Education

for

Four-Year-Olds

State

Initiatives

James J. Gallagher

Jenna R. Clayton

Sarah E. Heinemeier

Technical

Report #2

National Center for Early Development & Learning

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Education

for

Four-Year-Olds

State Initiatives

Technical Report #2

James J. Gallagher

Jenna R. Clayton

Sarah E. Heinemeier
ii EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

This project was supported under the educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number

R307A60004, as administed by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education

However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the National Institute on Early

Childhood Development and Education, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the US Department

of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.

December 12, 2000

© 2001 James J. Gallagher, Jenna R. Clayton, & Sarah E. Heinemeier

Printed by the FPG Child Development Center, UNC-CH

Design & Layout: Gina Harrison

For additional copies, contact

FPG Publications Office

(919) 966-4221

publications@mail.fpg.unc.edu

Suggested citiation:

Gallagher, J.J., Clayton, J.R., & Heinemeier, S.E. (2001). Education for four-year-olds: State

initiatives. Technical Report #2. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development

Center, National Center for Early Development & Learning.

This report is available online at www.ncedl.org
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

Change Theory .......................................................................................................................... 7

Resistance to Reform ................................................................................................................ 8

Opposition to Four-Year-Olds in Education .................................................................................. 8

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 10

Statement of the Problem........................................................................................................ 10

Selection of States ................................................................................................................. 10

Interviewees .......................................................................................................................... 10

Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 11

Methods of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 11

State Case Studies.......................................................................................................................... 17

Georgia .................................................................................................................................. 17

How It Began ................................................................................................................. 17

Current Status................................................................................................................. 17

Analytic Findings ............................................................................................................ 18

Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 18

Barriers .................................................................................................................. 21

Major Facilitators ............................................................................................................ 22

Major Barriers ................................................................................................................. 23

Georgia Summary ............................................................................................................ 23

Illinois .................................................................................................................................. 24

How It Began ................................................................................................................. 24

Current Status................................................................................................................. 25

Analytic Findings ............................................................................................................ 25

Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 25

Barriers .................................................................................................................. 26

Major Facilitators ............................................................................................................ 27

Major Barriers ................................................................................................................. 29

Illinois Summary ............................................................................................................. 29

New York ................................................................................................................................ 29

How It Began ................................................................................................................. 29

Current Status................................................................................................................. 30

Analytic Findings ............................................................................................................ 30

Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 31

Barriers .................................................................................................................. 33

Major Facilitators ............................................................................................................ 35

Major Barriers ................................................................................................................. 35

New York Summary .......................................................................................................... 36
iv EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

South Carolina ........................................................................................................................ 37

How It Began ................................................................................................................. 37

Current Status................................................................................................................. 37

Analytic Findings ............................................................................................................ 37

Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 37

Barriers .................................................................................................................. 40

Major Facilitators ............................................................................................................ 41

Major Barriers ................................................................................................................. 41

South Carolina Summary .................................................................................................. 42

Texas ..................................................................................................................................... 42

How It Began ................................................................................................................. 42

Current Status................................................................................................................. 43

Analytic Findings ............................................................................................................ 43

Facilitators ............................................................................................................. 43

Barriers .................................................................................................................. 46

Major Facilitators ............................................................................................................ 47

Major Barriers ................................................................................................................. 47

Texas Summary ................................................................................................................ 48

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 49

Generalities from Five States ................................................................................................... 50

Political Leadership ......................................................................................................... 50

Early School Failures ....................................................................................................... 50

Reform Packages ............................................................................................................. 51

Professionals and Political Leaders ................................................................................... 51

Other Commonalties ........................................................................................................ 52

Major Differences between States............................................................................................. 52

Finance .......................................................................................................................... 52

Gradual versus Sudden ..................................................................................................... 52

Organizational Support Systems ....................................................................................... 53

Advice to Other States Thinking about State Funding and Program

Expansion in Education for Prekindergartens ............................................................................. 53

Link with Larger Educational Reform ................................................................................. 53

The Importance of Early Childhood ................................................................................... 53

Political Leadership and Support ...................................................................................... 54

Funding Sources.............................................................................................................. 54

Transportation ................................................................................................................ 54

Infrastructure-Data Systems ............................................................................................. 54

Program Quality Assurance ............................................................................................... 54

Collaboration with Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 55

Other Forces at Work ....................................................................................................... 55

References ..................................................................................................................................... 56
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report owes a major debt to those forty people in the five states who

provided the interview material and the documents for this study. Their

cooperation and frankness was essential to the final product.

The authors benefited substantially from the critical reviews of earlier

versions of this manuscript by members of the National Center for Early

Development & Learning: at The University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill by Dick Clifford, Diane Early, and Donna Bryant; at UCLA by Carollee

Howes; and at The University of Virginia by Bob Pianta. The final responsibility for this product, of course, remains with the authors.

Pam Winton, Loyd Little, and Gina Harrison helped with the editing

and format of the report. Kim Summerville provided much appreciated

secretarial help for the production of the various versions of the manuscript.

Finally, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the US

Department of Education provided necessary funding for the project

through the National Center for Early Development & Learning.

.

Executive Summary

ONE OF THE MAJOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY SHIFTS in recent years has been the establishment of statefunded prekindergarten programs in a number of states. Such a move seems to be driven, in part, by:

• evidence that many students are failing in the early grades, particularly children considered “at risk,”

• an increasing number of mothers in the workforce,

• welfare reform policies that require mothers to work and, therefore, find child care, and

• evidence of the importance of early childhood to later development.

The research questions posed in the present study were: How did the states manage this distinctive

shift in educational policy to prekindergarten? What were the major facilitators and major barriers to be

overcome, and the particular strategies that appeared to be useful in achieving this result? It was noted

that such a policy change was being accomplished despite the known difficulty of instituting change in

bureaucratic systems and the hidden power of the status quo in resisting change.

Five states were chosen (Georgia, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, and Texas) on the basis of

previous surveys that determined that these states were making substantial progress in establishing a

prekindergarten program in their state. The objective of this study was to discover the forces at work in

each state by conducting structured interviews of knowledgeable people in each of the five states and by

examining documents provided by them. The people interviewed represented early childhood, Head Start,

child care, the political scene, and others who were seen as relevant to the educational policy in that

particular state.

The interviewees were provided the questions they would be asked that essentially inquired into their

views and experiences related to facilitators and barriers to the state-funded program for prekindergarten.

They were asked to describe how the policy had been established and how it was being implemented.

A category system was designed, based on previous work on policy barriers, which allowed

for the coding of the interviews into nine separate categories (Institutional, Individual, Groups, Economic,

Political, Geographic, Academic, Media, and Resources). Each category was capable of being either a

facilitator or a barrier (see pp. 13–14). Each passage, identified as a facilitator or a barrier, was coded by

three judges. Two of the three judges had to agree for the coding to be accepted. The individual case

studies and analyses yielded the following results for each of the states.

GEORGIA

In 1992, then Governor Zell Miller decided that prekindergarten was something that Georgia needed and

he provided the political leadership to make a program possible. The program began as a pilot and served

750 ‘at-risk’ students. In school year 1995–1996 with the growing income from the newly passed lottery,
2 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

a full-day universal program for all four-year-olds

(all four-year-olds that wished to participate were

entitled to the program) was begun. In 1996 Miller

moved the program from the Department of Education into a separate unit, the Office of School

Readiness, which reported directly to him.

During the school year 1999–2000, this voluntary state prekindergarten program spent over

$220 million and served about 62,500 (63%)

students while Head Start served another 10,000

children. Using either program, a total of about

73% of all four-year-old children in Georgia were

served. The Georgia program required a teacherchild ratio of 1:10 and a maximum class size of 20

children. The program must operate at least 6

hours per day. The Office of School Readiness

contracts with public schools, Head Starts, and

private providers to deliver the services.

The prekindergarten program was facilitated

because of the commitment of former Governor Zell

Miller and the availability of a designated funding

source (the lottery) which did not dilute existing

funds from other state programs. The establishment of Coordinating Councils, which required the

commitment of many agencies, also promoted a

smooth start.

A major barrier appeared to be that the program

was started so fast that the necessary collaboration

and initial concerns of child care and Head Start

were overlooked. These concerns now have to be

accommodated in the implementation phase.

ILLINOIS

This program began fifteen years ago through the

strong initiation of a program of educational reform

by the State Board of Education, a variety of

influential advocacy groups and by friends in the

state legislature. The target population was and

remains children identified as “at risk” for academic failure through a screening process, or

children for whom English is a second language.

The prekindergarten program has grown from $3

million to $200 million dollars and has units in every

county in the state. The state funds full-day and

half-day programs; most are half-day programs. The

staff-child ratio may not exceed 1:10 with a maximum of 20 children in each classroom. During

school year 1999–2000, it served almost 55,000

children (15% of the statewide population of threeand four-year-olds although there are more four-year

olds served in the program). Statewide about 22% of

four-year-olds are served, with Head Start serving

another 40,000 children. Although still not part of

the regular school budget (it operated as a grant

program) it seemed to be well established. Localities

must receive funds through the public schools, but

they may subcontract with Head Start and child care

centers to provide the services.

The prekindergarten programs appeared to be

facilitated by gradual implementation and strong

public support. There were many advocacy voices

for this program from a variety of groups in the

private and professional sectors of Illinois. From

the very beginning of the program, there was an

emphasis on program quality that reassured the

public that their money was being well spent.

Major barriers appeared to be a limited amount

of collaboration between the schools and other

agencies in many districts. Lack of space, transportation, and qualified teachers remained a problem

although, ironically, such deficits encouraged

collaboration.

NEW YORK

New York has had an Experimental prekindergarten program in place for 35 years and this program

laid the groundwork for the Universal Prekindergarten program (UPK). UPK started in 1997 with a

year of planning. The first year of implementation,

1998–1999, the program served 68 low-income
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 3

districts with all children within these districts

being eligible to attend this half-day program.

Universal Prekindergarten had a budget of $100

million for school year 1999–2000 and served 99

districts including the five largest districts in the

state. Almost 35,000 (13% of the four-year-olds in

the state) children were served in 1999–2000 with

priority given to economically disadvantaged

children within these districts. A budget of $225

million was approved for this half-day program in

2000–2001.

The money is awarded to the public schools,

which must then subcontract at least 10% of their

funds to outside agencies. Public schools, Head

Start and private providers may offer programs.

There has been a strong emphasis on quality with

the requirement that all lead teachers be certified

by school year 2001–2002. There is no minimum

class size, but the maximum is 20.

A major facilitator for the Universal Prekindergarten program was the legislation that mandated

at least 10% of prekindergarten funds be set aside

for other agencies to participate. A driving force for

the new program (buried in a large education

reform package—the LADDER proposal) was

Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, with the

support of many advocacy and professional groups.

A strong curriculum was made available to local

districts as well as quality controls that were

designed to enhance child development.

Although promoted as a universal program,

open to all, it has a five-year phase-in and there

remain concerns about whether there will be

enough money appropriated for total implementation. Some schools remain doubtful of the state’s

intent and their concerns have been magnified by

the legislature’s penchant for late budgets, often

not passed until the summer. Lack of trained

personnel, transportation and half-day programs

are problems that require other support funds.

SOUTH CAROLINA

The strong leadership of former Governor Richard

Riley facilitated the prekindergarten program in

South Carolina. He began the program as part of a

package of education reform. The fact that many

students in South Carolina were performing poorly

on standardized tests and that prekindergarten

received strong support from minority groups were

seen as strong catalysts for the program.

The prekindergarten program began as part of

the Education Improvement Act in 1984 with the

passage of an additional one-cent sales tax. The

program served ‘at-risk’ four-year-olds who are

defined as “children with potential academic

deficiencies or children for whom English is a

second language.” A school district may subcontract with outside agencies to provide

prekindergarten services. Only certified teachers

may teach in the program regardless of what

setting is being used. The program requires two

and a half hours per day—five days per week. Halfday programs are not practical in some localities so

they often use an assortment of funding sources

and collaboration to provide full-day programs.

Every school district was required to have at

least one program, and about 15,400 children were

served in the 1999–2000 school year. This was

about 30% of the four-year-olds in the state. At the

same time the state appropriated $23.6 million for

this program with the participating localities

spending additional amounts.

The program has faced political problems,

depending upon which party was in power,

in addition to financial costs and lack of resources,

such as trained personnel. There were also moral

issues raised by conservative voices, who carry

considerable weight in South Carolina. They often

questioned whether such early childhood programs

were undermining the family by encouraging

women to work outside the home.
4 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

TEXAS

The prekindergarten program in Texas began in the

fall of 1985. It served ‘at-risk’ (children unable to

speak or understand English, educationally disadvantaged, or homeless) children in almost every

locality of Texas. If a school district identified at

least 15 eligible four-year-olds, it must offer a

prekindergarten program. The program had gradually grown over the years to a $171.9 million

program, serving 142,000 children or about 22%

of the four-year-olds in the state.

Currently the state funds half-day programs, but

an additional $200 million was provided by the

state legislature in 1999 to transform these programs into full-day programs. This money is to be

used during the 1999–2001 school years. The

Texas Education Agency administers the prekindergarten program and local school districts receive

the funds. They may subcontract with community

agencies for prekindergarten services. There are

voluntary curriculum standards but a certified

teacher must be in each classroom. Because

prekindergarten was removed from the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills (a means used by

the Texas Education Agency for determining

accountability/ requirement) there is neither a

state-approved teacher child ratio nor a maximum

class size.

The prekindergarten program was facilitated

because the program was a part of a larger educational reform movement inspired by a citizen’s

commission headed by Ross Perot. The impetus for

the program was the large number of children

failing in the early grades. A new initiative pushed

by Governor Bush, ‘every child reading on grade

level by the third grade,’ has increased interest and

support for the prekindergarten program.

The major barriers are lack of facilities and

personnel and also a lack of administrative support

as evidenced by a one-person Department of Early

Childhood Education and a lack of regular early

childhood education staff in the important Regional

Resources Centers. There is also a question about

how extensive the collaboration is between community agencies and the education programs.

FACILITATORS & BARRIERS

Using the category system employed in this

study, all of the states seemed to have high

percentages of facilitators in the institutional,

individual, and political areas. The wide

variety of changes in the systems of education

and child care resulted in a high percentage of

responses in the institutional category. Organizational shifts for administrative purposes,

establishing local coordinating councils, creating new personnel preparation programs, and so

on, all fell in this category. The individual

category was also high in most states, which

reflected the powerful influence of key persons

in the state, both political and professional

leaders, necessary to move the program along.

Political responses reflected the important role

played by the political process in bringing about

these policy changes.

The barriers that were mentioned most frequently by most states fell into the institutional,

resources, and economic categories. The many

responses in the institutional category reflected

the continued need to establish collaboration

between agencies and the lack of data systems,

communication networks, and other support

system features that were needed for a complete

prekindergarten program.

The lack of resources to properly run a prekindergarten program was felt by all of the states and

focused on space, transportation, and personnel

needs. Even when the program was limited to ‘atrisk’ students there were major shortages to meet

all of these needs. As states move to a universal
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 5

program such needs will multiply, again requiring a

consistent strategy as to how to meet these needs

on a continuing basis.

Economics was the third category that received

many comments. The major concern was how to

pay for this program. At the universal level it is the

equivalent of adding another year to the budget of

the public schools, which is no small matter. Aside

from Georgia’s use of the lottery, there were few

insights as to how the program was going to be

financed aside from gradually increasing this

budget year-by-year. A phase-in strategy is almost

sure to be used by most states to allow for gradual

increases in the budget to pay the bill for this new

prekindergarten program.

COMMON THEMES

The investigators found several common elements

across all five states. These included, (1) the

importance of political leadership, (2) the goal of

trying to reduce school failure in the early grades,

(3) the importance of making this program a piece

of a larger educational reform package, (4) the

cooperation between professional and political

leaders, and (5) the increase of mothers in the

workforce putting pressure on decision makers for

some type of action.

Major differences between the states were

found in: (1) the manner of financing the program,

(2) gradual versus sudden implementation, (3) how

the program was administered and the degree of

support services provided to back-up the program.

LESSONS LEARNED

Among the suggestions provided by the investigators to other states that might be thinking about

state action for prekindergartens or expanding

existing programs, the five most important were:

• link the program with other educational

reform packages,

• target children who are not developing in

ways that could make likely their successful

entry to school (‘at-risk’ children),

• seek political leadership and support,

• establish a funding source, if possible, one

that does not take away from other state

services, and

• encourage collaboration among the many

early childhood stakeholders within the

state.

Other suggestions were: develop strategies for

transportation, build a data system to collect

needed information, and stress program quality

such as using certified personnel and well developed curriculum. ■
6 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Introduction

ONE OF THE MAJOR SHIFTS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY in the last half of the twentieth century has

been the increasing number of women and mothers in the workforce. Prior to World War II only

about 10% of women were in the workforce. The figure is now 65% of women with children under the age

of five are in the workforce (MLR: The Editor’s Desk, 1999). The policy issue is, who will care for the

young child?

As long as young children were perceived as needing only someone to provide loving care and a safe and

protected environment in which to spend their early years, the emphasis was on child care with relatively

untrained personnel (Gallagher, Rooney & Campbell, 1999). It has become clear, however, that many

children are entering the public school systems quite unprepared. Additionally, there have been a series of

research studies stressing the importance of intervention in the early years (Ramey & Ramey, 1998).

Recently, there have also been reports of early brain development that stress the role of experience in

growing the brain’s network of associations (Jensen, 1998).

One of the first attempts to prepare ‘at-risk’ students for school was Head Start, a major pillar of

President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. This attempt to help young children in poverty (90% of the

‘at-risk’ children come from families below the poverty line) become prepared for school started with

great optimism and enthusiasm. Head Start improved social competence and motivation. The program did

not, however, significantly improve IQ scores or achievement (Zigler & Styfco, 1994). It seems clear that

Head Start was not the total answer to school readiness.

While the importance of early experience was being spread by the popular media, results from various

reviews of child care programs were discouraging. The Child Care, Cost, and Quality Study (Helburn, 1995)

reviewed 400 child care sites and reported mediocre or worse child care programs in many of these settings.

Furthermore, many observers felt that the inherent weaknesses of the child care programs in terms of low

teacher salaries, low level of personnel preparation, and high parental costs (Morgan, 1995) made it difficult

to see how these obstacles could be easily overcome (Kagan & Cohen, 1997; Gormley, 1997).

With so many children growing up in poverty in one-parent families, or in families with limited English

proficiency, there was a general feeling that a different setting was needed that had the specific goal of

preparing children ‘at risk for school failure’ for a successful school experience. Zigler, Finn-Stevenson, &

Marsland (1995) have called for different goals in programs for young children. Prekindergarten programs

have been seen as one policy answer to the problems of young children’s development. Forty-two states now

have some form of state-funded prekindergarten programs (Schulman, Blank, & Ewen, 1999) but many of

these programs are relatively small and underfunded. Is it possible that such programs would be expanded

and extended in the near future? A recent judge’s ruling in North Carolina found that the state had a consti-
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 7

tutional obligation to provide ‘at-risk’ children with

early education beginning at age four. Such a ruling,

if unchallenged, would be another force leading to

more prekindergarten programs (Public School

Forum’s Friday Report, 2000).

CHANGE THEORY

What do we know about change and how it can be

accomplished in this policy arena? Prekindergarten

represents such a sea change in American education that the nature of change itself needs to be

considered. Table 1 presents the eight basic

lessons of a new paradigm change proposed by

Fullan (1993). Some of these lessons seem particularly relevant to the present study. We are particularly interested in Lesson 2, Change is a journey,

not a blueprint (change is non-linear, loaded with

uncertainty and excitement, and sometimes perverse); Lesson 6, Neither centralization nor

decentralization works (both ‘top-down’ and

‘bottom-up’ strategies are necessary); and Lesson

2

4

6

7

8

 Table 1. The Eight Basic Lessons of the New Paradigm Change

Lesson One: You can’t mandate what matters.

Lesson Two: Change is a journey not a blueprint (change is non-linear, loaded with uncertainty and

excitement, and sometimes perverse).

Lesson Three: Problems are our friends.

Lesson Four: Vision and strategic planning come later.

Lesson Five: Individualism and collectivism must have equal power.

Lesson Six: Neither centralization nor decentralization works (both top-down and bottom-up

strategies are necessary).

Lesson Seven: Connection with the wider environment is critical for success (the best organizations

learn externally as well as internally).

Lesson Eight: Every person is a change agent.

 Source: Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: The Palmer Press.

5

3

1

7, Connection with the wider environment is

critical for success (the best organizations learn

from external sources as well as internal). We

believe that these three rules have direct applicability to the current proposed policy change towards prekindergartens. We will try to identify

elements in our data that address these rules.

Since it is impossible to predict, in advance,

all of the forces that might come into play in a major

change (such as the prekindergarten shift), detailed

planning or blueprinting in advance is not possible

(Lesson 2). As Fullan says:

Under conditions of uncertainty, learning,

anxiety, difficulties and fear of the unknown is

intrinsic to all change processes, especially at

the early stages. One can see why a risk-taking

mentality and climate are so critical (p. 25).

In short, there is a requirement for flexibility in considering policy change because of the dynamic nature

of the multiple forces that have to be considered.
8 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

If one chooses either the centralized (‘topdown’) or the decentralized (‘bottom-up’) approach

to creating change exclusively, then one has a

serious imbalance (Lesson 6). Centralization errs

on the side of over-control from above, while

decentralization errs towards diffuse efforts devoid

of authority. Each approach needs the other in

order to be successful. In states that have made

considerable progress in changing policies for

young children, this means that one would expect

to find some central power sources such as an

agency head or a key political figure who were

directing this move (centralized). On the other

hand, one would expect many other diverse forces

more directly affected by the decision to adopt

prekindergarten programs, such as parent groups

and teachers and child care programs, whose

support can provide needed public sanction and

approval for these ideas (decentralized).

‘Connection with the wider environment’ is

necessary because so many diverse forces are at

work in the society, all of which will be affected by

this move (Lesson 7). An element of dynamic

complexity that translates into continued interactions in the environment. Forces such as political

rivals, Head Start, parent complaints, lack of space,

financial support, or a dozen different forces can be

counted upon to resist changing the landscape as

this change process continues. Potential objectors to

the policy shift must be brought into the system or

their influence neutralized in some fashion.

RESISTANCE TO REFORM

Many past efforts at educational reform have come

to naught, focusing on the difficulties in changing

large organizations or institutions (Weick & Quinn,

1999; Schein, 1996). There appears to be good

reason for respecting the power of the status quo.

Gersick (1991) describes a deep structure, a set of

basic activity patterns that evolve to maintain a

system’s existence. These existing policies or

regulations, the ‘rules of the game,’ are referred to

by those resistant to policy change: ‘This is the

way we have always done things.’ When this

defense of the status quo’s ‘rules of the game’ is

combined with the fact that change tends to reallocate power and authority (Sarason, 1996), often to

the dismay of those currently holding such power

and authority, it is easy to see that any policy

change has a strong uphill climb to reach its goal.

The reaction of organizations to the threat of

change has been likened to the reaction of the

human body to infection. White corpuscles hasten

to the intruding infection and seal it off to keep the

infection from spreading to the rest of the body.

Soon a scab forms over the wound and drops off

leaving the body the same as it was. An analogy to

the fate of various educational reform efforts is not

hard to draw.

OPPOSITION TO

FOUR-YEAR-OLDS IN EDUCATION

In addition to the natural resistance to change,

there can be direct opposition to the prekindergarten policy. Some opposition sources may question the utility of the cost involved, others may

question the basic philosophy of the program, and

still others may question the positive claims for the

program itself.

Those questioning the cost of the new program

represent a more generic objection to any new

costly program. The expenditure of more money for

public purposes means, in all likelihood, more

taxes for the citizens, or less attention to other

priorities on which the objectors might care to

spend these scarce resources. The amount of the

cost may be more important to these objectors than

philosophical disagreements. For example, ‘If you

need to find a ‘safe place’ for the child while the

mother works, why make it a BMW-type program,
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 9

why not a Chevrolet-type of program?’ represents a

common theme (Scarr, 1998).

There are several possible responses to this

objection. Evidence can be offered that there are

long-range benefits to a well-organized intervention

program that would include less school failure or

even less crime in later years, a major savings in

long-term costs. The work of Weikert and others,

for example, have indicated that the state can

receive several dollars back in benefits for every

dollar spent now on quality child programs

(Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikert, 1993).

The second level of objection is more difficult to

deal with because it represents a moral position.

The objection is as follows: ‘The family is the

cornerstone of morality and character building in

our society. By taking young children out of the

family and placing them in some preschool program, you are further undermining the family unit

during a time when children most need the

nurturance of a loving mother. No child care worker

or teacher can replace that love.’

Further, by allowing the child to be cared for by

‘government’ you open him/her to suspect outside

influences. ‘How do you know what the child is

being taught during these tender years?’ These

objections are made with great intensity and

sincerity by some provide a continued predictable

opposition to the prekindergarten in education

program (Olsen, 1999). Although the numbers of

these objectors are relatively small, their energy

and commitment are large, and provide a predictable barrier in any state.

There have been a number of critics who believe

that the claims of benefits from prekindergarten

programs have been overstated and lack convincing

evidence (Scarr, 1998). While they admit that some

exemplary programs with an abundance of resources have shown a difference in the children’s

development, they point out that other programs

with lesser resources have not shown to make such

a difference. Olsen (1999) has summarized the

negative position as follows:

“No empirical evidence supports the claim that

universal preschool will reduce the number of

children who will perform poorly in school,

become teenage parents, commit criminal acts,

or depend on welfare. Although some projects

have had meaningful short-term effects on

disadvantaged children’s cognitive ability,

grade retention and special education placement, those benefits are short lived.” (p. 17)

While it is true that there have been only

modest changes in IQ scores in children in these

special preschool programs there is some consistency in the finding that there is less later school

failure, which is a major goal of such programs

(Ramey & Ramey, 1998). As Susan Gray once

pointed out, it is foolish to think of early childhood

programs as providing an inoculation against all of

the ills of society that the child may meet in later

years (Gray, Ramsey, & Klaus, 1982).
10 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Methodology

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The basic question we are posing is, ‘How do states change their policies about four-year-olds in education?’ What are the critical factors facilitating and inhibiting such a change? We identified five states that

made substantial progress in changing their policies to include prekindergarten and will attempt to

describe and explain how they were able to accomplish this goal. Our data include information gleaned

from interviewing key personnel within each state and from reviewing state documents.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this paper, we used the following definitions:

Preschool Programs that serve children under school age

Prekindergarten Programs that serve only three-year-olds and/or four-year-olds under

educational administration.

SELECTION OF STATES

One of the primary sources of information used to select the final states came from a major report from the

Families and Work Institute entitled, Prekindergarten Programs Funded by the States (Mitchell, Ripple, &

Chanan, 1998). This study provided the history of the preschool programs for each state, the number of children served, the population served, the providers, and program standards.

From this base we identified 8 to 10 states as candidates for this study using the criteria on percentage

of four-year-olds being served and the amount of funds committed. From this group the final five states

(Georgia, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, & Texas) were chosen on the basis of diversity in size, region

of the country, and willingness to participate in the study. No state refused to participate in the study.

INTERVIEWEES

Our goal was to interview seven or eight key people in each state who had direct knowledge of the prekindergarten program but who might see the program from a variety of perspectives. In each state we were able

to interview the state director of the prekindergarten program. We also interviewed a representative from

the Head Start program in the state, someone from the political arena, and someone who had experience in

child advocacy. The remainder of the interviewees were chosen based upon their close association with the

program, and having been nominated by other professionals in the state. In some states a representative

from higher education was involved, in others someone from the child care profession, and so on.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 11

PROCEDURE

A standard letter was sent out to the prospective

interviewee explaining the purpose of the study and

asking for about forty-five minutes of their time to

participate in a telephone interview. If they accepted, an appointment time and date were set, and

they were sent a set of key questions that would be

used in the interview so that they would have a

chance to reflect on their answers in advance and

not have to respond in the spur of the moment. A list

of these questions are in Table 2. Of the forty-five

interviewees, we were turned down by one and four

others did not respond to our inquiries. Sometimes a

political figure was immersed in the current legislative session, another time a person was leaving her

position to go to another state. No one refused

participation because of a stated concern about the

project or its outcome.

Each interview was tape recorded, except in two

instances when the interviewee specifically requested that notes be taken instead. The taped

interviews were transcribed and the scripts were

used for further analysis. In the two interviews not

taped, the notes were reviewed in similar fashion.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Each of the interview scripts was read by three

judges who underlined passages in different colors

that represented the categories of facilitators and

barriers. Facilitator passages were those that

enhanced the enactment and development of an

educational program for four-year-olds. The initiatives of legislation, the work of advocates, or the

development of a personnel preparation program

would all fall under the general area of facilitation.

Examples of barriers would be opposition by

various groups, lack of needed resources, and lack

of needed infrastructure.

A category system for coding the interview

material was developed from an earlier system

derived for explaining barriers to policy initiation

or support (Haskins & Gallagher, 1981; Gallagher

& Clifford, 2000). To the original categories of

institutional, psychological (individual), sociological (groups), economic, political, and geographic, three other categories were added. These

were academic evidence (data presented either for

or against the policy), media (evidence or opinions

in the popular media which supported or opposed

the policy), and resources (the availability or

unavailability of personnel, facilities, and so on).

These were added based on our background

knowledge of this particular issue.

The facilitators for each of these nine categories

were considered to be the opposite or mirror image

of the barriers. A facilitator under economics, for

example, was the availability of funds to carry out

the policy. A barrier under this economics category

would be the unavailability of such funds, or

unwillingness to spend such funds. Brief descriptions of the coding statements for facilitators are

presented in Table 3. Sample responses coded

under each category are provided in Table 3.

On occasion, a statement seemed to overlap the

facilitator categories such as “The governor was

extremely instrumental in getting the legislature to

pass the bill”. Such a statement would be coded (B)

for the governor as an Individual and (E) for Political

to represent the political process of passing the bill.

Each statement was coded according to all applicable

categories.

Table 4 shows the categories that represent the

barriers coded for the study. Sample responses are

given as examples for each of the coding. Barriers

were those forces that were perceived by the

interviewees to be standing in the path, or continued to stand in the path of the prekindergarten

program. Lack of funds, political opposition,

inability to collaborate, and inadequate space all

represent common barriers. As was true with the
12 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

 Table 2. Four-year-olds in Education—Proposed Questions

1. Has your state’s role in preschool education changed in the past 5 years? How?

2. A number of institutions and organizations (e.g., child care, public schools, higher education,

Head Start, etc.) can play a role in the assumptions of preschool programs by education or special

state agencies. In your judgment, were these organizations helpful or resistant to the change?

3. Sometimes an event (media, brain research, associations, parents [working mothers]) or a single

individual, by force of charisma or the position occupied, can play a significant role in a major

change like this. Was there such a person(s) or event in your state?

4. Were there existing policies, rules, people, or regulations that were facilitators or barriers that had

to be overcome? Which? Explain.

5. Every state has a variety of cultural subgroups (e.g., ethnic, income, special needs, and so on) that

play a role in policy development. Did these groups impact on this change? Were they helpful or

resistant?

6. One certain consequence of the state taking responsibility for four-year-olds is that there will be an

increase in the state budget. What role did this play in your state? Where does the money come from?

7. Most states have a rural-urban split on policy matters. Did this split play an important role in your

state’s decision to offer a program for four-year-olds? How?

8. What are the current goals of the your state program? (e.g., Preparation for entrance to school?

Development of positive social skills?) Is the eventual goal to achieve universal services for fouryear-olds through this program?

9. Have decisions been made regarding:

a. preparation (e.g., staff qualifications, preservice & inservice training, a career ladder?)

b. Who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation (principals, child care coordinators, and

 so on)?

c. Is there an established form of communication (between sites, with research organizations, and

 so on)?

d. Are there demonstration or exemplary programs in your state?

e. Is there some organized technical assistance available to local service providers?

f. Is there some form of accountability (e.g., raised test scores = increase funding)?

g. Does your state have a state-wide data collection system (e.g., number of children at home,

 number of children served, special needs being served in the same proportion as their state

 proportion, curriculum used, and so on)?

h.Does your state have some form of comprehensive planning (collaboration)?
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 13

 Table 3. Categories for Facilitators

 CODE DESCRIPTION

A Institutional. Policies or agencies that stress the change or additions to structures or institutions related

to early childhood. Institutional facilitators are present within the infrastructure of the educational

system. Prekindergarten policy is implemented from institutional sources.

• A new Office of Early Childhood has been established

• A Planning Council has been established to set goals and standards for prekindergarten programs

B Individual. Individuals who have come forward as a significant factor advocating or supporting the four-yearold policy. These individuals can operate as representatives of other agencies but have been specifically

identified by interview participants as critical in the acceptance and implementation of prekindergarten policy.

• The new chair of the appropriation committee, Sam Dash, is an enthusiastic supporter of the

 prekindergarten program.

• Bill Gates has promised all of the royalties from the new Windows program will be donated to the

 prekindergarten program.

C Groups. These statements or actions would be made representing an established group of people. Interview participants identified the group, rather than an individual, as lending support to prekindergarten

policy and aiding in the process of policy acceptance and implementation. The group, therefore, is

responsible for policy facilitation.

• The Child Care Association has gone on record supporting the prekindergarten program.

D Economic. Statements or actions that increase the likelihood that additional economic resources will be

directed to early childhood programs. The presence of funding, rather than an individual or group advocating for funding, is identified.

• The new sales tax will make it much easier to fund the expenses of the prekindergarten program.

• The prekindergarten program was incorporated into the general budget.

E Political. Statements or actions by political figures or political parties that forward the cause of prekindergarten programs. Individuals are often important components of political facilitators, but participants have here

identified the support of a larger group rather than an individual as critical to prekindergarten policy success.

• The prekindergarten bill has been enthusiastically supported by the State Senate.

• The Governor announced his intention to fight for a universal prekindergarten program.

F Geographic. States have varying needs based upon geography. Interview participants identified varying

geographic populations within the state as promoting or advocating prekindergarten policy, because it

serves specific needs within that region.

• The communities in the mountains seem very supportive.

• The eastern part of the state wants to expand its program.

G Academic. Participants identify support that is based upon research findings. The various opinions of

‘experts’ and educational researchers fit this category. The academic evidence both supports prekindergarten as well as identifies best practices for prekindergarten curriculum, design and implementation.

• Research has shown the positive effect of early childhood education on later educational growth.

• Legislators cited recent brain research reports in their support of the prekindergarten program.

H Media. Interview participants specifically identify a media source that has facilitated the implementation

of prekindergarten. This might include support by members of the media or TV programs and articles that

have been supportive of the prekindergarten program.

• Several newspaper editorials have come out in favor of this bill.

• Media attention raised awareness of the benefits of prekindergarten.

I Resources. The availability of personnel, space, etc., which would ease the implementation of a

prekindergarten program. Participants identify the availability of teachers, usable space, and educational

materials, as facilitating introduction of prekindergarten at various sites.

• It was the availability of space that enabled us to go from half-day to full-day programs.

• The abundance of early childhood certified teachers allow the program to get a quick start.
14 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

 Table 4. Categories for Barriers

 CODE DESCRIPTION

Z Institutional. These barriers represent various institutions or administrative structures that hinder the development of the prekindergarten program. These barriers are present within the infrastructure of the educational

system and represent resistance to state funded prekindergarten from within the state’s educational system.

• An agency complains that they were not named the lead agency in this effort.

• Head Start objected to collaborating with the Office of Early Childhood Education.

Y Individual. These are barriers that are individual in nature and represent a person who acts to deter the

acceptance and implementation of prekindergarten. Reasons for this individual to act are varied, but can

include moral positions or resistance to the essence of the program.

• Minister Jenkins believed this program would undermine family values.

• Superintendent Smith did not feel prekindergarten programs belonged in public schools.

X Groups. The barriers represent policies that have run afoul of various identifiable groups. Resistance

reflects the belief that the prekindergarten program will bring harm to children or that the group’s own

efforts and programs are threatened by the program.

• Head Start coordinator were afraid that prekindergarten would take away their students.

• The state’s strong right wing contingent banded together to resist the program.

W Economic. Limited fiscal resources are identified as a significant barrier to implementing prekindergarten.

Barriers include actions that will work to reduce funding for the program in the future, or broader economic issues that may work to destabilize future funding. Other state priorities may downgrade the fiscal

priority of prekindergarten.

• The public school budget has to come first, then prekindergarten.

• Technical assistance to prekindergarten programs had to be cut due to lack of funds.

V Political. Political barriers result from the action of a political party or group that opposes state-funded

prekindergarten. The program may have become identified with one political party and generates resistance from the opposing party.

• When the other party won the recent election, the momentum from this program was slowed considerably.

• The State Senate objected to the prekindergarten policy.

U Geographical. Differences in various regions in the state threaten the viability of the prekindergarten

program. These barriers can reflect that fact that the program does not serve the needs of certain regions

or is an unequal distribution of funds.

• People in the rural areas were dead set against the prekindergarten program.

• The more affluent upstate population did not want to pay more in taxes to support the ‘at-risk’ program.

T Academic Evidence. Some academicians have called attention to negative information about past programs.

Academic barriers are grounded in theory and research and may reflect a negative view of the benefits of

early childhood education, casting prekindergarten as either unnecessary or harmful to students.

• Professor Jones cited a lack of research evidence in support of preschool programs.

• Dr. Smith questioned the accuracy of recent early childhood education studies.

S Media. Various programs or publications may present a negative picture of prekindergarten programs.

While the media often acts as a mirror for research and popular opinion, negative statements create

barriers to program implementation.

• A prominent author has written a book about the weakness of the research on preschool children.

• A late night talk show featured an outspoken critic of prekindergarten programs.

R Resources. The lack of resources, especially personnel, usable space and transportation are identified as

critical barriers to the implementation of prekindergarten. Without the resources in place to run the

program, the program itself cannot be implemented on a small scale, much less state wide.

• Schools did not have available classrooms for prekindergarten use.

• Scarcity of qualified teachers slowed the pace of program implementation.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 15

facilitators, some statements received a dual coding

such as “The lack of transportation was a serious

problem particularly since the state department was

not willing to change their rules and regulations”.

This would be coded as (R) for lack of resources and

(Z) for the institutional barrier of the regulation.

Three judges who were members of the research

project independently coded each of the identified

passages from the interview. The judges coded the

previously identified facilitators and barriers by the

categories noted in Tables 3 and 4. The three judges

then met to review and discuss their individual

codes. On passages whose coding was agreed upon

by at least two judges, the decisions of those judges

was accepted as the coding for that passage.

When there was disagreement, discussion

between the judges allowed them to reach consensus and to sharpen the coding rules that distinguished each category. For example, it was determined that any response that dealt with the shortage of teachers or the inability to recruit teachers

was automatically placed under the resource

category. Any response dealing with the collaborative or cooperative work to build a program of

personnel preparation was coded under institution. When such category sharpening took place,

previously coded interviews were reviewed to see if

such rulings changed the original coding. Some

changes were made but these changes did not

materially modify the results.

To determine the consistency and reliability of

the judges’ coding on facilitators and barriers,

three scripts were pulled at random and counts

made on the number and type of agreements by the

judges who had independently coded these scripts.

Table 5 provides the results of the judges coding on

each of the three scripts. On facilitators, all three

judges agreed on the classification 68 out of 108

times for a perfect agreement of 63%. In addition

there were 34 other occasions where two of the

three judges agreed on the coding for a passage.

This resulted in agreement 95% of the time by

either two or three judges. Five percent of the time,

the judges coded the passage differently from one

another and the final coding of those passages

were reached by discussion and consensus.

Table 5 also shows the agreement data on the

coding of barriers. In these three scripts, all judges

agreed on their classifications 37 out of 52 times

for a perfect agreement of 71%. In thirteen other

instances two of the judges agreed for a 96%

agreement of either two or three judges. There

were two instances where there was no agreement

on the barrier rating and those statements were

coded by discussion and consensus. Graphs were

constructed for each state based upon the aggregate codings of the interviewees.

After reaching a consensus on the major facilitators and barriers, we (the investigators) sent a

draft copy of the authors’ description of the state

program plus a list of the major facilitators and

barriers for their state. It was sent to all of the

interviewees and asked for their comments or

corrections. We have received comments from ten

of the forty interviewees, or 25%. The comments

ranged from correcting the spelling of names to

more substantive comments, from wrong chronology to statements that we overestimated the

collaboration going on between early childhood

professionals. The amount of adjustments that

were made in the final text based upon this information was minor.
16 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Table 5. Judges Concordance: Three Illinois Scripts

 Agreement* on Facilitators

All Judges Agree Two Judges Agree No Judges Agree

I 15 8 2

II 31 12 2

III 22 14 2

Total 68 (63%) 34 (32%) 6 (5%)

 Agreement* on Barriers

All Judges Agree Two Judges Agree No Judges Agree

I 12 2 2

II 15 4 0

III 10 7 0

Total 37 (71%) 13 (25%) 2 (4%)

*On occasion when one judge would make a double rating (e.g., B/E) and the other two judges made a single rating

(e.g., E), this was counted as “All Judges Agree” and the final rating was E.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 17

State Case Studies

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL includes case studies of the five states involved in this project. The material

includes assembled printed material about the state and a synthesis of the conversations and interviews held with key persons in that state. For each state we trace the beginning of the prekindergarten

program, its current status (as of 2000), and then present our analysis of the major facilitators and the

significant barriers for the prekindergarten program.

GEORGIA

How It Began

The impetus for the Georgia prekindergarten program was that large numbers of Georgia students were

dropping out or repeating grades. The prekindergarten program was offered as a readiness program for

these children. Under the leadership of Governor Zell Miller, the program began as a pilot program for ‘atrisk’ children in 1992–93. During that year the Georgia Department of Education operated the program

with 750 students. The program was expanded in 1993–94 with a total of 9,000 students served.

In 1995–96, again under the leadership of Governor Zell Miller, the program became universal; that is,

all four-year olds were eligible. The program no longer dealt with only ‘at-risk’ children and the total

number of children served increased to 44,000. In getting the public to approve a lottery in Georgia,

Governor Miller pledged that all money would go to a prekindergarten program, in addition to HOPE

scholarships and technology for the schools. This provided a solid and continuing source of funding for the

prekindergarten program. These funds may be used for equipment, teacher’s salaries and materials. There

is also additional one-time start-up money that is available for new programs.

In 1996 Governor Miller established the Office of School Readiness (OSR) to oversee the major expansion in the prekindergarten program. This office reports to the Office of the Governor. With a staff of over

30 people it has guided the development of the program since the spring of 1996. The OSR has also started

a twelve-year longitudinal study conducted by Georgia State University to determine the effects of the

prekindergarten program.

Current Status

The Georgia prekindergarten program is one of the most extensive programs in the nation. In 1999–2000

it enrolled about 62,500 (63%) four-year-olds in approximately 3,170 classrooms while Head Start served

another 10,000 children. In Georgia, 73% of the four-year-old children are either enrolled in the state

program or Head Start. This voluntary program spent over $220 million in 1999–2000. The OSR contracts

with public schools, Head Start programs and private providers to deliver services. It requires a 180-day
18 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

program and puts a premium on quality and high

standards. The Georgia program requires a teacherchild ratio of 1:10 and a class size maximum of 20.

Programs must operate for a 6-hour day.

The OSR also offers a variety of training efforts in

order to upgrade the teaching skills of those working in the program. A lead teacher is required to

have at least a CDA/CCP credential. Beginning in

2001–2002, lead teachers will be required to have a

minimum of a valid Early Childhood Care and

Education post-secondary technical institute diploma or degree, or a valid Advanced Early Childhood Care and Education post-secondary technical

institute diploma or degree. A two-year associate

degree (AA or AS) in Early Childhood Education or a

Montessori diploma is also acceptable.

Analytic Findings

Figures 1a and 1b indicate the major facilitators

and barriers for policy change in Georgia. The chart

represents the percentage of coded responses

obtained by combining the responses received from

Georgia.

FACILITATORS

Figure 1a shows that the largest percentage of

facilitators was in the institutional category. There

were a total of 128 responses from 11 interviewees

showing the emphasis on implementing this legislation. One way that institutional support was

demonstrated was by the establishment of the OSR

the governor. Several people expressed some

concern that the Department of Education did not

appear to be a welcoming place for the prekindergarten program. They saw the creation of the Office

of School Readiness in 1996 as a positive move.

The Director of OSR reported directly to the

governor, not a formal board. OSR ran like a

private business, not a bureaucracy.

–Georgia interviewee

When the prekindergarten program was first

established, it was recognized that developmentally

appropriate instruction was needed. The Director

of Early Childhood Education within the Department of Education had a child development background, so she made sure that the programs

followed that philosophy.

The program has also raised the awareness

level of the general public as to why early education is important and what to look for in a quality

program.

We have raised the awareness of parents in

terms of what an educational program for

four-year-olds should look like and the quality

issues that go along with appropriately trained

teachers... We’ve raised the awareness of the

public to the extent that the public is aware

that there are appropriate things that four-year

olds do and there are developmental milestones that four-year-olds don’t all reach at the

same time.

–Georgia interviewee

The elevated percentages for individual and

political factors reflect the commitment of many

people, but especially of former Governor Zell

Miller, in establishing this program. It also represents how much these two categories are intertwined in Georgia.

The governor had a vision and was determined

that the prekindergarten program would happen.

He was adamant and proud of the program. He felt

that people were either onboard or not, and if they

were not, then they needed to get out of his way.

Many people were represented in the establishment of the prekindergarten program.

The Chancellor of the University System

chaired the R16 committee. It also included K

through 12 superintendents and the director of

OSR. Then it had representatives from universi-
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 19

ties, colleges, and technical schools. It was an

attempt to say, you guys are all in the business of education, and you identify your

critical needs and work together to solve them.

–Georgia interviewee

Economic factors were important in Georgia.

The fact that this program had a new funding

source cannot be overlooked.

...the stars were aligned perfectly for us in

Georgia. We had a governor that went out on a

limb and passed a funding source, the lottery.

Even with a powerful governor; it would have

taken us years to get this program in the place

that it is today if we hadn’t had a new funding

source. If we had had to cut monies out of an

existing budget it would have been impossible or

at least, very difficult.

–Georgia interviewee

The governor led the battle to implement a

lottery on the basis that the money would be

used for a prekindergarten program, a college

scholarship program and technology. He did

not have to reallocate existing resources from

other ongoing projects. That avoided legislative battles.

–Georgia interviewee

Groups included primarily Head Start and

private child care, but also advocacy groups that

banded together to support a universal program.

Our interviews indicated that child care groups and

Head Starts were especially active in Georgia.

Head Start came onboard, they already served

four-year-olds, and they sort of were a natural

fit for it. They just sort of, I don’t remember

when they came on board, but at some point in

the process, they wanted to be players.

–Georgia interviewee

The private child care providers went to the

governor and said that the prekindergarten program was taking away business but that a privatestate partnership could be developed. Private

providers said that they could provide the same

services as the public schools and, therefore,

should be funded by the state. There was an

agreement on that point and prekindergarten

services were provided in many different settings.

Groups and resources are almost equal as

facilitators in Georgia. Space became a large issue

when the program became universal.

...not the only reason, but one of the big reasons

the private child care community was included, is

capacity. There was no way to start up a

program for 40,000 or 45,000 kids without the

use of the centers. The schools didn’t have the

space, and that’s how fast this program started.

They needed capacity and that’s what brought

the child care community in.

–Georgia interviewee

Some systems are doing creative things like

renting space in churches, renting space in

community centers and in housing areas. They

might be renovating a closed school and

setting up a center-based...

–Georgia interviewee

Teacher training is also a resource issue that

has been addressed often.

If you volunteered to participate in it, then you

had to take a certain amount of training that

would be delivered. That enabled us to train a

lot of people, both public and private sector,

that were working with young children, and

give them the very latest research and the

latest training techniques in early childhood

education. That also had a tremendous

spillover effect, because most of these private

providers are also providing services for threeand two-year-olds-and even infants.

–Georgia interviewee
20 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

 Figure 1a. Georgia Facilitators

Total Items Cited

Resources 36

Media 7

Academic 25

Geographic 5

Political 1

Economic 42

Groups 33

Individual 48

Institutional 128

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total 365

Responses of Eleven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

 Figure 1b. Georgia Barriers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Responses of Eleven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

Total Items Cited

Resources 35

Media 3

Academic 5

Geographic 9

Political 7

Economic 21

Groups 60

Individual 8

Institutional 73

Total 221
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 21

The percentages for the academic category

reflect the standardization of curriculum, equipment, hours, training, and activities, but the

program also represents a drive to be proactive

instead of reactive.

The idea that we were getting a head start,

doing something before the fact, to prevent

children from not being ready for school.

Something, where we were doing something up

front instead of having to deal with, Oops, this

child went through kindergarten and was not

ready so lets remediate. Let’s refer to special

education let’s do all these things.

–Georgia interviewee

Geography and media were noticeably absent

as facilitators in Georgia. Issues were accommodated as they arose, especially in rural communities, so geography was not a measurable influence.

The media played a negligible role in Georgia.

BARRIERS

Figure 1b represents the barrier statements that

were presented by the interviewees in Georgia. The

high percentage of responses in the institutional

(a total of 73 separate responses) and group (60

separate responses) areas reflect the major difficulties faced when going from a program for at-risk

children to serving all four-year-old children. Child

care proponents were horrified because the prekindergarten program would take away their four-yearolds just like the schools had taken away their fiveyear-olds (into kindergarten) and their school-age

children with after-school programs. Now the fouryear-olds would be marching out the doors and they

were very upset. Many of the school programs were

in mobile units with no bathrooms and some did

not have ‘child friendly’ spaces.

Child care felt they could offer the same or

better services and they should be included as a

player also.

At the time OSR was established, Governor

Miller had multiple political problems with the

prekindergarten program. Not all parents were

pleased, private child care providers felt that

they were not receiving their share of programs or funding, the Head Start community

was accusing private providers and school

systems of “stealing” their children, the

education community did not consider prekindergarten to be an integral component, the

Christian Coalition felt that government was

imposing more requirements on families and

wanted the children to remain at home, and

the local press was extremely critical about the

expensive lottery program.

–Georgia interviewee

The Christian right fought to keep children at

home with their mother. They feared that having a

‘free’ program would encourage mothers to return to

work outside the home. Additionally the ongoing

function of the OSR in the regulation of programs was

a difficult issue. It is a licensing agency for programs

that have a state-funded prekindergarten program but

not for locations that are a part of the program.

What happens is a child care center gets a

contract one year, but at the end of the year,

Office of School Readiness says your quality

wasn’t there, you don’t have enough qualified

teachers on staff, or whatever. They’ll pull the

contract for the next year, and do a contract

with another organization. Well, then that

business, that child care center then goes back

to the Department of Human Resources to be

regulated the following year. What you get is

this patchwork kind of regulatory system. The

two entities happen to be working as close as

they can at the moment, but you have got

bureaucratic turf.

–Georgia interviewee

Resources, or the lack of time for implementation, represented a barrier in Georgia because of
22 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

the need for trained teachers and a constant work

force in child care and Head Start. Beginning in the

school year 2001–2002, prekindergarten teachers

must have a minimum of a two-year Early Childhood degree in order to teach.

... the good teachers in centers wanted to be

prekindergarten teachers, because they get

more money as a prekindergarten teacher.

Then their goal was to go to the public

schools. The kind of cascading effect is that a

teacher gets the training required to be a

prekindergarten lead teacher and then they

move on very quickly to the public schools

where they get more benefits.

–Georgia interviewee

The quick start-up and lack of training were

also initial barriers for some programs.

In the first year, some teachers were not

trained until the spring in the particular

models that the schools had adopted as their

approach... the training came too late and it

was only for lead teachers initially. Their

assistants weren’t initially trained, and you

know as well as I do, when you go back to a

program and only one of the teachers is

trained, then the implementation often is not

effectively carried through. The administrators

initially were not trained either. Thus the onsite support network was missing.

–Georgia interviewee

The only other barrier to receive much mention

was economic. In talking with the Office of School

Readiness, we were told that there was plenty of

money, but in talking with providers, we received a

different picture.

...the program’s never been fully funded, and

from the very beginning it was never fully

funded. They set this budget and said the

governor wants it. They said this is how much

money we have to spend, this is, therefore, what

you’re going to get and there was never a

request for information about how much it was

really going to cost.

–Georgia interviewee

There was also some concern that the lottery

might not produce enough income or that more

money will be needed for the HOPE scholarships.

Additionally there was some concern among

conservative groups, because this was lottery

money made from ‘gambling.’

Because this is mixed up in lottery funds, the

lottery is considered by some not to be appropriate, but yet the lottery dollars are used for

good things, good education programs. Some

members of the faith community had to work

that out for themselves...

–Georgia interviewee

It is interesting to note that geographic, individual, political, academic and media categories

were referred to only minimally as barriers in

Georgia. Geography was referred to as a barrier

only as parents dealt with the location of programs

or transportation issues, especially in rural communities. Individual and political received minimal

mention, only when dealing with the State Superintendent. The media and academic areas played an

almost negligible role in Georgia, except to provide

rationale for the program.

Major Facilitators

1. The Commitment of Former Governor Zell

Miller. There was no doubt among the

interviewees that former Governor Zell

Miller played a major role in the establishment of the prekindergarten program. He was

determined that no group, individual, or

administrative difficulties were going to

stand in his way.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 23

2. The Availability of the Lottery. A state

lottery was passed to fund this and two

other educational objectives. The money is

used solely for education. This provided a

new funding source, which did not dilute

existing funding for other state programs.

3. The Establishment of the Office of School

Readiness. OSR was established in the

spring of 1996. It was created as a separate

agency reporting to the governor’s office. As

a separate agency, the OSR was not subject

to the rules and regulations of other agencies and did not have to answer to a board of

directors.

4. The Establishment of Coordinating Councils. A Coordinating Council was required in

each locality but this requirement was

dropped after the programs became operational. This brought together stakeholders

and encouraged collaboration. This collaboration was often accomplished with a publicprivate partnership.

5. The Availability of Research on Early

Childhood. The early childhood program

used and benefited from the research of the

Perry Preschool project as well as more

recent brain research. The OSR emphasized

research-based quality and spent a lot of

time and money in advertising the program.

Major Barriers

1. The Initial Resistance by Public School

Personnel. The public schools were originally resistant to a universal program. They

were reluctant to collaborate with child care

centers and Head Starts even though they

did not have enough space and facilities.

2. The Fears of Child Care and Head Start.

There was an initial fear by child care and

Head Start personnel that they might lose

the population of children that they were

serving. Increased collaboration alleviated

many of these fears.

3. The Christian Coalition. The Christian

Coalition fought to keep children at home

with their mothers. The coalition felt that

having a ‘free’ program encourages mothers

to return to work outside the home. They

were also very opposed to using the AntiBias Curriculum, published by NAEYC, in any

preschool program.

4. The Difficulty of Finding and Maintaining

Quality Teachers. There continues to be a

lack of trained personnel. Georgia will again

raise their educational requirements for

teachers for the 2001–2002 school year,

making it difficult to find and keep qualified

employees. This is especially true for Head

Start programs and child care centers.

Employees of these programs with teaching

certificates often move to the public schools

to receive better pay and benefits.

5. Space Limitations. The ‘at-risk’ program

was originally housed in the public schools.

Once the program became universal, schools

did not have adequate space and were

forced to look at other alternatives.

6. Top-Down Decision Making. The program

was the ‘dream’ of Zell Miller and was both

supported and pushed by him. There was

little input from others, which led to some

initial difficulties when it was time for

implementation.

Georgia Summary

This change in policy for four-year-olds was accomplished more rapidly than in other states under the

enthusiastic leadership of an individual, Governor

Zell Miller. The rapid implementation of the program to include well over half of the four-year-olds
24 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

was made possible by the presence of a funding

source, the lottery, which was earmarked, in part,

for this for four-year-old program.

The Governor used a variety of institutional

strategies including bypassing potential opposition

or reluctance on the part of the Department of

Education by moving the program into a newly

formed Office of School Readiness. This Office

reports directly to the Governor and allows him to

supervise the program’s progress and also to generously staff this Office, providing materials, staff

development, and technical assistance to local

programs. The use of Coordinating Councils to ensure

input from local persons was another institutional

strategy. Coordinating Councils were required in each

locality to ensure local participation and provide a

basis for collaboration. This is no longer a requirement because it often became a logistical problem.

This requirement did however, establish initial

participation by many different groups.

The swift establishment and implementation of

the program created problems in their own right.

Many needed resources (including trained personnel, space, and transportation) were lacking. There

was a limited collaboration between professionals

working with young children and educators that

remains a challenge to be met. It appears that the

program will remain in place as long as the lottery

provides fiscal support and general public support

remains high.

ILLINOIS

How It Began

The prekindergarten program in Illinois began as

part of a comprehensive program of school reform

presented to the legislature in 1985–1986. Before

that time a great deal of groundwork had been laid

by the State Board of Education working with a

variety of advocacy groups. Twelve position papers

were written by experts on early childhood issues

to provide professional justification for early

childhood programs.

The target children for the program were

designated as children ‘at-risk’ because of poverty,

the use of English as a second language, other

disadvantages. A screening process was used to

identify such children as ‘at-risk.’ Funding was

administered through local school boards and was

obtained through a Request for Proposal (RFP)

format with applications being made by local

school boards. The legislature felt that this approach was more likely to produce quality results.

Local districts were allowed leeway in determining

the approach while maintaining quality. The local

districts were required to submit their method of

determining ‘at-risk’ and program design to the

State Board of Education for approval.

One major advantage of the program was the

early emphasis on quality that was reflected in the

high program standards and required teacher

certification. Demonstration programs such as the

Valeska Hinton Center in Peoria also helped to

publicize and illustrate positive outcomes. A major

effort was made to develop collaboration with other

key early childhood stakeholders (e.g., Head Start,

child care, and so on). Strong advocacy voices were

heard from both the private sector (Voices for

Illinois Children, McCormick Tribune Foundation,

and so on) and from professional groups such as

the Illinois AEYC.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 25

Current Status

The program has been growing steadily in size and

influence in the 1990s. From a $3 million beginning,

Illinois spent almost $200 million on early childhood

projects during the school year 1999–2000 and

served 55,000 ‘at-risk’ children (15% of the statewide population of three- and four-year-olds with a

higher percentage of four-year-olds served. The

statewide percentage of fours that were served was

about 22%). Another 40,000 children were served

through Head Start. Localities must receive funds

through the public schools, but they may subcontract with Head Start programs and child care

centers to provide the services.

The state funds full-day and half-day programs

although most are half-day programs. One important

component of the program is that collaboration

between agencies lets local programs provide wraparound services that extend the hours of service. The

staff-child ratio may not exceed 1:10 and no more

than 20 children can be served in each classroom. A

continued effort in higher education has helped to

produce a cadre of certified teachers to provide

educational services for these young children. Recent

publicity concerning brain research and its potential

meaning for young children has helped to consolidate

strong public support for the program.

Initial discussions have taken place about a

universal program for four-year-olds, and the State

Board of Education has endorsed a full-day program for four-year-olds. Major factors that continue

to influence the program include the rapid increase

of mothers in the workforce and the recent welfare

laws that require child care for the children of

working mothers. Although there continues to be

scattered opposition on moral grounds (undercutting

family values, and so on), such opposition appears to

have diminished. The program remains funded only

one year at a time and is not included in the continuing budget. As a grant program it is considered

somewhat more vulnerable and at the mercy of

economic ups and downs.

Analytic Findings

Figures 2a and 2b indicate the percentage of

responses in each of the categories. Although the

charts look similar in proportion of response, there

were 250 comments coded as facilitators compared

to 105 comments as barriers.

FACILITATORS

The two most frequent categories noted by the interviewees are institutional (95 separate comments)

and resources (42 separate comments). These

categories reflect a wide variety of initiatives that

have been taken in Illinois to establish a system of

care and education for four-year-olds. Some policies

reflected regulations regarding the implementation of

the program and the need for collaboration.

The whole state is blanketed with early

childhood programs. One of the things we

worked very hard at in the beginning ... was to

be sure that there was at least one program in

every county when we started out.

–Illinois interviewee

Private child care agencies cannot apply

directly to the Illinois State Board of Education for the preschool (prekindergarten) grant

but they may subcontract with the Chicago

Public Schools for funds to provide service to

‘at-risk’ preschool (prekindergarten) children.

Annually, part of the Chicago Public Schools

grant is subcontracted to child care agencies...

–Illinois interviewee

We have done such things as encourage

partnerships between school districts and child

care providers for wraparound services. Some

districts have contracted (subcontracted) with

child care providers and actually put certified

teachers in these classrooms, along with

materials and supplies.

–Illinois interviewee
26 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Illinois began with considerably more resources

(materials and personnel) than did some of the

other states in our study. Those resources allowed

Illinois to establish strong standards for personnel

and programs. Illinois also set high standards for

the program.

Illinois is making a very strong concerted

effort with all of the early childhood community towards higher professional standards.

–Illinois interviewee

Other categories that played a role in facilitation

were economic, groups, individuals, and political. The gradual growth of the program allowed for

the necessary funding for the development of local

programs. The role played by various advocacy

groups was particularly relevant in the early

stages of the program.

Voices for Illinois Children has also been a key

player in all of this. They have consistently

brought together the education, child care, and

Head Start communities around public policy

issues. ... They have been a coordinating

group.

–Illinois interviewee

There were many different individuals that

played significant roles in the development of the

program. One key legislator operated effectively

within the House, other individuals were connected

with various advocacy groups.

Lana Hostetler was very influential. She was our

lobbyist with the State Legislature and was

really very pivotal. She was President of the

NAEYC and she was pivotal in getting both the

increases in State Pre-K (prekindergarten)

funding and the certification for prekindergarten.

–Illinois interviewee

The academic area played some role here in

articulating the rationale and laying the groundwork for the professional program. Brain research

and the early research on intervention programs for

young children convinced key decision makers that

the prekindergarten program was based on sound

academic principles. Neither geography nor media

appeared to play a significant role in program

initiation or development.

BARRIERS

As with other states, Illinois had its share of

barriers to overcome in the implementation of this

prekindergarten program but these barriers did not

appear to significantly impact or do serious damage

to the program itself. Figure 4b indicates the

percentage of findings in each category and once

again institutional (35%) and resources (28%)

played a major role in the creation of barriers.

Everybody thinks early childhood is wonderful, but nobody appreciates what it takes to

have it function either in terms of integrating

it into the school or of building quality into

the programs themselves.

–Illinois interviewee

There is a significant frustration. If you get

some credit hours at a junior college, some of

those don’t transfer to the senior colleges.

The gulf between those two is actually

harmful for encouraging a good outcome,

that is more and more people in early childhood with four-year degrees.

–Illinois interviewee

The other two categories that appear in over 10%

of the responses were economic and groups. The

economic issue was whether there was money

available to carry out the program and whether the

state legislature would commit itself to supporting

prekinder-gartens in a more consistent and predictable fashion.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 27

We’ve had a survey done by one of our local

foundations and in the city and in the state

everybody thinks that early childhood education is important and that we should support

it, but not with their dollars.

–Illinois interviewee

The barriers established by groups seemed to

represent an initial resistance of school personnel

to the concept of this program.

In the ideal world I would think that every

school district in Illinois would have a very

close working relationship with all of the child

care programs in their community in order to

make the transition from child care to regular

school classrooms really good. But, no, for the

most part the educators are just going to wait

and see what happens in kindergarten.

–Illinois interviewee

There has been some concern about group

negative reaction and this has occasionally been so

serious that it changed the legislative strategy in the

original passage of the legislation.

The major opposition was political from the far

right. ... The legislators who were involved,

and the powers that be in the governor’s office,

wanted it to be a separate bill, so that it

couldn’t bring down the entire school reform bill

if the right wing was successful in defeating it

(the prekindergarten bill).

–Illinois interviewee

There are few individuals who could be identified

in direct opposition to the program and the program

also had few barriers from a geographic, academic,

or media standpoint. The majority of the barriers

were natural ones of economics and the lack of an

infrastructure to support the program.

Major Facilitators

1. Gradual Implementation. This program is

now 15 years old. The gradual rate of

implementation has allowed advocates time

to ‘get their act together’ and to respond to

objections made at the local and state level.

2. Consistent Public Support. It did not seem

difficult to convince the general public that

prekindergarten was a good idea for ‘at-risk’

children. This brought forth continued

support from legislators and governors for

the program in a type of ‘snowball effect.’

This legislative support implied general

public support, or at least, lack of strong

opposition.

3. Strong Advocacy. There were many advocacy voices being expressed for this program from a variety of groups in the private

and professional sectors of Illinois. Even the

higher education community, a nonplayer in

other states, took a positive role here.

4. Program Administration. The administration of the program through local school

boards was a popular move as was the

Request for Proposal model that committed

localities to certain standards. The flexibility that allowed for subcontracting and for

mixing funds for wraparound services was

another positive element.

5. Program Quality. From the very beginning

of the program there has been an emphasis

on program quality that reassured the public

that their money was being well spent. In

particular the high personnel standards,

regardless of whether the program was in

child care or the local schools helped to

solidify the program.
28 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

 Figure 2a. Illinois Facilitators

Total Items Cited

Resources 42

Media 0

Academic 11

Geographic 1

Political 21

Economic 31

Groups 29

Individual 20

Institutional 95

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total 250

Responses of Eight Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

 Figure 2b. Illinois Barriers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Responses of Eight Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

Total Items Cited

Resources 30

Media 0

Academic 2

Geographic 0

Political 6

Economic 16

Groups 13

Individual 1

Institutional 37

Total 105
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 29

Major Barriers

Although there were clearly major barriers to be

overcome, the interviewers and analysts never had

the feeling that any of these barriers were sufficient

to do real harm to the concept or the program.

1. Agency Collaboration. When the program

first began there was a lack of collaborative

support from the schools and the child care

communities and this still exists to some

extent today.

2. Long-Term Financial Security. Despite the

longevity of the program there remains

insecurity regarding the financial support

for the program, which is annually voted

upon in the legislature.

3. Lack of Bilingual Staff. There are a large

number of children in Illinois for whom

English is a second language and the

program, consequently, places an emphasis

on teachers who are skilled in bilingual

communication. Such teachers remain in

very short supply.

4. Conservative Political Opposition. As has

been true in other states there is opposition

to the program on the basis of conflicting

values and concerns, particularly voiced by

the conservative right political factions.

5. Space and Transportation. The lack of resources to meet common problems of where

the prekindergarten programs will be housed

and how students get to that place has put a

brake on the expansion of this program.

 Illinois Summary

This prekindergarten program, now over 15 years

old, seemed to enjoy consistent public support for

the stated goal of helping ‘at-risk’ children succeed

in school. The gradual implementation of the program allowed local administrators to get ready to

participate. The flexibility in financing and program

design encouraged strong advocacy from private and

professional sectors. The consistent emphasis on

program quality also aided public acceptance.

It would seem that Illinois would likely go to a

universal prekindergarten plan in the near future

if the political and fiscal factors remain positive.

NEW YORK

How It Began

New York State operates two prekindergarten

programs: Experimental Prekindergarten, which

has been in existence for almost 35 years, and

Universal Prekindergarten (UPK), which was

implemented in the 1998–1999 school year in 68

low-income districts. Experimental Prekindergarten was designed to supplement the early learning

environments of disadvantaged children and

provide them with the social and cognitive skills

necessary to be successful in the public school

program. All children within those districts were

eligible to attend. According to our interviewees

the Experimental Prekindergarten Programs had

demonstrated good results and was, therefore,

considered a good model the Universal Prekindergarten program.
30 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

UPK was first developed in 1997, under the

guidance and direction of several legislators and

key educational leaders: the lieutenant governor,

the Speaker of the Assembly (Sheldon Silver), and

members of the State Department of Education.

There was a groundswell of interest and support

for educational reform to which these leaders

responded.

Provisions for UPK were included in a larger

educational reform bill, the LADDER Proposal. This

proposal contained several provisions, such as

reduced class size in grades K–3, full-day kindergarten, increased technology and capital resources,

and support for early childhood educational development in the form of universal prekindergarten.

The Universal Prekindergarten statute specifically

called for:

• Accessibility to all children whose parents

desired the program (the universal aspect).

• Public-private partnership with a mandated

minimum collaboration (the money is

provided to the local schools. At least 10%

of the allocated funds for a district’s UPK

program are to be spent in collaboration

with other early childhood organizations

[e.g., child care providers, Head Start]).

• Phase-in approach, which would gradually

increase the number of districts eligible to

apply for the program; agencies in each

district compete for funding to provide the

program.

• Educationally-based curriculum and program design.

• Advisory boards for planning and oversight.

• No parent fees.

Current Status

As of the 1999–2000 school year, UPK had been

implemented voluntarily by 99 of the more than

700 school districts in New York. The 99 include

the five largest districts within the state: New York

City, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and Yonkers.

The legislation that enacted UPK did so on a

limited, phase-in basis covering 4–5 years. The

number of eligible districts has grown to 241, but

preference must be given to economically disadvantaged children within these districts. Of these

districts, only 99 have chosen to implement the

program. One of the reasons for this low number of

participants is the uncertainty of future funding

and late budget allocations. Out of 275,000 fouryear-olds in the state, about 35,000 (13%) were

served in the 1999–2000 school year. Under the

phase-in approach, this number should grow until

the program is universally implemented. The terms

of service are 180 days, 2.5 hours per day, and

$2700 in state funds per student per year. All UPK

classes are required to have certified teachers by

2001–2002 school year. There is no minimum class

size with a maximum of 20 children and a ratio of

10 students per adult.

Provisions mandating UPK specify that programs

must provide literacy education, assistance in

psychological, social, cognitive and familial development, assistance to family, assistance to students with disabilities, and agreement with continuing education programs. Funding levels were

$100 million for the 1999–2000 school year, with

an increase to $225 million for the 2000–2001

school year, and a planned increase to $500 million

for the 2001–2002 school year. Completion of full

implementation was planned for the 2001–2002

school year, but this was pushed back to the 2002–

2003 school year.

Analytic Findings

Figures 3a and 3b graphically represent the coding

of our interviews. Results were grouped by percentage of responses for the categories rated by the

research team.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 31

FACILITATORS

As indicated in Figure 3a, the major facilitator for

New York State was institutional with 67 statements given by the seven interviewees. Institutional support was manifested in many different

ways. For some, support was the promotion of the

program within an institution or organization:

State Education, for the last four or five years

has done just an excellent job in pitching the

case and if you pitch first the case about higher

standards, then I think there’s an acceptance

that what has to follow is the resources to make

that happen.

–New York interviewee

In addition to promoting the program, institutional factors were also critical in the design and

resource allocation for the program:

One of the things that State Ed did...early on

was to put together a Universal Prekindergarten external work group...you might call it an

advisory group.

–New York interviewee

Prominent in the institutional facilitators,

therefore, were actions undertaken from central

government offices to ensure that the program was

well planned and supported from within the State

Department of Education.

As shown in Figure 3a, political (almost 20%)

factors ran just ahead of groups (15%) as a facilitator. In New York, the key political facilitators

were the actions of legislators to ensure that UPK

passed with sufficient resources.

The legislation set forth an implementation

strategy that covered the first four years of

funding.

–New York interviewee

One of the things that will become clear in the

interview here is that this is a very bottom up

initiative, without the support of the Governor, and initiated by the State Assembly,

which is Democratic.

–New York interviewee

The next strongest facilitator was the groups

with interests connected to Universal Prekindergarten. These groups primarily included Head

Start and private child care, but also included

advocacy groups that banded together to support

UPK legislation.

Child care advocates helped design the law,

working in many of these state CC&R organizations. The New York State Child Care

Coordinating Council, an outfit called SCAA,

the State Communities Aid Association, and

Head Start. Those folks pulled together in a

coalition and played a significant role in

attaching this legislation to something called

the LADDER Proposal...

–New York interviewee

Clearly, part of the impetus for collaboration

was that a minimum of 10% of UPK funds were to

be out-sourced to programs outside of the public

school system. Outside agencies had a vested

interest, therefore, in becoming involved with the

legislation. Many districts went far beyond the

mandatory 10% allotment to community agencies.

...51% of the funds are going to communitybased organizations is a demonstration that

the law was effectively drafted and that it

does provide protections (for outside childcare agencies).

–New York interviewee

All interview respondents identified the

Speaker of the Assembly as one of the key leaders

responsible for supporting, promoting and fighting

for UPK, which was part of a larger reform program, the LADDER Program.
32 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

 Figure 3a. New York Facilitators

Total Items Cited

Resources 10

Media 1

Academic 18

Geographic 4

Political 40

Economic 19

Groups 34

Individual 30

Institutional 67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total 223

Responses of Seven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

 Figure 3b. New York Barriers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Responses of Seven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

Total Items Cited

Resourcess 28

Media 0

Academic 4

Geographic 14

Political 22

Economic 39

Groups 12

Individual 9

Institutional 35

Total 163
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 33

Sheldon Silver, who’s the head of the Assembly

in New York State, really put together what

was called the LADDER Program...I know that

Speaker Silver took that lead and developed

legislation that would implement all this.

–New York interviewee

As in other states, therefore, we identified the

actions of a key political figure as critical to the

implementation of UPK. This is especially true

when the political arena has mixed feelings about

UPK.

The economic facilitators are the presence of

sufficient funding, despite actions by political opponents to ‘block grant’ the program or limit its funding.

In the legislative session of 1998, they added

$17 million to the appropriation and amended

the per child rate for that one year...making it

higher.

–New York interviewee

Consistent increases in budgeting were scheduled as part of the UPK package. The program

started with $100 million in its first year, with a

scheduled increase to $500 million annually in its

fourth year. The money not only benefited the UPK

program but also brought additional attention to

child-care issues.

Academic facilitators also contributed. A

significant step was the demonstration that “child

care is educational” and not just babysitting. Of

particular interest in New York State was the effect

of both brain research that indicated an earlier

developmental start might be correlated with

higher success, and the current accountability

trend, which focuses on measuring educational

outcomes and using these outcomes to direct

future opportunities.

Resources, geography, and media were all

minimal facilitators. Resources sources helped the

UPK process in promoting collaboration with higher

education to produce more teachers. Lack of

resources proved a much stronger barrier in New

York than facilitator. Geography, similarly, was

more a barrier than facilitator as parents dealt with

transportation issues, especially in rural communities. The media played a very small role as facilitator and barrier in New York State.

BARRIERS

Figure 3b shows the categories of barriers to

implementation of UPK in New York State. The

number of barriers (163) was higher than in the

other states. The often late budget in New York

produced the strongest barrier, an economic

barrier. Because funding is often not secure until

the last weeks before school starts, school districts

in New York have been hesitant to apply for UPK.

Parents, in turn, are not willing to wait until

August to arrange child care.

Another economic barrier took the form of

attempted block granting by Governor Pataki.

Block-granted funds have the potential to make

UPK monies available for other educational purposes. An additional economic concern was the

general expense, and whether the state can afford

the program for the long term. This sentiment was

felt both in the legislature and the general public:

It isn’t that people think that it isn’t a good

program. People say we can’t afford it.

–New York interviewee

Limited financial resources have also impeded the

planning and resources dedicated to UPK. Combined

with the continual struggle for adequate allocation

levels (currently at $2,700 in state funds per child for

half-day programs), economics is the largest barrier

that New York State must contend with.

It is important to note the relations between

economic and political factors. It was clear from

our interviews that a lack of funding and the late

budget reflected political negotiation between the
34 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Governor’s office, the State Senate and the State

Assembly. Therefore, the fact that outright political

barriers are not as highly ranked is somewhat

deceiving, given the influence political leaders have

had upon deciding and implementing a budget.

Institutional factors, followed closely by resources, were also considerable barriers to UPK.

Institutional barriers were evident when the State

Department of Education was unprepared for the

demands of such a large program.

The (Superintendents) are... so focused on the

seven-zillion things that are before them that

this is low on their priority list.

–New York interviewee

There is no transportation aid that comes with

this categorical program and the transportation policy is somewhat punitive.

–New York interviewee

Resources also presented a significant barrier to

UPK. In addition to money, lack of space, staff, and

personnel continued to be a persistent problem.

The first thing that districts that did not have

pre-Ks (prekindergarten) in the past was say,

where the heck are we going to get all this

classroom space?

–New York interviewee

There’s just no way that they’re going to be

able to have all these programs staffed with

certified teachers. It’s just that certified

teachers aren’t there.

–New York interviewee

Political factors narrowly led geographic factors

as barriers. Governor Pataki and the Republican

Senate have not shown great interest in the program. In this matter, Governor Pataki was closely

aligned with the Republican-dominated Senate and

was an example of an individual acting as a barrier.

I can even be more specific by saying that the

State Assembly and the State Senate disagree

on the program. The Assembly wants funds to

be appropriated specifically for the program,

and the Senate wants to block grant the

funds...it’s a constant battle.

–New York interviewee

UPK was laid on the table by the Leader of the

State Assembly at the last minute in August of

1997, as a bargaining chip, and the Governor

bought it because it gave him something else

in return. It was a swap that he bought into

without enthusiasm.

–New York interviewee

Geographic barriers were expressed in the

different urban and rural needs. The largest urban

centers were New York City, Buffalo, Rochester,

Syracuse and Albany. Clearly, urban and rural

needs were often very different and this difference

added further complications to the design of UPK

regulations and state-wide implementation.

The most prominent geographic issue was the

rural transportation need or at least the choice of

prekindergarten center so that the children could

commute with parents to a center convenient to the

workplace. Often, the prekindergarten schedule of

rural sites conflicted with the parent’s work schedule. This is especially true for parents who live in

rural areas yet commute to other areas for work.

This conflict created a barrier for those parents who

wished to use the state supported center but could

not arrange for care after the program closed for the

day. Additionally, rural areas often have limited

transportation resources, because there are no

additional funds from the state to provide transportation for prekindergarten students.

You could use some of your money, your

$2,700 per kid for transportation, but if you

take out the $2,000 a year it costs for transportation, then you have no education to give

them when you get there.

–New York interviewee
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 35

The remaining categories (groups, academic,

and media) provided only minimal barriers to

implementation. Group resistance came primarily

from groups such as the teacher’s unions, Head

Start and Experimental Prekindergarten providers

who didn’t express much enthusiasm for the

program. The 10% minimum mandate did a lot;

however, to allay the fears of these various groups.

Academically, higher education was not resistant

to UPK, but perhaps sluggish in providing the

resources necessary to increase the number of

qualified professionals. Finally, the media had no

noted influence as a barrier.

Major Facilitators

1. Presence of Strong Administration. The

state leadership that took on the prekindergarten program was especially well-versed

in the needs of communities as well as

appropriate child care programs. Making

prekindergarten universal required more

than implementation of a program. It

required the creation of a system such that

the program became incorporated into state

identity. The leadership active in New York

carefully crafted the program to achieve

these goals.

2. Support from the Assembly and Speaker

Silver (LADDER). Speaker Silver was

especially important for maintaining pressure on the Senate and the Governor to

allocate funding for the educational reform

LADDER Proposal, which included the

provision for UPK.

3. Large Numbers of Advocacy Groups.

Advocacy groups within the state also

pushed for the implementation of a universal

program. Groups such as the preschool

education community, the Early Childhood

Strategic Group, State Communities Aid, as

well as coalitions that formed to support and

protect prekindergarten legislation represented the grassroots demand for a universal program.

4. Collaboration. Collaboration was especially

effective in reducing opposition from Head

Start and private child care sectors. With

the mandate for at least 10% outsourcing,

and the reality that more than 10% might be

used in programs other than the public

schools, early child care programs had an

incentive to become involved in the Universal Prekindergarten Program.

5. Presence of Research. Well-publicized

brain development research and intervention

research into the improvement of cognitive

development played an important role in

generating public support as well as the

political will to introduce the policy.

Major Barriers

1. Consistently Late Budgets. New York’s

annual budget is due for approval in April

but in the last ten years, the budget has

often not been approved until the summer

months (June, July, and August). This

presented a significant difficulty for educational districts making the decision to apply

for funding.

2. Lack of Resources. Building a cadre of

trained personnel takes the time and cooperation of higher education. Space was an

additional factor to be considered. Generally,

public education is entering a period in

which demand for teachers and space is

increasing at a rate greater than teachers

and space can be provided.

3. Problems with Half-Day Programs and

Transportation. When prekindergarten

programs are offered for a half-day, in a
36 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

community of working parents, the programs often do not obtain high enrollment or

a positive response. Similarly, there is lower

interest and participation in programs

offered in rural areas that do not provide

transportation. To be effective, the programs

need to truly consider the particular needs

of the community.

4. Lack of Support by the Governor and

State Senate. Just as the Speaker and

Assembly were political facilitators in the

promotion and adoption of the program, the

Governor’s and the Senate’s lack of interest

in the program hinders its acceptance and

funding and continues to place the program

in jeopardy of losing funding.

5. Concern about Future Funding. This

barrier was related to both lack of political

support from the Governor and Senate and

the nature of the economy. While the

economy is strong, there is “soft money”

available, and new programs such as Universal Prekindergarten get funded. If the

economy enters a recession, ‘add-on’ programs will be the first reviewed.

New York Summary

In summation, several points are worth highlighting. First, the perceived success of the longestablished Experimental Prekindergarten program

laid a stable groundwork for the universal program.

In addition, the committed support of several key

political leaders is noteworthy, although not unique

to New York State. What is unique about the New

York case is its approach to implementation of the

program. Both the five year phase-in implementation and the mandated collaboration are unique

aspects of New York’s prekindergarten policy and

appear to be responsible for much of the policy’s

practical, or field success.

The ‘phase in’ approach has reduced pressure on

school districts to participate immediately. It has

also reduced pressure on the state system and

higher education to provide resources for a fully

operational universal program. Another important

factor, the acceptance of the UPK, was the decision

to establish local advisory committees. These local

advisory committees provide guidance pertinent to

their district. This is a proactive strategy that

involves the community in the development and

implementation of policy. Giving ownership to the

community reduced the sense of state imposition

and helped foster local acceptability of the program.

New York’s prekindergarten program is not

without its struggles, however. The ongoing

resistance of the governor and legislators to

adequately fund the program, in addition to the

often late state budget approval, have proved

hindrances to the acceptance of the program into

New York’s educational identity. Other factors, such

as the transportation policy, also prove troublesome and require continued attention and fine

tuning of prekindergarten policy.

The future of New York’s prekindergarten

program depends upon continued commitment and

funding from legislative leaders, and to an extent,

general economic health. It is important to use this

time of relative support and economic well-being to

make the program part of the state’s educational

identity. Only then can the program be assured.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 37

SOUTH CAROLINA

How It Began

In 1984 Governor Richard Riley, made a statewide

commitment to educational reform. He crafted the

Educational Improvement Act (EIA) and assisted in

its passage by the legislature. This was accomplished by raising the state sales tax by one-cent to

pay for the reform elements, an unpopular but

necessary step to achieve these reforms. There

were three major pieces in this legislation:

• An increase in teachers’ salaries

• A statewide compensatory remedial initiative (every child who scored below the

standard on the state basic skills test gets

remediation)

• An early intervention initiative to keep

children from falling behind.

The prekindergarten program provided money

for school districts, but in the beginning all school

districts were not required to have programs. The

program was in effect for about ten years before

the state required all districts to implement the

program. Program funds were distributed based on

the percentage of students scoring ‘not ready’ on

the first grade readiness test.

During Riley’s term in office, the program grew

and developed. During the twelve years between

the terms of Governors Richard Riley and Jim

Hodges (1986–1998), the early childhood program

continued with only a small increase in funding

each year and the passage of the law requiring all

districts to participate.

One of Jim Hodges first acts was to ensure the

passage of First Steps. This was a major new early

childhood initiative and although it is fiscally small

at the present time, it is expected to grow and

provide many services to children from birth to

kindergarten age. Because this additional program

was approved, the state again demonstrated its

commitment to early childhood programs.

Current Status

Every South Carolina school district is required to

have at least one prekindergarten classroom. This

program serves the at-risk (children with potential

academic deficiencies or children for whom English

is a second language) population of the state. In

the 1999-2000 school year the program enrolled

about 15,400 students, which represents about

30% of the four-year-olds in the state. It appropriated $23.6 million for the prekindergarten program

in 1999–2000 with the participating localities

spending additional funds. This supplementary

amount varies from almost nothing to thousands of

extra dollars.

In South Carolina the prekindergarten program

operates 180 days and is primarily conducted by the

public schools. The program requires two and a halfhours per day, five days per week. Half-day programs are not practical in some localities for such

reasons as transportation, working parents, and the

school day arrangement. Districts often provide a

full-day program using an assortment of added

funding sources such as Title 1, Head Start and

various local funds. The curriculum is determined

according to locally defined needs and requirements.

The Office of Early Childhood in the Department

of Education of South Carolina administers the

program. The money is awarded to a school district,

which may then subcontract with an outside agency

(e.g., day care center) to provide prekindergarten

services. Only certified teachers may teach in the

program regardless of what setting is being used.

Analytic Findings

Figures 4a and 4b show the percentage of responses from the interviewers that were found in

each of the categories of the coding system.

FACILITATORS

The largest percentage of facilitator responses fell

in the individual category. This reflects the impor-
38 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

tant role played by significant persons in both the

professional and political worlds, both in getting

this prekindergarten program started and keeping

it growing. South Carolina was the only state in

which the individual category had the highest

percentage of responses as facilitators. Governor

Dick Riley was given major credit for the development of the initiative and lobbying for this program

of reform through the passage of the Education

Improvement Act.

... and lobbied the legislature and called in

supportive people to work on them.

–South Carolina interviewee

A number of other significant individuals played

a role as well. The current Superintendent of

Education, Inez Tenenbaum, is seen as a strong

supporter who provided some of the institutional

facilitators by establishing an Office of Early

Childhood Education and staffing it. Two other

institutional moves were to establish an Interagency Child Development Committee and to create

a flexible policy for local districts, which enabled

them to combine funds from private and public

sources thus making a full-day prekindergarten

program possible.

Along with the groups that played the role of

facilitators there were meaningful institutional

changes that have created a better structure for the

prekindergarten program. For example,

With him (Gov. Hodges) came Ms. Tenenbaum

as State Superintendent of Education. Early

childhood education has been one of her top

priorities. This is the first time we’ve had an

Office of Early Childhood within the state

Department of Education.

–South Carolina interviewee

There has been a general recognition of the need

for collaboration and for that to work effectively

there have to be institutional efforts to carry it off.

We’ve created child development centers and

now with our emphasis on parenting and

family literacy-we have parent resource centers

and family literacy classrooms in there.

–South Carolina interviewee

The prime economic facilitator was the increase

of the sales tax by one-cent to implement the

Educational Improvement Act. Since tax increases

are never a popular action, the support of a tax

increase was a measure of the degree of the

Governor’s commitment.

He put in a 10% pay increase for teachers so

the teachers, the Education Association and

the school district people and the school

boards people, they were up front going in

there turning the world upside down to get

that legislation passed.

–South Carolina interviewee

The fact that groups were also seen as major

facilitators was also due, in some measure, to the

work of Governor Riley who called the various

interest groups together.

He said, you can squabble internally about

this and not get it, or we can decide this is the

time when our state is ready to vote some big

bucks for education, let it go to education and

then work out our partnerships after that.

–South Carolina interviewee

The political category, which in this case blends

with the individual category, is obviously important

at the beginning of the program and in driving the

current initiative. Additional political highlights

include the mandate that all school districts

participate.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 39

 Figure 4a. South Carolina Facilitators

Total Items Cited

Resources 9

Media 2

Academic 8

Geographic 1

Political 18

Economic 19

Groups 23

Individual 34

Institutional 23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total 137

Responses of Seven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

 Figure 4b. South Carolina Barriers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Responses of Eight Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

Total Items Cited

Resources 18

Media 0

Academic 4

Geographic 1

Political 8

Economic 14

Groups 20

Individual 3

Institutional 27

Total 95
40 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Eight or 10 years ago the legislation changed

to require all school districts to have a program for four-year-olds. It didn’t say that you

had to serve all four-year-olds, it just said that

every district had to have a program for fouryear-olds.

–South Carolina interviewee

As interesting as the variety of facilitators that

were used in South Carolina were those categories

that were not major factors. The media played a

very small role according to the interviewees and

geographic factor did not seem to be relevant.

Academic arguments or factors seemed to play

a minor role, quantitatively. The low percentage of

resource responses was a reflection of the limited

resources in the state.

BARRIERS

The largest category in the barriers from a percentage standpoint was institutional as can be seen in

Figure 4b. This reflected the absence of an infrastructure that could provide support for the prekindergarten program. There was a shortage of trained

personnel, data systems, and communication.

It’s not an issue that receives a fraction of the

attention that it deserves, and so the question

of training early childhood people is one of

those things that should have gotten a lot

more attention in the past... there wasn’t any

attention paid to early childhood development,

training early childhood teachers.

–South Carolina interviewee

The economic barriers also are noteworthy.

Despite the major effort to increase resources for

education interviewees perceived that this is a poor

and conservative state and it will take a good deal

to expand or pay for the needed resources for the

prekindergarten program.

The budget will play a major role. We don’t

know where the money’s going to come from.

–South Carolina interviewee

We’re a very conservative state. People don’t

like to be taxed. They don’t like to be taxed for

somebody else’s children. We have a fairly

high percentage of the people in this state who

attend private schools. Certainly a lot of the

‘money people’ go to private schools; I guess

that’s true everywhere. They also tend to be

the decision-makers.

–South Carolina interviewee

The area of resources was one of the major

barriers noted, with lack of space, trained personnel, and the absence of transportation placing a

major brake on the program. The needs for additional resources are likely to continue to delay

full implementation.

If the state came to us tomorrow and said you

could serve all four-year-olds, we couldn’t due

to limited space.

–South Carolina interviewee

The high percentage of barrier statements

attributed to the groups reflected the early concerns of the other stakeholders in child care and

also the opposition by the conservative forces in

South Carolina.

But these were groups of parents who were,

for some time, fearful that the state would,

as they put it, take over the responsibility

of parents.

–South Carolina interviewee

The political barriers indicated not so much

active opposition as neglect of the early childhood

programs during a twelve-year period when the

opposition party was in of the Governor’s mansion.

Neither media nor geographical considerations or

academic arguments played a major role in the

barriers to this early childhood program. No indi-
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 41

vidual stood out as a significant barrier to the

program. As in the other states, the barriers were

more economic and institutional (reflecting the

absence of a support infrastructure for prekindergarten) than the result of active opposition to these

early childhood programs.

Major Facilitators

1. Governor Riley’s Educational Reform

Initiative. There was no doubt among the

interviewees that Governor Riley was the key

person and force in South Carolina to bring

about this reform program with an emphasis

on being raises in teachers’ salaries.

2. Low Student Performance. When quantitative data became available documenting the

low performance of South Carolina students

in the early grades, this became a great

motivator to do something in the preschool.

3. Minority Group Support. Minority groups

provided political support for this prekindergarten program on a consistent basis. They

saw benefits accruing to their children.

Although not powerful enough to carry the

argument by themselves, they were a visible

source of support during the discussions

about the reform movement.

4. Governor Hodges and First Steps. Governor Hodges pushed for a new initiative in

state government (First Steps) that would

provide resources to the local communities

to provide support for children from birth to

five. This again exhibited the state’s commitment to early childhood education.

5. New Administrative Unit. Superintendent

of Schools Tenenbaum has provided powerful support to the prekindergarten initiative

with the establishment of a new Office of

Early Childhood Education. The office in

South Carolina is operated within the

Department of Education.

Major Barriers

1. Consistent Political Opposition. The

prekindergarten program appears to be

politically polarized. Governor Riley, a

Democrat, proposed the program and when

Republican governors succeeded him, they

did not provide any significant financial

increases for the program. It was not until

another Democratic Governor was elected

that the prekindergarten program was

revived.

2. Opposition of the Conservative Right.

There were moral issues raised by conservative voices who carry considerable weight in

South Carolina, as to whether such early

childhood programs were undermining the

family, encouraging women to work outside

the home, and so on. While not strong

enough to cancel the program itself, this

political group did seem to delay full implementation of the program.

3. Financial Costs. South Carolina is not one

of the wealthier states and so undertaking

this program was done with significant costs

and political risks. The inability to fully fund

the program from the state level was a

deterrent to many local communities that

correctly saw that they would have to put

additional funds into the program if it were

to work at the local level.

4. Lack of Resources. Another drawback to

the program was the lack of trained personnel and available space. A major effort to

prepare personnel is now underway but is

still a long way from reaching the goal.

5. Uncertainty of Stakeholders. A number of

educational and early childhood specialists

were concerned about how the prekindergarten program would affect them and this

acted as a brake on the program itself.
42 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

South Carolina Summary

There was wide general agreement that the key

facilitator for the prekindergarten program in South

Carolina was an individual, Governor Richard Riley.

As was true in other states, the rationale was to

counteract low student performance in the early

grades. He pushed this program as part of an

educational reform package that included increases

in teachers’ salaries. He dealt with the economic

barrier by championing a one-cent increase in the

sales tax. He was also able to bring together groups

concerned with early childhood in support of the

program as well as strong minority group support.

Superintendent Tenenbaum used the institutional strategy of establishing a new administrative

unit, the Office of Early Childhood Education,

although it remained in the Department of Education. There was considerable opposition to the

program from the opposing political party and by

conservative forces in the state that certainly

slowed the development of the program over the

years. Governor Hodges began his own administration with a new initiative, First Steps, to provide

resources to local communities to provide support

for children from birth to five. Although this

program does not affect the prekindergarten

program directly, the renewed interest in young

children in South Carolina seemed to reenergize

the program for four-year-olds.

The future seems to be one of gradual growth of

the program, as financial resources become available, as long as there is general public support.

TEXAS

How It Began

In the early 1980s Ross Perot was appointed by

then Governor Mark White to head a citizens

commission to look at early childhood education.

One recommendation of this group was to establish

a prekindergarten program in Texas. The adoption

of the prekindergarten program was an act of

political will on the part of the legislation but it

was also passed because Ross Perot had a strong

voice and supported preschool education.

The reforms generated by the 68th Texas Legislature in 1983 came about because of the emerging

recognition of the importance of early childhood

education for certain high-risk students. The

summer of 1984 brought a special session and

House Bill 72. At that time, the Legislature felt

drastic steps were necessary to curb costly

remediation and school failure in later grades. The

intent of the legislature was to break the debilitating effects of school failure by building a solid

foundation of school success among high-risk fouryear-olds. The law stipulated that any school

district may offer prekindergarten classes, but a

school district that has at least 15 eligible (children unable to speak or understand English,

educationally disadvantaged or homeless) fouryear-olds must offer a prekindergarten program.

The law for prekindergarten education, enacted in
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 43

May 1985, became effective with the 1985–86

school year.

In the late 1990s Governor George Bush started

the campaign “every child reading on grade level by

3rd grade.” It has had a tremendous impact on

education policy, but especially on the prekindergarten program.

Current Status

The Texas prekindergarten program serves the

at-risk (children unable to speak or understand

English, educationally disadvantaged or homeless)

population of the state. It currently (1999–2000

school year) enrolls about 142,000 students, which

represents about 22% of the four-year-olds in the

state. Texas appropriated $171.9 million for this

program during the school year 1999–2000.

In order to get more children “ready,” an additional $200 million was added in the spring of 1999

to be utilized during the school years 1999–2000

and 2000–2001. This was approved by the legislature and supported by Governor Bush. Currently

Texas only funds half-day prekindergarten programs and this money is intended for the expansion

of prekindergarten and kindergarten programs to

full-day. Districts are allocated funds using the

Texas Education Code.

The prekindergarten programs in Texas may

serve either three- and four-year-olds or just fours.

A district is not required to provide transportation

for prekindergarten classes, but transportation, if

provided, is included as part of the regular transportation system. The program requires attendance

for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week.

Curriculum guidelines have been developed, but

their use is optional. Every class has a certified

teacher, many of whom also have an endorsement

in bilingual education or as an English as a second

language (ESL) teacher. Because prekindergarten

was removed from the Texas Essential Knowledge

and Skills (means developed by Texas Education

Agency for determining accountability) requirement, there is neither a state-approved teacher/

child ratio nor a class-size cap.

The Texas Education Agency administers the

prekindergarten program and local school districts

receive the money. They may provide services

directly or subcontract with community agencies.

Analytic Findings

The coding of the facilitators by the reviewers is

indicated in Figure 5a and 5b. The percentages of

coded responses in the charts were obtained from

the aggregate coding of the Texas interviewees.

FACILITATORS

Figure 5a displays the categories of institutional,

academic, economic and groups as the highest. The

support of Governor Mark White provided some of

the institutional support as he appointed Ross

Perot to look at public schools in Texas with the

goal of determining what reforms were needed.

There were lots of people who talked about how

important early childhood education was. That

we spend so much money on prisons and that

we should be spending as much money, if not

more, on preventing children from dropping

out, and the way to do that was to start early.

–Texas interviewee

Institutional support is also demonstrated

when subcontracting takes place. It was often

expressed that multiple standards led to improved

programming.

We don’t go with just one set of standards;

you must follow the most stringent ones. For

instance, if you collaborate with Head Start,

you will still need a certified teacher because

that is our requirement. The Head Start class

size is lower so that is used. So it’s the best of

both worlds.

–Texas interviewee
44 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

The requirement to offer a program if the

district identifies 15 or more eligible children was

also recorded as an institutional facilitator.

The high scores for the academic and group

categories reflect the drive for increased educational

skills and the broad range of support that was given

to this program because it is designed to improve

the educational opportunities of ‘at-risk’ children.

Drastic steps were needed to curb costly

remediation and school failure in later grades.

–Texas interviewee

Texas began to look at itself and say, why aren’t

we achieving? Why are we ranked so low? What

are we doing wrong in our public schools?

–Texas interviewee

Prekindergarten education was seen as one way

to help alleviate this concern. The requirements

that teachers must not only be certified but also

have an endorsement in early childhood or kindergarten education is also seen as an academic

facilitator. This move received a great deal of

support from various groups including ethnic

groups as well as early childhood cohorts.

We had a very strong cadre of professionals in

the Texas AEYC and in early childhood higher

education programs, and they worked very

closely with our Texas Education Agency.

–Texas interviewee

Economic support has also been abundant.

Texas has a strong economy and this program has

now been included in the on-going education

budget, securing it’s future.

These children are funded just like we fund

kindergarten through 12th grade students.

–Texas interviewee

 The 1999 Legislature appropriated an additional $200 million, to be utilized during the 1999–

2001 school years for the expansion of half-day

programs to full-day.

One leader who stands out as an individual is

Ross Perot. He headed the commission that looked

at education in Texas. One recommendation that

they suggested was the formation of a prekindergarten program for limited English proficient

children and children living in poverty. Dr. William

Kirby was the Commissioner of Education when the

legislation for prekindergarten education was first

passed and was very supportive and influential.

Dr. Kirby, the Commissioner at the time, was

very pro early childhood. In fact, many people

don’t know this, but he has his doctorate in

reading and in early childhood education. So

even though he was a very busy man with this

massive school reform, part of that reform was

the prekindergarten program, and he made

sure it was included.

–Texas interviewee

As with other states, we can identify key political leaders and strategies. Former Governor Mark

White appointed Ross Perot to head the citizens’

commission that looked at education in Texas.

House Bill 72 was passed and contained 11 items

that were related to early childhood, including the

prekindergarten program. Governor George Bush’s

emphasis on reading on grade level by the third

grade also influenced the passage of the additional

$200 million to be used during the two school

years 1999–2000 and 2000–2001.

Also noteworthy is that the media and the

geographic areas played almost no role in this

program. The prekindergarten program was

developed largely by the state government and

legislature without much consideration of geographic areas or input from the media. This

appeared to have been a political movement supported by many but it did receive some opposition

as is demonstrated in the barriers.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 45

 Figure 5a. Texas Facilitators

Total Items Cited

Resources 41

Media 0

Academic 14

Geographic 4

Political 6

Economic 9

Groups 34

Individual 1

Institutional 39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total 148

Responses of Seven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

 Figure 5b. Texas Barriers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Responses of Seven Interviewees (%)

Institutional

Individual

Groups

Economic

Political

Geographic

Academic

Media

Resources

Total Items Cited

Resources 26

Media 1

Academic 34

Geographic 1

Political 21

Economic 29

Groups 29

Individual 23

Institutional 64

Total 228
46 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

BARRIERS

The barrier statements that are summarized in Figure

5b represent the responses of the people interviewed

in Texas. The high percentage of responses in the

resource category reflects the major difficulties in

finding qualified teachers and space.

We need so many teachers; the problem of

providing teachers is unbelievable in this state.

–Texas interviewee

In addition to an early childhood certification

they need a bilingual endorsement if they are

teaching a bilingual class, and a bilingual or ESL

endorsement if they are teaching an ESL class.

Those teachers are especially hard to find.

–Texas interviewee

School buildings are also often not child

friendly because of a lack of classroom

facilities such as water fountains, bathrooms

and low shelving, etc.

–Texas interviewee

The high score in the group category reflects

that there was some initial resistance to the

prekindergarten program by child care providers

and some Head Starts who were anxious to learn if

their enrollment might be negatively impacted.

There were lots of folks in the private sector

who’d been running day care programs and

people in the Head Start community who were

concerned about what the public schools were

going to do to pre-K (prekindergarten) kids.

–Texas interviewee

The religious right felt that children should be

home with their mothers, and there were also concerns that a program run by the schools would be too

“academic” and not developmentally appropriate.

...some of these groups are going to have a

hard time accepting that there are many

children who need out-of-home care.

–Texas interviewee

Institutional barriers can also be seen in the

fact that these prekindergarten programs are not

part of the new Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills regulations. Because of this, the state can

only issue guidelines but not requirements for

programs. This has often led to large class sizes

and inappropriate curricula.

In 1995, as a result of the passage of Senate

Bill I, the State Boards of Education no

longer has rulemaking authority for provisions

for prekindergarten programs. One of the

implications of the removal of these provisions

was the State Board no longer had the

authority to make rules regarding class size

for prekindergarten programs.

–Texas interviewee

Texas also has 20 Regional Education Service

Centers around the state but had few staff prepared

to aid the prekindergarten programs with the

exception of special education personnel. This has

led to a lack of guidance and accountability.

Many Regional Educational Service Centers do

not have an early childhood person on staff.

–Texas interviewee

Academic barriers reflect the increased emphasis on standards, accountability and reading.

My concern is that we not get so focused on

standards, accountability, TAAS test and

reading that we forget that there’s a whole

child there.

–Texas interviewee

Because there is no required curriculum, there

is a trickle down effect especially from the Texas

Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores,

which are published each year.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 47

Every grade is putting pressure on the grade

beneath them to have the children ready to

take that TAAS test.

–Texas interviewee

The categories reflecting media, individuals

and geographic forces were not considered as

strong barriers in the establishment of the prekindergarten program in Texas.

Major Facilitators

1. Concerns about School Failures.

Interviewees showed a great deal of concern

about the increasing numbers of early

school failures, and that this represented a

major interest in the education field. The

prekindergarten program was seen as one

way to help alleviate this concern.

2. Perot’s Commission on Educational

Reform. As a result of concern and wideranging interest, in the early 1980s Governor Mark White appointed Ross Perot to

head a citizen’s commission to look at

education in Texas. Several reform initiatives were adopted as a result of this commission. Included was a program for educationally disadvantaged, homeless and nonEnglish speaking four-year-olds.

3. Strong Economic Times. Texas was

enjoying a period of strong economic growth

that allowed it to offer reliable fiscal support

to a prekindergarten program.

4. Leadership of Commissioner of Education

William Kirby and Legislators. Commissioner Kirby and key legislators pushed for

new initiatives to enhance the learning

opportunities of educationally disadvantaged, homeless or non-English speaking

prekindergarten children.

5. Current Interest in Reading. The initiative

by George Bush, that all children be reading

on grade level by third grade, brought new

money and interest to the prekindergarten

program by the 1999 Legislature.

Major Barriers

1. Lack of Facilities and Personnel. There

continues to be a crucial lack of facilities

and personnel, but particularly of bilingual

and ESL teachers. Because Texas has such a

large population of minority students,

having enough bilingual and ESL trained

teachers is a big problem for the prekindergarten program. A major effort to prepare

personnel is now underway but is still a long

way from reaching the goal.

2. Lack of Administrative Support. There has

not been a lot of emphasis or support at the

administrative level for early childhood

education. Reading has received more

assistance and provisions. To wit: Texas has

a one-person Department of Early Childhood

Education, despite the fact that it has one of

the largest early childhood populations.

3. Opposition of Conservative Groups.

Various conservative groups who carry

considerable weight in Texas raised moral

issues. They questioned whether such early

childhood programs were encouraging

women to work outside the home and

thereby undermining the family. Although

not strong, their influence has been felt.

4. Lack of Early Childhood Specialists in

Service Centers. Omitted emphasis and

support for early childhood education at the

administrative level is also demonstrated by

not placing an early childhood specialist in

each of the 20 Regional Education Service

Centers which are a part of the Texas

Educational Agency.
48 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

5. Prekindergarten is no Longer a Part of

the Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills. At one time prekindergarten was

included in the Texas Essential Knowledge

and Skills but with the latest revision

(1999), it is no longer included. The biggest

barrier created by this is the lack of mandated staff-child ratios and class size as well

as the lack of a required curriculum. This

has resulted in some classes being extremely large (and often having only one

staff member) as well as some inappropriate

expectations.

6. Lack of Collaboration between Various

Units of Higher Education. Classes at

community colleges often do not transfer to

four-year institutions. Many early childhood

professionals do not agree about how to

resolve this issue.

Texas Summary

The prekindergarten program in Texas was established because large numbers of children were

failing in the early grades. The fact that school

failure was seen by the legislature as an argument

for prekindergarten programs also helped get the

program funded. Governor White appointed Ross

Perot to head a citizen’s commission to look at

education in Texas. Among other things, the

commission concluded that a prekindergarten

program was needed. This program was included in

a larger educational reform package making it

easier to fund as well as making it not as noticeable to the general public. More recently, Texas has

set reading at grade level by third grade as a goal.

The prekindergarten program is seen as a way to

help achieve this goal.

Because the prekindergarten program has now

been included as part of the continuing education

budget, the program is more stable and should

continue as long as the economy is strong. This

method of funding makes the program very difficult

to discontinue should an opposition to the program

emerge in Texas.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 49

Discussion

THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS OF KEY PERSONS IN FIVE STATES about the development of prekindergar

ten programs in those states yielded a broad collection of information worthy of discussion. How do

the results of these case studies of state policy and the development of prekindergarten programs relate

to the Fullan (1993) proposition that both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ are necessary to create educational

change? This descriptive study was not designed as a test for Fullan’s proposition but we can comment on

whether our results are consistent with his and others policy propositions.

It is clear that the ‘top-down’ element is present. The powerful role of political leaders in the five

states is good testimony to that. It depends upon where one defines the bottom, however, as to whether

the ‘bottom-up’ approach is there. If one defines ‘bottom-up’ as influences from the professional level,

there is no doubt that early child care professionals, their organizations, and advocacy groups played a

significant role in all of these states. In most instances, they were aided by other professionals within

state agencies who administered the program. These professionals provided a clear rationale for the

utility of the prekindergarten program for the political leaders. They insisted on the need for quality

programs and well-trained personnel. If ‘bottom-up’ means the general public, however, then one cannot

define what happened as a strong ‘bottom-up’ movement.

One can only surmise that the attitude of the general public was one of tacit approval to the new policy,

but not one of strong public action. We can infer by the actions of the state legislatures that there was

general public acceptance since any strong negative feelings on the part of the general public would

surely be reflected by opposition in the legislative halls. The only clear opposition came from the Christian

right who felt that the family was being undermined in such efforts.

Another Fullan proposition, “Connection with the wider environment is essential for success,” does

play out here. It was necessary to mobilize many groups and organizations as part of this reform movement and numerous individuals and groups from many walks of life played key roles in the development

and implementation of this policy.

All of the states also experienced the equivalent of Fullan’s principle that “Change is a journey, not a

blueprint.” All sorts of professional and political events occurred that caused the responsible leaders to

make modifications and changes in the program and, in particular, the sequence of its development. In

South Carolina for example the program rested essentially dormant for a number of years when the

political leadership had other priorities to follow. Several of the interviewees in other states felt that their

state may be ready for universal prekindergarten but not ready for the price tag that accompanies it.

These are dynamic programs that change as the context and environment change.
50 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

What occurred in the states was also an example of episodic change as defined by Weick &

Quinn (1999). The conditions have not been set for

continuous change, which would mean a structure

or infrastructure that welcomed change as a

normal part of organizational activity. Weick &

Quinn have pointed out that there has to be a

serious lack of equilibrium to justify and sustain

episodic change, such as the numbers of mothers

in the workforce, and the problems young children

were having in school. These factors caused the

states to act to restore some degree of equilibrium.

There was some evidence from the interviewees

that organizational inertia, noted by Weick &

Quinn, was present in the resistance of some public

school systems that refused to accept prekindergarten programs and also resisted collaboration

with other community agencies despite the obvious

need to discuss issues of space and personnel.

These prekindergarten programs, in the words

of Gersick (1991), changed the ‘rules of the game’

for educators and child care workers. It was not

surprising that such changes in procedures and

activities met with resistance but that resistance

has been gradually receding over time as a new

deep structure becomes established and new

‘rules of the game’ (the prekindergarten programs

and rules) become the norm.

These states appear to be well on the way to

universal prekindergarten services as soon as they

find a way to finance the program. The public

schools in these states have accepted yet another

responsibility and this educational reform movement for young children continues. It seems useful

to consider what general findings across states can

be identified.

GENERALITIES FROM FIVE STATES

These states (Georgia, Illinois, New York, South

Carolina, and Texas) are so different demographically from one another that any similarities among

them on this prekindergarten policy initiative

would seem to be significant and may indicate the

discovery of change mechanisms of some power

and utility.

Political Leadership

Since the initiation of a new program for prekindergarten requires a considerable expenditure in state

resources, it is inevitable that political leadership

would have to be involved in some fashion. In two

cases, South Carolina and Georgia, the governor

spearheaded this effort. In New York the influential

Speaker of the Assembly struggled with an unenthusiastic governor to achieve the program. In

Texas, a special study commission appointed by the

governor and headed by Ross Perot provided the

impetus for the program. In Illinois a number of

key legislators played an important role and were

helped by key advocacy groups. In each instance

some powerful political figure(s) led the way for

considering this reform element in education. It

was unclear what could be done in the absence of

such political leadership. Perhaps a groundswell of

opinion and demand for action could cause the

political leaders to pay attention. That remains to

be demonstrated in another state besides those

studied here.

Early School Failures

In each state one key reason for initiating the

program was that a number of children in that

state were identified as failing in the early grades.

The prospect of continued poor school performance

and possible later dependence on the larger society

was a motivating force for creating a policy for

prekindergartens. The possibility that such later

school problems could be prevented by immediate
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 51

action early in the child’s development was accepted through widely publicized intervention

research and media attention to brain development.

This understanding became the motivation for the

beginning of the prekindergarten program in each

of these states. The model of Head Start provided

some encouragement as well. It is interesting to

note that the initiation of the prekindergarten

policies was stimulated more by political leadership than by mainstream educators.

Although all of these states now appear to be

moving towards universality of service for all fouryear-olds, the initial public acceptance of the

program was dependent on the realization that

some students were potentially in early academic

trouble, and that the sooner that problem was

addressed the better it would be for everyone.

A limited start, focusing on ‘at-risk’ children,

was also a way for the political leaders to ease into

the issue financially, since the sudden cost of a

universal program for four-year-olds would be a

major financial shock for the legislature and the

public. Only Georgia, where the governor was

successful in advocating for a lottery whose profits

were spent on education, was able to make a

sudden and dramatic move from a small program

for ‘at-risk’ children to universal schooling for all

four-year-olds whose parents wanted it.

Reform Packages

One of the political strategies used in each state

was for the prekindergarten program to be embedded in a larger package of educational reform. In

Georgia it was tied to technology and HOPE scholarships for college students; in New York it was also

a part of a larger education reform effort, LADDER .

Illinois and Texas also made the prekindergarten

program a part of a larger comprehensive educational reform package.

In South Carolina it was paired with raises in

teachers salaries. The new South Carolina governor

initiated the First Steps program, which featured

child care from birth to five. While one might

suspect that First Steps and the South Carolina

prekindergarten program would be in competition

for scarce resources, this does not appear to be the

case. Instead, the renewed interest in the young

child appears to be benefiting both programs.

Professionals and Political Leaders

One important step was the attention paid to the

interests of professional child care providers.

According to the interviewees, these providers had

to be convinced that no harm would come to them

or their interests from this prekindergarten program. In each state the interviewees reported

initial anxiety on the part of Head Start and child

care personnel who wondered if this new program

was going to cause them to be competing for the

same children.

In each instance, considerable effort was

expended to make sure that these groups of child

care professionals supported the new policy. In

South Carolina the Governor held a meeting of the

relevant interest groups to reassure them and to

insist that the best way to move forward was by

cooperating with one another. In New York a

unique strategy was employed mandating that no

less than 10% of the funds would be spent on nonschool providers. The 10% provision allowed other

child care programs to participate with the schools

in this program. In actuality, the percentage given

to other child care providers was much higher due,

in part, to lack of needed resources in the schools.

In Illinois, Texas, and Georgia the lack of available

space for the new program for prekindergarten

made collaboration a necessity as well as good

policy and planning. Although there continued to

be some grumbling at the local level, the major

child care professional leaders in each state

appeared to accept the program as positive, or at

least, inevitable.
52 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Other Commonalties

The media, according to the interviewees, made an

insignificant impact on this decision in all of the

states. Aside for a spurt of publicity on brain

research and the importance of early stimulation,

which was noted by a few interviewees, there was

no indication that the media played a major role in

the establishment of any of the prekindergarten

programs. It is possible that the media stories

created a favorable backdrop to the decision

making but not in a fashion to impress the

interviewees. Nor was there a visible role for

higher education input in the decision. Basically,

the program strategies seemed to be worked out by

the political forces and professional education and

child care groups in each state.

The general public represented by the parents

and other taxpayers seemed to be moderately

positive towards the move. They already appeared

to accept the concept that the earlier one intervened in the life of ‘at-risk’ children, the easier it

would be to gain good results. Also, working

parents, faced with payment of child care fees,

supported the prekindergarten program. There

were few instances of general public endorsement

or protest, with the exception of those forces from

the Christian right who believed that the program

undermined family values and that the child was

better off with his/her mother than with a teacher

or child care worker. These conservative forces

provided meaningful opposition in South Carolina

and Texas and, to some degree, in Georgia although the Georgia decision to become a universal

program was made so rapidly that the opposition

did not have a chance to form before the legislation

was passed.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATES

Finance

There was a major difference in how the states

managed to pay for the prekindergarten programs.

Georgia, of course, has the lottery funds, which

made their financial decisions easier once the

lottery was in place. In Texas the program has

been in place for so long (since the 1980s) that it

has become part of the state’s continuing budget

and is no longer perceived to be in jeopardy. In

Illinois, the program budget has to be considered

anew each year. In New York, despite the legislative commitment to universal educational services

for four-year-olds, the money for the program is

appropriated separately and some believe financial

support could be at-risk in an economic downturn.

Others in New York feel that the program is well

established and would not be seriously impacted

short of some economic disaster. South Carolina

raised the state sales tax a penny to pay for this

and other educational reform programs.

Gradual versus Sudden

There are major differences between Illinois and

Texas, each of whom had a gradually developing

and expanding program, versus Georgia where the

universal program was established in a very short

time period. There are advantages in both approaches. On one hand the gradual approach allows

states to reach agreements with the various

professional groups in the states and to get the

general public accustomed to the program. On the

other hand, the passage of time allows opposition

to coalesce and build their case with the public

against the program.

In Georgia, the rapid initiation of a universal

program probably took opponents by surprise and

disarmed them. This rapid beginning came at a

price, however. There remains, in the implementation phase for that state, all of the necessary efforts
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 53

at collaboration that were not established before the

action was taken. South Carolina started the program as a voluntary one for communities and later

switched to a mandatory one and New York has a

five-year phase-in period for their ‘universal’ program. For both South Carolina and New York there

was a gradual growth to the program.

Organizational Support Systems

One state, Georgia, felt it necessary to establish a

separate Office of School Readiness to administer

the four-year-old program apart from the State

Department of Education. This office is well funded

and well staffed. It was freed from the bureaucratic

system that would limit such staffing. The other

states maintained an identifiable unit within the

State Department of Education to administer the

program. By setting up a separate organizational

unit apart from the Department of Education, the

governor freed the Office of School Readiness from

having to compete on the same turf with the many

other needs in education.

The states also differed in the amount of support services available from the state level. In

Georgia the Office of School Readiness has a large

staff that is committed to providing professional

and administrative support to local systems including curriculum packages and clear requirements

for acceptable practices. In contrast, Texas and

New York have close to a one-person early childhood department, which do not commit major

resources to technical assistance. Other states like

South Carolina allow much more flexibility at the

local level on the nature of the program and staffing. Illinois has not made major commitments to

technical assistance but has spent resources on

personnel preparation.

ADVICE TO OTHER STATES THINKING

ABOUT STATE FUNDING AND

PROGRAM EXPANSION IN EDUCATION

FOR PREKINDERGARTENS

One of the purposes of this study was to find

factors that appeared to contribute to the successful change so that other states could more easily

proceed through this change process. The following

seem to be the major factors in the view of the

investigators.

Link with Larger Educational Reform

The five states studied found it useful to embed

the four-year-old program in a larger package of

educational reform. This appeared to have the

effect of diverting criticism or opposition, and also

to mute the perception of the costs of this particular program. In some cases the prekindergarten

program was linked with raises in teacher salaries.

In others it joined hands with increases in technology and other education initiatives. Since the

general public seemed bent on ‘changing education’ this proposed policy received widespread

support when combined with the other initiatives

noted here.

The Importance of Early Childhood

Most of the states found it advisable to begin the

prekindergarten program with vulnerable populations, children judged ‘at-risk’ for school failure.

There was solid evidence from earlier research that

well-crafted preschool experiences result in fewer

educational failures and referrals to special education, and consequently in major savings to individuals

and states. Once the benefits of the program for ‘atrisk’ children had been noted, it was natural that

parents of children not ‘at-risk’ began wondering why

their children were not receiving these services. This

led naturally to more calls for universal educational

services for all prekindergarten aged children.
54 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

Political Leadership and Support

Since this prekindergarten program was going to

cost a considerable amount of public dollars

(though saving money in the long run) it was

important that key political leaders come forward

with direct support of the program. In the states

studied we had several governors, a speaker of the

assembly, and prominent political figures who

became strong supporters of this effort. It is also

wise to make the support bipartisan, if at all

possible. South Carolina suffered major delays in

the evolution of the early childhood program when

the sponsoring political party fell out of power.

There are legitimate reasons for both political

parties to support a prekindergarten program; such

support should be vigorously pursued.

Funding Sources

Once the concept of prekindergarten programs has

been accepted as wise public policy there remains

the difficult issue of how to pay for this addition to

the responsibilities of the state. Unless there is a

source of funding available that would not stress

other state budget considerations (the Georgia

lottery is an example of an additional source of

revenue) there is a tendency to introduce the idea

and the program gradually. This was true even in

New York which accepted the idea of universal

prekindergarten but has an extended phase-in

provision. The focus on ‘at-risk’ children as a

strategy not only assures public support but also

cuts the revenue that would be required to begin a

universal prekindergarten program.

Transportation

One of the factors often overlooked in the budget

planning has been that of transportation. While the

public schools accept responsibility for transportation for school children this factor has been left out

of the prekindergarten planning in some instances.

The result is that the student allotments to local

schools have had to be used to pay for transportation costs to the dismay of local program directors

and without additional money from the state. Also,

in half-day programs the problem of providing

transportation in midday is often troublesome.

Many schools have tried to have wraparound

services or collaboration with other agencies or

programs, such as Title I, so that a full-day program could be carried out and the transportation

and working parents’ issues could be eased.

Infrastructure-Data Systems

One of the natural steps in policy development and

implementation is to assure that the direct services

to children are taken care of but to overlook

aspects of the support infrastructure that become

so important to a quality program (Gallagher &

Clifford, 2000). A good example is the lack of a

data system to accompany the prekindergarten

program. Without such a system it will be impossible to determine how many children are being

served, what setting the children are in, where are

programs located in the state, how many certified

teachers are there, how many others are working

towards certification, or where are they getting

their certification? Without some such data system,

state planners are in the dark when it comes to

needed resources and legislators are in the dark

about the viability of the requests being made.

Program Quality Assurance

One of the strategies used by a number of states

was to take visible steps to ensure that the programs that were going to be supported in the

prekindergarten program were of high quality.

Establishing standards such as certification of key

staff members and developing technical assistance

personnel to improve the overall quality of the

program were two such strategies. Other states

developed curriculum materials that could be used

by individual centers. Such moves apparently
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 55

resulted in a greater public support and acceptance

for the overall program.

Collaboration with Stakeholders

The successful programs all took pains to allay the

natural anxieties of child care service providers

already in existence in the states. The perception

that there will be two or three institutions fighting

over who will care for four-year-olds (child care,

Head Start, schools, and so on) can bring forth

political opposition. All of the states have encouraged various efforts to bring about collaboration

between these stakeholders. This was done by

providing opportunities and financial support for

these stakeholders to participate in the program as

long as they met educational standards. A major

personnel preparation effort was usually necessary

to bring these educators and other professionals up

to standard for quality prekindergarten programs.

Other Forces at Work

In addition to these factors there were two other

major social movements that added support to

these policy changes. The large percentage of

mothers in the workforce and the requirements

that welfare mothers go to work left parents

searching for constructive environments for their

young children. The prekindergarten programs fit

well into that needed space. Although there were

many other factors of influence that were idiosyncratic to individual states, these noted here, if

faithfully followed, would seem to be a recipe for

successful educational change towards universal

prekindergarten programming. ■
56 EDUCATION FOR FOUR-YEAR-OLDS: STATE INITIATIVES

References

Bruer, J. (1999). The myth of the first three years. New York: The Free Press.

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children

from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Campbell, F., & Ramey, C. (1994). Effects of early intervention in an intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low income families. Child Development, 65, 684-698.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: The Palmer Press.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care and

relative care. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Gallagher, J., & Clifford, R. (2000). The missing support infrastructure in early childhood. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-24.

Gallagher, J., Rooney, R., & Campbell, S. (1999). Child care licensing regulations and child care quality

in four states. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 14, #3, 313-333.

Gallagher, J., Trohanis, P., & Clifford R. (Eds.). (1989). Policy implementation and PL 99-457: Planning

for young children with special needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.

Gormley, W. (1997). Everybody’s children. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Gray, S., Ramsey, B., & Klaus, R. (1982). From 3 to 20 : The early training project. Baltimore, MD:

University Park Press.

Haskins, R., & Gallagher, J. (1981). Models for analysis of social policy: An introduction. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex Publishing Corporation, 68-74.

Helburn, S.W.(Ed.). (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers, technical report. Denver:

Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Denver.

Huber, G., & Glick, W. (1993). Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving

performance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, W. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Kagan, S., & Cohen, N. (1997). Not by chance (The Quality 2000 Initiative). New Haven, CT: Bush

Center in Child Development and Social Policy.

Mitchell, A., Ripple, C., & Chanan, N. (1998). Prekindergarten programs funded by the states. New York:

Families and Work Institute.
NCEDL TECHNICAL REPORT #2 57

MLR: The Editor’s Desk. (1999, June 3). Labor force participation of fathers and mother varies with

children’s age. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor.

Morgan, G. (1995). Research summary of the family child care study and the Florida quality child care

improvement study. Boston: Wheelock College.

Olsen, D. (1999) Universal preschool is no golden ticket. Policy Analysis #333 Washington, DC, Cato

Institute

Pasmore, W. (1994). Creating strategic change: Designing the flexible high-performance organization. New

York: Wiley & Sons.

Public School Forum’s Friday Report. (2000, October). Judge Manning Issues Ruling in the Hoke

County Case. Raleigh, NC: The Public School Forum, 2(32), 1, 8-9.

Ramey, C., & Ramey, S. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53(2),

109-120.

Sarason, S. (1996). The culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teacher’s College

Press

Scarr, S. (1998) American child care today. American Psychologist 53, #2, 95-108.

Schein, E. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model

of managed learning. Systematic Practice, 9, 27-47.

Schulman, K., Blank, H., & Ewen, D. (1999). Seeds of success; State prekindergarten initiatives 1998-

1999. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.

Schweinhart, L., Barnes, H.,& Weikart, D. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool

study through age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 10. Ypsilanti,

MI: High/Scope Press.

Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology,

50, 361-386.

Zigler, E., Finn-Stevenson, M., & Marsland, K. (1995). Child day care in the schools: The school of the

21ST century. Child Welfare, 74(6), 1301–1326.

Zigler, E., Kagan, S., & Hall, N. (Eds.). (1996). Children, families, and government. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. (1994). Head Start: Criticisms in a constructive context. American Psychologist,

49(2), 127-32.