enabled by his Act, if it were to be, say, in 

the range of $5–$10 billion per year, that would represent a fraction of Federal 

spending—less than 1 percent of total discretionary spending and approximately 

one-quarter of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. 

I respectfully submit that viewed in the perspective of its long-term importance 

to our country, we should not flinch from figuring out how to make it happen. 

CONCLUSION

Business leaders are in good company when it comes to recognizing the value of 

high quality early childhood development and education. Parents, educators, and 

policymakers around the Nation are strongly in support of it. There is also a growing coalition of leaders from the military, law enforcement, and faith communities 

that have joined business leaders in support of providing high quality services in 

this area. 

I support the Strong Start legislation, particularly the increased level of Federal 

resources and ability of States to structure services in a way that makes sense locally, within broad, widely recognized parameters of quality. This program needs to 

be a true partnership between the Federal and State governments. 

I hope you will act in a bi-partisan fashion to advance this legislation so that we 

do develop the more skilled and educated workforce that will fuel our economic 

growth and keep the United States as a leader in our competitive global economy. 

I thank the committee for allowing me to express these deeply felt convictions. 

I believe that providing a quality start for all our children is the moral and social 

and economic issue of our generation. It is altogether clear that it is critical to offsetting the depressing impact of poverty on a child’s ability to fulfill his or her potential. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pepper. I can assure 

you that this committee has always worked in a bipartisan fashion. 

In fact, we are pretty proud of the things that we have done in the 

past couple of years here with both sides, and I am sure that we 

can put our heads together on this effort too. That is why we are 

going to work together to try to get us as much of a bipartisan bill 

13 

as we possibly can. We are going to try our best. We can assure 

you of that. 

Mayor Taveras, welcome to the committee, your leadership is 

well known on this issue. Please proceed. 

Mr. TAVERAS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanking Senator Alexander and Senator Casey, and I would like to say special thank you 

to Senator Whitehouse for the introduction and for his representation of Rhode Island here in the Nation’s capital. 

If I could, Mr. Chair, I would like to deviate for one moment to 

just point out one personal thing and that is that I sit before you 

today as mayor of the city of Providence, RI. My first involvement 

in public service, and certainly with being elected to office, was 

campaigning for a wonderful Senator from Iowa in New Hampshire 

in 1992. 

I thank you for being an example for me and for many, many 

others for years to come. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are all allowed at least one political mistake 

in our lifetime. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANGEL TAVERAS, MAYOR 

OF PROVIDENCE, PROVIDENCE, RI 

Mr. TAVERAS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to really speak 

for the children that this Act is intended to help. 

As has been mentioned, I am a Head Start baby. My parents are 

from the Dominican Republic, did not go to high school, and came 

to New York City in the 1960s looking for a better life. I was born 

in 1970 and raised in Providence, and I was in Head Start because 

my mom knew of the program and was able to put her young child 

in Head Start. It has made a very big difference in my life. 

In fact, when I was a student at Harvard, I spoke to my roommate from Poughkeepsie, NY and he was a Head Start baby. And 

we talked about that and we noticed that a lot of the students, particularly minority students at Harvard that we knew, were all 

Head Start graduates. And at that time, back in the late 1980s, 

early 1990s, we said, ‘‘There must be something about that program.’’ We did not know the research. We did not know the data, 

but we thought it was interesting that so many of us had been involved in Head Start early on. That has been something that has 

influenced me as mayor of the city of Providence and one of the 

reasons I have focused so much on early childhood education. 

Right now in the city of Providence, two-thirds of our kids are 

showing up for kindergarten already behind on national literacy 

benchmarks and we need to change that. That is why in the city, 

I have decided to focus, as Senator Whitehouse mentioned, on the 

early years of life, 0 to 5, as the Chairman has pointed out previously. Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and Bloomberg Philanthropies, we now have a program that is designed to reach all of 

our children in the city of Providence and focusing with parents on 

how important it is to talk to your child. How much is going on in 

the first 5 years of life for your child. How the brain is developing 

and the vocabulary is expanding. 

I am proud to tell you that the program is well underway. We 

have already seen changes, positive changes, in the behavior and 

the development of the children where they are hearing many more 

14 

words, and we know that this is going to help further down the 

road as they enter kindergarten. And so, we are very grateful for 

that opportunity. 

In addition, we are working on pre-K because we know that it 

is the best investment that we can make. We have a pilot program 

in Rhode Island. We are looking to expand it and this type of legislation will help us to do exactly that. It will give us the flexibility 

to expand it and to grow it, to invest the money now early on, so 

that we do not have to pay later as the chairman mentioned earlier. And so, this legislation is extremely important for that as well. 

The last thing that I would say to you is that grade level reading 

and the witness talked about that a little bit earlier; one of the best 

predictors that we have for future success, is whether a child is 

reading at grade level by third grade. We were fortunate enough 

to be an All-America City for Grade-Level Reading 2012. 

There are three components to grade level reading. The first is 

early childhood education, making sure that we expand early childhood opportunities for our children. The second is chronic absenteeism, making sure that children are in school and not chronically 

absent. And the third is summer learning loss and combating that, 

making sure that we have that. 

What you are doing here really has a chance to impact children 

across this country and give them an opportunity to one day sit 

here on this side of the table or there, and talk to others about the 

journey that they have traveled, and open and create opportunities 

to make sure that all of our children have a chance to succeed. 

Thank you, and to the committee for the work that you are 

doing, I look forward to working with you on this. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taveras follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANGEL TAVERAS

Chairman Harkin and Honorable Members of the committee, my name is Angel 

Taveras and I have the honor of serving as the 37th Mayor of the city of Providence, 

RI. It is my distinct pleasure to join you today and provide testimony in support 

of the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership in drafting this legislation and want to 

echo something you said when introducing the bill: ‘‘The investment we make as a 

nation in early learning will pay dividends for generations to come.’’ 

I’m living proof of that statement. Let me begin by sharing with you a little about 

my personal story. I am a proud Head Start graduate. I grew up on the South Side 

of Providence, in publicly subsidized housing, where I was raised by a hardworking 

single mother who worked second shift in Rhode Island factories to support my sister, my brother and me. 

I graduated from the Providence Public School system. I often credit my third 

grade teacher Mrs. Donaldson for encouraging me to pursue my passion of becoming 

an attorney despite having few role models in my life to emulate. Thanks to her 

and the countless other educators who supported me along the way, I attended Harvard University, the Georgetown University Law Center and in 2011 was inaugurated as the first Latino Mayor of the city of Providence. 

I can say with confidence that the success I have enjoyed as an adult would not 

have been possible without the tremendous support I received as a young person 

and specifically the access that I had to quality early education. That is why I am 

so glad to be here today to speak in support of the legislation that is before your 

committee. 

The Strong Start for America’s Children Act would launch a 10-year Federal and 

State partnership designed to expand and improve early learning opportunities for 

America’s youngest learners. Specifically, this legislation would create America’s 

first Federal funding formula for high-quality, full-day pre-kindergarten for 4-yearold children for families earning up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. And 

importantly, this legislation does not sacrifice quality in the name of expanding acVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
15 

cess: participating States must ensure that educators are highly qualified, that student-teacher ratios are low and that instruction is grounded in evidence and developmentally appropriate practices. 

The Chairman and other committee members are aware, but I feel it bears repeating: early childhood education is critically important for the development of our 

young people and the communities in which they live. Studies have demonstrated 

that participation in pre-kindergarten programs help young people develop important cognitive, behavioral and problem-solving skills. Pre-kindergarten graduates 

are more likely to attend college, maintain a full-time job, and have health insurance. According to the Economic Policy Institute, lifetime economic benefits realize 

a return-on-investment of as much as $11 for each dollar invested. It is no surprise, 

therefore, that 89 percent of Americans surveyed say it is important to make early 

education and child care more affordable for working families. 

As Mayor, I have made early childhood learning a top priority for my administration. Our efforts to ensure that every child is reading on grade level by the end of 

third grade have won Providence distinctions from the National Civic League, the 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, America’s Promise Alliance and other civic organizations. 

Last March, I was proud when the city of Providence was named the Grand Prize 

winner in the 2013 Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Mayors Challenge. Our winning initiative, ‘‘Providence Talks,’’ responds directly to research that shows that children 

growing up in low-income households hear up to 30 million fewer words than their 

middle- and high-income peers by their fourth birthday. In Providence, we know 

that approximately two-thirds of our kindergarten registrants arrive behind on national literacy benchmarks on the very first day of school. Thanks to a $5 million 

investment from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Providence is empowering parents and 

caretakers with the tools and resources necessary to understand and strengthen 

their household auditory environments. 

Rhode Island launched its first State-sponsored pre-kindergarten program in 

2009. By most accounts, the program has been a tremendous success: according to 

the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Rhode Island’s State 

pre-kindergarten meets all 10 benchmarks for quality standards. But while Rhode 

Island maintains a high quality program, unfortunately access is severely limited: 

only 1 percent of Rhode Island’s 4-year-olds are enrolled in our State-financed preschool program, compared to highs of 74 percent in Oklahoma and 65 percent in 

Vermont, and a national average of approximately 28 percent of 4-year-olds enrolled 

in State-financed pre-kindergarten programs. 

I know that the sad and simple truth is that if we choose not to make investments 

in the critical years of early development, we will pay for them down the line in 

the forms of remedial instruction, reduced economic productivity and criminal justice costs. 

In conclusion, I urge the committee and all your Senate colleagues to make the 

critical investments in early childhood education as called for in the Strong Start 

for America’s Children Act. Children in Providence, RI, and throughout the Nation 

cannot wait for future leaders to take action: they demand that we take action now 

to ensure that they have access to the same life-changing opportunities that so 

many of us enjoyed as young people. 

On behalf of young people in the city of Providence and in the State of Rhode Island, I strongly encourage the committee’s full support for the Strong Start for 

America’s Children Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee, and I am happy to answer questions from the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mayor. Appreciate that 

and we will look forward to working with you. 

And now, the buzzer has gone off. We do have a vote. I am going 

to wait and hear Dr. Barnett’s testimony, then I will take a break. 

Did you want to go beforehand and then come back and take over 

from me? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would like to hear him. What would you 

like to do? 

The CHAIRMAN. Can we go ahead and do that now before we go? 

Let us do that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Barnett, please proceed. 

16 

STATEMENT OF W. STEVEN BARNETT, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EARLY EDUCATION RESEARCH, 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 

Mr. BARNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

I am pleased to testify before you this morning. Thanks for the 

introduction. I would like to add, as an economist, I have studied 

investments in early learning and development for some 30 years 

now, and did the first benefit cost analyses based on data, actual 

data through adulthood for the period preschool and Abecedarian 

studies which, I am sure, you have heard of. 

Strong Start for America’s Children Act has a strong scientific 

foundation. The first 5 years are a time of rapid development during which good education can significantly strengthen the foundations for later success in school and life. And yet, many American 

children enter school poorly prepared to succeed, in part, because 

few attend good preschools. 

Often, parents earn too much to qualify for public programs, but 

too little to afford high quality private preschool. And many public 

programs are inadequately funded to provide quality, even for 

those children in poverty. 

Funding per child in State preschool programs has been declin- ing. In fact, it is down over $1,000 per pupil in the last decade, and 

access to good preschool remains lowest for those children who 

would benefit the most. 

Comprehensive reviews of the evidence including statistical summaries or meta analyses find that preschool programs can produce 

lasting effects on learning and development. Strong preschools contribute to school and life success including increased achievement 

and educational attainment, decreased behavior problems and 

crime, increased earnings and even better health. 

As preschool is just the first lap in a longer race, strong programs are designed to produce very large initial effects to offset 

diminutions in effect size after school entry. It is a misnomer to 

call this diminution, fadeout. Some effects persist and much of the 

decline is likely due to, first, compensatory efforts by schools for 

children who did not attend preschool. And second, benefits to preschool for whole classes in subsequent grades including the children who did not go to preschool. 

For example, when fewer children enter a kindergarten class 

needing remedial help or disrupting classes, every child in the 

classroom, including those who did not go to preschool, are now in 

control groups. 

Fortunately, some programs produce larger effects than others 

and we know the features of highly effective programs. These include: well-educated, adequately paid teachers focused on explicit 

instruction; small classes and a high teacher-child ratio to increase 

one-on-one and small group time; comprehensive standards for 

learning and teaching with an aligned curriculum; and strong support for teachers through a continuous improvement system that 

includes evaluation, reflection and planning, coaching and supervision. 

Head Start provides one example of the effectiveness of this formula. After the National Impact Study in 2002, Head Start was reVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
17 

formed. Data collected from 2003 to 2009 show these reforms 

worked. Head Start teacher qualifications and language and literacy practices in the classroom improved, so did children’s gains 

in language and literacy. 

New Jersey’s Abbott Preschool Program provides an even stronger proof of the principles embodied in Strong Start. By implementing these principles for all 3- and 4-year-olds in 32 school districts, State policy dramatically raised the quality of participating 

providers; Head Start, private and public school, all working together in the same system. 

The result has been dramatic increase in quality, substantial and 

persistent increases in children’s test scores, most recently measured at Grades 4 and 5, and large reductions in grade repetition 

and special education through Grade 5. These results are similar 

to those produced in the Perry Preschool and other model program 

studies. 

I would like to invite the chair and other members of the committee to visit these programs in New Jersey, see what high quality preschool looks like, see the positive consequences for children, 

families, and communities when all children are offered an excellent preschool education. 

Some 2,000 years ago, a teacher asked in the Sermon on the 

Mount, ‘‘If your child asks you for bread, would any of you give him 

a stone?’’ In America today for preschool children, the answer too 

often is, ‘‘Yes.’’ Our children deserve better. We know the right answer. Let us act accordingly. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. STEVEN BARNETT

SUMMARY

The Strong Start for America’s Children Act has a strong scientific foundation. 

Too many American children enter school poorly prepared to succeed. The first 5 

years are a time of rapid development, when high quality early education could significantly improve school readiness and later success. However, few children have 

access to high-quality preschool, and current public programs have insufficient resources to support quality for even those in lower income families. Funding per child 

in State preschool programs has been moving in the wrong direction, and access to 

high quality preschool is lowest for those who would benefit most. 

Comprehensive reviews of the evidence, including multiple statistical summaries 

of the research findings, demonstrate that preschool programs can produce strong 

and lasting effects on learning and development. These, in turn, contribute to improved school and life success, better health, and other positive adult outcomes, including increased achievement and educational attainment, decreased behavior 

problems and crime, increased earnings, and better health. 

To counter the diminution in effects after school entry preschool programs should 

produce large initial effects. However, it is a misnomer to call this diminution ‘‘fadeout,’’ partly because some effects persist, but also because much of the decline is 

likely due to compensatory efforts by schools for children who did not attend preschool and the ways in which preschool benefits entire classes in subsequent grades 

whether or not they attended preschool. 

Some programs produce larger effects than others, and we know the features of 

highly effective programs. These include well-educated, adequately paid teachers; 

small classes and a high teacher-child ratio; comprehensive standards for learning 

and teaching that are also embodied in the curriculum; and strong support for 

teachers through a continuous improvement system that includes an emphasis on 

evaluation, reflection, and planning with coaching and supervision. 

Head Start is more effective than is generally acknowledged and has been significantly improved since the National randomized trial of children who attended Head 

18 

Start in 2002 that found modest effects. The National Impact Study underestimated 

effects because of the study design, but important lessons can be learned from the 

results of reforms since 2002. Data collected in 2003, 2006, and 2009 show large increases in the size of Head Start children’s language and literacy gains, at the same 

time that the program raised teacher qualifications and improved practices regarding language literacy. 

New Jersey’s Abbott preschool program provides a demonstration proof of the 

principles embodied in Strong Start. By implementing these for all 3- and 4-yearsolds in 32 school districts, State policy dramatically improved the quality of preschool education. The result has been substantial and persistent gains in children’s 

test scores, most recently measured at grades four and five, and large reductions 

in grade repetition and special education through grade five. These results are similar to those produced by model programs with similar characteristics. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I’m pleased to testify before you. 

My name is Steven Barnett. I direct the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University where I am a Board of Governors Professor 

of Education. As a unit of Rutgers University, NIEER conducts, archives, and disseminates research to inform policymaking regarding early childhood care and education. I am an economist, and I have studied investments in early learning and 

development for more than 30 years, including publishing with colleagues the first 

benefit-cost analyses of the economic returns to the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian programs, based on actual data from preschool to adulthood. In addition, I 

am the lead researcher on an annual survey of State preschool policy that has collected data on access, quality standards, and funding for more than 10 years. 

The scientific basis for the Strong Start for America’s Children Act overall is extensive. It is well established that the first 5 years are a time of rapid development 

that is sensitive to a child’s experiences. It is equally well established that many 

young children have less than optimal conditions for their development, with those 

whose parents have the lowest incomes and least education most disadvantaged 

(Barnett & Lamy, 2013; Nores & Barnett, in press). This problem is not limited to 

children in poverty; indeed an unacceptably high percentage of children from middle-income families are poorly prepared to succeed in school and are far too likely 

to fail a grade and to drop out of high school. 

Yet, rigorous studies find that educational programs over the first 5 years can 

meaningfully enhance early learning and development, and thereby produce longterm improvements in school success and social behavior that generate benefits to 

individuals and the broader society (Barnett, 2008, 2011). Positive outcomes found 

in rigorous studies include increased achievement, decreased grade repetition and 

special education, increased educational attainment, decreased behavior problems 

and crime, decreased risky behaviors like teen pregnancy and smoking, and improved health (Barnett, 2008; Campbell, et al., 2014). 

My brief remarks today will be limited to just one part of Strong Start—highquality preschool education for children at ages 3 and 4. Although adequately investing in every year of a child’s life is important, I focus narrowly on current public 

support for such programs, what is known about the effects of high-quality preschool 

education, and what should be done to produce substantive gains for children in 

large-scale public programs. 

Although some might point to a proliferation of public policies supporting preschool education, in fact there are only 3 large sources of support for preschool programs—child care subsidies, including the Food Program; Head Start; and Statefunded pre-K programs (Haskins & Barnett, 2010). Taken together, they are insufficient to support quality preschool education for even those 3- and 4-year-olds below 

200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Only about half of American children attend any kind of preschool program at ages 3 and 4, and for about 30 percent this 

is a publicly supported program (Nores & Barnett, in press). Moreover, most programs that children attend are not high quality. Even families with relatively high 

incomes who purchase private preschool do not, for the most part, find good programs. 

Over the last decade, the only real expansion has been in State-supported preK for 4-year-olds and much of this has been through adoption of Head Start and 

private programs (Nores & Barnett, in press). In some States, that has meant that 

the quality of these programs was substantially improved, but in others it has not. 

Standards are too low and there is far too little money in the system across all programs to support high quality, educationally effective programs (Barnett & Carolan, 

2013). 

19 

This situation is unfortunate and calls for change. Comprehensive reviews of the 

entire literature on preschool program effectiveness, including statistical summaries—often called meta-analysis—find that high-quality preschool programs have 

substantial positive impacts on cognitive development and on a variety of other 

child outcomes, including school success and socio-emotional development. They also 

find that even when cognitive advantages decline after school entry, they do not disappear. As I will explain, it is not accurate to characterize this pattern entirely as 

‘‘fade out.’’ 

The research is clear that if society wishes to produce substantive long-term gains 

for children from preschool education, public policies must support high-quality programs that produce relatively large initial impacts. Therefore, it is important to ask 

what program features are associated with larger gains. A recent comprehensive 

meta-analysis (Camilli, et al., 2010) found that explicit instruction and an emphasis 

on working with children one-on-one and in small groups was associated with larger 

cognitive gains. It also found that providing comprehensive services, such as health 

and family services, was associated with smaller cognitive gains. I interpret this 

finding as indicating that trying to do too much with too little can result in losing 

a focus on strong teaching, which must be at the core of a successful preschool education program. Based on the meta-analysis, moderate improvements in these aspects of program design could greatly enhance long-term program effects. 

Another meta-analysis found that average estimated effects have declined in more 

recent studies (Duncan & Magnusson, 2013). Possible explanations include: older research more often studied intensive model programs; it has become more common 

for control groups to attend another preschool program; and, State funding for quality has declined, potentially weakening public programs. For example, the wellknown Perry Preschool and Abecedarian programs had adult-child ratios of 1 to 6 

or 7 which has not been replicated in public programs. Head Start evaluations have 

included in the control group children who attended State pre-K, which did not exist 

when older Head Start studies were conducted. Perhaps most worrying, NIEER’s 

annual survey of State-funded preschool programs finds that funding per child declined by more than $1,000 over the last decade, and it would be surprising if that 

had not undermined program quality and effectiveness (Barnett & Carolan, 2013). 

Some of the largest State pre-K programs serving the most children, including Florida and Texas, have especially low-quality standards. 

Despite its advantages, meta-analysis is at best a blunt instrument for identifying 

the features of highly effective programs. Another approach is to ask what those 

programs that produced very large long-term gains for children have had in common. Frede (1998) reviewed the model programs that produced large impacts and 

found that they shared a use of reflective teaching practices, a strong emphasis on 

language development, and a school-like discourse pattern including initiation-reply 

evaluation sequences and categorization. These practices, and intensity and continuity of teacher-child interaction, were facilitated by a highly developed curriculum, training and professional development, reasonable ratios, and strong monitoring and supervision. To this can be added levels of teacher qualifications and 

compensation comparable to that in the public schools. All of the programs that 

have been found to produce large long-term gains in rigorous studies have had these 

features. There are no counter-examples in rigorous studies of preschool programs 

with less-educated teachers, large classes, and poor pay producing large long-term 

gains in children’s learning and development. 

I do not mean to suggest by this that current public programs are typically ineffective, or that their benefits do not exceed their costs. First, public preschool programs, almost without exception, are found to improve academic readiness for 

school, sometimes quite a lot. Second, there is substantial evidence of persistent impacts on achievement well beyond school entry, even though these are somewhat 

smaller than short-term impacts. Some slippage between initial and later effects 

should be expected for any preschool program (Barnett, 2011). High quality preschool prepares children to start off well. It does not guarantee that nothing later 

interferes with their progress. In addition, to the extent that schools focus more resources on children who are behind to help them catch up—an emphasis no doubt 

accentuated by No Child Left Behind—most studies of preschool will tend to underestimate lasting effects. 

When interpreting the research, it is important to understand that most studies 

of the effects of preschool programs are not designed to capture the systemic effects 

of preschool education. For example, bad behavior in the classroom is of concern not 

only because it impairs that child’s ability to learn, but also because disruption reduces the learning of all the other children in a class. If preschool leads some children to better behavior in kindergarten, it benefits everyone, including the control 

or comparison group children who did not attend preschool. Similarly, if preschool 

20 

attenders enter kindergarten much better prepared to meet its learning goals, then 

teachers can spend more time and effort on other children who are less well-prepared. 

So what happens when we conduct a large scale randomized trial or other rigorous evaluation comparing children who attend preschool to others in the same 

schools who do not? When children in the study enter kindergarten, the schools 

have a lighter overall load because of the benefits from preschool and they offer 

more compensatory services (on average) to the children who did not attend, helping 

them to catch up over time. It is possible for all of the children in the affected 

schools to have higher achievement, whether or not they went to preschool, and this 

will not be captured at all by the evaluation. It would be a mistake to interpret this 

as preschool’s effects having faded out, when in fact all children converged to a higher level. 

Evidence of compensatory behavior by schools is in fact common, even in studies 

that show persistent cognitive advantages after school entry. It is usual, particularly 

in studies where initial impacts were large, to find lower rates of grade repetition 

and special education for children who go to preschool. This is a significant source 

of cost-savings from preschool, but it is also likely that these additional services received by those who did not go to preschool are successful at helping the comparison 

children in the study catch up, mimicking ‘‘fade out.’’ When initial effects of preschool are relatively modest, or focus on quickly learned skills like letter and number knowledge, compensatory efforts within the classroom may be sufficient to rapidly catch up those who did not go to preschool (of course, this does not mean kindergarten teachers could produce the same results if no children had gone to public 

preschool). 

This type of compensatory behavior in schools is, of course, at best a partial explanation for differences in outcomes across studies and the disappointing results of 

some public programs. As indicated earlier, program features do matter. While the 

Head Start national impact study likely underestimates Head Start’s impacts, it 

still appears that effects are smaller than anyone would want. The Camilli, et al. 

(2010) meta-analysis and other evidence clearly predict such a result. Head Start 

has been given a huge mission and asked to do too much with too little. Teacher 

qualifications and pay were too low and there was too little focus on intentional 

teaching. That is why it is particularly instructive that Head Start reforms over the 

last decade demonstrate that changing such policies can improve outcomes for children. 

Head Start’s Family and Child Experience Surveys (FACES) measured children’s 

learning during a year of Head Start in the 2003, 2006, and 2009 school years. The 

national impact evaluation was conducted on children entering Head Start in the 

2002 school year. FACES 2003 provides the closest FACES measure of how much 

children gained in Head Start at the time of the national impact study. Subsequent 

FACES surveys allow us to see how children’s learning gains changed after the impact study. NIEER analyses of these data reveal that Head Start children made 

greater gains in language and literacy in 2006 and 2009 than in 2003. Language 

and literacy gains are larger for all three major ethnic groups in 2009 compared to 

2003, sometimes two or more times as large. Policy changes in Head Start are likely 

to be behind these results. Additional data from FACES indicate that both the frequency of intentional literacy activities and the percentage of teachers with a 4-year 

college degree had increased by 2009 (Hulsey, et al., 2011). 

The Strong Start for America’s Children Act is designed to support precisely these 

features of effective programs. Prominent among them are: attention to the needs 

and development of the whole child, highly qualified teachers who are adequately 

compensated, reasonable class sizes and ratios, a sufficient amount of preschool provided, and a continuous improvement system. I focus on these features not because 

they are the only features of importance, but because they are the most salient in 

policy debates and have significant implications for cost. (For example, I do not deal 

with parent engagement because everyone agrees that preschool programs should 

engage with parents to support learning and development.) These features matter 

because they greatly facilitate the types of teacher-child interactions and other child 

experiences that most powerfully influence learning and development. 

To be perfectly clear, like the 10 benchmarks for quality standards which NIEER 

uses to compare State preschool standards, the standards set by the Act are minimums that set floors below which programs should not fall, not recommendations 

that optimize chances of success. For example, a maximum class size of 15 is likely 

to lead to larger gains for children than 20 students per class, especially in classes 

with high concentrations of children in poverty, Dual Language Learners, or children with special needs. Many States and localities may be expected to improve 

upon the requirements of the Act as funding permits. 

21 

While academic abilities that directly contribute to achievement are important, 

executive functions, social and emotional development, habits, dispositions, and orientations toward learning, such as curiosity are equally important (Barnett, 2008, 

2011; Diamond, et al., 2007; Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2008). So is the child’s physical development. Clearly this is about more than simply raising test scores. The primary 

reason to attend to a child’s nutritional needs is so that he or she does not go hungry and develops healthy eating habits from an early age, not to raise test scores. 

Better social skills make for better neighbors and a more productive workforce. 

Stronger executive functioning skills keep kids out of trouble and adults out of jail. 

Early learning standards that address all of these domains have been developed and 

adopted by virtually every State, which is a great accomplishment. However, not all 

State preschool programs adequately reflect their standards. 

Initial teacher qualifications provide a foundation for high quality teaching. In 

some State preschool programs, teachers are not even required to have completed 

a 2-year degree to lead a classroom. Based on an analysis of the knowledge and 

skills preschool teachers must have to be highly effective, and a review of the research on teacher effectiveness, a National Resource Council Report concluded that 

every lead teacher in every preschool classroom should have at least a BA degree 

and specialized training in early childhood education (Bowman, Donavan & Burns, 

2000). They and others have concluded that this is a necessary, but not sufficient, 

condition for a highly effective preschool education system. For example, it does no 

good, and might do harm, to require all teachers to have a BA degree without adequate funding to pay teacher salaries consistent with that level of education. And, 

no program feature should be expected to succeed on its own. Not even the best 

teacher, when given too many children and no instructional support from a coach 

or other educational leader—can be expected to succeed. Unsurprisingly, meta-analyses find only very small average effects of a BA degree over other levels of education (which includes teachers working toward the BA, it should be noted). However, this does not negate the evidence that large effects have been produced only 

when this ingredient was in place. 

The logic of supporting small classes and reasonable ratios is obvious. Smaller 

classes and more adults per child permit more one-to-one and small group interactions. Not only are small classes and high ratios of teacher-to-children common 

features of effective programs, but there is also consistent evidence from education 

research generally that smaller class size is associated with greater effectiveness 

(Swanzenbach, 2014). This includes a large randomized trial that finds smaller class 

size produced substantive gains for kindergarten children (Nye, et al., 2000). Most 

recently, a randomized trial of smaller class size in Chicago Public School preschools 

found that smaller class sizes led to greater learning gains even though it did not 

change quality as measured by commonly used observational measures (Francis, 

2014). 

The amount of preschool education provided matters, once the quality of that education has been established. Although half-day programs have produced strong results, a randomized trial has found that an extended day and extended year produced greater learning gains (Robin, Frede, & Barnett, 2006). Preliminary results 

from a more recent randomized trial with Chicago Public Schools also indicate that 

a full-day program produced larger gains than a half-day. Other studies have found 

mixed results. It is possible to use the added time poorly; and, when quality is low 

generally more of the same is unlikely to be of much benefit. Another consideration 

is that when only half-day programs are offered, some children may not participate 

at all, because such programs conflict with their parents’ work schedules. Finally, 

another aspect of duration is the number of years of preschool. None of the programs for which we have evidence of large effects and solid benefit-cost analyses 

were just 1 year of preschool at age 4. 

Teacher qualifications, class size, ratio, duration, and other structural features of 

programs are best thought of as resources that make quality possible, but do not 

by themselves guarantee results. For this reason, it is critical that preschool programs have continuous improvement systems (CIS) that constantly evaluate practices and outcomes; feed this information back to teachers and those who support 

them (supervisors and coaches); and guide practice, professional development, and 

planning. Much like a GPS, a CIS tells everyone from the classroom level on up 

where they are, where the children are, and how to get everyone where they should 

be from there. Ensuring that goals for learning and teaching are met requires a CIS 

infrastructure that articulates these goals, monitors progress toward the goals, provides supervision and coaching, and engages teachers and those who support them 

in a continuous improvement process (Frede, 1998; Mashburn, et al, 2008; Pianta, 

et al., 2009). 

22 

The approach to quality and effectiveness outlined above and supported by Strong 

Start actually works when applied to public programs As the result of a State Supreme Court order in the Abbott v. Burke school finance case, New Jersey has implemented a version of this approach in a public program serving more than 40,000 

3- and 4-year-olds annually. There are clearly articulated standards for learning and 

teaching and evidenced-based curricula. Each classroom of no more than 15 children 

is staffed by certified teacher and an assistant, both receiving strong support and 

supervision, and paid at public school scale. High standards and a continuous improvement system transformed a patchwork of private and public programs into a 

highly effective mixed-delivery system that includes Head Start. Teachers in existing programs were supported to return to school to obtain the appropriate qualifications and then coached to success. Annual quality observations document this transformation. In 1999–2000, less than 15 percent of pre-K classrooms were rated good 

to excellent and nearly 1 in 4 was less than minimal quality. By 2007–8 the vast 

majority of classrooms were rated good to excellent. These are much the same programs (2/3 private) children had been attending previously, with the lower standards and funding that typifies much of American preschool education. 

The consequences for children of this support for quality has been seen in a series 

of studies that found strong initial gains in children’s learning and development, 

with persistent gains now documented through grade five (Barnett, Jung, Youn, & 

Frede, 2013). Substantive gains are found in language arts and literacy, math, and 

science on the State’s standardized tests at fourth and fifth grade. Abbott pre-K also 

reduced grade repetition from 19 percent to 12 percent and special education from 

17 percent to 12 percent through 5th grade. 

Unfortunately, as I documented at the beginning of my testimony few children in 

the United States receive the kind of preschool programs that would be supported 

by the Strong Start Act and that is available in New Jersey’s Abbott program. Moreover, the trend over the past decade has not been good. Although States have made 

some progress in raising standards, and there are exceptions among the States, in 

general, funding per child is inadequate to support high standards and total funding 

is to limited to reach even children in the bottom half of the income distribution, 

much less all children. The Great Recession was particularly damaging to State programs and demonstrated that States have difficulty maintaining quality standards 

during economic downturns, precisely when the opposite should be occurring 

(Barnett & Carolan, 2013). Clearly our Nation’s children would benefit from financial incentives and support that would help States expand access to high quality 

preschool. As I have shown (Barnett, 2013), over time the long-term cost-savings to 

States from providing quality preschool to all children under 200 percent of poverty 

will offset the costs making it easier for States to sustain high quality preschool a 

decade down the line. Federal support will make it much more likely that they 

make the investments in the short-term needed to produce those long-term cost-savings. 

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder and Tempe: Education and Public Interest Center & 

Education Policy Research Unit. 

Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 

975–78. 

Barnett, W. S. (2013). Why expanding access to quality pre-K is sound public policy. 

New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

Barnett, W. S. & Carolan, M. E. (2013). Trends in State Funded Preschool Programs: Survey Findings from 2001–2 to 2011–12. New Brunswick, NJ: National 

Institute for Early Education Research. 

Barnett, W. S. & Lamy, C. (2013). Achievement gaps start early: Preschool can help 

in Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.). Closing the opportunity gap: what America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2012). The state of 

preschool 2012: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute 

for Early Education Research. 

Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Youn, M., & Frede, E., (2013). Abbott Preschool Program 

Longitudinal Effects Study: Fifth Grade Follow-Up. New Brunswick, NJ: National 

Institute for Early Education Research. 

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. National Academies Press. 

23 

Campbell, F., Conti, G., Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Pungello, E., & Pan, 

Y. (2014). Early Childhood Investments Substantially Boost Adult Health. 

Science, 343(6178), 1478–85. 

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620. 

Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program 

improves cognitive control. Science, 318(5855), 1387. 

Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2013). Investing in preschool programs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 109–32. 

Francis, J. (2014). Relating preschool class size to classroom life and student 

achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago and Erikson Institute. 

Frede, E. C. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for children in poverty. 

In W. S. Barnett & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children 

in poverty (pp. 77–98). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 

Haskins, R. & Barnett, W. S. (Eds.) (2010). Investing in Young Children: New Directions in Federal Preschool and Early Childhood Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and National Institute for Early Education Policy. 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. (2008). A mandate for 

playful learning in preschool: Applying the scientific evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Hulsey, L. K., Aikens, N., Kopack, A., West, J., Moiduddin, E., & Tarullo, L. (2011). 

Head Start Children, Families, and Programs: Present and Past Data from 

FACES. OPRE Report 2011–33a. Washington, DC: ACF. 

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom 

quality in pre-kindergarten and children’s development of academic, language and 

social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–49. 

Nores, M. & Barnett, W. S. (in press). Access to High Quality Early Care and Education: Readiness and Opportunity Gaps in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Center 

for Enhancing Early Learning Opportunities (CEELO) & National Institute for 

Early Education Research (NIEER). 

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes 

on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment. 

American Educational Research Journal, 37, 123–51. 

Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. (2009). The effects 

of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with 

the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public 

Interest, 10(2), 49–88. 

Robin, K. B., Frede, E. C., & Barnett, W. S. (2006). Is more better? The effects of 

full-day vs. half-day preschool on early school achievement (NIEER Working 

Paper). New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. 

Schwanzenbach, D. W. (2014). Does class size matter? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado. 

Yoshikawa, H., et al. (2013). Investing in our future: the evidence base on preschool 

education. Society for Research in Children and Foundation for Child Development. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Barnett. 

Why do we not recess now so then we can come back? We will 

have Dr. Whitehurst, and then we will open up for questions and 

discussion. We will recess for about 10 minutes or so; 10–12 minutes. OK. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The committee will resume its sitting. 

And now we turn to Dr. Whitehurst for your testimony. 

Dr. Whitehurst, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GROVER J. (RUSS) WHITEHURST, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, BROWN CENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY, BROOKINGS 

INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

testify, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander. 

24 

I bring to my testimony 30 years of experience in my first career, 

which was as a developmental psychologist developing programs 

for preschool centers. And in that role, I spent a lot of time in 

childcare facilities that were under the sway of Federal legislation. 

I saw good programs. I saw bad programs. I saw parents wellserved. I saw parents terribly served. I saw programs I would like 

to have my kids in and others that made me cry at the end of the 

day on the way home. So I care about this area and I am very 

pleased that the Senate is focused on it. 

In testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee in February, and in a number of reports that I have released at Brookings over the past year, I have addressed specifics 

of the research literature on pre-K programs. The gist of my conclusions is that the research is much more mixed in quality and 

equivocal in implications for public policy than advocates for universal pre-K would lead you to believe. 

My approach to examining the research has been to focus on the 

studies that are central to the debate. But even a nonselective 

reading of the research raises questions about the degree to which 

transformative outcomes are predictably achieved by pre-K programs. 

Examination results from 84 studies of pre-K programs over the 

last 50 years finds highly variable results ranging from moderately 

negative to hugely positive with the average effect of recent programs being small, even before the predictable fadeout of effects 

once children enter school. 

I believe the appropriate conclusion from existing research is 

that some pre-K programs work for some children under some circumstances. But which programs, for whom, under what circumstances? I do not know and I do not think anyone else does on 

the basis of strong research. 

Most critical design decisions that face early childhood policymakers have no evidence associated with them. Examples include 

questions such as the value of investing in parenting programs as 

an adjunct to center-based care, whether an investment in a 

multiyear program has a higher payoff than an investment in a 

program just for 4-year-olds, and how to best hold providers accountable for delivering a quality service. 

Further complicating the question of what the Federal Government should require of States, and States should require program 

providers is the role to give to parents in deciding what they want 

for their young children. 

Wherever the dividing line should lie between the authority of 

parents versus the State in determining the content of a child’s 

education. I hope you will agree with me that the line shifts toward 

parents in the period in a child’s life prior to the beginning of formal education. 

Based on the few things we know, an appreciation of how much 

we do not know, and deference to parents in deciding what kind 

of out-of-home care they want for their young children, I identify 

five desirable elements of Federal pre-K policy. 

First, target expenditures on families with financial need. Second, devolve administration to States with as few strings attached 

as possible. Third, allow parents the maximum amount of choice of 

25 

childcare provider consistent with the laws and regulations of the 

State in which they live. Fourth, invest in data systems and research that will inform State actions and make it easier for parents 

to shop. And finally, conceptualize and evaluate pre-K expenditures 

as family supports rather than construing them exclusively as 

about school readiness. 

Many of these elements are incorporated in this committee’s bipartisan effort that led to the Senate’s passage of the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. This legislation provides for parental choice in early childhood services, allows States 

to administer block grant funds with substantial flexibility, targets 

expenditures on low-income families, and requires States to fulfill 

fundamental responsibilities with respect to the quality and continuity of services. 

Federal support for childcare for poor families, if designed along 

the lines of the CCDBG template would enable parents to work, 

live productive lives, and raise their children in keeping with their 

values. It would allow States to innovate and parents to take advantage of information on the childcare services available to them. 

This time of high interest in the expansion of Government support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the Federal 

Government to rethink its investments. Do not provide 45 different 

programs with many strings attached; provide one with maximum 

flexibility. Proceed with a humble appreciation of how much we do 

not know and the intent to learn as we go. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehurst follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GROVER J. (RUSS) WHITEHURST, PH.D. 

SUMMARY

In testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee in February 

and in a number of reports I have released at Brookings over the past year I’ve addressed specifics of the research literature on pre-K programs. I’ve reported that research is much more mixed in quality and equivocal in findings than advocates of 

universal pre-K would lead you to believe. The oft trumpeted claim that we should 

expect $7 in taxpayer savings for every $1 invested in pre-K is a fanciful extrapolation to today’s circumstances of a flawed study of a program that served a little 

more than 50 children 50 years ago in a small town in Michigan. 

Even a non-selective reading of the research literature raises questions about the 

degree to which transformative outcomes are regularly achieved by pre-K programs. 

An examination of results from 84 studies of pre-K programs over the last 50 years 

finds highly variable results, ranging from moderately negative to hugely positive, 

with the average effect from recent studies being small. A reasonable conclusion is 

that some pre-K programs work for some children in some circumstances. But, what 

programs for whom under what circumstances? We don’t know. Most critical design 

decisions that face early childhood policymakers have no evidence or even much in 

the way of practical experience associated with them. Examples include questions 

such as the value of investing in parenting, whether multi-year programs are more 

effective, and what type of curriculum is best for which children. 

Further complicating the matter is the role to give to parents in deciding what 

they want for their young children. Wherever people think the dividing line should 

lie between the authority of parents vs. the authority of the State in determining 

the content of a child’s education, nearly everyone agrees that the line shifts toward 

parents in the period in a child’s life prior to the beginning of formal education. 

Based on what we know and a humble appreciation on how much we don’t know, 

desirable elements of Federal pre-K policy include: (a) targeting expenditures on 

families with financial need, (b) devolving administration to the States, (c) allowing 

parents the maximum amount of choice consistent with the laws and regulations of 

the State in which they live, and (d) investing in data systems and research that 

will inform State actions and parental choice. 

26 

Much of what I see as desirable elements of Federal policy on early childcare and 

services has been incorporated in this committee’s bipartisan effort that led to the 

Senate’s passage of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (S. 

1086). This legislation provides for parental choice in early childhood services, allows States to administer block grant funds with substantial flexibility, targets expenditures on low-income families, and requires States to fulfill fundamental responsibilities with respect to the quality and continuity of services. 

Federal support for childcare for poor families, if designed along the lines of the 

template in the CCDBG reauthorization, would enable parents to work, live productive lives, and raise their children in keeping with their values. It would allow 

States to innovate and parents to take advantage of information on the child care 

services available to them. This time of high interest in the expansion of government support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the Federal Government to rethink its investments. Don’t provide 45 different programs with many 

strings attached. Provide one. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the committee, 

my name is Russ Whitehurst. I am director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, where I am a senior fellow and hold the Herman 

and George R. Brown Chair in Education Studies. Thank you for inviting me to offer 

testimony. 

I bring to my testimony 30 years of experience in my first career as a developmental psychologist conducting research on programs to enhance the language and 

cognitive development of young children. In that role I spent a lot of time in 

childcare facilities that were under the sway of Federal legislation, including Head 

Start, Even Start, and subsidized daycare centers. My testimony is also informed 

by my career since that time, first as the founding director of the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education, and subsequently as an 

education policy expert at Brookings. 

In testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee in February 

and in a number of reports I have released at Brookings over the past year I’ve addressed specifics of the research literature on pre-K programs, doing my best to objectively characterize the quality of studies that have received public attention and 

trying to make sense of what the findings mean for public policy. I’m not going to 

repeat myself on those issues today, unless something comes up in questioning. I’ll 

simply say that the research is much more mixed in quality and equivocal in findings than advocates of universal pre-K would lead you to believe. The oft trumpeted 

claim that we should expect $7 in taxpayer savings for every $1 invested in preK is a fanciful extrapolation to today’s circumstances of a flawed study of a program 

that served a little more than 50 children 50 years ago in a small town in Michigan. 

It is as if someone did a study in the 1960s showing that a new Federal post office 

built in a small town somewhere increased business activity in that town, and on 

that basis argue that building new post offices across the Nation today will spur 

the economy. 

Today I will focus not on specific research studies but on how preschool services 

ought to be supported by the Federal Government. The takeaway from my testimony is that we know very little from research, or even from practical experience, 

that can inform the dozens of important decisions that should be on the table for 

government officials responsible for the design and implementation of early childhood programs and services. In that light, as well as in deference to parental prerogatives, Federal policymakers should design systems that afford variety in the nature 

of the preschool programs that are offered to parents and that can adapt with experience. 

The Federal Government presently spends over $22 billion a year on programs to 

support early learning and childcare through 45 different programs and 5 tax provisions. To this the Obama administrative has proposed adding another $15 billion 

a year in Federal spending and State matching funds in order to create universal 

free pre-K for 4-year-olds. Parents spend heavily as well for unsubsidized out-ofhome care for their young children. 

Most of the present and newly proposed taxpayer expenditure is based on the assumption that children will learn transformative skills from early center-based care 

that will eliminate gaps in school readiness between more and less advantaged children, enable all children to get more out of every additional investment in their education, and generate socio-emotional dispositions that pay dividends in later life, for 

example, by reducing criminality or enhancing performance in the workplace. 

But even a non-selective reading of the pre-K research literature research raises 

questions about the degree to which such transformative outcomes are regularly 

27 

achieved. The following figure is based on data provided in the appendix to a 2013 

article by Duncan and Magnuson (Investing in Preschool Programs, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27, 2, 109–32). The authors review 84 studies on the impact of 

early childhood programs published between 1960 and 2007, including all the studies they could find that had a measure of children’s cognition or achievement collected close to the end of the program treatment period, and, at the least, had a 

comparison group demographically similar to the treatment group. 

Each data point in the scatter plot represents the mean achievement test outcome 

at the end of the program period for a single pre-K program. The program year is 

plotted on the horizontal axis, with new programs toward the right. The vertical 

axis represents the size of the measured effect, i.e., the difference between the program group outcomes and the control group outcomes, calculated as an effect size. 

An effect size of zero means that there is no difference between the treatment and 

control group. Negative numbers favor the control group whereas positive numbers 

favor the pre-K treatment group. A rule-of-thumb for judging effect sizes is that an 

effect size of 0.20 to 0.30 might be considered ‘‘small’’, around 0.50 ‘‘medium’’, and 

0.80 to infinity ‘‘large’’. The solid line represents the best linear fit to the data 

points. 

Keeping in mind that the program effects represented in the figure do not include 

followup data from elementary school, where all longitudinal research indicates 

fade-out, and that the studies are overwhelmingly of programs serving disadvantaged children, for whom impacts are largest, two conclusions seem undeniable: The 

first is that the effects produced by pre-K programs as found in the 84 studies represented in the figure are highly variable, ranging from moderately negative to 

hugely positive. This means that any single preschool program is not a sure bet to 

produce positive effects even at the end of the pre-K year. The second conclusion 

is that older programs produced much larger effects than more recent programs— 

the trend line begins at 0.50, a medium effect, and ends at 0.14, a small effect. 

The diminishing effect size across years is probably best understood as resulting 

from changes in the home environments of children from low-income families. For 

example, the percentage of children from families in the bottom quintile of income 

who have mothers who finish high school roughly doubled in the timeframe covered 

in the figure while the percentage with postsecondary education quintupled. To the 

extent that preschool programs are intended, in part, to compensate for deficiencies 

in parent-child interactions in the home that are associated with parental education, 

improvements in parental education mean that the control group of children in a 

present day study of a preschool intervention is likely to perform much better than 


87627-1.eps
28 

untreated children from 40 years ago. Thus the difference in outcomes between the 

two groups in the present day study, the effect size, is smaller. 

Is it reasonable to conclude from the data in the figure as well as the more detailed examination that I have given to high profile studies with more rigorous 

methods that the return on investment from any particular early childhood program 

is likely to be high, e.g., 7 to 1? I believe it would be unreasonable to draw such 

a conclusion—again the effects are all over the place, with many at zero or below. 

Is it reasonable to conclude from this and other research that some early childhood 

programs can produce worthwhile benefits for some participants? I believe it is quite 

reasonable to draw that conclusion—many of the effects are positive. 

To sum up, we know that some pre-K programs work for some children in some 

circumstances. But, what programs for whom under what circumstances? That’s 

where the empirical sledding gets rough. 

Consider the following program design decisions that are available to policymakers with regard to early childhood programs: 

• targeted vs. universal; 

• multiyear vs. single year; 

• significant parent component or not; 

• year-round or school-year calendar; 

• full- or part-day; 

• wrap around or school-like hours; 

• teacher certification or not; 

• provider licensure requirement or not; 

• teacher college degree or not; 

• school districts as providers or any sponsor meeting requirements; 

• parental choice or zip code assignment; 

• market-based or regulatory accountability; 

• assessment of children to monitor program quality and provide consumer information or not; 

• align pre-K curriculum with Common Core, or focus on social/emotional development, or let a thousand flowers bloom; 

• sliding scale fee structure or strict income eligibility for a free service; 

• financial incentives and career ladders to highly effective early childhood teachers or not; 

• family day care included or only center-based programs; 

• spending levels per student per program type; 

• single State system with coordinated Federal and State funding streams or separate systems serving different populations with different needs; 

• early childhood programs as a seamless part of the education system or serving 

broader and different goals and needs; 

• enable non-traditional early childhood teachers, including Teach for Americatype recent college graduates and educated retirees, or focus on upgrading the traditional early childhood workforce; 

• financial support and training to qualifying parents to care for their children 

at home or focus on out-of-home care; 

• provide digital materials intended to strengthen the role of parents as their 

children’s first teachers or not; 

• identify and disseminate evidence-based curriculum materials and professional 

development activities or leave this responsibility to others; and 

• expand State k–12 student-level database to include children receiving early 

childhood services or not. 

Only a couple of these design choices (targeted vs. universal and requirements for 

teacher credentials) are informed by decent research evidence. For all the rest, there 

is almost no relevant evidence, much less anything from credible research. Further, 

the list of important public policy design questions could be much longer, and most 

items in the present list subsume a set of subordinate questions for which there is 

also little or no evidence. For example, the decision to provide accountability 

through regulatory oversight of the performance of individual early childhood centers generates dozens of unanswered questions about how to do so. 

In short, we know very little about nearly all of the decisions that policymakers 

with a relative clean slate of early childhood options ought to have on the table— 

and for many States it is a nearly clean slate. 

Further complicating the matter is the role to give to parents in deciding what 

they want for their young children. Wherever people think the dividing line should 

lie between the authority of parents vs. the authority of the State in determining 

the content of a child’s education, nearly everyone agrees that the line shifts toward 

parents in the period in a child’s life prior to the beginning of formal education. 

29 

Some parents will be as intent on homeschooling their preschoolers as they are their 

school-aged children. Some will want center-based care for their young children that 

has an explicit moral or religious grounding whereas others will take exception to 

that. Some will want a curriculum that has a pre-academic emphasis, e.g., building 

math skills, whereas others will want a play-focused program, and still others will 

want a program that develops social relationships. Some will want a part-day program whereas others will want or need full-day. Some will prefer a family setting 

for out-of-home care whereas others will want their child in a classroom at a center. 

Some will want or need out-of-home care for their toddler whereas others will not 

want their child to be in a center until he or she is at least 4 years of age. Some 

will want their children to experience a diverse set of classmates whereas others 

will want their children to be with children with similar backgrounds. 

DESIRABLE ELEMENTS OF FEDERAL PRE-K POLICY

1. Target families with financial need 

There is no compelling reason that flows from the long-term well-being of children 

for the Federal Government to expend resources on universal pre-K programs. Existing research demonstrates that higher income parents receive a disproportionate 

financial benefit from universal programs because they shift their preschoolers from 

care they would have paid for themselves to care that is paid for by the taxpayer. 

At the same time, children of higher income, educated parents benefit far less from 

pre-school, if they benefit at all, than children from disadvantaged programs. If the 

goal of Federal or State programs is to create access, increase participation, and decrease gaps in school readiness, covering the childcare expenses of families that can 

afford to cover their own costs is counter-productive. Federal expenditures should 

be targeted on families that cannot otherwise afford childcare. 

2. Devolve administration to the States 

States have critical roles to play in administering Federal funds for early childhood services in: (a) establishing licensing and oversight processes that rid the 

childcare market of service providers that do harm or commit fraud, (b) collecting 

information on the quality and effectiveness of center-based childcare providers and 

assuring that parents avail themselves of it, and (c) designing a system of early 

childhood services that reflects the preferences of the citizens of the State. The Federal Government currently operates 45 programs that support early child care and 

related services to children from birth through age 5, as well as five tax provisions 

that subsidize private expenditures in this area. Each program has its own requirements and each represents a challenge to individual States that are trying to design 

and implement programs. It would be far better, in my view, for the Federal Government to provide funding to States to support early child care on a formula basis, 

requiring that States use the money to assure access for lower income families and 

to carry out the three critical roles described above. 

3. Allow parents the maximum amount of choice consistent with the laws and regulations of the State in which they live 

Whatever the reasons for the prevalent practice of assigning school-aged children 

to the public school closest to their place of residence, our lack of knowledge of what 

works best for whom under what circumstances in preschool as well as the deference we should afford parents in how they want to rear and educate their young 

children argue for giving States the maximum leeway to support parent choice in 

early childcare. Some States will fully embrace choice by providing families a 

means-tested voucher to be used as they see fit to obtain early childhood services 

from any provider the State licenses. Others will want a system that is more constrained for parents, e.g., by funneling funds through school districts. That is the 

nature of our Federal system. The variety in the types of services that will emerge 

between and within States if the Federal Government allows States maximum flexibility in their use of Federal funds for early childcare is desirable both in terms of 

our knowledge of what works as well as our ability to learn as we go. 

4. Invest in the data systems and research that will inform State actions and parental choice 

Anyone who tries to map the landscape of early childhood services in the United 

States quickly understands how little reliable data exist on who is served, by whom, 

with what forms of funding. Other than a couple of Federal longitudinal studies and 

questions that the Census Bureau asks as part of the Current Population Survey, 

even simple descriptive information is absent or questionable. This affects both policymakers and parents. The Federal Government should require States receiving 

Federal funds for early childcare and related services to extend their statewide lonVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
30 

gitudinal data bases to include preschoolers. Without being able to follow children 

as they move through the system, everyone interested in improving quality and access is flying blind, including parents who need to make informed choices with respect to their own children. 

The Federal Government should expand its investment in the science of early 

childhood education. And when knowledge is produced from that investment that 

should find its way into practice, the Federal Government should provide incentives 

for uptake by the States. As an example, federally sponsored research has demonstrated that teacher credentials bear scant if any relationship to teacher effectiveness, and that the teacher to which a child is assigned is far more important than 

the aggregate quality of the school the child attends. In light of this knowledge, the 

Federal Government could provide competitive grants for States to measure on-thejob performance by teachers and caregivers in early childhood settings, and to use 

that information to establish policies that encourage good teachers to stay in the 

classroom. 

A WAY FORWARD

Much of what I see as desirable elements of Federal policy on early childcare and 

services has been incorporated in this committee’s bipartisan effort that led to the 

Senate’s passage by a vote of 96–2 of the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

Act of 2014 (S. 1086). This legislation provides for parental choice in early childhood 

services, allows States to administer block grant funds with substantial flexibility, 

targets expenditures on low-income families, and requires States to fulfill fundamental responsibilities with respect to the quality and continuity of services. 

Federal support for childcare for poor families, if designed along the lines of the 

template in the CCDBG reauthorization, would enable parents to work, live productive lives, and raise their children in keeping with their values. It would allow 

States to innovate and parents to take advantage of information on the child care 

services available to them. This time of high interest in the expansion of government support of early childhood programs is an ideal one for the Federal Government to rethink its investments. Don’t provide 45 different programs with many 

strings attached. Provide one. Design it so that it places key responsibilities with 

States and parents and has a structure that generates continuous feedback and opportunities for improvement. We need systems and services that help children learn 

and that, likewise, can adapt to experience. We don’t know what works best, but 

that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act. 

Early childhood is a period of life for which evolutionary processes have endowed 

the human species with an absolute need for extended social dependency and opportunities to learn from caretakers, and that brain science indicates is our most active 

period of neurological development. The very factors that make early childhood a 

critical period for children also make it a challenging one for parents, particular for 

those who do not have the financial means to purchase help when they need outof-home care for their children. I strongly support taxpayer expenditure on these 

young children and their families. But a shared commitment to public investment 

in lower income families with young children doesn’t mean we know which programs that are intended to help will do so at all, much less in the most productive 

way. We should not be hobbled by consensus views that arise largely in an evidencefree zone grounded on little more than high hopes. We need to acknowledge how 

much we don’t know and proceed in a humble spirit of discovery. If we are prepared 

to learn and adapt as we go, the prospects are exciting. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Whitehurst. Thank 

you all for being here. We will begin a series of 5-minute questions. 

First I will start with just Mr. Pepper. I do not know if you are 

familiar with this. I always like to bring this up every time we 

start talking about early childhood. 

Here is something called ‘‘The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision 

for Childhood Development and Education.’’ It was put out by the 

Committee for Economic Development. It came out in 1991, and it 

was a group of business leaders in America who had been pulled 

together in the 1980s to make recommendations for what we needed to do in education. Not early, just education. 

They met for several years. It was under the leadership of James 

Renier, the chairman and CEO of Honeywell. And if you look at all 

the lists, it is all—I did not see if Procter & Gamble is on here, 

31 

but a lot of the big CEO’s, like you, from around the country— 

about what we need to do in education. 

I remember being delivered this book in 1991 in my capacity 

then as the chair of the appropriations subcommittee. And so, here 

is all these big business leaders meeting for a number of years to 

see what we needed to do in education in America for economic 

growth and development. Guess what they said? Put it in early 

education. 1991. I have been waving this book for 23 years now. 

Then in 2010, 20 years later, I was invited down to the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce, just downtown here, for their rollout of 

their prescription for what we needed to do at education, ‘‘Why 

Business Should Support Early Childhood Education;’’ 20 years 

apart. The business community gets it. 

Here we have been told by the business community all along, you 

have got to put more in early childhood education. And somehow, 

I made sort of the comment a couple of times, it seems to me that 

here we have been given all this information over all this period 

of time, and maybe it is not the kids who are not learning much 

in America. Maybe it is the adults who are not learning very much 

in America in terms of what we need to do. 

I thank you, Mr. Pepper, for your advocacy, your leadership in 

this area, and the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who have 

been supporting this. 

But why do you think, I would just ask you why is it, after all 

of this period of time, we just cannot seem to invest the money we 

need to in early childhood education? 

Mr. PEPPER. Let me address that. I have had many young people 

who have come into this much later than I did, ask that very question. Why has it taken so long? Why is it? 

And, of course, I am reminded that my first involvement came 

with Governor Voinovich when he was Governor of Ohio, and I was 

on his education committee back in the mid-1980s, and he had no 

stronger mandate, I do not think. He certainly was conscious of the 

budget as well. You know him. But he wanted Head Start. He 

wanted higher enrollment of the kids in Ohio in Head Start than 

any other State and he had it at a point in time, and he was really 

proud of it. 

But why has it taken so long? I think there are several reasons. 

One is the voice of the people most affected is sometimes hard to 

hear. These kids do not have that strong voice and many of the 

parents who are most involved do not have that strong a voice, and 

they are probably not the biggest lobbying group. 

Second, there has been the factor that many of the benefits have 

been said to take a long time to come, and it is out in the future, 

and there are all these other issues we need to deal with. 

One thing that has really changed in my mind in the last 10 

years is the degree to which we have been able to connect what 

happens in that 5 years to what happens ever after. And not just 

because of cognitive skills, but because of what are now called social-emotional. Now, they are even calling it, it sounds like a business, executive skills. 

And when I ask my two daughters-in-law recently, what was the 

most important element of preschool, which they started at age 2, 

3, and 4 and why should they have that and not mothers in OverVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
32 

the-Rhine in Cincinnati? They actually did not start with learning 

letters. They started with the behavior and being able to share. 

I think one thing that has happened today that is positive is we 

have the connectivity and we have Return on Investment. And if 

I headed this panel, five other business people who are involved in 

this, you would have probably more Republicans than Democrats. 

And they would be talking to you about ROI’s, and they would say, 

‘‘Even if you do not buy this because of the social and moral issue, 

you buy it because of the economics.’’ And you have driven businessmen on this today, and they believe it, and I believe it. So that 

is a change. 

I am much more hopeful than I have been before. We will do this 

because if we do not do it soon, it will become so ugly in this country, as we see our failure. We still have a 20 percent dropout rate. 

I was before the Chamber of Commerce in Cincinnati in 1987 

saying how terrible it was, we had a 25 percent dropout rate. That 

was before China was at play, Eastern and Central Europe was not 

nearly as competitive, and we still have a 20 percent dropout rate. 

Seventy percent of people who are incarcerated are dropouts. If 

you are not reading by the end of the third grade, and you are 

poor, you are 11 times more likely to dropout. That is not an anecdotal number; that is a fact. And if you dropout of high school, you 

are dead in terms, you are not really, you can recover from that, 

but you are in real trouble. And we know what happens—0 to 5 

has everything to do with whether you are reading on grade. 

We cannot keep resisting these facts. How we get to this full coverage, I do not know but the amount of money, whatever it is right 

now is doing about a quarter of the job of a job we need to do 90 

percent, and we have got to fix that. 

We are working on it in Cincinnati. We are not going to wait for 

the Federal Government, but we cannot do it all anymore than 

Providence can. 

I just hope and pray we will do that bipartisan thing. Get a bill 

the Republicans can rally behind. If it is not exactly this, what is 

it, and let us make it happen. Please. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pepper. I have more 

questions, but I will have to do it on the second round. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Whitehurst, based on your count and the General Accountability Office’s study, if we pass Senator Harkin’s proposal, it 

would be the 46th early childhood Federal program involved in 

early childhood education. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is correct. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Based upon your research, those 45 existing 

programs spend about $22 billion this year. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. In 2011, yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In 2011, $22 billion. I believe I am correct 

that there are about 4 million 4-year-olds in America. Do you 

know? Is that about right? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I think that is about right. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And that would be about $5,000 for every 

4-year-old in America. Is my math about right? 

33 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am not really good at mental math when I 

am before a Senate committee. 

Senator ALEXANDER. About $5,000 for every 4-year-old in America and $22 million, I know, is about equal to the total amount of 

money that the Federal Government spends through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for K through 12. I mean, it is 

a lot of money; $5,000 for every 4-year-old in America or $7,000 or 

$8,000 for every—or half that to $2,500 or so, for every 3- or 4- 

year-old in America. 

So here is my question, Dr. Whitehurst, if that is the case, would 

it be a wise first step to say let us take this $22 billion and at least 

give some States the opportunity to say, ‘‘I would like to have my 

share of it.’’ In Ohio, that would be $800 million; in Tennessee it 

would be $450 million. And then give parents, let the States fashion programs that would meet the needs of children zero through 

five, and use that $22 billion as a way to start dealing with the 

goal that we all share. Since the State superintendent of Louisiana 

testified before this committee that the single biggest obstacle to 

his achieving the goal we all share is the confusion and fragmentation of the 45 existing Federal programs that spend $22 billion. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes. I mean, I strongly agree with the position 

that is implicit in your question. I do not know what the appropriate level of Federal appropriation is. It probably needs to be 

more than $22 billion at some point. 

But I do think the appropriate place to start is with the money 

that is being spent, and see if that cannot be spent in ways that 

permits more innovation, that lets States deal better with what 

now is fragmentation that is largely a product of the Federal system rather than something that the States themselves are responsible for. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. So I would fix what we are doing already before moving ahead with something else. I am very worried here 

about one-size-fits-all solutions. I think we have got 50 States, they 

have different citizens with different sense of what they need, and 

it would be great to proceed in that direction. 

Senator ALEXANDER. My time is short. But just to be clear, the 

number of programs that I mentioned, 45, comes from your count 

of the General Accountability Office study; is that correct? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. It is the GAO conclusion—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. It is the GAO conclusion. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Not mine. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The $22 billion is whose conclusion? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Actually, Steve Barnett has a lot to do with 

that conclusion. I have drawn that from his publication. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let me ask Mr. Pepper. Mr. Pepper, I know 

your passion for this. I can see it today. We have talked about it 

before in my office and on the telephone, and you are one of the 

most celebrated chief executives in the country. 

Now, if you are at Procter & Gamble, one of the best managed 

companies in the country, and you had your product about which 

you were the most passionate, and your vice president came in and 

said, ‘‘Mr. Pepper, we have got 45 divisions already making 

34 

Pringles,’’ or whatever the product was. ‘‘I propose we have a 46th 

proposal, and we are spending $22 billion already.’’ 

Would not your first instinct be to say, ‘‘Let us consolidate all of 

that and let us make sure that is effective?’’ 

And would we not be better off taking all the Federal dollars that 

we spend and give Ohio its $800 million and let you and Cincinnati 

use that in the most effective way with your State dollars, and your 

local dollars, and your private dollars to meet the needs of children? We could give you enough money so you would have $5,000 

for every 4-year-old in Ohio if we did that. 

Mr. PEPPER. Let me respond first. Obviously, if I was confronted 

with 45 different streams that were going, I would want to see if 

they could be improved. 

Second, your math that you’re throwing out here which, of 

course, I do not know all of it, take it at face value, $22 billion, 

is $2,500 per 3- and 4-year-old. We have strong evidence that three 

and four together is almost two times better than four, is $2,500. 

The cost is about $8,000 or $9,000. So it would leave me in Ohio 

about one-third of where I needed to be, i.e., about where I am 

now, that is in trouble. 

So the math that you have gone through here, Senator, as I calculate it on 3- and 4-year-olds gets me to a point where I am worried about; i.e., $2,500 which does not cover preschool. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you want $100 billion new Federal dollars. 

Mr. PEPPER. No. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That is all my time. 

Mr. PEPPER. I do not. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Twenty-two dollars—— 

Mr. PEPPER. I do not think an investment beyond what is being 

talked about here, leveraged with the States is anything beyond 

what I would do, but you know more about this than I do, respectfully, you do. But I certainly would not go right to $100 billion. I 

do not think that is what it will take. 

I think, at least as I read this legislation, come with the States, 

it would allow us to provide preschool to all 4-year-olds and I think 

that is a very good starting point, quality preschool. 

I think at least from the numbers I have seen, and you know 

them and Senator Harkin does, that that amount of money that is 

in this bill would allow us to get quality preschool to all 4-yearolds. 

Senator ALEXANDER. My time is up and so I will stop; Senator 

Harkin respected his. But the amount of money we are already 

spending would allow you to spend $5,000 on every 4-year-old in 

Ohio. 

Mr. PEPPER. But again, sir, that is only about half, about 70 percent of what it costs. So it does not do the job. More money is needed. But saying that, if there is a way to get more out of every dollar 

we are spending now, I would go after that feverishly. 

I just heard in the back of the room during the break that a 

great deal of the problem come because there are so many Head 

Start regulations. Somebody said 140 and that kind of thing from 

business and probably to you, boggles my mind and I would want 

35 

to get in and see how can I simplify it dramatically. Someone said, 

I think it was 1,400. Go to 140, I would say go to 14. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Harkin, for your leadership on this, your Strong Start for America’s Children Act would 

serve an additional 1,456 children in Minnesota. 

This is for anyone. What percentage of kids who are eligible for 

Head Start are served currently? 

Mr. TAVARES. Senator Franken, in Rhode Island, it is about onethird, I believe, of the kids who are eligible for Head Start are 

served by Head Start. 

Senator FRANKEN. And when we had the sequester, we lost funding for that, and we had to actually close the slots; right? 

Mr. TAVARES. We did lose funding. I do not have the exact number of slots, but I do know that that was one of the casualties. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think there is a case here to be made for additional funding, part of which is to make sure that our workforce—when Dr. Whitehurst talks about the effectiveness of these 

Head Start programs, and I heard your range was from mildly negative to very successful. I would like to do the very successful. I 

think what the difference is, is in workforce. And so, I want to 

train the workforce. 

Dr. Barnett, can you discuss the ways in which improved teacher 

qualifications are connected to improving student learning in the 

early stages of brain development? 

Mr. BARNETT. I would be delighted to and also would like an op- portunity to address that $22 billion number, since it is mine at 

some point. 

Senator FRANKEN. Go right ahead. 

Mr. BARNETT. Teaching young children, a classroom of young 

children, is complicated. And the bang for the buck, whether we get 

those wildly successful results that you want, that really comes 

down largely to teacher-child interaction. One-on-one in small 

groups, and to some extent, enabling children to have better interactions with each other, and with things in their environment; but 

those are just kind of variations on the first theme. 

We have teachers today in Head Start, teachers are so poorly 

paid, a quarter to one-third of them score clinically depressed. We 

know that is not a good condition for an adult to be in to interact 

with kids. We do not want to replicate this elsewhere, and we want 

to solve this problem in Head Start. But teachers do need specialized—they need to be well prepared. The quality, the extensiveness, the unfamiliarity of the language that children experience in 

the classroom is one of the biggest determinants of how much it 

boosts their vocabulary, which is then going to predict their reading comprehension in high school. 

So if you put teachers in the classroom who have low vocabularies, who have negative interactions with kids, you are going to 

replicate that in kids. That is not going to give us the positive results and is, so often, why we fail. 

This is not a mystery why some programs do not work. We know 

why they do not work. We keep doing things, beginning with not 

36 

investing in initial qualifications and then not investing in the kind 

of ongoing professional development and coaching that people need 

to improve that would give us better results. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is why I want to tout my own Early 

Childhood Care and Education Workforce Improvement Act as part 

of the solution here. 

Mayor Tavares, in your testimony, you touch on your efforts to 

empower parents and caretakers to improve their children’s development. Can you elaborate on the methods that you are using to 

encourage parents to become more involved? And I really do believe 

that parents are the first teachers, and I have seen this. 

We have the Northside Achievement Zone in Minneapolis, which 

is modeled after Geoffrey Canada’s achievement zone. And I have 

seen a baby academy there and, my goodness, it was very moving 

to see these parents learning how to be parents. 

Mr. TAVARES. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me just say with respect to Providence Talks, first of all, it 

is a totally voluntary program. So parents have to choose to get involved and we have it as a voluntary program. We have a home 

visitation component and we have not reinvented the wheel. We actually are working with Early Head Start and other home visitation programs. And so, we are just a component of that in order 

to be more efficient. 

What I have found is that parents, and we have had, actually, 

some press coverage on this is they have focused on parents who 

are willing to speak to the press about it. They are very engaged, 

and once they realize the impact that they can have by simply talking to your child and being engaged, engaging your child in all of 

the positive activities, they are very, very engaged. 

And we have seen data that has shown that when we began, 

there was one family, and this was public; she consented to making 

this public. But they were speaking maybe 11,000 words and by 

subsequent visits, they were up to almost 30,000 in a day. And she 

was ecstatic with that. 

One of the things that we are seeing as well is that one of the 

best things that we can have is word of mouth. So there are other 

parents who are interested in coming forward and they all want 

what is best for our kids. So that is something that is important. 

If I could add one thing, Senator, we talk a lot about workforce 

preparation, but I would say to you that this is not just about the 

workforce. It is about the future leaders of tomorrow, and that is 

what we are really talking about here is making sure that we are 

in a position to develop our young children into the best leaders 

that they can be. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Chairman, I am out of my time. I have 

to leave. May I just end with a, if you will indulge me, with just 

a couple of thoughts? 

The return on investment has been demonstrated. Sir, you were 

talking about that. 

I am sorry I was not here. I was in an energy committee meeting. I know, Dr. Barnett, you talked about fadeout and how that 

is kind of a myth, and I remember the Perry study. And I remember they found the I.Q. went up, and then there was a fadeout supVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
37 

posedly after third grade, but then they discovered all these other 

things. 

Dr. Whitehurst referred to the fadeout as if it were a real thing, 

as if there was not a carryover past the third grade in terms of 

graduating from high school, in terms of health outcomes, in terms 

of not being left back, in terms of adolescent girls not getting pregnant, in terms of incarceration. 

Yes, the return on investment is great. And yes, I think we need 

more flexibility for States. But we need to do this, not just because 

the return on invest is great, and we need to do it because of that. 

But we need to do that because you are only 3 years old once. You 

are only 4 years old once. These are our children. These are beautiful children and that is why we need to do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. We will start a second 

round here. 

We have 45 Federal programs. This is the chart that came out 

of the House Education Workforce Committee. It makes it look like 

it is just a spaghetti factory, and we have all those things here. 

And then we put $22 billion into elementary and secondary education, and we put in the same for early childhood because of these 

45 programs. 

I looked at this. Here is one program that says, ‘‘Workforce Investment Act dislocated worker formula grant.’’ What has that got 

to do with early childhood? Well, because some of the funding in 

this program can be used to train childcare workers. That does not 

go to direct services that support the early education of young children. 

So let us get it straight. All of these programs here are bits and 

pieces of things that can be used. Actually, there are only 12 Federal programs that are distinctly for early education and care, 12. 

The rest address very specific things such as Native Hawaiian Education. There is also the school breakfast program; which supports 

nutrition. 

Forget about the 45 programs. That is just not so. That is just 

bits and pieces of things that a little bit of money goes out for specific purposes, like I said, to train childcare workers. Is that really 

early education? Not at all. So the whole ‘‘45 programs’’ thing is 

kind of nonsensical. 

Also, we hear about the $22 billion. I would point out that the 

$22 billion Federal money that goes to elementary and secondary 

education is 8 percent of what we spend on elementary and secondary education; 8 percent from the Federal Government. 

However, the $22 billion that goes to everything in those 45 programs, and not just early education, that is over 50 percent of the 

funding for all early childhood education programs; the Federal 

Government contributes over 50 percent to the total amount we 

spend as a nation. 

You look at these dollars spent on programs like the early intervention for children with disabilities, tax credits for families, food 

programs, the milk program for children, school breakfast program. 

These funds are not all just going to preschool. There are a lot of 

different programs in there. 

Thirty-three of the 45 programs from the GAO report do not provide direct early learning service, they just have early learning as 

38 

an allowable use of funds. The GAO does not know how many children are served and what the extent of those services are. The 

other 12 that I talked about have different purposes and they are 

not reaching all eligible children. 

For instance, you talked about, Dr. Whitehurst, the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant. How many people know that goes 

from 0 to 13? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do. Well, you throw it out there like Child 

Care and Development Block Grant is just for little tots. But, 50 

percent of the money goes post-5 years of age; 50 percent. That is 

not early childhood. Some of it does go to early childhood, but 50 

percent of the money goes post-5 year. You know that. 

If you start looking at this, you will see there is an unmet need. 

And then Head Start, that serves 3- and 4-year-olds, most of them 

are families below 100 percent of poverty. Is that our limit? Is that 

what we want to limit it to? Just people that are really, really desperately poor, or do we want to go up to 200 percent of poverty and 

include the near-poor and those that really cannot afford to have 

any kind of early learning programs for their kids? 

Now, to the extent that we need better coordination, I am all for 

it. To the extent that we can consolidate programs, I am all for it. 

I said to Senator Alexander when I came back from Iowa from my 

hearing out there on early childhood I said, ‘‘My head is spinning,’’ 

because what I heard was all the different funding streams that 

come in to support these kids that are going to school for 3 hours 

a day. I said, ‘‘I cannot get a handle on it.’’ 

Better coordination? Yes. And what this bill does, by the way, 

and I want to make this very clear, what the Strong Start bill does 

is voluntary; it is not a Federal mandate. It is voluntary. And what 

it does, it says to the States, ‘‘You do your thing.’’ You know, ‘‘You 

do it.’’ If you want a match from the Federal Government what we 

have said is, ‘‘OK. Here are some things that we would like.’’ Highquality teachers for example; we want those teachers to be highquality, really trained to know how they can deliver age-appropriate learning to these children. 

Other things that we want: appropriate health services and referrals. Sure, we want that too. ‘‘Yes, do that, then we will match 

it. We will match the money.’’ 

But we have left in the bill flexibility, and I would be glad to look 

at it as we mark it up and change it. If we need to change some 

things, Mr. Pepper, I am willing to make changes. If we can 

streamline it, make things more effective, some consolidation, I 

have no problem with that. 

But we have to keep in mind the funding streams. Yes, the 

States should have a lot of flexibility, but I do not think the taxpayers of this country paying their Federal taxes would want their 

money to go to substandard childcare programs to pay for teachers 

that are not qualified to teach the kids, to go to programs where 

they are not safe. They do not want kids to have to go to programs 

where people have to patch and fix childcare alongside 2 or 3 hours 

a day. 

Dr. Whitehurst, I agree with you that when you get down to that 

early age, you have to lean more toward the parents. I got that. 

39 

I fully agree with that. However, it is not like it was when I was 

a kid. You got two parents working full-time, sometimes three jobs, 

and you have a lot of single parent families out there, and mostly 

women, and they are working hard, and they are working one-anda-half or two jobs. They do not have the time. They do not have 

the wherewithal to deal with their kids like we were when we were 

growing up. You might bemoan that fact, but you cannot turn the 

clock back. It is not going to change. And so, you might want to 

lean that way and give as much discretion to parents as possible. 

But I cannot tell you how many parents I have talked to, in my 

own State and elsewhere, who want what is best for their kids. 

They want their kids to be safe and yes, ‘‘Mrs. Smith down the 

block takes care of kids, and I have known her for a long time, and 

I can put my child there, and I feel good about that.’’ But they do 

not know if their child is really getting a good education or if they 

are just getting babysitting services for their kid when they send 

him/her down the street? They do not know. 

They want safety first. They want their kids to be safe more than 

anything else. After that, they want education. They want their 

kids to be learning, but they do not know how to assess it because 

a lot of the parents, Angel, or Mayor, I should say, a lot of their 

parents are parents that did not have that kind of access themselves. Many of them did not even go to college or maybe did not 

even finish high school, so they cannot evaluate that very rapidly. 

That is why we try to set up high quality standards. We say to 

the States, ‘‘OK. Flexibility is fine. You can do different things your 

own ways.’’ We try to encourage as much of that in the bill as possible. I want to work with the Senator from Tennessee to see how 

we can consolidate some of these and make them more efficient, 

but keeping in mind that we just do not live in a cookie cutter society. You just do not stamp one thing and say, ‘‘Everybody has got 

to fit into that mold.’’ 

There has got to be a lot of different programs out there to meet 

different needs and that is what some of these programs do. The 

States that are doing this right now are trying to establish or expand programs and meet some of their own unique needs. We do 

not have Native Hawaiian education problems in Iowa, but they do 

in Hawaii, so they should be able to use their program funds to 

support Native Hawaiian early childhood education. So they need 

some flexibility to meet their own needs of those States. I have 

gone way over. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Whitehurst, the fact remains, we asked the General Accountability Office to identify all the programs that explicitly provided 

money for early childhood education or some money that was related to it, and they came up with 45 programs; correct? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And some of them are pretty big programs. 

I mean, Head Start is $8.6 billion and the Child Care and Development Block Grant is $5.3 billion. And in your testimony you suggested—and the legislation that I am developing, I agree with it— 

that we be more like the Child Care and Development Block Grant. 

40 

That we give plenty of flexibility to States to design their own programs. 

A lot of the debate in Washington is between, what I would say, 

the mandaters and the enablers, and it is not always a partisan divide. We have Republicans who stand up in our caucus sometimes 

and they have a really good idea, and they want to make everybody 

do it. I remind them that we are supposed to respect others, that 

we are to try to enable people to do it. 

Senator Harkin’s bill requires States receiving these grants to 

ensure preschool programs meet requirements on staff qualifications; staff salaries; maximum class sizes and child instructor ratios; length of the school day; vision, dental, and health screenings; 

nutritious meals and snack options; physical activity programs; 

professional development for staff; health and safety standards. 

Does that sound like State flexibility to you? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. No, it does not. It sounds like No Child Left 

Behind pushed down to preschool. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. It sounds to me like a national school 

board for preschool education, which is one way to do it, but that 

is the mandating way, not the enabling way. 

I was Governor for 8 years and I used to chafe most under people 

who did not think I had enough sense to figure those things out 

for myself in our local schools, and that they were wiser than we 

were in the States. 

I want to ask the mayor of Providence, that is the all-American 

Senator Whitehouse. I have been to Providence. Actually, it is a 

terrific city. 

Let us say that the General Accounting Office and Dr. Whitehurst are approximately right about the amount of Federal dollars 

that we direct toward early childhood education, and that we swept 

through the Federal Government and said, ‘‘Let us just give it to 

the States with the maximum amount of flexibility, and let them 

devise the best way to deal with things.’’ 

If you were the Governor of Rhode Island, would you like to have 

a check for about $75 million a year to use your own good judgment to decide how to make early childhood programs relate to one 

another? Or would you rather let us up here write very details prescriptions about how best for you to do that in Rhode Island? 

Mr. TAVARES. Let me just, if I can. I hope to be the Governor of 

Rhode Island. So that is a very timely question. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I had a suspicion of that. But I am quite serious about it because when in that position, usually you sit there, 

at least I did, and most of my colleagues, I had the former democratic Governor of Tennessee come up to me and talk to me about 

the Workforce Development Act and just say, ‘‘I threw my hands 

up,’’ he said. ‘‘It was too many Washington restrictions. They assumed I did not know anything, so I could not do anything with 

it.’’ 

Mr. TAVARES. I would say, Senator, that obviously if you have a 

choice between $75 million with no requirements and some with 

other requirements, you want to have flexibility. 

I would also say to you that there is a danger, I think, having 

general outline of some things that you should expect, including 

41 

qualifications of teachers, something that we are doing in Rhode Island. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you think we should decide what the 

qualifications of teachers from Rhode Island should be, and what 

their salaries should be, and the length of the school day, and how 

long the physical activity program should be, and what the professional development for staff should look like? 

Mr. TAVARES. I think it is very appropriate especially given the 

amount of money that you would be appropriating. 

Senator ALEXANDER. What is left for you to do as Governor? 

Mr. TAVARES. To make sure that we get the kids in the program, 

to make sure that we execute the program the proper way, to make 

sure that they are learning. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So if you were Governor, you would like for 

Washington to design the preschool programs in Rhode Island and 

all you would do is just transport the children to the schools? 

Mr. TAVARES. If I were Governor and you wanted to give us $75 

million, I would follow your rules because that would allow me to 

serve a lot of children. And I would say having looked at the preK situation, it is about $6,000 or $7,000 per child that I estimate 

it would cost us in Rhode Island to have universal pre-K for our 

children. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But you do not like the Child Care and Development Block Grant model, then? 

Mr. TAVARES. I would, as I said, to receive assistance from the 

Federal Government, obviously—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I am asking you which would work best for 

the children? The Child Care Development Block Grant gives the 

State great flexibility and the parents a choice. It is vouchers and 

it has strong bipartisan support. It has worked very well. 

Mr. TAVARES. If you want to increase that by the amount of this 

bill, I think that that would be fine. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, it is the form of it or not. So what I 

hear you saying is that you would rather we make the decisions 

that if I were the Governor, I would like to make. 

Mr. TAVARES. I am saying to you that from my perspective, we 

need more assistance. I am saying that I do not think that it is an 

issue that the U.S. Senate or the Federal Government is giving us 

some guidelines, and I think that that is appropriate. 

Obviously, as I said, any Governor would prefer no restrictions, 

but there are also dangers with that, and that is how that money 

is going to be spent, and that it is being spent appropriately. 

Senator ALEXANDER. My time is up. I have said what I had to 

say. 

The CHAIRMAN. I might just add that all we ask is that the 

teachers teaching the kids have a B.A. degree; I do not think that 

is onerous. 

Senator ALEXANDER. How about length of school day? 

The CHAIRMAN. We want a full school day, yes. We do not want 

to say, ‘‘2 hours, 3 hours,’’ something like that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we specify there should be a full-day program if you want the Federal match. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the amount of the salary? 

42 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we want people to be well paid, but we do 

not specify exactly what that salary is. We do not specify, so it will 

vary by State. Some States will have to pay more, some less. It varies by State and what is necessary to make the pay comparable to 

other teachers. 

But again, I say to my friend, we are the stewards of Federal tax 

dollars, not State tax dollars. If the States want to do different 

things with their State tax money, that is their purview. We have 

a responsibility to the Federal taxpayers to make sure that their 

Federal dollars are invested wisely and well. 

And we do make decisions. We do not just leave it up to a Governor or a State and say, ‘‘Here is some money. We do not care 

what you do with it.’’ Of course not. That would be shirking our 

responsibility. I think we are shirking our responsibility as Federal 

legislators. 

I may not always agree with Mayor Tavares when he is the Governor on certain things. I do not know, but as Governor, he has a 

lot of flexibility for his State tax dollars. All we are saying here is, 

in this bill, 

‘‘You want a match? Here are some certain things: B.A. degree. Yes, you have to have full-day. You have to make sure 

your teachers are paid comparably to other teachers in the system.’’ 

We do not specify exact salaries and we leave it up to States to 

figure that out. 

I do not think that is onerous, again, I am just saying, that is 

being a good steward, I think, of Federal, of the taxpayers in this 

country. That is just my view on it. 

Senator Murray. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I 

really appreciate you holding the hearing. 

I understand Senator Alexander’s philosophy on not adding too 

much restriction, but I also know that people who pay tax dollars 

to the Federal Government want us to make sure it is being used 

well and that there are positive results from it. And I think we do 

have a responsibility as the Federal Government to make sure we 

are good stewards of the Federal tax dollar. 

But having said this, I want to thank you for having this hearing. I think it is extremely important. As you know, I was a former 

preschool teacher. This is my passion. 

I have in my office a very large quilt. Each one of the squares 

is made by one of the kids in my last preschool class I taught before I went to the State Senate, and it reminds me, every day of 

who I am serving and what is important. 

So I know how important it is, but I do not think you have to 

be a former teacher to know how important this is. I have heard 

from business leaders because they know that they need a welleducated workforce, how important this issue is. 

I have actually heard from a lot of military leaders, Mr. Chairman, who tell me that a quarter of young adults who want to serve 

their country, only a quarter of young adults are able to meet the 

43 

minimum education and health requirements today. So we are 

turning away a lot of young men and women in the military today 

because they do not have the early investment they need to be educationally successful. 

I hear from sheriffs in Washington State who have told me that 

they know who ends up in their jails if they have not had early 

childhood education. 

We know the importance of this across the board and I think, as 

I have seen in my State as I have worked on this, and here at the 

Federal level, that we have across-the-board support. We have Republican Governors in Alabama, and Kansas, and Michigan who 

have made this a priority in their States. 

I am hoping that as we move forward on this, it will not be a 

partisan issue in the Senate either. I am very, very supportive of 

the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. I hope that our Republican colleagues give us good input on it, and that we can really 

get some strong bipartisan support, and move it forward. I think 

it is absolutely critical that we cannot continue to do studies telling 

us how important early childhood education is and then just hope 

it happens. I think we have to make it a national priority. 

Having said that, I did want to be here at the hearing today and 

I have been in and out, and I apologize. It has been a busy morning. 

But we have heard a lot of concern from some that there are so 

many early learning programs out there. Here in Washington, DC, 

it is kind of a strange place, we know that the rhetoric inside the 

Beltway does not line up with what is happening in our States. 

I think the need for pre-K education is really a great example of 

this. I hear at home all the time about the lack of affordable, high 

quality preschool programs. But here in DC, I often hear that there 

are too many Federal early learning programs. So how come I hear 

at home that there is not enough and here I hear there is too 

many? 

I wanted to just ask two of you, Dr. Barnett, from a national perspective, Mayor Tavares from a local level. Is there duplication? 

Mr. BARNETT. One of our jobs at the Institute is to try to figure 

out how many kids are served in public programs. It is a hard 

thing to do. Fragmentation does not make that easy. 

There are really only three big buckets, though, the childcare 

bucket, the Head Start bucket, and the State and local pre-K bucket. A lot of those other programs are programs that prepare teachers, or that feed kids, or Department of Defense schools. You are 

not going to block grant those to the State. 

We want to count all of those, but when we try to un-duplicate, 

we find very few kids, actually, and we cannot be precise, but 

maybe 1 to 2 percent of kids who are in Head Start and some other 

program. And typically, those are kids who are getting a half-day 

funded by one, and a half-day funded by the other, and the State 

or local Governments figured out how to blend that, and provide 

the experience they want for their kids by bringing these programs 

together. 

Pretty much every State now has a council that has taken on 

themselves integrating these programs, reducing the fragmentation, and making it seamless at the local and State level. 

44 

So there is not a lot of duplication. The main problem is there 

is not enough money to go around. The money that we have in 

early childhood is for everything, birth to five; it is not nearly 

enough. Even at age four, where most of the money is, and the 

money has been declining at the State level in terms of what is invested in each child for a decade now, and the recession actually 

made that much worse. 

States are responding, coming out of that, but to think that we 

have plenty of money, all we need to do is redistribute it. No. There 

is not nearly enough money in the system. Redistributing it is just 

going to mean taking it away from somebody and giving it to somebody else. 

Senator MURRAY. Mayor. 

Mr. TAVARES. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say this. I will repeat what I said earlier and that is one-third, one-third of our eligible Head Start children are participating in Head Start. And it is 

not because they do not know about it. It is because we do not have 

the space for them. 

In Rhode Island, we do not have full-day kindergarten. I am not 

talking about pre-K; I am talking about kindergarten. We do not 

have full-day K. Providence does, some cities do, but we have a situation that we do not have the funding to make sure that we have 

a full-day kindergarten for our children right now based on what 

we are receiving and everything else that we are doing. 

In terms of duplication, I am sure that someone can find something somewhere that might be duplication, but I can tell you in 

Rhode Island, the need is there. It is critical and it is an investment that we are trying to make, but we certainly this bill would 

help us immensely prepare our kids to succeed and to lead. 

We certainly welcome the Senate’s bill and that is why I am here 

today. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I turn it 

over, I just wanted to say, I think it would be easy for us to sit 

back here and say, ‘‘Our States or local communities think this is 

important, they will just do it.’’ 

But we need every child in this country to be able to fulfill their 

potential if our military is saying they do not have enough qualified 

people. If our business leaders are saying, ‘‘We need people.’’ If we 

are putting too many kids in jails, we cannot just hope. We need 

to make sure it is a national priority. 

I really appreciate you working on this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Senator Casey. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

this hearing, by the way. We are grateful for the time on this issue. 

I would just offer a comment before, and I will start with Mr. 

Pepper because of his Pennsylvania roots and connections. I will be 

shamelessly parochial, if you do not mind. 

But I want to say a couple of things about the issue and then 

what it means to the country. I believe that if we are doing enough 

for not just children, but for our future, we would make sure the 

children have at least four things. Maybe you could add to this, but 

45 

certainly quality early learning has to be part of that; that is the 

subject of today’s discussion. Certainly healthcare, quality 

healthcare at the same time; enough to eat and hopefully as nutritious as possible; and fourth, to protect them from predators who 

will do them harm. And all four priorities are critically important. 

I have to say when you add them all up, we are nowhere near 

where we ought to be. We made tremendous progress on children’s 

health insurance in the last generation, thankfully, but even with 

the Children’s Health Insurance Program, even with Medicaid, we 

still have a lot of uninsured children in very difficult circumstances. That has been a measure of progress. 

On a national strategy, it should be, I think, in partnership with 

the States, and we should learn from the States and work with 

them as this legislation would do. I cannot say it any other way 

other than to say it has been a national failure. Other than, if you 

take out Head Start and what individual States have done in the 

last generation or more, other than that, it is a national failure, 

and that is why we are here today. 

I was especially impressed, Mr. Pepper, by some of the remarks 

that you made, some of them very sobering. I think I am quoting 

you accurately. I wrote it down here. You are worried about the future of our Nation. You said that at the beginning of your testimony. 

You also said later that passing this bill, or something comparable to it is a, ‘‘Financial no-brainer,’’ which, I have not run a 

business like you have, so to have you say that is great validation 

of what we are trying to do. 

You also said this would be transformational, and you have a 

sense of urgency about this issue that, frankly, Washington does 

not have. 

Then finally, though, one of the last things you said while I was 

here, and I know I was back and forth, is, ‘‘Make it happen.’’ Again, 

that sense of urgency. 

I wanted to ask you, in particular: you talked about the skills 

gap and a lot of that is certainly academic. But what about the 

other skills, what some call ‘‘soft skills’’ or other skills that you 

hope would be inculcated in the life of a child early in their development, and that can manifest themselves later when they are in 

school and then eventually in the workforce? 

Mr. PEPPER. Senator, what I referred to there, I think the first 

things that employers would look for once a person is on the job 

and you know what they are: ability to focus, overcome adversity, 

cooperate with other people, a sense of independence but also working with other people. And these things happen at very early ages. 

It is hard to happen just alone in a home when, as Senator Harkin was saying, 38 percent of the children 0 to 5 in Ohio are living 

in a home with one parent and almost every one of those parents 

are working. So to be able to be in a quality preschool with a teacher, with a ratio with other kids is starting to develop those elements of sharing, coming in and coming back to the home. 

At work it is attention to task, persistence, all of these things. 

We know what they are, these values. They are what, I believe, explains the fact that these effects have continued on in these longVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
46 

term studies that we have seen in incarceration, we have seen it 

in income, graduating from college. 

I will not rehearse the elements of urgency I feel. I hope I conveyed them. I really do feel we have a big challenge in this country 

which is kind of like a cancer. You may not know it is growing. 

It was not too long ago, a generation ago, we were the No. 1 

country in the developed world having college graduates. We still 

have the most to enter college. We are now No. 12 or 18 depending 

on what you look at in terms of actually, at that age group, having 

college graduates. 

The numbers, I think, it is 55 million new jobs that are going to 

be created by the year 2020. Sixty-five percent will require more 

than a high school education. This is data. We do not know if it 

is exactly right, but it is probably about right. Sixty-five percent 

will require more than a high school education, yet we still have 

20 percent of children that are not graduating. What is to become 

of them? 

I take the point that was made earlier, too, by Senator Franken. 

There is the element here of each child. Why should my grandchildren, why should you—because you are a child in a certain zip 

code in Indian Hill in Cincinnati—have a better right to life and 

grow up than somebody down in the other area when we have a 

program that works, that we are giving to about 25 percent of the 

children who need it? Now that is about our number. And for 

whom we have a lot of evidence that it will all come back to us if 

all you care about is the finances. 

How do you look at that picture and not act quickly, resolving 

differences that will probably exist? But if in a business setting, if 

I had this kind of situation, do you know what I would do? And 

there would be disagreement in the top team what we ought to do. 

I would go offsite and I would say, 

‘‘We are going to take the next weekend or the next week, 

and we will come out of here with a bill or a plan that we are 

rallying behind and we are going to do it.’’ 

Because I would feel if I did not do this, I was failing the company. That is how I view this. 

Senator CASEY. I am out of time, but I want to make sure that 

someone who was born in Pottsville, PA gets the last word. 

The prepared statement of Senator Casey follows.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Chairman Harkin, thank you for convening this hearing to talk 

about S. 1697, the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. It has 

been a pleasure working with you on this legislation, and I am excited about this opportunity to highlight our shared commitment to 

promoting pre-kindergarten. 

I have been a strong supporter of early learning for many years. 

One of the first bills I authored, the Prepare All Kids Act, became 

one of the bills upon which the Strong Start Act is modeled. Chairman Harkin and his staff worked with me, with Senator Murray 

and with Senator Hirono on the Strong Start for America’s Children. It has been a privilege to join with the other champions of 

early learning in the Senate on this important legislation. 

47 

This legislation being discussed today, the Strong Start Act, represents a major step forward in our fight to ensure that all children 

have access to affordable and high-quality early learning experiences. 

Many States, including Pennsylvania, have already made important investments in early learning, including in pre-K. Pennsylvania’s Pre-K Counts program is currently serving almost 12,000 3- 

and 4-year-olds, but that is just a fraction of the children who need 

access to high-quality pre-K. 

An increasing body of evidence demonstrates the lasting impact 

of high-quality early learning. Children who participate in quality 

early learning programs do better on a host of measures, including 

both academic measures (higher academic achievement, lower rates 

of grade repetition, less use of special and remedial education) and 

social measures (decreased crime, increased socio-emotional skills). 

Successful children turn into successful adults, or as I like to say, 

‘‘when kids learn more now, they earn more later.’’ Society benefits 

in many ways. We save money by incarcerating fewer people and 

having to pay for less remedial education. Employers benefit from 

a better-trained and more capable workforce. It all starts with 

high-quality early learning. 

I thank Chairman Harkin for holding this important hearing, 

and I thank our witnesses for their testimony. I hope we will be 

able to mark up the Strong Start Act in the near future, and I look 

forward to continuing my support of this important legislation. 

Mr. PEPPER. Thanks very much. I would also celebrate coming 

from Pottsville, Yuengling Beer. 

Senator CASEY. Right. 

Mr. PEPPER. OK? It would spray everywhere, Senator Casey, and 

it came into Cincinnati or Ohio recently, and I was told by Dick 

Yuengling, who was a childhood friend of mine, that it was the best 

entry he had had in any State in the Nation, and I was proud of 

that. 

Senator CASEY. We just want you to move back to Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PEPPER. I am going to come back and visit again. I was very 

happy to be in Harrisburg. That was my capital when I grew up. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much. With an attitude like 

that, Mr. Pepper, I have no idea what your party politics are or if 

you even have party politics, but with that attitude, we need you 

in the U.S. Senate, I can tell you that about working things out. 

Just get together and work it out. 

I just wanted to point out again, I do not mean to go on too long, 

but I am just writing down here just some of the cities that I know 

that are moving ahead on a full-day type of preschool. They are investing in high quality teachers: San Antonio, Mayor Castro; Denver, Mayor Hancock; New York, Mayor De Blasio; Chicago, Mayor 

Emanuel; and Providence, Mayor Tavares. 

Some cities’ mayors are getting it. They are doing it, but that 

sort of begs the question. Should we just not do anything and let 

the cities do their own things? But I do not think we can wait that 

long. I mean, not every city can do it. They have other things that 

they need to do, and so some people might look at that and say, 

‘‘Well, why do we need to do anything?’’ 

48 

I think what I have heard from most of you, anyway, is that we 

do need to have a national approach on this. And that is just, 

again, a thing I have often thought about is, why should we take 

tax dollars from Iowans, Federal tax dollars and put it into programs in Providence, or Cincinnati, or wherever? And that is because a child that grows up in Iowa, or Missouri, or Ohio that is 

ill-educated does not stay in that city or that State. They can move 

to Iowa or they can move anywhere, so we are one Nation. 

And so, there are some things that we have to look upon as national efforts. Certainly, that is why you leave as much flexibility 

to the States as possible, and I thought that was what I have tried 

to do in this bill, setting up certain standards. Make sure it is a 

full-day rather than a half day or quality teachers that type of 

thing. 

We want to give States flexibility on how to manage it, but understanding that this is a national effort that we have to do because we are one Nation. People move around. And so, that is why. 

And not in every instance, but in many of these instances, it behooves us to make sure that we address it in a national way, even 

though we say, ‘‘Well, we are taking tax dollars from Pennsylvania 

and it is going to some other State.’’ Well, because it is going to 

the kids and those kids can live in Pennsylvania later on too or any 

other State. 

I do not have anything else. 

I yield to Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, I do not have anything else except I will 

be offering a proposal within the next couple of weeks that will be 

modeled along the line of what Dr. Whitehurst and I discussed. 

Which is to take the Federal dollars we now spend and model it 

along the lines of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, 

which would give the States maximum flexibility and parents maximum flexibility. 

So that the GAO’s figures are right and Dr. Whitehurst’s figures are right, it could be up to $22 billion of Federal dollars now headed toward early childhood in one form or another; maybe it is 

somewhat less than that. 

But it is a lot of money and we would be saying to the Governors 

and the mayors, 

‘‘Let us see what you can do with this. Take this money and 

combine it with yours, combine it with private money and we 

will be the enablers. We will not be the mandaters,’’ 

and we will respect what the Louisiana State superintendent said, 

which was they have this council to try to take these big buckets 

and make them work together. And he said, ‘‘The greatest barrier 

to implanting a pre-Kindergarten program in Louisiana was the 

fragmentation of it.’’ 

So we will have that proposal because of the great need in our 

country for more effective early childhood development. And then, 

we will work together as we always do to see where we end up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is good news because we have philosophical differences, I understand that in this committee, but as 

Senator Alexander has always said, we probably have the most 

philosophically divergent committee in the entire Senate. 

49 

Senator ALEXANDER. But the most productive. 

The CHAIRMAN. But the what? 

Senator ALEXANDER. The most productive. 

The CHAIRMAN. The most productive. We do get things done. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is because we work together and we 

hammer these things out, and I look forward to hammering this 

one out, and getting something done so we can mark-up a good bill 

and address this issue. So I appreciate Senator Alexander, has always been great to work with, and I see no reason why we cannot 

hammer this one out too one way or the other. 

Thank you very much. You have been great witnesses. And I 

hope that you will be available for further questions and input as 

we begin to develop this legislation in the next month or so. 

Thank you all very much. 

The record will stay open for 10 days for Members to submit 

statements or other questions. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.] 

50 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TADEO SAENZ-THOMPSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

INSPIRE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, SUNNYSIDE, WA AND BOARD MEMBER AND CEO 

AFFILIATE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START AS- SOCIATION

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Murray, and members of 

the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I thank you for 

the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the farmworker families and 

children I work with in Washington State and my colleagues with National Migrant 

and Seasonal Head Start Association, for allowing us to participate in today’s hearing by submitting this statement for the record. 

I am the chief executive officer (CEO) at Inspire Development Centers, an Early 

Care and Education agency with the mission to inspire growth, learning and success 

in life; one child, one family and one community at a time. We are one of the largest 

providers of services in the State with presence in twenty-three (23) rural communities. I am a resident of rural Washington and a proud naturalized citizen of the 

United States of America. 

I congratulate members of the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for recognizing the importance early childhood education plays in the positive 

development of all aspects of our society and in preparing our children to lead our 

country into the great future I am sure you, as I do, foresee. I offer this statement 

both as a citizen and on behalf of the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start community 

and I share some of our experiences working with low-income Latino children and 

farmworkers. I also offer to assist or be a resource to the committee in the coming 

months, as you consider the Strong Start for America’s Children Act (S. 1697), a bill 

that promises to make quality early learning available to all children. 

The National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association is a membership association that includes and represents Migrant and Seasonal Head Start directors, 

staff, parents, and friends from across the country. Every year some 30,000 children 

along with their families are served by Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs 

operating across the country. All of the families we serve have incomes that are well 

below the poverty line and over 90 percent of the children we serve are Latino. By 

advocating for resources, creating partnerships, and affecting public policy, we support our members and their work to educate and empower farmworker families. 

As background, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) was launched in 1969, 

4 years after Congress authorized Head Start. MSHS was created to ensure that 

the educational advantages made available to low-income children through Head 

Start were available to the children of farmworkers and the MSHS model was designed specifically to address the unique needs of farmworker families and their 

young children. Over the last 40-plus years, we have learned some important lessons about how to effectively reach and provide quality education and comprehensive services to farmworker families and their young children and we appreciate the 

opportunity to share our insights with the committee. 

I would like to describe several core challenges that face farmworker families and 

explain how MSHS programs work to overcome those challenges in order to serve 

these families and their children. 

THE DEMANDS OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is unique in that parents are required to work 

in order to qualify for services. In order for a child to be eligible for Migrant and 

Seasonal Head Start a family must demonstrate that over half of the family’s annual income was earned in agricultural work. Most of our families have two parents 

working in the field and according to the U.S. Department of Labor the average 

farmworker family earns less than $10,000/year and has no health benefits. Farm 

labor keeps adults in the field for up to 10 hours a day and often 6 days a week 

during the harvests and exposure to pesticides is common. 

Migrant farmworker families face additional challenges as they move within a 

State or across State lines for work. On average, a migrant farmworker family will 

move two to three times a year in pursuit of agricultural work often following one 

of three traditional migrant streams within States and across State lines as their 

seasonal agricultural work demands. In most communities, local childcare resources 

are not available, especially for infants and toddlers, when farmworker families arrive and when resources are not available, parents have no choice but to arrange 

for unlicensed childcare relationships or take their children with them to the fields 

where they are exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat, and other 

health dangers. The attached map shows some of the most common migrant 

51 

streams, but to be clear, families move up, down and across the country to meet 

the needs of America’s farmers and the agriculture industry, wherever that need 

may be. Indeed, the past President of the National Migrant Head Start Association’s 

Parent Affiliate travels each year between Fort Meade, FL where his family harvests oranges and other seasonal crops, to Sunnyside, WA where his family harvest 

apples and cherries. 

To accommodate the demands of the labor market and effectively serve farmworker families, MSHS programs operate seasonally, some for 2 months and others 

for 6 months, as needed. During the peak agricultural season MSHS programs are 

open up to 7 days a week for 8 to 14 hours a day to accommodate the needs of parents working in the field or packing houses. 

MSHS providers work to coordinate services within and across State lines as families migrate during the year. Our programs maintain an effective network that provides seamless services to children and their families, transfer academic and medical records and avoid disrupting a child’s education. 

Bernarda Alatore came to Inspire Development Centers as a migrant seasonal 

farmworker, a single mother of four children, three of whom were in need of special 

services. Ms. Alatore migrated from Oregon, where she received Head Start services, 

to find work for herself in Washington State. She began to work in the fields harvesting a variety of seasonal crops. She brought her children to Inspire Development 

Centers in Pasco, WA where she felt confident that her children’s needs would continue to be served by the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program that she had 

come to rely on for her children’s early education and personal growth needs. Her 

determination to make a better life for herself and her family prompted her involvement with our Family Service Workers who assisted her with setting goals and accessing local resources to help her achieve those goals. She gained confidence and 

began to develop her abilities and soon was very involved with the Child Development Center. She served as a member of the Policy Council and was chosen to attend the Public Policy Forum in Washington, DC. Ms. Alatore worked actively in 

the community as an advocate for the Pasco Center and was involved in volunteer 

recruitment activities. Ms. Alatore continued setting new goals for herself and her 

children and she recently started her own business working out of her home. Ms. 

Alatore has enjoyed success in this endeavor and feels she has reached a comfortable position in her personal life in which she can better support her children’s 

goals. 

PARENT INVOLVEMENT

As I mentioned, MSHS is unique in that parents are required to work in order 

to qualify for services. Most of our families have two parents working in the field 

and despite working long hours in very difficult conditions, our parents are very involved in the operation of the Head Start center and their children’s education. They 

understand the importance of building a partnership with their child’s educational 

programs and they are engaged. For example, to address the 30 million word gap, 

parents are taught in evening sessions how to expand how they talk with their children by taking a book home each day and doing a lap-time session each evening. 

Parents quickly realize their power in helping their children gain vocabulary and 

concepts in their home language, which is easily converted as the children learn 

English. We know parent engagement is an essential element of our success and the 

success of our Migrant and Seasonal Head Start graduates. 

MSHS program directors work with parents to make sure meetings and trainings 

are scheduled when and where parents can participate. This requires flexible staff, 

willing to work evenings and weekends to meet with parents when they are not 

working. Staff must be bilingual and culturally competent to engage parents in a 

meaningful way and earn their trust. Latino families value education, see it as the 

way out of poverty and when they learn to expect success from their children, it 

happens. 

I’d like to share the story of Mr. Mendoza, a Head Start parent since 2012, and 

currently the Secretary of the Migrant Seasonal Head Start policy council for the 

Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) in California. Mr. 

Mendoza attended CAPSLO’s Male/Father Engagement groups in 2012, a program 

that uses the Abriendo Puertas Curriculum, the Nation’s first evidence-based parent 

leadership and advocacy curriculum for Latino parents with children under the age 

of 5. The following year, after he and his family migrated back to Santa Maria from 

Oxnard, CA, he situated his children at the Cielito MSHS center and attended the 

second round of Male/Father Engagement groups. Mr. Mendoza made it a goal to 

become more engaged as a Head Start parent after he attended these classes. He 

decided he wanted to serve in a leadership position on the MSHS policy council beVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:28 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22610.TXT DENISE
52 

cause he knew people listened to him and he could make a difference giving a voice 

to other parents and a role model. Mr. Mendoza’s story illustrates the power of parent engagement and I am happy to report that I frequently hear stories like Mr. 

Mendoza’s from MSHS programs across the country. 

PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE AND CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE SERVICES

Like all Head Start programs, MSHS programs are interdisciplinary, which 

means we focus on education, health (physical, dental, and mental), social services, 

nutrition, and parent engagement. And like all Head Start programs we firmly believe that providing comprehensive services to children and families is essential to 

our success. Approximately 84 percent of the farmworker families we serve speak 

Spanish as a primary language at home and our programs are designed and staffed 

to ensure that children and families are provided with linguistically and culturally 

appropriate services and opportunities to learn and grow. 

FIRST TO SERVE INFANTS AND TODDLERS

Since launched in 1969, well before the Early Head Start was created in 1994, 

MSHS programs have had the opportunity to serve eligible children from 6 weeks 

to 5 years of age. As a result, all MSHS facilities are designed to serve babies, toddlers, and preschoolers in one building. Our programs are recognized experts in the 

comprehensive care and development of children from birth through school-age attendance. On average some 75 percent of the children enrolled in MSHS programs 

are under 4 years of age and infants and toddlers comprise more than half of the 

children on the MSHS waiting lists. MSHS programs receive one grant to serve eligible children and with the exception of the Early Head Start dollars provided 

through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, MSHS programs had not 

received Early Head Start funding. We were pleased to have a portion of the fiscal 

year 2014 Early Head Start expansion funds set aside to enable MSHS programs 

to expand services to infants and toddlers. This opportunity to expand services to 

serve more infant and toddlers is an important step and we appreciate the work 

Senator Harkin, Senator Murray and others did to make sure the needs of MSHS 

children were addressed. 

I hope the stories and the experiences I have shared will be instructive as the 

committee considers legislation, like the Strong Start for America’s Children Act, intended to make quality early childhood education available to all children and particularly our most vulnerable. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is a tested and successful model that is instructive in understanding how a program can effectively 

reach and meet the needs of farmworker families. The challenges that faced farmworkers in 1969 and lead to the creation of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start—long 

hours, the seasonal and rural nature of the work, transportation, language, health 

and safety issues—are still in place today and must be addressed as Congress considers ways to strengthen existing early education programs like Head Start and or 

launch new initiatives in partnership with the States. 

53 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN HEAD START DIRECTORS

ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the National Indian Head Start Directors Association (NIHSDA) with regard to the Strong Start 

for America’s Children Act (Strong Start Act). 

NIHSDA has been the recognized voice for American Indian and Alaska Native 

Head Start programs for over 30 years. We have always sought to advocate for the 

best interests of Native children and their families through actively educating Federal officials about our programs and the needs of our communities. Indian Head 

Start programs have been a vital part of Head Start since its inception in 1965, and 

we have a wealth of expertise to offer regarding early childhood education. NIHSDA 

welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee as it considers the Strong 

Start Act. 

Early childhood education in Indian Country. NIHSDA thanks the sponsors 

of the Strong Start Act for bringing back to the forefront of the national conversation the importance of early childhood education to the future of our country. Just 

as Head Start has transformed the lives of millions of low-income children and their 

families since the 1960s, this legislation presents an opportunity to advance early 

childhood education for decades to come. NIHSDA believes that Native interests are 

in strong alignment with the goals of the Strong Start Act. NIHSDA will work closely with Congress to address how the Act can be tailored to achieve its objectives 

in the unique circumstances of Indian Country as well as how the Act can support 

Native culture and Native learning processes. 

The Constitution of the United States, treaties, Federal statutes, executive orders, 

Supreme Court doctrine, and other agreements define the Federal Government’s 

trust obligation to protect the interests of Indian peoples, especially in the education 

and health areas. The special challenges facing Indian communities require special 

consideration in the legislation. Many Indian reservations suffer from depressionera economics, with terrible crime and health statistics to match. The Indian reservation poverty rate is 31.2 percent, nearly three times the national average of 11.6 

percent. The Indian reservation rate is comparable to the national rate at the height 

of the Great Depression. The Indian reservation unemployment rate is approximately 50 percent, ten times the national unemployment rate of 5.2 percent (and 

on some reservations the rate is 80–90 percent). Most Indian communities are remotely located and there are no other resources besides Head Start to address the 

special needs of young Indian children who, on a daily basis, must deal with the 

conditions described above. The synergistic confluence of all of these negative factors 


87627-2.eps
54 

is often overwhelming. Indian Head Start has been the best Federal program in 

place that actually addresses the dire situation in much of Indian Country, while 

doing so in a culturally appropriate and effective manner. 

Fully incorporating Native children into the Strong Start Act. NIHSDA 

strongly believes that the most effective Federal Indian programs are the ones that 

work directly with tribes, such as the Head Start program, rather than through the 

States. State involvement or control over our programs can hinder our ability to 

shape the most appropriate and responsive early education programs for children 

in our communities. Because tribes have widely varying relationships with their 

States, sufficient set-asides for tribal programs are critical to ensuring that adequate funding is made available to Native communities. NIHSDA is pleased to see 

that the idea of set-asides for tribal programs is built into the Strong Start Act. 

NIHSDA remains concerned, however, about the State-centered approach and would 

like to work with Congress to ensure that efforts to extend early childhood education programs to all children do not come at the expense of the ability to implement effective programs for Native children. 

Additionally, creating and sustaining effective programs requires meaningful consultation with tribes early in the process of drafting legislation that impacts Indian 

Country. Congress and the Administration should reach out to tribal partners to receive much-needed input on how programs should be implemented in Native communities. 

In the current budget climate, NIHSDA remains concerned about the scarcity of 

resources. Indian Head Start programs, as well as the communities they serve, were 

hit hard by the effects of sequestration and budget cuts. If Head Start and the new 

pre-K initiatives in the Strong Start Act are not fully funded, their potential will 

be seriously compromised. NIHSDA also seeks clarity about how the initiative will 

be implemented on reservations and in Native communities, particularly with respect to the proposed Early Head Start-Child Care partnership grants. It appears 

that these grants may be largely contingent on partnerships with organizations and 

facilities that may be in short supply in many areas where American Indian and 

Alaska Native children live, or that may at times be incompatible with the unique 

needs and interests of Native children. To fully incorporate Indian children into the 

benefits of the Strong Start Act, the particular circumstances of American Indian 

and Alaska Native communities must be taken into account. 

CONCLUSION

For all Americans, our children are the most precious part of our lives. 

This legislation is an opportunity for America to come together and invest in our 

children, creating a brighter future for all. We thank you for your efforts to ensure 

access to high-quality early childhood education throughout the country. We encourage you to engage in meaningful consultation with tribal communities as this legislation moves forward. We hope that this is the beginning of a fruitful collaboration 

as we work together with you to make our shared dreams a reality for all our children. 

For more information, please contact Teri Stringer at teri@threefeathersassoc.com 

or Greg Smith at gsmith@hobbsstraus.com. 

JACKI HAIGHT, President. 

MAY 12, 2014. 

U.S. Senator ROBERT P. CASEY, 

Education Policy Office, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

615 Hart Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Response to Question from Senator Casey 

DEAR SENATOR CASEY: Thank you for your question about whether I worry about 

Providence and Rhode Island children falling behind their peers because of limited 

access to high-quality early learning opportunities. 

As a strong supporter of early childhood learning, I am deeply concerned that not 

every child is afforded the same access to education in the earliest years of life. I 

understand from personal experience how critical this early support is to future academic success. 

Studies have demonstrated that participation in pre-kindergarten programs help 

young people develop important cognitive, behavioral and problem-solving skills. 

Pre-kindergarten graduates are more likely to attend college, maintain a full-time 

55 

1 ‘‘High quality preschool program produces long-term economic payoff,’’ National Institutes of 

Health, 2/4/2011. 2 ‘‘Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation: Rhode Island Summary,’’ Lynch, Economic Policy 

institute, 7 /9/2007. 3 ‘‘Children enrolled in State Pre-K,’’ 2014 Rhode Island KIDS COUNT Factbook. 

job, and have health insurance.1 According to the Economic Policy Institute, lifetime economic benefits realize a return-on-investment of as much as $11 for each dollar 

invested.2

Unfortunately, early childhood learning programs in Rhode Island and others are 

severely limited in scope and only serve a small percentage of children in need. According to the 2014 Rhode Island KIDS COUNT Factbook, only 2 percent of 4-yearolds in Rhode Island are currently enrolled in our State-financed Pre-K program.3

That is why, as Mayor, I have made early childhood learning a top priority of my 

administration. 

Our winning initiative, Providence Talks addresses the research that children 

growing up in low-income households hear up to 30 million fewer words than their 

middle and high-income peers by their fourth birthday. Thanks to a $5 million investment from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Providence is empowering parents and 

caretakers with the tools and resources necessary to strengthen their household auditory environments. 

I was proud to be able testify in strong support of S. 1697, the Strong Start for 

America’s Children Act. Thank you for co-sponsoring this important legislation and 

for supporting America’s first Federal funding formula for high-quality, full-day prekindergarten. This Act ensures that our youngest learners are afforded the same opportunities to succeed—not only in Rhode Island, but across our country. 

Again, thank you for your leadership in promoting effective early childhood education. 

Sincerely, 

ANGEL TAVERAS, 

Mayor, Providence, RI. 

RESPONSE OF STEVEN BARNETT TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

AND SENATOR CASEY

SENATOR MURRAY

In your testimony before the Senate HELP Committee you discussed some of the 

positive impacts high-quality early childhood education has on student’s success. As 

you may know, literacy is critical to a child’s success in school and later in life. Support for early literacy development should start very early in a child’s life, whether 

that’s in their own home, a child care site, or an early childhood education program. 

Question 1. Can you discuss the gap that currently exists in early literacy opportunities between lower income children and their peers? 

Answer 1. The ‘‘literacy gap’’ is not simply a static difference between low-income 

children and others, but a continuously expanding gap between children from the 

most advantaged families and children from both middle- and low-income families. 

This gap is remarkably large for children in middle-income families and becomes 

twice as large for children in poverty (Barnett & Nores, 2014). Contributors to the 

gap include differences in home and community experiences associated with parental education and income levels and differences in the experiences children have because of what parents can purchase for their children including digital media, visits 

to zoos, libraries, museums, and even stores (low-income communities have less 

print on display and far fewer children’s books readily available), and, of course, 

good preschool education programs. The children of high-school dropouts have only 

a 1 in 10 chance of attending a good preschool program; children of high school 

graduates have a 2 in 10 chance of good preschool. Even for the most educated parents this rises to just 3 in 10 (Barnett & Nores, 2014). 

Question 2. How will the Strong Start for America’s Children Act help close the 

opportunity gap between lower income children and their peers? 

Answer 2. The Strong Start for America’s Children Act provides incentives for 

States to increase access to quality preschool programs beginning with those in families under 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. This will reduce the opportunity 

gap in two ways. First, it will increase access to good preschool programs for lowand moderate-income families, and it will increase access the most for those who 

currently have least access. Second, although all children benefit from high quality 

programs, language and literacy gains are larger for children from lower income 

families. 

56 

My overall assessment of the data on program participation is that Hispanic immigrant families in particular have a very strong need for such programs because 

their young children often have extremely low levels of English language and literacy proficiency. Hispanic parents also are highly reluctant to send their children 

to poor or mediocre quality programs. However, they do send their children at very 

high rates to high quality public preschool education programs when these are 

available in their community. 

SENATOR CASEY

Questions 1 and 2. Thank you for talking about the elements that constitute quality early learning, such as low student-teacher ratios and qualified teachers, and 

how they are an interconnected network that, as a whole, creates positive results 

for children when maintained over time. What can we do to ensure that programs 

are looking at quality in this holistic, and continual, way, and not just checking off 

boxes on a list? 

How do we maintain quality in the long term? Is it a matter of ongoing teacher 

preparation and professional development, or further reductions in class size? Given 

that you’ve talked about quality as a combination of factors, how should a State 

looking to improve quality, but with limited resources, prioritize their investments 

to get the greatest improvement in quality? 

Answers 1 and 2. Both questions focus on the key question of how to ensure quality and, thus effectiveness, and the answers are related. Programs must have a way 

to measure quality and outcomes for children across all domains of learning and development. Current measures are not up to the task. The inexpensive ones are too 

narrow or unreliable, while a comprehensive battery is too time consuming and expensive. Congress could support research and development on better measures of (1) 

learning and (2) teaching for young children that could be used in continuous improvement systems at a reasonable cost in time and money. It is prohibitively expensive for each State to do this independently. Two current initiatives to develop 

kindergarten entry assessments are useful, but not nearly enough. There should be 

enough invested in this effort to create a competitive market place for the best approaches. Without such an effort I fear that States will adopt poor measures because 

they are required to have something for accountability and evaluation. However, 

they will largely ignore the results because they know that the data are unreliable 

or, worse, they will make high stakes or costly decisions based on invalid information. 

Congress could also provide for more frequent national surveys of program practices, availability and quality based on actual observation. The most recently available data are from 2005 and apply to just 4-year-olds. It would be useful to measure 

the quality of a sample of preschool programs nationally at least every 5 years and 

for children from birth to 5. Such data also ought to be more widely disseminated. 

For example, it is not widely known that the percentage of preschool teachers scoring good or better on measures of teaching quality was twice as high in the Northeast as in other regions of the country in 2005. 

Finally, many Federal programs require that recipients of funding conduct evaluations. Typically these are one shot, point in time measures of outcomes that are not 

really capable of producing valid conclusions about program effects on outcomes and 

do not produce results that can be combined or compared. It would be more useful 

to require that programs have continuous improvement systems in which data are 

used much like a GPS—to tell people how to get to their goals from where they are 

and make course corrections as needed. 

RESPONSE OF GROVER J. (RUSS) WHITEHURST TO QUESTION OF SENATOR CASEY

You have said that you’re not advocating reducing Federal spending, but targeting 

it. Currently, Head Start serves children below the Federal poverty line. Most children receiving Federal child care subsidies are from families with incomes below 

150 percent of poverty. The Strong Start Act would require States to focus first on 

4-year-olds below 200 percent of poverty, and then they may expand to the same 

group of 3-year-olds. These children are not fully served by existing early learning 

programs; the three largest programs serve less than one-third of all eligible lowincome children. 

Question 1. How much more targeted do you see us getting? 

Answer 1. Evidence strongly suggests that children from the most disadvantaged 

families are the most likely to benefit from organized pre-school settings. President 

Obama’s proposal for Preschool for All provides a strong financial incentive for 

States to provide free pre-K for all children. In my view, State and Federal funds 

57 

would be more productively deployed to serve children in greatest need rather than 

to serve all children. My policy preference is for a sliding scale of financial support 

based on family income rather than a hard cutoff such as 150 percent of the poverty 

line. 

Question 2. How would you determine which families are in the worst circumstances? How would you get them into services and what would those services 

be? 

Answer 2. Family income, parental education, and children’s disability and linguistic status could be used to qualify children for basic services (e.g., center-based 

care) funded by the taxpayer on a sliding scale. Additional funds would be available 

for intensive services (e.g., home visiting) for children with exceptional needs, based 

on evaluations and recommendations by social service, child care, and health care 

providers. Families would be in the driver’s seat in determining which services to 

obtain for their children, but States would be required to help parents through the 

collection and provision of information on the quality and characteristics of individual service providers and through web-based tools to help parents shop and 

nudge them toward good selections. 

Question 3. You have previously said that $7,000–$8,000 should be enough for 

families to purchase good care. Do you really think you can find good quality infanttoddler care for that amount? The average cost of infant care falls beneath that level 

in only 15 States, and exceeds $10,000 in 19 States—and these are for current levels 

of quality that aren’t very high. 

Answer 3. You are, presumably, referring to an answer I gave to a member question during a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing in February 2014. 

Rep. Tierney asked whether the cost of early education of $5,000 to $10,000 per student would be equivalent to the cost of a voucher in a Federal voucher system. I 

replied that contingent upon the geographic region and the age of the child a $7,000 

to $8,000 voucher would allow for quality childcare. I was referring specifically to 

the cost of center-based care for 3- and 4-year-olds. This is the age group on which 

Preschool for All is focused. Full-day infant and toddler care is considerably more 

expensive, as indicated in your question, and as recognized in my answer to Representative Tierney in which I noted that costs are contingent on the age of the 

child. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ