PRESCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

FY2017 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

Preschool Development Grants AUGUST 2018

Massachusetts
ED 524B Page 1 of 62

U.S. Department of Education 

PDG Grant Performance Report Cover Sheet 

Based on ED 524B OMB No. 1894-0003 Exp. 08/31/2020

General Information 

1. PR/Award #: S419B150023 2. Grantee Federal Information Processing Code:

3. Project Title: Massachusetts Preschool Expansion Grant

4. Grantee Name: MA Department of Early Education and Care

5. Grantee Address:51 Sleeper St. 

City: Boston State: Massachusetts Zip: 01776

6. Project Director Name: Jocelyn Bowne

Title: Director of Research and Preschool Expansion Administration

Phone #: (617) 988-2431 Ext.: Fax #:(617) 988-2451

Email Address: jocelyn.bowne@mass.gov

Check only one box per Program Office instructions. ✔ Annual Performance Report Final Performance Report

Reporting Period Information 

7. Reporting Period: From: 01/01/2017 To: 12/31/2017

8. Budget Expenditures (To be completed by your Business Office. See instructions.)

Budget Period Federal Grant Funds Non-Federal Funds (Match/Cost Share)

a. Previous Budget Period $15,850,326.48 $5,990,076.00 

b. Current Budget Period $15,180,775.69 $5,990,076.00 

c. Entire Project Period 

(For Final Performance Reports only)

9. Indirect Cost Information (To be completed by your Business Office. See Instructions.)

a. Are you claiming indirect costs under this grant? Yes No

b. If yes, do you have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal Government? Yes No

c. If yes, provide the following information: 

Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement: From: 07/01/2016 To: 06/30/2019

Approving Federal agency: ✔ ED Other Specify other:

Type of Rate: (Final Performance Reports only) Provisional ✔ Final Specify other:

d. For Restricted Rate Programs (check one) -- Are you using a restricted indirect cost rate that:

Is included in your approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

Complies with 34 CFR 76.564(c)(2)?

Other

10. Performance Measures Status

a. Are complete data on performance measures for the current budget period included in the 

Project Status Chart?

Yes No

b. If no, when will the data be available and submitted to the Department?
ED 524B Page 2 of 62

U.S. Department of Education 

PDG Annual Performance Report 

Executive Summary 

Based on ED 524B OMB No. 1894-0003 Exp. 08/31/2020

Grantee State: MA PR/Award #: S419B150023

You are required to submit an Executive Summary of up to 3000 words with your Annual Performance 

Report. This summary should relate to your approved application and summarize the goals and 

objectives that have been achieved under your grant, what you learned, and any evaluation results. 

Describe any unanticipated outcomes or benefits from your project and any barriers that you may have 

encountered. If there have been any changes to the project from the approved application, those 

should be explained as well.

“The staff at this program go way beyond for all the kids. 

I would like to say how much this program not only changed my daughter's life but it changed my 

whole family.” PEG Parent Testimony 

“For myself, the PEG program has given me an opportunity to grow as a person, as an educator, and 

as a professional. As a person, I have been able to buy my own home with my husband due to the pay 

increase that is involved with PEG. With this, I am now able to start the family I have been dreaming of

for years, but never felt financially ready to start. I have fallen in love with the teaching field because I 

am able to see children grow every day and the love and support their families give to both their 

children and our teaching staff. I, personally, have never felt more respected as an educator and 

honored to say that I work in the PEG program.” PEG Teacher Testimony 

 

 

Overview of Progress: 

PEG funding has allowed the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) to work with five

communities, Boston, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell and Springfield, to build new partnerships and

create new state funded prekindergarten openings in these communities. In each PEG community, the 

school department (LEA) and EEC-licensed early learning providers (ELPs) coordinate enrollment

efforts. At the heart of Massachusetts' plan for the PEG was an effort to leverage local resources 

through public-private partnerships to develop high quality full-day full-year preschool programs with 

four primary agendas: 

 

• Expand access to preschool for low income children who never before received any early 

education 

• Create more integrated and aligned local systems of early education, birth to grade 3 

• Develop the professionalism and skill of the early education workforce 

• Build programs that are responsive to the needs of children and families 

• Serve as a learning lab to use research to inform future policy decisions 

In each of these areas, Massachusetts continues to make important strides and as well as identify 

additional goals for improvement. 
ED 524B Page 3 of 62

Expanded Access 

During the two and a half years that programs funded by the Preschool Expansion Grant (PEG) have 

been in operation, approximately 2400 children have been served. Of these children, about 1600 would 

likely have entered kindergarten without any early education experience, putting them at risk of starting 

school behind their peers. Sixty seven percent of these children had had no prior early education 

experiences, as a result of ineligibility for vouchers, a need for full time, rather than the half day 

program provided by the public school, or a lack of awareness of preschool opportunities. These are 

children who, without the support this grant provides, would have entered kindergarten this September 

without any preschool experience. 

The results of child assessments conducted by Abt Associates as part of the program evaluation 

demonstrate the success that PEG has had in serving these children well. 

• Across measures of English vocabulary, letter/ word recognition and math skills, PEG children 

showed significantly more growth than in the nationally representative sample (which includes 

children with early education experience) used to set assessment norms, and children ended the 

year with literacy and math skills on par with this sample, on average. 

• The greatest gains were seen in English vocabulary growth. Children began the PEG program 

much farther below expected the expected skill level for English vocabulary than in other skills, 

a result reflective of the large numbers of dual language learners being served. The PEG 

program significantly closed the gap in vocabulary skills. 

• Teachers also rated children in the PEG program at expected levels of social skills and behavior 

development across the PEG year, on average. 

Public-Private Partnerships in Service of Birth to Grade 3 Alignment 

PEG funds have been invested in public-private partnerships to create new high quality full day, full 

year classrooms in the PEG communities. The grant funds 48 classrooms across the five communities, 

all of which are led by a teacher with at least a Bachelor's degree, paid a salary commensurate with the 

public school and with class sizes between 10 and 20 and child-teacher ratios of no more than 10:1, 

frequently closer to 6:1 when a three educator per classroom model is implemented to provide staffing 

for a full-day program. Each community has developed a steering committee comprised of 

representatives from the LEA and each ELP, which have continued the collaborative planning process 

begun when programs were being designed. As these groups have entered year three of the grant, 

attention has shifted from developing the program model to considering available data and reflecting on 

program experiences to identify opportunities for continued program improvements or more focused 

program alignment. During year 2 programs developed a clarity of focus for professional development 

and coaching, defined key family engagement and comprehensive service components, implemented 

more mature outreach and enrollment systems and considered ways to support kindergarten enrollment 

and communicate with kindergarten teachers Opportunities to share resources and align services were 

identified and public school staff from various departments such as special education, enrollment and 

homeless services attended steering committee meetings to provide resources, support coordination and 

share expertise. As programs begin the third year of PEG, the relationship building and vision setting of

year one have laid a foundation for more intensive efforts to look honestly at the strengths and 

weaknesses of the program and continue to plan creatively around program improvements. The 

following issues have been important points of consideration in all communities: 

• Considering how to improve access to prekindergarten for all children locally and best integrate 

the PEG program into larger, somewhat fragmented, local systems of early education, 

including: 

o Organizing outreach to families not currently served by the early education system; and 

o Building a referral system, which in some cases leverages the public school kindergarten 
ED 524B Page 4 of 62

registration resources. 

• Identifying key points of alignment to ensure a smooth transition to Kindergarten, including: 

o Determining how to align curriculum and develop shared expectations for kindergarten 

readiness; 

o Building opportunities for conversations between PEG teachers and kindergarten teachers 

about classroom structures and expectations; 

o Coordinating information sharing between PEG teachers, parents and kindergarten 

teachers about individual children; and 

o Supporting parents through the process of kindergarten enrollment and transition. 

• Engaging in continuous quality improvement by reviewing program data and making responsive 

program adaptations. 

 

Stable and Professional Workforce 

“With the PEG teachers, there is no comparison to the other teachers, I have no worries with the PEG 

classrooms, teachers rock and they are organized and committed. They are professional.” PEG 

Director interview, Year 2 

 

PEG recognizes that teachers are the cornerstone of the program; it is the teachers' skill at organizing

the classroom environment, implementing effective curriculum, engaging in responsive and

intellectually stimulating teacher-child interactions and connecting with parents that creates a high 

quality program. 

 

PEG programs have invested heavily in their educators, providing multiple professional learning 

opportunities, including coaching, and ensuring salaries are commensurate with the public school for 

lead teachers. Classrooms are often staffed with three teachers each to provide educators flexibility to 

engage in job-embedded professional development, ongoing planning and communication with 

families, as well as to lower child-teacher ratios for much of the day. In return for these investments, 

programs have hired educators with strong qualifications (all lead teachers have BAs and 23 percent 

have MAs) and expect high levels of engagement in the professional learning opportunities and other 

responsibilities outside the classroom, such as efforts to engage in meaningful ways with families. 

The classroom quality results reflect the early return on these investments. 

• In Year 1 and 2, PEG classrooms demonstrated strong levels of quality on two standardized 

observational measures, comparable to or better than other large scale early education programs.

• More significantly, these classrooms demonstrated growth in quality between Year 1 and 2 on two 

important dimensions of quality, classroom organization and emotional support. Measures of 

instructional quality showed early signs of growth as well, but these were not consistent across 

communities. 

Classroom quality will continue to be measured each year of the PEG program to better understand the 

extent to which these investments in early educators pay off over time. In particular, the development 

of instructional skill is the most challenging area of growth for early education teachers and one that is 

increasingly a focus of PEG professional supports. Teacher retention will also be tracked, as high 

levels of retention are essential to ensuring that the professional investments pay off. Early reports 

from Year 3 suggest that three of the five communities have not seen any lead teacher turnover in the 

third year; an improvement over the 77 percent return rate seen in Year 2. 

 

Supports for Families 

 

“Por el horario del PEG pude conseguir mi primer trabajo, también tuve la oportunidad de trabajar 
ED 524B Page 5 of 62

como facilitator en el playgroup del verano 2017.” Parent Testimony 

 

The provision of comprehensive services and the engagement of families has been an aspect of the 

PEG design that programs have embraced; all but a few small providers in Boston have used PEG 

funds to hire one or more family engagement staff. At the same time, PEG programs acknowledged in 

year 1 that these efforts were not well coordinated across programs. In year 2, PEG programs were 

deeply committed to coordinating their efforts. Through the work conducted at a local level to define 

the family engagement supports and comprehensive services essential to serving local families well, a 

model for such service provision has developed which has been informed by the Head Start model, but 

adapted to the realities of the PEG programs. 

 

• Most program have one staff person dedicated to this work. As extensive outreach has been 

necessary to enroll some of the harder to reach families, having staff to go door to door has been 

essential. These staff also coordinate home visits, events and case management, often serving as 

the first point of contact for families with the program. 

• As part of this work with families, programs have used multiple opportunities to reiterate the 

importance of regular attendance. Comparison of attendance from Year 1, when the messaging 

was less well organized, to Year 2 shows improvements, as absentee rates have dropped from 9 

to 7 percent (adjusted to allow 10 days vacation time across the year). 

• Programs also report an increasing focus on building parent capacity, either through 

communication about the curriculum and home supports for children or other resources for 

parents, such as English classes or job skills training. 

• Finally, programs report serving groups of families facing multiple challenges such as 

homelessness, job loss, isolation and mental health issues that require intensive intervention. 

Every program has powerful stories about the ways families have been connected to resources 

at a critical time in their lives. 

 

Role of Data and Evaluation 

 

EEC and each PEG community have made a substantial financial commitment to the evaluation of

these programs. Data on implementation, classroom quality and child outcomes have been collected by 

Abt Associates, the contracted research firm, during the first two years of the program. An impact

evaluation of the second year is in process, as is a cost study. Abt Associates has provided the data to 

programs as it was collected, allowing for data driven decisions to take place throughout the year. As 

more detailed information about both growth in children's school readiness and classroom quality

becomes available, the data has provided both affirmation of the success of the program and

highlighted areas where closer attention needs to be paid. Information about PEG children's

kindergarten success is now also becoming available and providing additional support for a review of

program effectiveness. Data meetings with individual programs and the community leadership, 

facilitated by EEC staff, have begun and will continue with a focus in the winter of 2018 on child

outcomes. As EEC looks ahead to sustaining lessons learned from the PEG programs, evaluation

results are being considered by EEC leadership to inform ongoing policy decisions. 

 

Lessons Learned 

 

Serving Local Needs 

Extensive outreach has been necessary in most communities to locate and enroll families who have 

never before had access to early education programs. Although challenging, communities have found 

that when they worked together to coordinate their outreach, not only were they more successful, they 

also built their commitment as a team to serving the families of their community. 

Efforts to support families through the transition to kindergarten, from early or streamlined 
ED 524B Page 6 of 62

kindergarten enrollment to opportunities to visit kindergarten classrooms, have also been developed 

through the collaboration. PEG communities are creating opportunities for PEG and kindergarten 

teachers to share their practices and expectations for children, as well as pass on information about 

individual children, not a simple task when children from one PEG classroom disperse across a large 

urban school district. The ability to track children using public school identifiers has been essential in 

supporting these efforts. 

Local Collaboration 

Leadership teams have been developed in each community, comprised of managers from all 

collaborating programs and facilitated by the local school district staff. Central to the success of these 

collaborations have been the clear structures and roles that have included the opportunities for 

collaboration at multiple levels of program staff. The public school PEG coordinators have played a 

critical role in facilitating these groups, managing the collaboration and ensuring that the shared vision 

and goals of the group organize the focus of the collaboration. Collaboration is not always an easy or 

smooth process; differences of mindsets and approaches to programming need to be negotiated, historic 

tensions resulting from prior negotiation over resources and governance need to smoothed over and 

barriers resulting from fragmented funding streams and oversight structures overcome, particularly the 

very separate systems responsible of public education and early education. Some challenges have been 

overcome through these collaborations, but work remains to be done. 

In particular, efforts to fully integrate special education students into PEG classrooms have been an 

ongoing concern. Despite a strong commitment from all partners to serving special education students 

well in community-based setting, concerns about ELP educator training have emerged. Public school 

special education staff worry that PEG teachers, who do not typically have a Masters in Special 

Education as is common in public school inclusion classrooms, do not have the necessary skills at 

differentiating instruction and implementing inclusive practices. Directors and teachers have also 

reported dissatisfaction with the training provided on these topics in year 1 and 2. PEG funds are now 

being used by the LEAs to develop more training and coaching to support PEG educators in using 

inclusive practices effectively. EEC is paying close attention to lessons learned from these efforts as it 

considers how to best allocate funds to support effective inclusion across the early education system. 

High Quality Classrooms 

PEG programs have attended carefully to developing responsive systems of support for educators. The 

following essential characteristics of professional development have been identified by programs: 

• Implementation of effective professional learning requires intensive planning and collaboration 

across partners and includes program directors, coaches and administrators. 

• A clear, and well integrated focus for professional supports is necessary and all supports, 

including coaching and training should be aligned around this focus. 

o Formal classroom observation tools and a shared curriculum can both be a focus. 

o Professional learning opportunities should engage the full teaching team, when possible, 

to allow for consistent integration and ongoing support among the team. 

o Program leadership must also be involved in professional learning and must have clear 

roles in supporting the educators with implementation. 

• Important features of professional learning include: 

o Well aligned trainings 

o Coaching that is inclusive of the whole teaching team 

o Planning time with supports for planning differentiation of instruction and integration of 

high quality teacher-child interactions. 

o Opportunities for collaboration among teachers 

• In a program that is open for at least 8 hours and runs for the full year, staffing classrooms with 

three teachers has proven essential to allow the flexibility needed to implement the job 

embedded professional learning opportunities and to support the integration of high quality 
ED 524B Page 7 of 62

practices in the classroom. 

• Inclusion of children with special needs has required extensive coordination with public school 

staff to organize service provision and ensure PEG educators are familiar with the referral 

process and are supported in implementing accommodations. 

Programs have also highlighted the essential role that the commensurate salaries play in allowing them 

to expect greater investment of teaching teams in their professional learning and expect higher levels of 

teacher retention. 

Family Supports 

PEG programs invested a great deal of staff time and resources in support for families, including home 

visits, multiple family events, case management and targeted mental health and behavioral supports 

(both to children directly and to support teachers working with particular children and families). In 

addition to better defining the services and structures central to effective implementation of these 

services, as described above, programs recognized that coordination and capacity are essential. Having 

the resources to hire a staff member to coordinate and engage with this work is essential, but requires 

more than one PEG classroom per program to achieve a manageable economy of scale. Communities 

have also begun to share the coordination work, so that one program organizes vision screening, while 

another coordinates the dental screenings, thereby sharing the workload. When a program has an 

expertise in a particular area, such as the experience Community Teamwork has in managing a fleet of 

buses, additional resources have been allocated to that program to allow for centralization and more 

effective management of that service. 

Looking ahead 

In Year 3 of PEG, communities are continuing to refine local models and are beginning to convene 

leadership at the local level to plan for sustainability of the PEG program once the federal funding 

stream ends. To further build capacity at the local level, EEC is offering professional learning 

opportunities to PEG educational and family support staff to drive continued quality improvement and 

build a network of support among grantees across the state. Continued support for better integration of 

special education students into community-based programs is also being provided through a 

collaboration between ESE and EEC. 

 
ED 524B Page 8 of 62

U.S. Department of Education 

PDG Annual Performance Report 

Grant Status Form 

Explanation of Progress (524B Section A) 

Based on ED 524B OMB No. 1894-0003 Exp. 08/31/2020

Section A: Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data 

(narrative) 

1. Project Objective

Grantee State: MA PR/Award #: S419B150023

1(a) GPRA Performance Measure: The number and percentage of Eligible Children served in 

High-Quality Preschool Programs funded by the grant. Describe the State's progress in meeting 

this Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measure based on enrollment of Eligible 

Children in High-Quality Preschool Programs funded by the grant as of December 1, 2017.

PEG funding has allowed EEC to work with five communities, Boston, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell

and Springfield, to build new partnerships and create new state funded prekindergarten openings in 

these communities. In each PEG community, the school department (LEA) and community-based 

early learning providers (ELPs) coordinate enrollment efforts. In year three of this grant, as of

December 1st, EEC increased the number of eligible children enrolled in state supported

prekindergarten to 763. This number does include some child turnover, but exceeds our target

enrollment of 755 and EEC expects that enrollment will continue to increase over the course of the

school year, due to continued outreach efforts by the subgrantees, as it has in past years. 

 

Each PEG community manages their own enrollment, in some cases through the EEC-licensed

providers and an others through centralized intake system in collaboration with the kindergarten 

enrollment offices. As the program matures, enrollment has become an ongoing process. Many

children leave the program mid-year, leaving seats to be filled and programs have realized that early

outreach and enrollment efforts in the spring are important for filling seats in the fall. Efforts to 

publicize the program have also been developed, such as a marketing campaign in Springfield,

integration into the kindergarten information sessions in Holyoke, and the building of networks of

referral partners in all communities, such as pediatricians, welcome centers and other trusted local

supports. Now that two cohorts of children have completed the program and another is currently in 

place, a large network of parents is also spreading the word, often the most powerful source of referrals.

 

In four of the five communities, Boston being the exception, the PEG-funded openings were originally

slated solely for children who have never received any formal early education, including family

childcare, prior to enrolling in the PEG-funded classrooms. This decision followed from an analyses 

that identified large numbers of underserved children entering kindergarten in these communities. This 

has created some unexpected challenges in communities, the most salient one being the intensity of

outreach efforts needed to recruit enough children to fill all the seats. All four of these communities

continued to engage in extensive local outreach efforts. Local efforts included: 

 

• Extensive door-to-door outreach - although time consuming, programs have consistently

reported that person to person contacts are the most effective in recruiting families. 

• The LEAs and ELPs collaborated in sending PEG staff to various community events to meet

families face to face. 
ED 524B Page 9 of 62

• Identification of local community organizations that were willing to collaborate in getting the

message out to families. 

• Surveying community leaders to develop a better understanding of where and how to locate

particular groups of families that may have a history of disengagement from public

education systems prior to kindergarten, such as particular immigrant communities. EEC's

Coordinated Family and Community Engagement (CFCE) staff and local grantees 

provided, support to communities during the outreach process by consulting with the LEA

and ELP leadership around outreach opportunities in the communities and using EEC

activities, such as facilitated parent-child play groups, to get the word out to families about

the program. 

• Programs in Lowell determined that because they had one central site in the city, there were

children who could not reach the program due to limited access to transportation. Targeted

transportation was put in place to expand access to the program. One of the ELPs integrated

the PEG children into transportation services they provided to their other programs, making

the delivery cost effective. This agency also had a well-developed needs assessment

process that was adopted by the PEG programs. This effort has been so successful that the

program in Lowell opened with all seats full in the fall of 2016 and 2017 and has

maintained enrollment over 98 percent despite high levels of turnover. 

• Developing centralized systems for enrollment in PreK and Kindergarten opportunities as a

joint collaboration between community based operators and the public schools. Family 

resource centers at the public school in three communities have provided a one stop shop 

for parents in understanding the availability of, and enrolling their children in early

education programs. Consistent messaging around the centralized systems for families has

been reported as an effective strategy to recruit families into the local early education

programs, including PEG. 

Despite these efforts, Holyoke and Springfield encountered continued challenges in enrolling children.

Both communities identified many children with inconsistent histories of early education who were not

enrolled in a program at the time of application to PEG and would be eligible if not for past episodes of

infant/ toddler or preschool experience. Many of these children are homeless or involved with the

Department of Children and Families (DCF), vulnerable populations that the state is committed to 

prioritizing. In response, EEC changed PEG eligibility requirements in Year 2 to allow programs to fill

20 percent of their slots with children who have had some prior early education experience but are not

currently in a program and who are eligible for PEG in all other ways. In this way, the state continues

to prioritize children who have not received formal early education services but allows programs

flexibility to include other high needs groups. Parents are actively discouraged from jumping from

program to program, but children with spotty early education experience are able to access the

program. This change was made in November 2016 and will remain in place in year three and four.

Programs continue to strive towards full enrollment and EEC will work closely to support and

encourage their efforts. 

 

In spite of these changes, Springfield PEG continued to experience challenges filling seats in the fall of 

2017. A task force was convened to review past needs assessments, current enrollment data and 

conduct outreach with families across Springfield to understand their awareness of the program and 

early education choices. Needs assessments conducted in the spring of 2016 using state funds for 

sustainability and expansion planning, had identified barriers presented by the physical location of the 

program; Springfield covers a large geographical area and public transportation is inefficient. While 

underserved communities far from the current PEG program sites were identified, these families could 

not easily access the program as result of distances that would have to be traveled. Programs considered 

finding space in these neighborhoods and providing transportation, but a lack of appropriate space and 

the high cost of transportation led to a decision to focus attention on best serving the families in the 

geographic catchment of the programs. Programs also noted that they continue to see a large number of 
ED 524B Page 10 of 62

the more transient families that led to an earlier change in eligibility requirements, but that this change 

was not sufficient to allow them to serve all such families. A review of enrollment data from September 

of the past three years highlighted the fact that Springfield programs were only able to fill 50 percent of 

their openings with children without prior experience, leaving other seats empty due to the statemandated quota. Additionally, an influx of families relocating from Puerto Rico in the fall of 2017, 

created a new population of children with a strong need for early education, but who were potentially 

ineligible due to prior early education experience, as many had been eligible for public kindergarten in 

Puerto Rico (due to a later age cutoff). As a result, the decision was made in February 2018 to provide 

greater access to these vulnerable families; for Springfield the enrollment targets were changed to allow 

50 percent of their openings to be filled with families with some prior early education experience, 

prioritizing those who are homeless, are in foster care, or have some DCF involvement. 

In Boston, the extensive availability of early education programs for four year-olds led to the decision

to integrate the grant funding with other funding sources, in an effort to expand the quality over the

quantity of publicly funded openings available to children in the current programs. This decision

allowed programs in Boston more flexibility to braid funding sources and, in some programs, serve

children in mixed-income and mixed-age classrooms. Rather than building a program from scratch, as

in the other four communities, with new classrooms and new program sites, Boston has focused on 

working with already existing classrooms and programs. Enrollment in the first three years has been a

challenge across programs in Boston, although different programs have struggled in the different years.

Inequities in funding and enrollment expectations (originally based on program's estimates of the

number of children they could serve and the necessary funding) have been identified, which has led to 

reductions in some program's enrollment expectations to ensure adequate funding. In year two, Boston 

has served 262 children while programs have committed to 280 PEG-funded slots. In year 3, minimum 

enrollment expectations were reduced to 250 slots and programs have maintained 90% enrollment.

Recently, Boston Mayor Walsh and Boston Public Schools (BPS) have made a commitment to provide

universal prekindergarten to four year olds in Boston, and, although committed to using a mixed

delivery system for this effort, BPS has increased the number of slots available for four year olds in 

BPS schools. Programs suspect that the increased availability of city funded seats may be partially

responsible for reductions in enrollment seen the first three years of PEG. These programs have

experienced high levels of turnover in the fall, as children who receive a seat in a BPS school of choice 

leave the PEG program. In year one, 14 percent of children enrolled had left as of December 1, while in 

year three the number has been halved but remains high at six percent, with most leaving for BPS. 

Because, BPS has a highly competitive lottery system in place to manage school choice, families feel

that if they are offered a seat at a school of choice, they must take it or lose the opportunity to attend

that school. The project manager at BPS has been supporting programs in a marketing effort and in 

coordinating enrollment efforts with BPS waitlist information, both to identify children interested in 

prekindergarten programs who are unlikely to receive a seat at a BPS run classroom and alert programs

to children already enrolled are likely to receive a seat in the near future, and potentially leave the PEG 

program. Continued coordination between BPS and ELPs will be necessary to address the ongoing 

challenges in Boston. As BPS works with the mayor's office to develop a plan to provide universal

prekindergarten in Boston through a mixed delivery system, PEG programs are in conversation with 

BPS to consider how these classrooms might be used to sustain PEG investments and pilot efforts to 

build greater coordination, such as defining the program's role as feeder schools into the BPS system. A 

pilot “connector system” is being tested between two PEG programs and BPS neighborhood schools in 

Year 3, whereby children in these programs are guaranteed a kindergarten seat at the connector school.

Programs also have an opportunity to build close relationships with the staff at the connector school,

and consider alignment issues on the local level. The results of this experiment will inform future

efforts in the plans for universal prekindergarten in Boston. 

 

Central to the success of each community in increasing enrollment and addressing enrollment

challenges has been the collaboration between the public schools and EEC-licensed programs in 

planning and problem solving together. Collaborative decision making was a central expectation of
ED 524B Page 11 of 62

EEC for the five communities that were granted PEG funds. Each agency brings experience serving a

group of families in the community, while the public school comes with a sense of obligation to all

children in the municipality. Collectively, the management teams in each community, which are

comprised of members from all partnering organizations, have been able to think creatively, pool 

resources and consider the needs of children and families systemically, informed by but not limited by 

each program's commitment to and experience with particular populations and regions in the city. EEC

staff continue to be active participants in these meetings, bringing an understanding of state grants and

policies, as well as the ability to help communities negotiate differences, encourage creative thinking 

and provide guidance on state regulations and policies. Enrollment challenges have served to force 

communities to reexamine their initial assumptions about the needs of families, and to develop more

responsive efforts to serve the community as a whole. 

Please describe, as required in Program Requirement (k)(2) in the Notice Inviting Applicants (NIA), 

how the State established policies and procedures that ensure that the percentage of Eligible Children 

with disabilities served by the High-Quality Preschool Programs is not less than either the percentage 

of four-year-old children served statewide through part B, section 619 of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et 

seq.), or the current national average, whichever is greater. 

Note: The current national percentage of four year-old-children receiving services through part B, section 619 of 

IDEA is 6.4%. Source: 2012 IDEA Part B Child Count (www.ideadata.org). States should include detailed 

information on ALL structural elements.

EEC recognizes that the inclusion of children with disabilities is a priority and continues to consider the 

infrastructure development at the state and local level necessary to ensure that LEA and ELP partners 

identify the methods for inclusion that best meet the needs of children and families. Specific efforts to 

support full inclusion of Eligible Children with Disabilities in the High-Quality Preschool Program 

(HQPP) are underway. Due to challenges in the first two years of PEG in meeting the target for the 

number of children with identified disabilities (defined as a child with an Individual Education Plan or 

IEP with the local public school; Massachusetts has a slightly higher percentage than the national 

average at 6.9%), we are still working toward meeting the requirement (currently 2.4% have been 

identified as of December 1, 2017). 

Potential barriers that were addressed in year two include the eligibility criteria of no prior preschool, 

the typical location for special education services in Massachusetts (most often provided in public 

school classrooms), and building the capacity of local preschool administrators and educators in 

community based settings to support inclusion. As communities work toward including additional 

children with IEPs in PEG classrooms, allocation of already stretched funding streams is a common 

challenge. Identifying sufficient resources in LEA budgets to provide required IEP services in 

community based settings requires problem solving at the state and local level, and remains a priority in 

year three. 

Given this context it is important to note that in the summer of 2017, 5.5% (or 50 of 908) of children 

ever enrolled in the program during year 2 were reported as having an IEP. The upward trend in 

enrollment of children with identified special needs suggests that PEG communities, with some 

success, are engaging in effective strategies to enroll or identify children with varying needs in 

inclusive PEG classrooms. 

Informed by lessons learned from the first years of PEG and planning for implementation in year three, 

EEC continues to address this priority through a multi-pronged approach. 

Eligibility Policy for Children with Disabilities 
ED 524B Page 12 of 62

As described in the previous narrative section, EEC continues to prioritize the enrollment of children 

with little to no prior preschool experience in its PEG programs. The decision to prioritize children with 

no prior preschool experience, in part, contributed to the lower number of children with identified 

disabilities due to the fact that many children with identified special needs have been potentially 

supported through an inclusion classroom when they were three, making them ineligible for PEG 

during their prekindergarten year. Grantee communities report strong collaboration and coordination 

between early intervention service providers and the public school, allowing them to successfully meet 

the needs of many children well before their prekindergarten year. Due to challenges in meeting the 

target for the number of children with identified disabilities enrolled in year one of PEG, eligibility 

criteria for children in this population is less rigid in year two and three, allowing for children with 

identified special needs to enter the PEG program regardless of their prior preschool experience. In 

some cases, this led to the referral of some children with IEPs to the PEG classroom, and grantee 

communities are thoughtfully planning around the appropriateness of the placement, and the role of 

supplemental comprehensive services in meeting the needs of the child with an Individualized 

Education Program (IEP) in the PEG classroom. 

Screening and Evaluation 

At the beginning of the PEG program year, much time is spent getting to know the children as they 

transition into a formal preschool program for the first time, while working closely with families 

through home visits and family engagement activities at the program level. In the first months of PEG 

programming, programs are conducting developmental screening, identifying individual needs of 

children, while making determinations about the need to refer them for a formal special education 

evaluation by the local school district. In Lawrence, ELPs are also conducting English Language 

screenings during the first few months of the program year, therefore identifying children who may 

need additional language support as they enter kindergarten. As children are being screened in the first 

few months of the program year, educators, program administrators and public school staff, including 

directors of special education, along with other PEG funded comprehensive service providers/teams 

(e.g., speech pathologists, occupational therapists, mental health consultants, and physical therapists) 

are working collaboratively to determine the appropriate next steps for the child. The time it takes to 

screen children, refer a child for an evaluation by the public schools, and potentially be identified with 

a special need can be months from the beginning of the program year. 

Targeted Family Engagement and Comprehensive Services 

As outreach and enrollment efforts continue, LEAs and ELPs are expected to work with IEP teams, 

including families, to talk about the benefits of enrolling in PEG classrooms when determining the least 

restrictive environment for the child. Conversations continue about how to serve children receiving IEP 

services in PEG classrooms at the ELP sites; however, in many cases talking with families about the 

benefits of the PEG classrooms has been a critical component of the outreach conducted by all five 

communities. 

Comprehensive services in PEG classrooms are very beneficial for all children, including those with 

identified disabilities. Many communities plan for comprehensive services based on the needs in their 

community, and ensure that children and families, including children with disabilities, have access to 

the many important supports that can strengthen a child's development and learning, including health, 

mental health, speech therapy, occupational therapy (OT), and physical therapy (PT). These services 

are increasingly being offered as full enrollment is attained and the needs of children are being 

identified. Comprehensive services such as OT, PT and speech have the potential to proactively 

respond to children who may be behind developmentally and may serve to avoid referral to special 

education. Whether a child currently has an IEP, has been referred to special education for an 

evaluation, or is being observed to determine whether a referral is necessary, these comprehensive 

services are critical to better understand where a child is in his/her development and to ensure that time 
ED 524B Page 13 of 62

to support development and learning is not lost during the referral and eligibility determination 

processes. 

In year two, all PEG communities planned for more intensive and targeted comprehensive services, and 

more consistently provided access to services such as mental health consultation, occupational therapy, 

speech therapy and physical therapy. This intensive model for comprehensive services is being 

maintained in the third year of the grant. The communities' extensive outreach to hard-to-reach 

families has been successful in identifying children who are in need of supports, including children 

who are experiencing homelessness, trauma and other potentially toxic stressors. Communities feel 

strongly that, in many cases, provision of these comprehensive services will support the children to 

make progress and ultimately, result in fewer referrals to special education. Mental health services and 

services that support a child's social and emotional well-being are a high priority for the PEG 

classrooms. For example, Springfield, Lowell, and one ELP in Lawrence hired a mental and behavioral 

health specialist in order to be able to provide mental health services onsite; other communities are 

planning and/or referring children and families to community-based organizations to meet their needs. 

Coordination Between LEAs and ELPs 

As inclusion continues to be a priority focus in year two, planning for strategies to support inclusion 

have prompted local PEG administrators at the LEA and ELP level to engage educators and other PEG 

staff to gain a better understanding of where there might be opportunities to enhance coordination 

between LEAs and ELPs. Additionally, these conversations have also addressed the capacity and needs 

of PEG educators and other PEG staff that play a role in supporting inclusive practices and policies. 

There has been much progress toward the goal of enhancing coordination between LEAs and ELPs. In 

Lowell, Springfield and Holyoke, PEG communities reported the complex referral and IEP process is 

not clear to some staff. In response, ELPs invited LEA special education staff to provide training and 

orientations around the referral process, and continue to plan for the provision of administrative support 

in this process. In Lawrence, the LEA is implementing a standardized form that will outline established 

process guidelines for referrals. One ELP in Lawrence, and the programs in Holyoke, are ensuring 

program staff have been identified who are responsible for coordinating all special education related 

services, from the screening and referral process to providing support to families. Lowell plans to 

develop guidance to providers to support consistent messaging around the importance of inclusion. 

Holyoke has student support team meetings at each school in the district to better coordinate special 

education services for all children, and invites local PEG ELP partners to participate. Lawrence has 

created an inclusion task force, facilitated by the PEG coordinator at the district, that convenes public 

school staff and community based partners to network and plan for professional development supports 

around inclusion more broadly in the community. Springfield programs have received support from 

SPS special education staff in understanding the referral process and efforts are in place to develop a 

team review process to discuss children demonstrating issues, shepherd the process of identifying and 

trying different in classroom supports and determining when a referral is warranted. Generally, LEAs 

are working with their ELP partners to participate in the IEP process and provide some consultation to 

educators around accommodations to meet the needs of individual children. 

Educator Preparedness 

PEG communities report variation in the capacity of educators to support children with diverse learning 

needs, including those with IEPs. The complex nature of supporting all children, especially those with 

IEPs, is often a challenge, especially considering curriculum/instruction, supporting dual language 

acquisition, and social-emotional support for children. Adapting and modifying curriculum and 

implementing effective instructional strategies to support all children, while providing appropriate 

accommodations for children with disabilities, requires that educators and instructional leaders have a 

strong foundational knowledge in child development, curriculum and instruction while also having a 
ED 524B Page 14 of 62

strong understanding of the IEP, including how to implement its goals, accommodations and service 

delivery plan. Additionally, educators must have the ability to successfully implement their knowledge 

through effective inclusive practices. Across the state, grantees report the need to design and offer 

professional learning opportunities for PEG educators and administrators to build their competencies 

around supporting inclusive practices. In response to this, PEG communities are planning for joint 

professional development and thinking about the role of coaching to support these efforts. EEC is 

intentionally providing local flexibility to address this need in a way that meets the needs in the local 

context, while also encouraging collaboration with the public schools and leveraging existing 

resources. Two PEG communities have funded a position to serve as an inclusion specialist to support 

educators' capacity around inclusive practices. EEC is engaging in planning for statewide professional 

development to support inclusive practices that will be informed by PEG grantees and feedback from 

other EEC grantees through various workforce initiatives. Considerations for how coaching provided 

within PEG classrooms can support inclusion is also being addressed at the state and local level. 

Examination of Service Delivery Models and Planning for Implementation 

PEG communities continue to work toward creating more inclusive PEG classrooms and are working at 

the local level to identify ways in which PEG classrooms are included in the options of least restrictive 

settings for children with IEPs as placement for next year's IEP services are determined. In PEG 

communities, special education services are typically provided in an inclusive, public school setting. 

Some LEAs are reporting the need to partner more closely with community based operators to serve as 

inclusion classrooms in order for the IEP teams to more fully explore the least restrictive options 

available to a preschool child with an IEP. 

Enhanced coordination between LEAs and ELPs is proving to create movement toward the goal of 

improved inclusive preschool opportunities in PEG classrooms. Springfield has PEG classrooms colocated with public school classrooms with onsite speech, OT and PT service providers, and offer PEG 

children with these IEP related services in the PEG classroom. Given that the public school special 

education staff work with the public preschool classrooms, this model of co-locating classrooms has 

provided an opportunity to optimize expenses related to serving children with disabilities as the staff 

can work together across public and community-based programs to directly deliver early childhood 

special education services, provide consultation services with ELP staff and/or to work together to 

proactively address the healthy growth and development of all children, including children with 

disabilities. 

Building State and Local Capacity to Support Effective Models of Inclusion and Professional 

Development 

At the state level, the 619 coordinator, Head Start State Collaboration Office, PEG staff, staff from 

EEC's Workforce and Family and Community Supports Unit are working together to develop joint 

professional development on inclusion to ensure that children with disabilities can have their needs met 

in community-based programs. PEG grantee communities (including LEA PEG coordinators, ELPs, 

Head Start disability coordinators and public school early childhood special education staff), as well as 

other communities with Head Start grantees, continue to participate in a professional development and 

networking opportunity called Building Inclusive Communities in Early Childhood. This collaborative 

effort to co-construct a professional development plan focused on inclusion with communities came 

about as challenges related to inclusion of children with disabilities were being discussed. Through this 

initiative, PEG communities are provided a platform to network, plan joint professional development, 

and discuss models for service delivery along with other communities across the Commonwealth 

working towards the same goal of strengthening inclusive practices. 

Building on a statewide meeting of PEG grantees in April 2016 to discuss inclusion, members of the 

state team facilitated conversations at the local level in three PEG communities in the fall of 2016. The 
ED 524B Page 15 of 62

purpose of these meetings was to identify strengths, challenges and potential solutions for models of 

inclusion and professional development. Local meetings included PEG LEA and ELP partners, special 

education directors, Head Start disability coordinators, and other relevant community partners. The 

initial meeting for the Building Inclusive Communities series was offered in October 2016, where 

communities were provided information from the joint policy statement around inclusion from The US 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Education (DOE), as well 

as resources from the Preschool Inclusion Toolbox resource. Action plans were developed and the 

Workforce Development Specialist conducted follow up and continues to provide technical assistance 

related to their plans. A webinar opportunity to discuss statewide progress occurred in January 2017, 

and another in-person meeting was offered in March 2017 to continue these efforts. In year 3, the state 

partners developed a steering committee to help guide the continuation of this work. The steering 

committee includes both state and local staff focused on inclusion. With the guidance of the steering 

committee, the continuation of this series includes web-based and an in person convening of 

community based teams to support inclusion priorities. The first statewide convening will take place 

on March 28, 2018. 
ED 524B Page 16 of 62

Describe the State's progress in increasing the number and percentage of Eligible Children served in 

High-Quality Preschool Programs funded by the grant.

Central to the design of the PEG program was attention to capacity building at the local level. The

intent of the PEG expectations has been to leverage local experience and organizational capacity to 

build on and integrate current systems, public and private, moving towards a more coordinated

prekindergarten system at the community level. The following design factors have been critical to PEG 

success in expanding access to high quality programs: 

 

• The grant funding was distributed to collaborations rather than individual providers, allowing 

each community to create a new system that built on the strengths of existing programs. 

Head Start grantees are represented in each community and bring their experience providing 

high quality services to family and children. Programs licensed by EEC and who have a 

long history of serving children receiving EEC subsidies have also played a central role. 

These programs are familiar with EEC requirements, have experience meeting the needs of 

low income families and providing early education services in each of these communities. 

Finally, the public school district serves as the LEA in each community and brings an 

understanding of the elementary and secondary educational system that children receiving 

PEG-funded programming will enter. The public schools are well situated to support 

community-wide alignment and alignment between the PEG model and public school 

programs. 

• As the PEG-funded programs have been developed, EEC has relied on existing policies, while 

prioritizing a family-friendly approach that focuses on ensuring children's needs are met. At 

the foundation of the PEG model are the private, licensed programs providing services. 

EEC licensing regulations are some of the most stringent in the nation and ensure that 

children are in safe and developmentally appropriate environments. PEG programs are all 

required to participate in the Commonwealth's Quality Rating and Improvement System 

(QRIS), to ensure continuing quality improvement. Attendance is also being tracked, as it is 

in the subsidy system. However, in PEG programs the expectation is that programs will 

work with the families in ways that support positive child and family outcomes. For 

example, if children demonstrate chronic absenteeism, the program is expected to identify 

the barriers for families and support change, rather than expel families for poor attendance, 

as required by the subsidy system. In year two, PEG programs built strong messages about 

the importance of attendance into recruitment materials, parent handbooks and ongoing 

parent communications. Programs report fewer chronic attendance issues and better overall 

attendance. In year one, the average attendance rate was 86 percent while in year two and 

three it has risen to 89 percent. 

• Efforts have been made to consider the alignment of EEC policies through the implementation 

process, both by ensuring that PEG requirements were aligned with current policies and 

identifying challenges at the program level in implementing policies. For example, PEG 

requirements are well aligned with the Commonwealth's licensing requirements; class size 

and child-teacher ratio requirements are already required by licensing, for example. EEC 

staff are also working closely with PEG programs to integrate the various requirements 

these programs face. EEC's Workforce Specialist is working with programs to identify the 

professional development requirements of the QRIS system, discuss each communities' 

vision for professional development and determine a coherent plan to meet all these needs 

with the time available. As the communities have collaborated more extensively on creating 

aligned professional development plans, EEC has noticed that their professional 
ED 524B Page 17 of 62

development expectations have exceeded those incorporated in the QRIS system. 

• The monitoring process developed for PEG programs has also played an important role in 

ensuring that access is available to high quality programs in the five PEG communities and 

communities are working flexibly to build a strong program. Monitoring protocols have 

been developed to assess both programmatic and fiscal compliance and technical assistance 

was provided by EEC to the LEAs in the fall of year one. EEC now monitors the LEAs, 

who monitor the ELPs and processes are well established. 

• Meetings of regional monitoring teams, including all EEC staff with contacts with these 

programs, have also begun and will meet twice a year to discuss PEG programs. Issues are 

shared with the PEG director as they arise. This group includes EEC staff at the local level 

including licensors, QRIS quality specialists, and the Regional Directors. Again, this model 

builds upon EEC's infrastructure while focusing it in a new way. EEC has considered 

building on this model to provide this type of a review to other programs receiving 

significant amounts of EEC funding through multiple funding streams. 

The management of the PEG program has also focused on ensuring that existing resources are 

leveraged and necessary capacity building is available. EEC PEG-funded staff regularly attend local 

planning and implementation committee meetings. Through such frequent attendance, EEC staff have 

built a deep understanding of each community, while being available to respond quickly to questions 

about the design of the program as they have arisen. In some cases, issues can be quickly addressed at 

the meetings, while others require EEC staff to bring questions back for consideration. In these 

instances, due to the placement of the PEG director as a direct report to the Deputy Commissioner of 

Program Administration, EEC is able to provide a quick responses to questions as they arise, ensuring 

that communities' planning and implementation are not impeded. 

To support ongoing attention to quality at the local level, EEC provides multiple opportunities for PEG 

grantees to share information and receive technical assistance on different components of the grant. 

State-wide meetings took place two times in 2017 and focused on a variety of topics including 

sustainability and interpreting the PEG evaluation data. Opportunities for cross-state planning and 

community level planning are included in all meetings. 

The evaluation of the PEG programs being conducted in collaboration with Abt Associates and the 

University of Massachusetts Boston has also provided important feedback to support quality 

improvement efforts. During data collection, Abt has provided data in an ongoing manner on classroom 

quality, program implementation, teacher and parent experiences and child assessment results to 

programs. This feedback loop has allowed programs to make mid-course adjustments and respond 

quickly to issues being raised by the data collected. The programs also provided important feedback to 

EEC and Abt about the usefulness of different measures for informing program decisions, feedback 

which has shaped the evaluation design in year two and three. A full report on the year one findings 

was provided to EEC in the fall of 2016, a presentation of these findings was made to the EEC Board 

and they have been reported to the state legislature. Year two implementations findings are being 

reported to the legislature in February and impact and cost study results will be available in April, and 

reported to EEC's Board at that time. Overall, Abt's reports have concluded that PEG programs have 

shown good success in achieving the primary goals of this program, building collaboration locally 

between early education private providers and public school districts, creating high quality and 

supportive prekindergarten programs staffed by highly qualified and well compensated educators and 

expanding access to such opportunities to children likely to enter kindergarten without prior early 

education experiences and supporting their school readiness. Classroom observations revealed 

moderate to high levels of quality, on average, across different dimensions of quality, and growth in 

two important domains of quality, emotional support and classroom organization, with some evidence 

of inconsistent growth in instructional quality. As a result, programs have focused the professional 
ED 524B Page 18 of 62

development supports provided, particularly coaching, around instructional quality. Across measures 

of English vocabulary and letter/ word recognition skills, PEG children showed significantly more 

growth than in a nationally representative sample. The greatest gains were seen in English vocabulary 

growth. Children began the PEG program much farther below expected the expected skill level for 

English vocabulary than in other skills, a result reflective of the large numbers of dual language 

learners being served. The PEG program significantly closed the gap in vocabulary skills. The 

children ended the year with literacy, math and social and behavioral skills on par with a national 

sample, on average. Programs will continue to consider these results in Year 3, with particular 

attention to the variation in progress that was also seen; while improvements were seen for most of the 

sample, subgroups of children (10-20 percent) have still fallen behind. 

In support of preschool expansion efforts, the state legislature has made grants available in the first

three years of the PEG program for communities to plan for continued expansion of publicly funded

preschool. These grants were available to all communities in the Commonwealth, including the PEG 

subgrantees, and supported needs assessment work, strategic planning and the identification of local

resources. Grantees were required to build collaborations between public schools and local EEClicensed programs and address all of the high quality elements required by PEG in their plans. Not only 

have these planning grants laid the groundwork for expansion beyond the PEG subgrantees, if funds are

available, they also supported continued strategic planning and needs assessment in the PEG 

communities. 

In the review of the past two years of planning grants, communities have clearly expressed the need for 

expansion of access to prekindergarten seats, noting large numbers of children entering kindergarten 

without any prior early education experiences and detailing the cost and logistical barriers to families to 

accessing these programs. Local collaborations in support of the expansion and alignment of early 

education opportunities have resulted in thoughtful plans for high quality programming. It is clear that 

while some alignment can be developed within current funding levels, the full implementation of these 

plans to expand access require additional funds. 

 

1(b) GPRA Performance Measure: The number and percentage of children served overall in the 

State Preschool Program. Please describe any increases or decreases in this GPRA measure

based on fall enrollment in the State Preschool Program for the 2017-18 school year.

A full 100 percent of PEG funding at EEC is dedicated to increasing the quantity of state-funded 

preschool through private, EEC-licensed providers, due to the fact that there is currently no statefunded prekindergarten in EEC's budget. Funds for public preschool administered by ESE are 

described below. All state funds disbursed by EEC are focused on improving the quality of the licensed 

programs already in the system, i.e. Universal prekindergarten (UPK), Inclusive Preschool Learning 

Environments (IPLE) grants, QRIS improvement grants, Educator Provider Support (EPS) grants, 

Coordinated Family and Community Engagement (CFCE) grants, Head Start Supplemental and Early 

Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) grants all increase the availability of resources to support quality in 

EEC licensed programs. The only public funding that is targeted at financing the full costs of 

providing early education services in private providers in Massachusetts comes from federal funds 

through the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). 

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) provides Chapter 70 funding to public 

school districts to ensure parity in education spending across districts. The numbers of four year olds 

served in public school prekindergarten programming is accounted for in the formula that allocates 

funding across districts, primarily directed at services to children with identified special needs in 
ED 524B Page 19 of 62

inclusive classrooms. The PEG funds support private, EEC-licensed providers in expanding access to 

programs outside of those run directly by public schools. The PEG design then includes public school 

districts as key players in local design supporting better integration of these two systems. As a result, 

there is a great deal of interest in learning from the implementation of the PEG model about how best to 

develop a more integrated and more robustly funded system through the combination of local, state and 

federally funded resources. 

Through PEG funding, the number of eligible children enrolled in state supported prekindergarten 

increased to 763. An additional 25 percent of eligible children in the five communities served by PEG 

have had access to prekindergarten as a result of the grant. Of these children, 67 percent had never

before attended any formal early education program, suggesting that the extensive outreach conducted

has engaged children who would have otherwise gone to kindergarten without any formal early

education. The state has reached our target enrollment of 755 and expects that enrollment will 

continue to increase over the course of the school year, due to continued outreach efforts by the

subgrantees. 

Because of the expectation that PEG communities will integrate systems and programs across public 

schools and community-based providers, communities are thinking carefully about how resources and 

funding streams could be best knit together into a coherent and effective system for providing free 

public prekindergarten to all eligible children in PEG communities. In particular, as we reach the 

halfway point in the PEG funding, local sustainability conversations are continuing in earnest. All five 

PEG communities have taken advantage of the state's preschool planning funds to support these efforts, 

and Boston has been engaged in a planning process with the Mayor's office. As the PEG communities 

consider how they might blend funding streams, the following issues are being considered: 

• Exploring ways to use Chapter 70 funding can be used to support prekindergarten programs in 

a public-private delivery system. 

• Using Head Start funding to provide Head Start's comprehensive services to all PEG children 

who would be eligible but are not being served in a Head Start program. 

• Developing more centralized enrollment procedures that support eligible families in 

identifying the best program for their family and child from the full set of possibilities 

available in the community. Two communities currently have centralized the enrollment 

processes at the public school kindergarten registration offices and provide referrals to all 

free, publically funded programs in the community, including support in understanding 

eligibility requirements. At the same time, public schools do not typically have relationships 

with the Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) agencies that manage subsidy 

enrollment, so full information is not yet available. In three other communities, there is 

recognition that programs have strong connections to the community, and therefore the first 

point of contact is the program, as families are often familiar with the agencies and seek out 

information there. In these communities, careful attention has been paid to information 

sharing about all PEG programs. 

• A subtext throughout all these discussions is a question of who "owns" the responsibility for 

children served through a collaboration like PEG. The programs directly serving the 

children are licensed by EEC. Ultimately, each program is therefore legally responsible for 

the services they provide and EEC is the authority deeming them competent to provide such 

services. Yet there are many opportunities for the collaborative provision of services which 

raise questions about how responsibility is delegated when multiple organizations are 

together serving one child. EEC has worked closely with programs to identify how staff 

working directly with children might be shared across multiple programs. Additionally, the 

needs assessments conducted in all communities and the efforts to think strategically about 
ED 524B Page 20 of 62

enrollment have built a stronger sense of community responsibility in these collaborations. 

Support for planning next steps for sustainability of PEG programs after the federal funding stream

ends continues across the Commonwealth. In the spring of 2017, EEC PEG staff partnered with the

Center for Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) to offer a statewide meeting to PEG grantees 

to discuss findings from the evaluation of the PEG program and offer an introduction to the Cost of

Quality tool developed by CEELO. In combination, these two topics sparked discussion and planning

around visions for sustainability at the community level, and created a network among current grantees 

to engage in this thinking. Following the statewide meeting, grantees met via a web based platform to 

discuss progress toward their sustainability planning. EEC staff, including the Commissioner of EEC,

are meeting in early 2018 with each grantee community to discuss options for sustainability. Attendees

from each community include the Superintendent of the public schools, LEA and ELP PEG staff, as

well as other community stakeholders such as school board members, city mayors and legislative staff. 

 

The state legislature and public discourse in Massachusetts have also remained focused on how access 

to high quality prekindergarten might be expanded. The legislature continued funding of the preschool

planning grants in year two of PEG, which will be focused on planning for sustainability of preschool

programming. A recent press release announcing the report to the legislature about the year one

evaluation findings has received some good coverage in news outlets across the state. The PEG 

programs continue to serve the important role of demonstrating how high quality preschool can be

provided through public-private partnerships, and the successes and lessons learned from year one and

two are receiving broad attention. 

 
ED 524B Page 21 of 62

1(c) GPRA Performance Measure: The number and percentage of children in the High-Need 

Communities served by the grant that are ready for kindergarten as determined by the State's 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment or, if the State does not yet have a Kindergarten Entry Assessment, 

other valid and reliable means of determining school readiness.

 

In the Year 3 APR, grantees will provide disaggregated data on the school readiness of the children enrolled 

and served by the grant. This may include information collected about the children enrolled and received 

services by the grant during the 2016-17 preschool year. States may provide data from a sample of children 

(e.g., a sample being used for any evaluation).

In the Year 3 APR, grantees must describe their progress towards identifying the measures, methods, 

and data on the school readiness of children served by the Preschool Development Grant. In the 

narrative below provide the following information: 

 • The name of the assessment tool(s) and the Essential Domains of School Readiness 

measured; 

 • When the assessment tool(s) is/are given (e.g., in preschool and/or kindergarten); 

 • Whether the assessment is mandated by the State, and for which children; 

 • How long the State has been using the assessment tool(s); 

 • Whether the assessment tool(s) is/are implemented throughout the High-Need Community 

and/or Statewide; 

 • Whether the State provides or will provide training for local staff administering the assessment. 

If so, describe the requirements including processes to ensure continued reliability in the 

administration of the measure; 

 • If school readiness data is reported to the State, describe when and how data are reported. 

Also, please describe, if applicable: 

 • The State's definition of "school readiness;" 

 • Disaggregated information about children's school readiness on individual domains or 

subsets of the measure; 

 • School readiness data for children disaggregated by subgroup (e.g., students who are 

American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian, not Pacific Islander; Native Hawaiian/other 

Pacific Islander; Black or African American; Hispanic/Latino; White, not Hispanic; two or 

more races; with disabilities; English learners; and from any other subgroups the state 

determines appropriate; and 

 • How the State will continue to make progress in meeting this GPRA measure. 

Overview 

MA Curriculum Frameworks provide our state's standards that guide not only the curriculum and 

instruction provided for children at any grade, but also provide a framework, from preschool through 

grade 12, of the skills and competencies that will support their ability to be successful in school. These 

standards also provide our state with a guide for screening and assessment practices. 

In determining the tools to use in identifying the school readiness of children served by PEG funded 

programs, EEC has taken a two pronged approach. We have drawn on the experience with the 

Massachusetts Kindergarten Entry Assessment (MKEA) initiative and are also leveraging the data that 

we are receiving from the evaluation of the PEG programs. 

GOLD by Teaching Strategies© 

Massachusetts KEA utilized the GOLD tool, published by Teaching Strategies (TS GOLD). With the 
ED 524B Page 22 of 62

exception of a few districts that used the Work Sampling System, TS GOLD was used in kindergarten 

in districts that received the state's Quality Full-Day Kindergarten grant. PEG programs were aligned 

with this effort and required to use the same tool. Unfortunately, the legislature's elimination of the 

Full-Day Kindergarten grant from the FY17 budget led to a reduced use of TS GOLD in kindergarten 

classrooms. The checkpoints reported by programs at the end of the PEG program now provide the 

only opportunity to use this tool to assess kindergarten readiness. This checkpoint information is 

available to the state and could be analyzed to understand the Kindergarten readiness of PEG children. 

As the state continues to consider the use of the TS GOLD tool, a commitment to supporting formative 

assessment remains. One challenge reported with the MKEA was that the acronym led to an erroneous 

expectation that the initiative was focused on identifying a student's competencies at entry to 

kindergarten only, instead of reflecting a formative assessment framework that was designed to

measure a child's progress and inform instruction over time. The provision of professional development 

on formative assessment as well as reframing and evolving the initiative in this space (e.g., Formative 

Assessment of Young Children: Improving Teaching and Learning in the Early Grades through 

Observation) to more accurately reflect the goals that we are proposing through the state's joint position 

statement on assessment in the early grades (in progress) would help to strengthen assessment 

practices. 

In PEG programs, extensive professional development in the use of formative assessment is required as 

part of QRIS participation and is ongoing in all communities. Statewide meetings of grantees have 

included technical assistance on using data, including assessment data, to improve program quality. 

The spring/summer TS GOLD checkpoint data provides a broad overview of children's development at 

the end of the prekindergarten year across all domains of development. At the same, consultation with 

the developers of the tool raised questions about its utility in providing a final determination on 

children's kindergarten readiness. Although benchmarks against age expectations could be identified 

for each of the domains measured, the tool was not developed to provide an overall assessment of 

kindergarten readiness using data from all domains. Additionally, EEC wants to be sure that programs 

remain committed to using this tool for formative assessment and focus attention on how the 

information gathered over time can inform instruction. The lesson learned from MKEA about the ease 

with which the focus on formative assessment can be lost have been taken to heart. EEC does not 

require teachers establish reliability in using the tool, leading to concerns about the consistency of the 

data quality. Finally, EEC has access to scores in each TS GOLD domain, but does not have the ability 

to link individual level data to the database of PEG children, limiting our ability to disaggregate data by 

child characteristics. As result, TS GOLD remains an important tool for the purposes of ensuring 

teachers are attending to the kindergarten readiness of the children they teach, but may not be the most 

effective tool for the purposes of state reporting. 

PEG Evaluation Assessment Tools 

The Abt evaluation provides a different type of data that could be used to assess kindergarten readiness, 

the results of standardized assessments administered by trained assessors with a representative sample 

of children for the purpose of identifying children's skills at a particular point in time. These results are 

far more likely to be reliable and valid indicators of children's kindergarten readiness, although 

challenges remain in integrating the results across measures and determining clear cut points. EEC also 

owns the data that Abt gathers and can therefore link the evaluation assessment data to child specific 

information in state data systems, using the State Assigned Student Identification (SASID) assigned to 

each child when they enter the PEG program. This SASID has also facilitated efforts to gather data on 

the child's progress in elementary school. As the data is held at the child level and can be linked to 

other data sources, data can be disaggregated by program or other child characteristics as necessary. 

However, this data is only drawn from the sample of children attending PEG programs and is a 

temporary data source. While this is the best tool currently available for state reporting on school 

readiness of children generally in the PEG programs, EEC is considering lessons learned and 
ED 524B Page 23 of 62

implications for future assessment expectations of children in prekindergarten and determining a 

sustainable approach that might be piloted in Year 4. 

Data and Usage 

EEC will consider the lessons learned from the data derived from the assessment tools used as part of 

the evaluation, and the process of using an external evaluator to collect data on a sample of children, as 

a way to identify the overall performance of children in a state funded program. 

For the purposes of reporting on school readiness in year three of the PEG program, EEC has decided 

to use the results of one of the assessments used by Abt Associates, the Woodcock-Johnson, which 

included the scale evaluating mathematical understandings (applied problems) and letter identification 

(letter-word). This tool has the advantage of focusing on two key academic domains that are known to 

correlate with later school success. The sample of children assessed was identified by randomly 

selecting children (six or more) in each PEG classroom to test and therefore, provides a reasonable 

representation of the PEG program as a whole. Because this tool is normed, the standardized scores can 

be used to identify a range of performance that is within the range expected of children of the same age, 

thereby identify the number of children whose skills lag far enough behind their age mates to put them 

at risk. Children had to have a score of 85 or higher on both scales to be considered ready for 

kindergarten (reflecting the achievement of 84 percent of children in the normed sample); 79 percent of 

children in PEG evaluated fell in this range, suggesting the skills of PEG children are roughly 

comparable to the normed sample. Mean scores in the PEG sample were close to 100 (99.2 on both 

measures), the standardized mean score (based on the performance of a nationally representative 

norming sample of children). Given the large percentages of English language learners, recent 

immigrants and very low income children serve by PEG programs, groups who often lag behind their 

peers, these results are promising. Comparison of fall to spring scores on these standardized measures 

demonstrate growth in skills slightly above and beyond that expected based on the performance of the 

norming sample, demonstrated by a small increase in standardized scores of 1-2 points (a statistically 

significant change for early literacy skills). Additionally, vocabulary results showed significant growth 

in standardized scores from 87.9 to 94.8. Although children in PEG did not, on average, demonstrate 

vocabulary skills comparable to the norming sample, the gap in skills narrowed significantly during the 

PEG year. When these results were disaggregated by home language, both children who speak English 

at home and those who reported another first language showed significant growth but English speakers 

finished the year with normative skills, on average (mean scores of 95 in the fall and 100 at end of 

PEG), while dual language learners showed greater growth, but still demonstrated skill levels below the 

norms at the end of PEG (mean scores of 75 in the fall and 87 at end of PEG), 

The social-emotional development of the evaluation sample was also assessed using the Social Skills 

Improvement System (SSIS), a standardized questionnaire used by teachers to rate the frequency of 

social skills and problem behaviors in the fall and spring of the PEG program. Overall, children 

showed normative social skills (mean score of 100) and slightly below normative levels of behavior 

problems (mean score of 97, lower scores reflecting fewer behavior problems), on average in the spring 

of the PEG program. These scores were relatively stable over the course of the PEG year. 

The child outcomes results have just become available to programs, but plans are in place to hold data 

meetings with individual programs and community teams to review the data and consider the 

implications for program improvements. It is important to recognize that while these scores show 

positive growth in skills, on average, there remain small groups of children who are not showing the 

same levels of growth as their peers. Forty percent of the children for whom Spanish is a first language 

showed consistently low levels of English vocabulary across the PEG year, while only 11 percent of 

English speakers showed a similar trend. For literacy and math skills, 16 and 11 percent of children 

showed similarly small levels of growth. In the social-emotional domain, 12 percent of children 

showed consistently high levels of problem behaviors in the fall and spring, and a similarly sized group 
ED 524B Page 24 of 62

(although represented by different children) showed lower levels of social skills across the year. 

Attention in the rest of Year 3 and Year 4 should be placed on identifying program improvements that 

will better support these children's development. Additionally, kindergarten assessment data on prior 

years PEG children is now available from the public school district and attendance, disciplinary and 

special education data is forthcoming from DESE, allowing programs to also consider the extent to 

which children's ongoing school success has been well supported by this program. 
ED 524B Page 25 of 62

For Preschool Development Grants - Development Grants States ONLY: 

1(d) GPRA Performance Measure: The number of States that collect and analyze data on State 

Preschool Program quality, including the structural elements of quality specified in the 

definition of High-Quality Preschool Programs.
ED 524B Page 26 of 62

Section A: Part B - Selection Criteria 

In this section of the APR, States will report on their progress addressing the Preschool Development Grant's 

selection criteria. The State should read the questions carefully and report in the narrative fields directly below the 

questions. Please include any data, data notes or formulas to help the readers understand the State's narrative 

responses.

1. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs (Selection Criteria “C” of the application) 

Describe the State's use of funds received over the grant period for State Preschool Program 

infrastructure and quality improvements, including the State's efforts to implement a system of 

monitoring and support at the State level toward activities such as those described in Section (C)(1)(ak) of the NIA. 

 

Note: States will report amounts and percentage of funds for State Preschool Program infrastructure 

and High-Quality Preschool Programs in the Competitive Preference Priority 3 Chart.

In Massachusetts, the PEG model is being looked to as an example of how support for high quality 

prekindergarten implementation can be built into an aligned public-private system of early education. 

In many ways, the first year of this federally-funded program has become a high profile testing ground 

for how universal prekindergarten might be implemented - when ambitiously designed, carefully 

supported, more fully funded and collaboratively implemented at the local, state and federal levels. 

The manner in which EEC, LEAs and ELP agencies both monitor and support high quality program 

implementation and the successes and challenges experienced in this program are informing 

discussions about EEC's broader efforts to build a strong professional workforce and to support quality 

across the early education system. In the context of PEG, supporting, monitoring and enhancing quality 

is integrated throughout structural partnerships, both between EEC and LEAs, and the collaboration of 

LEAs and ELPs at the local level. 

Examples of areas where the PEG model is informing the development of infrastructure necessary to 

sustain quality over time and across the system of early education state-wide are outlined below. 

Structures for Collaboration and Coordination 

The PEG design and coordination of funding and oversight includes an emphasis on direct service, 

joint decision making, and overall concentration of efforts. It requires that funding and program design 

decisions be made collaboratively by the local LEA and ELP partners. As we approach the second half 

of year three, communities will begin to plan for year four with the support of state PEG staff. 

EEC has maintained the staff dedicated to the PEG grant, although specific roles of staff have changed. 

EEC hired the individuals charged with implementation of the PEG program carefully: 

· Anita Moeller serves as the Deputy Commissioner for Program Administration. She has nearly 

30 years' experience in early education. She spent 15 years as the founding executive 

director of the Acre Family Child Care System and as served the Commonwealth since 

2001 in several roles including Head Start State Collaboration Director, EEC Regional 

Director, EEC Director of Interagency Partnerships, and most recently as the Director of 

the Preschool Expansion Grant. Anita holds a Master's in Public Administration from the 

Harvard Kennedy School of Government. 

· Jocelyn Bowne now serves at the Director of Research and Preschool Expansion Grant 
ED 524B Page 27 of 62

Administration. Jocelyn came to EEC from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child. 

Not only does she hold an Ed.D. from Harvard's Graduate School of Education with a focus 

on early childhood research but she has prior personal experience as a preschool teacher in 

New York City. 

· Sarah Volkenant is the Workforce Development and Preschool Expansion Grant Specialist for 

the PEG program. Sarah has worked directly with preschool teachers as a coach, has 

directly supervised coaches and has managed a coaching program in Arizona that was 

closely tied with supporting programs' advancement through their QRIS. Sarah holds a 

Master's degree in Educational Psychology. She also has experience as a preschool teacher. 

As in the first two years of PEG, an Interagency Service Agreement with ESE allows for the time of 

their Early Childhood Team Lead, Donna Traynham. Donna brings years of experience and tremendous 

expertise in early education policy - her close partnership in the PEG program exemplifies the 

collaboration expected at all levels of program implementation. Donna serves as a consultant to the 

PEG team, especially related to alignment of priorities and policies of ESE and EEC, including the 

initiative to support inclusion, an ongoing statewide effort. She participates in team meetings, advises 

on policy decisions, reviews documents and attends meetings with grantees as needed. 

EEC uses the balance of PEG dollars to support the longitudinal study, joint professional development, 

and is planning the development of information technology infrastructure that will support PEG and 

enhance the system overall. 

Workforce and Quality Supports 

As EEC considers an enhanced technical assistance and coaching model, the integrated delivery of 

professional development opportunities more broadly, and the workforce related components of the 

QRIS system that is under revision, we will look to PEG to inform its design. 

As communities have developed their models of professional supports, essential characteristics of 

professional development have been identified by programs. Implementation of effective professional 

learning requires intensive planning and collaboration across LEAs and ELPs, and must include 

leadership from all partners including program directors, coaches and administrators. A clear, and well 

integrated focus for professional supports is necessary and all supports, including coaching and training 

should be aligned around this focus. In most PEG communities, formal classroom observation tools and 

a shared curriculum provide a unified focus across the system, establishing the content focus that is 

integrated across supports. The engagement of the program leadership to drive this cohesive structure is 

critical, and defining clear roles in supporting educators is key. Important features of professional 

learning include training, coaching and collaboration among teachers, and should focus on the entire 

teaching team. In a program that is open for at least eight hours and runs for the full year, staffing 

classrooms with three teachers has proven essential to allow the flexibility needed to implement the job 

embedded professional learning opportunities and to support the integration of high quality practices in 

the classroom. 

Programs have also highlighted the essential role that the commensurate salaries play in allowing them 

to expect greater investment of teachers in their professional learning and expect higher levels of 

teacher retention. 

Inclusion 

As described earlier in this report, EEC is looking to PEG for innovative collaborations between LEA 

and ELP partners that better meet the needs of child with disabilities. Whether this results in fewer 

transitions for children, new ways of funding services collaboratively, joint professional development 

for teachers, or interventions that ultimately reduce the referrals to special education, EEC looks 

forward to innovations to follow. Inclusion of children with special needs has required extensive 

coordination with LEA staff to organize service provision and ensuring that educators are supported in 

implementing accommodations. Tremendous progress has been made as PEG grantee communities are 
ED 524B Page 28 of 62

engaged in a statewide initiative that was described extensively in previous sections. 

Tracking of Data 

SASIDs continue to be assigned and EEC has developed methods for gathering data from each grantee, 

including TS GOLD data that is entered on each child. As the program develops, EEC will consider 

ways to tie elements such as these into developing systems such as the Child Care Financial Assistance 

(CCFA) system and the Early Childhood Information System (ECIS) database. 

Grant Monitoring 

The process for monitoring via a simultaneous fiscal and program approach, the use of Regional 

Monitoring Teams, and the monitoring of ELPS by LEAs are all new methods of monitoring for EEC. 

Standard procedures for monitoring remain consistent, and inform thinking around how EEC might 

replicate these procedures with other programs and grants. 

Research 

With the longitudinal study, EEC continues to garner tremendous lessons from the PEG experience and 

also determine other research resources to support EECs work more broadly. Evaluation results have 

been made available to programs in an on-going manner and have been useful to PEG programs in 

determining mid-course corrections. Results have also received the attention of the EEC Board and 

EEC staff developing the agency's workforce agenda. EEC continues to build its collaborations with 

ESE and with the Regional Education Lab and consider opportunities to learn more about the long term 

success of children in the PEG program, while also looking for opportunities to inform the broader 

workforce efforts. 

Roll-out of New Standards 

While EEC has strong licensing requirements and has had Early Childhood Program Standards since 

2003, new standards have been developed including; WIDA's Early English Language Development 

Standards (E-ELD), Standards for Preschool and Kindergarten in the Domains of Social and Emotional 

Learning (SEL) and Approaches to Play and Learning (APL). PEG communities have trained trainers 

in the SEL/APL Standards and trainings have been offered to the community. ESE is also developing a 

Guide to Preschool and Kindergarten Learning Environments that integrates standards across systems 

and ages. The guide is designed to support educators in understanding the continuum of skill 

development expected across prekindergarten and kindergarten in each standard and to provide 

examples of learning experiences that can used to support the standard. 

Alignment of EEC-funded Supports 

The PEG program challenges state and local partners to examine methods by which existing grant 

funds can be aligned to support quality programming. For example, PEG programs are regularly 

making use of the EEC funded supports of QRIS specialists, CFCE grantees, ECMH grantees and EPS 

grantees. As PEG staff work closely with local grantees, EEC is able to gain new insight into the 

challenges and possibilities that occur when programs with common goals align. 

Funding 

Simultaneous to PEG roll out is the state's development of plans for the implementation of newly 

reauthorized CCDBG funding. Lessons learned from PEG will be available to inform EEC's design. 

For example, PEG's focus on hard to reach families, with limited transportation, no parent fees, 

streamlined eligibility determination, high expectations of quality, higher teacher qualifications and 

compensation, combined with the results of the longitudinal evaluation, provides EEC with unique 

insight into what these elements yield in terms of impacts on children, families, programs and the field 
ED 524B Page 29 of 62

as a whole. 

With its eyes on the PEG program, the MA legislature included $500K in EEC's fiscal year 2016 and 

$200,000 in the fiscal year 2017 budget for the Commonwealth Preschool Partnership grant. This 

funding supported the development of local strategic plans, based on the PEG model, for increased high 

quality preschool programming in high-need communities. The resulting local strategic plans have 

informed EEC on the ability of the 13 communities in FY16 and three communities in FY17 selected 

for the grant to serve children in high quality preschool programs, much like the current PEG model. In 

reviewing the strategic plans, it is clear that expansion of high quality preschool is a need across the 

Commonwealth. The plans confirmed that the PEG model is one that could be expanded in other 

communities if funds were to become available, noting in many places that up to 50% of children are 

entering kindergarten with no prior preschool experience. 

2. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community (Selection 

Criteria D of application) 

 

Describe the progress the State has made during the reporting year to implement and sustain 

voluntary high quality preschool programs for eligible children in two or more High-Need Communities 

(Selection Criteria D(4) of the application) that include ALL structural elements listed below that are 

included in the definition of High-Quality Preschool Programs. States should include detailed 

information on ALL structural elements.

High staff qualifications, including a teacher with a bachelor's degree in early childhood 

education or a bachelor's degree in any field with a State-approved alternative pathway, 

which may include coursework, clinical practice, and evidence of knowledge of content and 

pedagogy relating to early childhood, and teaching assistants with appropriate credentials;

✔

✔ High-quality professional development for all staff; 

✔ A child-to-instructional staff ratio of no more than 10 to 1;

✔ A class size of no more than 20 with, at a minimum, one teacher with high staff qualifications;

✔ A Full-Day program;

Inclusion of children with disabilities to ensure access to and full participation in all 

opportunities; ✔

Developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and evidencebased curricula, and learning environments that are aligned with the State Early Learning and 

Development Standards, for at least the year prior to kindergarten entry;

✔

Individualized accommodations and supports so that all children can access and participate 

fully in learning activities; ✔
ED 524B Page 30 of 62

✔ Instructional staff salaries that are comparable to the salaries of local K-12 instructional staff;

✔ Program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement;

On-site or accessible Comprehensive Services for children and community partnerships that 

promote families access to services that support their children's learning and development; 

and

✔

✔ Evidence-based health and safety standards.
ED 524B Page 31 of 62

Please describe the progress the State has made in establishing High-Quality Preschool Programs 

that include ALL structural elements listed above that are evidence-based and nationally recognized 

as important for ensuring program quality.

PEG has provided the Commonwealth with the opportunity to continue to advance high quality 

preschool programs for children, aligned with federal High-Quality Preschool Program (HQPP) 

standards, by building on our strong foundation of licensing regulations, expanding provider enrollment 

and upward movement in the MA QRIS, with continued supports for workforce development. Ten of 

the twelve structural elements of a HQPP as defined in the federal application package are included 

across the MA quality standards. The two standards on which progress needed to be made to meet the 

structural elements of HQPP for PEG were the requirement for a Bachelor degree educator in each 

classroom and salary comparability with similar LEA positions. MA continues to be in compliance 

with these two remaining standards for programs funded through this grant. 

Five high-need communities in Massachusetts -- Boston, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, and Springfield 

-- are being funded to implement full-day, full-year preschool for four-year-olds through public-private 

partnerships between the local public school district (the LEA) and two or three local licensed early 

learning providers (the ELPs). The LEAs have been granted the funds and are subcontracting with the 

ELPs for the direct services they provide to eligible children and families in the community. While the 

ELPs provide direct services to the four-year-old children, the LEAs have worked with the ELPs to 

create and sustain implementation plans that include all structural elements that are included in the 

definition of HQPP. Minor adjustments in community plans for implementation have occurred across 

the state, including the addition of coaching for year two and targeted, coordinated comprehensive 

services. 

Description of Progress and Accomplishments: Structural Elements of High-Quality Preschool 

Programs 

EEC requires that all PEG-funded LEA and ELP partners in each community complete a Direct Service 

Summary (DSS) to outline an implementation plan for HQPPs for eligible children. All quality criteria 

are used to guide collaborative local system-building efforts for preschool expansion services that will 

support four year-old children in developing critical development and learning competencies needed 

for successful learning. These quality criteria encompass many of the elements measured through 

EEC's QRIS and through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) 

Accreditation. The DSS tool was revised slightly to include more detailed information about direct 

services funded through the PEG grant, and the addition of a professional development plan was 

included in required documents for year two planning. Proposed quality enhancement activities 

outlined in the plan are included in the narrative sections below. 

Explicit guidance on quality expectations from EEC is outlined in the DSS and is intended to guide 

implementation plan development that is driven by collaboration between the LEA and ELPs in each 

partnership, allowing for local level flexibility. This local control ensures the plan addresses the unique 

needs of the specific community. All PEG grantee plans and budgets are submitted by LEAs, and then 

reviewed and approved by EEC staff on an annual basis. Mid-year program adjustments based on 

findings from a system of continuous quality improvement and monitoring are required to be 

documented and submitted to EEC for approval. 

Ongoing monitoring of quality components occurs through regular EEC staff attendance at local 

grantee meetings and through a fiscal and programmatic monitoring/audit process that occurs on an 

annual basis. EEC fiscal and programmatic staff conducted a monitoring visit to every PEG community 

by mid-February 2016 to serve as a technical assistance fiscal and program compliance review for the 
ED 524B Page 32 of 62

PEG grant recipients. The purpose of the review was to analyze documented activities and observations 

of the LEAs and their oversight of the ELPs to ensure that federal awards are used for the authorized 

purpose in compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant 

agreements and associated performance goals are achieved. This review serves as a precursor to a 

formal audit that took place during the summer months of 2016, modeling the monitoring that is 

expected at the local level. The formal audit provided the LEAs with a clear understanding of the 

expectations of the grant requirements that was monitored in their formal audits of their ELPs in the 

winter months of 2016-2017. The formal audit provided an opportunity for EEC to assess all LEA's 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the PEG grant, as well as, providing support if findings or 

issues of non-compliance were identified. The review afforded EEC the opportunity to highlight sound 

and innovative administration and management practices that may already be in place. 

To date, the first round of LEA audits of ELPs have been completed, and the second round is 

underway. An additional round of ELP audits occurred in the summer months of 2017, in advance of 

the formal audits of LEAs by EEC that were conducted in for July 2017. 

High Staff Qualifications 

Consistent with year one, all PEG-funded classrooms continue to be staffed by at least one highly 

qualified educator. ELPs report that all lead educators have at least a Bachelor's degree in early 

childhood or closely related field and 23 percent have Masters degrees. All classroom instructional 

staff meet the appropriate credentialing requirements as outlined in the licensing regulations and 

policies established by EEC. In order to monitor this quality component, EEC requires that all LEAs 

submit all PEG classroom staff information so the level of education and certification can be verified 

by internal EEC teacher qualification systems. To date, there has been consistent compliance of this 

requirement, although grantees still report the challenge of identifying and hiring highly qualified staff, 

especially at the assistant teacher level. 

High-quality professional development for all staff 

EEC-funded Professional Development Supports 

In early education, the role and capabilities of the teacher/educator are pivotal to students' success. EEC 

offers educator professional development and financial supports aimed at advancing the continued 

development of educator skills and credentials. We partner in this work with the Department of Higher 

Education (DHE) as well as two- and four-year institutions of higher education in the state. 

The EPS grant funds a network of five regional grantees for professional development opportunities. 

These grantees are EEC's primary vehicle through which early educators gain access to foundational 

professional development opportunities, including providing credit-bearing coursework, and support 

services including technical assistance, coaching and mentoring. 

All PEG-funded programs have access to professional development through these existing structures 

offered regionally by EEC funded EPS grantees, are participating in the QRIS system and will attend 

high quality trainings as required by existing QRIS standards over the course of the grant period. The 

QRIS standards include requirements for professional development aligned with core competencies as 

outlined by EEC and cover content related to curriculum, screening tools, assessment, supporting 

positive relationships, the MA Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers and/or Preschool Learning 

Standards, observation and documentation, working with children from diverse cultures, second 

language acquisition, and improving the quality of health and safety practice: managing early education 

and care settings that include children with allergies, special diets, and specialized feeding issues. 

To further build capacity at the local level, EEC is offering professional learning opportunities to PEG 

educational and family support staff to drive continued quality improvement and build a network of 
ED 524B Page 33 of 62

support among grantees across the state. 

EEC has contracted with Anne Douglass from the University of Massachusetts Boston Institute for 

Early Education Leadership and Innovation to offer a two-part leadership series to PEG instructional 

leaders as well as family support administrators. Using a research-based framework that draws on the 

Learn Lead Excel model from the Ounce of Prevention, the goal of the series is to enhance individual, 

organizational and community capacity to drive improvement in instructional practice and family 

engagement efforts to ultimately improve children's learning and developmental outcomes. 

Local Plans for Professional Development 

Local teams of LEA and ELP educational leadership continue to plan for intentional, integrated 

professional development of PEG teachers, including training, coaching, and professional learning 

communities. 

PEG programs and classrooms are allowed five program closure days for professional development, 

three additional closure days outside what is typically approved by EEC for programs receiving 

childcare subsidies. Additionally, PEG programs in four communities were allowed up to five 

additional closure days in between year one and year two, after submitting a proposal that was 

reviewed and approved by EEC Senior Leadership. During this time, educators received additional 

professional development, conducted home visits, and prepared classrooms for a new cohort of 

students. 

In many communities, QRIS required professional development content serves as a foundation to 

community-driven and developed content that is specific to the needs of the at the local level. With the 

support of an EEC Workforce Specialist, EEC encourages that PEG programs to offer joint 

professional development for all PEG programs in a community, with a focus on content that builds the 

capacity of educators around best-practices in early childhood classrooms. Some report that it is 

challenging to plan community-wide professional development with competing priorities and 

requirements of existing systems, but we continue to address this need for support and content 

development through facilitation of local meetings. In year three, communities are considering how 

they might offer professional development opportunities that build on foundational knowledge and 

extend educators' capacity to bring theory to practice. Each year, programs submit a professional 

development plan to outline planned training and content to be covered, and often incorporate 

opportunities for ELPs to participate in joint professional development. The professional development 

plans also include the approach to integrated workforce supports, including the role of coaching, 

strategies to coordinate various technical assistance and consultants, the role of classroom quality data, 

and plans for professional learning communities. The design of these plans varies greatly and is 

intentionally created to meet the needs of the grantee community, although similar content related to 

the QRIS professional development requirements is included. As noted previously, one priority of joint 

professional development in year two and three is supporting inclusive practices. 

As the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) tool becomes more broadly used in PEG 

programs, various professional learning opportunities in PEG programs are leveraging the classroom 

observation tool as a common language to discuss classroom practice across PEG, and in some cases, 

public school prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. Through this focus, educational leaders and 

coaches at the local level are integrating the content of the tool in their plans to support teaching teams. 

Central to this approach is the local use of the PEG evaluation data of classroom quality, which serves 

as a benchmark of understanding where the PEG classrooms are situated in the quality continuum. An 

emerging theme within this work includes how coaching can support the improvement of instructional 

practice in the context of curricula. EEC continues to work closely with the communities to plan for 

how to approach this integration. 

PEG communities continue to report that the PEG model has allowed for more individualized, high 

quality professional development than is typical for their other programs. Some partners attribute this 
ED 524B Page 34 of 62

success to PEG, as it is an opportunity for partners to establish a community-wide vision for 

professional development, by leveraging the expertise, strengths and resources of all early learning 

partners. For example, in three PEG communities, Boston, Lowell, and Springfield, where the PEG 

classroom curriculum aligns with the curriculum of the public schools, the LEA offers professional 

learning opportunities through training and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) on a regular 

basis for public school prekindergarten and PEG educators on curriculum modules, with a focus on 

effective instructional practices. Professional development opportunities leveraged by PEG have 

promoted public-private partnerships across the Commonwealth. Professional learning around 

curriculum as noted above is on example of cross-sector coordination that is occurring throughout the 

state. 

In addition, grantee communities are building on system improvements at the community level for 

professional development of PEG and non-PEG educators. Lawrence offered a professional 

development opportunity for prekindergarten educators in PEG, prekindergarten educators at the public 

school, as well as public school leadership, with a focus on the support of dual language learners. 

Coordination and alignment between public and private sectors has also leveraged more informal 

professional learning opportunities. Lowell convenes a professional learning community (PLC) for 

PEG prekindergarten and public school prekindergarten educators to support implementation of 

curriculum modules that are being piloted, while the adoption of these modules in year three of PEG 

more broadly is continuing this collaboration. Springfield PEG coaches are facilitating a PLC of PEG 

and non-PEG educators, including both community based and public school prekindergarten educators, 

who are all implementing the same curriculum. Holyoke is convening building-level leadership teams, 

including PEG educators, the prekindergarten and kindergarten coach, kindergarten teachers and school 

principals to discuss the alignment of practice in the prekindergarten and early elementary years. 

Coaching and Educational Leadership 

In all five PEG communities, the LEA provides ongoing, individualized coaching support to ELP 

educators as part of the PEG-funded model. In Boston, an existing coaching model is providing 

intensive, monthly coaching to all PEG classrooms, in coordination with coaches and mentors from 

some ELPs. Over the course of the grant period, the LEA hopes to build the capacity of ELP coaches 

so an internal structure for coaching can be established. In year three, BPS coaches are transitioning out 

of coaching individual PEG educators and are shifting their focus to building the capacity of the 

directors as instructional leaders as the drivers of improvement in classroom quality. Before PEG, other 

communities did not have existing coaching staff available to support classrooms, so PEG funds are 

being used to fund at least one coach, employed by the LEA, to provide classroom support to PEG 

educators on a monthly basis. Boston, Holyoke and Springfield feature coaches that support both PEG 

and public prekindergarten classrooms. Although there is variation in coaching throughout the state, 

there is a considerable amount of consistency in coaching models, approaches and strategies. The 

introduction of coaching in PEG communities has elicited conversations about the significance of 

reflective practice, supporting effective instructional practices, and an increased focus on using 

curriculum content to differentiate instruction to meet every child's learning needs. 

PEG coaches are also engaged in professional development and networking opportunities in year two 

of PEG. In some communities, they participate and support the work of the Building Inclusive 

Communities work at the local level. They also participate in a training and technical assistance series 

with other EEC funded coaches across the state to build capacity around effective coaching practices. 

As mentioned previously, EEC awarded a contract to the University of Massachusetts Boston to offer 

PEG instructional leaders, including PEG coaches and program directors, a professional learning 

opportunity to build their capacity to determine how curriculum is selected, and how leadership can 

support teachers in using the curriculum, with particular attention to integrating curriculum 

implementation with quality child-teacher interactions and differentiation of instruction. This series of 

seminars/panels and specific PLC strands for directors/coaches and other administration should began 
ED 524B Page 35 of 62

in May 2016 and continued throughout the remainder of year two. A continuation of this series is being 

offered through year three. Additionally, the majority of PEG coaches attended a Classroom 

Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) certified observer training offered by a Teachstone certified 

trainer in early winter 2016. By participating in this training, coaches have a framework and a common 

language by which they can help support effective classroom practices with educators. The approach 

and stage of implementation related to this is in early development. A follow-up meeting after the 

CLASS training occurred in February 2016 and the continuation of support for coaches with using the 

CLASS tool, with a specific focus on the instructional support domain, are underway. 

As a result of coaching and additional staffing, structures have been put in place for PEG classrooms to 

offer more non-instructional time for educators, allowing for additional time to meet with coaches to 

discuss ongoing progress in goals, joint lesson planning with other educators, and professional learning 

communities for lead educators and classroom teaching teams. 

Additionally, all PEG-funded classrooms have an opportunity to participate in the longitudinal study of 

the PEG model that will provide communities with access to classroom quality and child-level data at 

least once per year. PEG communities have received community and program level data and have 

thought carefully about how this information should inform professional development planning for 

their communities. Common trends were identified and integrated into local professional development 

planning meetings. 

Statewide PEG Grantee Meetings 

The PEG EEC staff continue to facilitate statewide grantee meetings to promote cross-community 

learning, respond to emerging challenges related to implementation, and build local leadership 

capacity. For example in the first year of PEG, in response to challenge of fully implementing 

comprehensive services, EEC invited panelists from the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the 

Children's Behavioral Health Initiative, a part of the MA Executive Office of Health and Human 

Services, to offer resources around supporting children and families behavioral and mental health both 

statewide and regionally. After the panel, grantees participated in facilitated, cross-community 

discussions and planning for comprehensive services in year two. In November 2016, EEC facilitated 

another statewide grantee meeting to review the year one PEG evaluation data from a statewide level 

and brainstorm implications for implementation. Additionally, reflections and planning for summer 

programming in PEG were also discussed. As a result, grantee communities were connected to 

additional resources, a platform for ongoing planning and implementation, and learned successful 

practices from other communities across the state. 

EEC continues to take a multi-pronged approach to engage grantees on various aspects of the grant. 

Statewide grantee meetings are conducted to discuss trends in specific statewide progress in the high 

quality preschool components as outlined in PEG and to provide an opportunity to reflect and plan for 

implementation adjustments for next program year. Topics include planning for inclusion, summer 

programming, and transition to kindergarten activities. Additionally, PEG grantees were convened in 

the spring of 2017 to discuss planning for sustainability, as mentioned in previous sections of this 

report. This topic will be maintained through another statewide sustainability planning meeting in the 

spring of 2018, and is in the early stages of development. 

As mentioned in previous sections, EEC continues to offer professional learning opportunities to 

instructional leadership, including program administrators, directors and coaches in PEG programs, 

offering a platform for collaboration and discussion around effective quality improvement in 

classrooms. A parallel strand of professional learning is also being offered to PEG staff who are 

involved in family engagement activities to strengthen the professional collaborations focused on 

improving family engagement activities in PEG programs. Participants will identify key issues and set 

concrete goals for desired changes, while sharing successes, challenges and solutions across 
ED 524B Page 36 of 62

communities. The first day of the two-day family engagement leadership series is being offered in 

March 2018. 

A child-to-instructional staff ratio of no more than 10:1 

Year two PEG classrooms were open by September 2016. From the beginning of implementation, all 

PEG classrooms have maintained at least a child-to-instructional staff ratio of no more than 10:1, 

consistent with the expectations outlined in the EEC licensing regulations. ELPs have budgeted for 

additional teaching staff or substitute teaching staff to be scheduled during PEG program hours to cover 

classrooms, allowing for more non-instructional time for teaching staff. The protected time outside of 

classrooms has provided lead teaching staff more curriculum planning time within classrooms and 

across classrooms. Non-instructional time has also allowed for time for lead instructional staff to meet 

with coaches to reflect on progress of established classroom goals. A three teacher per classroom model 

is implemented in some PEG classrooms as a strategy to maintain appropriate ratios in consideration 

for break times and staffing schedules for a full-day program. In some classrooms, the third teacher is 

present for most of the day to support the classroom lowering ratios below the required 10:1, while in 

other classrooms the third teacher is scheduled at specific times in order to alleviate other staff for 

breaks and planning time. The enhanced staffing model continues to provide programs with flexibility 

to engage in job-embedded professional development and ongoing planning and communication with 

families, as well as lower child-teacher ratios for much of the day. 

The classroom quality results reflect the early return on these investments. 

• In Year 1 (2015-2016) and Year 2 (2016-2017), PEG classrooms demonstrated strong levels of 

quality on two standardized observational measures, comparable to or better than other large 

scale early education programs. 

• More significantly, these classrooms demonstrated growth in quality between Year 1 and 2 on two 

important dimensions of quality, classroom organization and emotional support. Measures of 

instructional quality showed early signs of growth as well, but these were not consistent across 

communities. 

Although a more expensive model than the traditional two teachers per classroom, it has proven 

essential to develop consistency in professional learning opportunities for teachers. Programs have been 

able to more easily maintain required teacher-child ratios when teachers left for training, curriculum 

planning time or coaching, facilitating the consistent provision of professional growth opportunities. 

Programs also report that the low child-teacher ratios that result support increased opportunities for 

small group and one on one engagement between children and teachers. 

A class size of no more than 20 with, at a minimum, one teacher with high staff qualifications 

PEG classrooms across the Commonwealth have all been designed and staffed to maintain a class size 

of no more than 20, with at a minimum, one teacher with high staff qualifications since the beginning 

of the program year. In Lawrence, there are classrooms with smaller group sizes (of no more than 10 

children) due to limitations in physical space and the need to maintain EEC licensing requirements. 

Additionally, a number of PEG-funded lead educators have a Master's degree in early childhood or a 

related field, and some programs report that some classrooms are staffed with more than one teacher 

with a Bachelor's degree. EEC has also required that lead educators be EEC teacher certified in PEGfunded classrooms. Through the monitoring process, EEC continues to support the LEA in verifying 

the staff qualifications in PEG-funded classrooms. In the formal audit visits to each PEG community, 

EEC encouraged LEA's to conduct onsite monitoring visits to PEG-funded programs and classrooms to 

ensure appropriate class sizes and staff qualifications. Increased compensation and, in most 

communities, a stable three teacher per classroom model contribute to the retention of PEG educators 

and increased opportunities to improve classroom quality over time through cohesive, job embedded 
ED 524B Page 37 of 62

professional supports. 

A Full-Day Program 

In response to the federal requirement of a full-day program, EEC required that all PEG funded 

classrooms offer eligible children access to full-day (at least eight hours), full-year (52 weeks) highquality preschool programming. An expanded program, with up to 10 hours a day (in some programs) 

for a full calendar year provides more access for high-risk families and their children. All PEG-funded 

classrooms operate on an extended full-day, full-year schedule. 

PEG programs work with families who request less hours of preschool programming on an individual 

basis, and per EEC requirements, children in PEG funded slots must receive no fewer than six hours of 

PEG programming. 

As mentioned in previous narrative sections, there are some PEG children who attend a public 

inclusion classroom in the morning and a PEG classroom in the afternoon to provide access to a fullday program. In all situations, the best interest of the child and family must be considered. Preschool 

services can be offered during non-traditional hours if deemed needed by the grantee community. This 

wrap-around model has been particularly successful in Springfield and Lowell. The Springfield PEG 

classrooms are co-located with public school inclusion classrooms, so the transition to a PEG 

classroom in the afternoon is as simple as walking the child down the hall. Lowell Public Schools and 

Lawrence Public Schools have worked closely with the PEG ELPs to provide transportation for 

children with IEPs that attend PEG classrooms in the afternoon. 

Inclusion of children with disabilities to ensure access to and full participation in all opportunities

As part of the DSS, EEC requires that all PEG grantees create and implement plans for services 

provided for four year old children to be reflective of services and supports that include all children, 

including children with disabilities, children who are English language learners, children who are 

experiencing homelessness, children from refugee and immigrant families, children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and children from military families. Programs are required to plan for 

curriculum, instruction and assessment practices that are designed to include appropriate 

accommodations, modifications and individualized supports so the needs of all children are met. 

Historically, while many children with IEPs attend community-based programs, the majority of 

children receive their special education services in public school settings. As a result, the infrastructure 

didn't always exist to serve children in community-based settings. However, as the PEG sites remain in 

a unique position to collaborate to better serve children with disabilities in community-based settings, 

although this remains a challenge. Many communities continue to build collaborative models where 

ELP staff and public school early childhood staff work side by side to support all children, including 

eligible children with disabilities. The communities also continue to streamline the process for referring 

children for whom there may be concerns about development. These conversations also provide 

opportunities for LEAs and ELPs to work together to determine how to best respond to a child's needs, 

with or without an IEP, and the most appropriate placement for the delivery of IEP services, should the 

child be identified as eligible. 

At each subgrantee, the expectation is that 6.9 percent of children served will be children with 

disabilities (this target is derived from the statewide percentage of children with disabilities, as this is 

larger than the federal percentage). There are two primary challenges that Massachusetts has faced in 

serving children with disabilities in PEG classrooms. These challenges, and EEC's response to these 

challenges, is described in great detail in previous narrative sections. To summarize, the majority of 

children with disabilities in Massachusetts receive their IEP services from the public schools in public 

school settings. As can be gleaned from Indicator 6 data, while over 70 percent of children with 

disabilities receive their IEP services in partial or full inclusion settings, the majority of those services 
ED 524B Page 38 of 62

are delivered in inclusive public school settings. As a result, we expect that a large percentage of 

children with IEPs in these communities are already enrolled in public school inclusion classrooms. We 

also recognize that children are enrolled in multiple settings and, as such, EEC and PEG grantee 

communities continue to plan for how they might implement IEP services in PEG classrooms when 

appropriate. Also, because Massachusetts prioritized children who are not currently enrolled in any 

formal early childhood classroom, children already enrolled in public school settings, including 

children with disabilities, were not eligible. In response to this challenge, children with IEPs who have 

previous or current formal education experience are eligible for PEG in year two. 

Communities feel strongly that, in many cases, provision of comprehensive services will support the 

children to make process and ultimately, result in fewer referrals to special education. Due to these 

factors, we expect that the 6.9 percent threshold is more likely to be met toward the end of the program 

year (August 2017). In May 2017, 5.5% of children enrolled were reported with an IEP, suggesting the 

local and state efforts are making a positive impact on progress related to this goal. 

As PEG programs are being considered when decisions are made about the least restrictive 

environment, EEC and ESE are also working to ensure that educators in PEG classrooms have the 

appropriate training and supports to serve children with disabilities. EEC, in collaboration with ESE 

and the Head Start Collaboration Office, is offering a professional development series on inclusion. At 

the local level, communities like Holyoke, Lowell and Springfield have offered, or plan to offer joint 

professional development opportunities to educators around the referral and IEP process and how to 

adjust instructional practices to meet accommodations outlined in the IEP. Two communities are 

considering how they might leverage the expertise of the public school staff to support inclusive 

practices in community based settings through targeted classroom support such as coaching. Challenges 

in hiring for additional positions have arisen the communities, largely related to finding qualified 

candidates, and efforts to recruit continue. 

Developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction and evidencebased curricula, and learning environments that are aligned with the State Early Learning and 

Development Standards, for at least the year prior to kindergarten entry 

EEC requires that efforts focused on this quality indicator should ensure that preschool curricula are 

age appropriate, aligned to the MA Curriculum Frameworks and integrated across content areas. 

Additionally, PEG requires that implementation of curricula should be reflective of instructional 

approaches that are appropriate and supportive of the ways in which four year-old children learn. 

In an effort to be responsive to the variation across communities, EEC has encouraged PEG grantees to 

select a curriculum that meets the needs of the specific community and aligns with a community-wide 

vision to support kindergarten readiness. 

In response to this requirement, two PEG communities have adopted curriculum for PEG classrooms 

that aligns with the public school early childhood programs (prekindergarten and kindergarten) and one 

continues to pilot aligned modules. Springfield and Boston implement curriculum in the PEG 

classrooms that is also being utilized by public prekindergarten classrooms. These communities offered 

professional development to all educators and continue to support curriculum implementation through 

onsite coaching provided by the LEA. 

In year two, Lowell piloted curriculum modules that are being implemented in the public school 

classrooms. Feedback from directors, coaches and teachers was solicited and the advantages and 

disadvantages of the curriculum in comparison the Creative Curriculum (in use prior to the pilot) were 

discussed. The decision was made to continue to use the public school curriculum in year three while 

also piloting Building Blocks, but to create an implementation calendar that also allowed additional 

time for exploration of children's interests. In year two, Lawrence ELPs adopted the same curriculum 

and put in place onsite coaching supports to ensure effective implementation. In year three, one of the 
ED 524B Page 39 of 62

programs has decided to pilot a curriculum that is in line with Lawrence Public School's growing focus 

on rich content-based curriculum, and the experience will provide a guide for future decisions. Holyoke 

has elected to allow programs to continue to use curricula already being used by their non-PEG funded 

classrooms, but have focused coaching on the CLASS domains to build alignment across programs and 

with kindergarten classrooms (receiving similar coaching). Regardless of the curriculum selected, it is a 

statewide requirement that all curriculum are aligned with State Early Learning and Development 

Standards and Curriculum frameworks as set out by EEC and ESE. 

Throughout the grant period, all PEG programs continue to meet all EEC licensing requirements for 

health and safety standards. Additionally, each PEG partner will seek and maintain NAEYC 

accreditation and QRIS level 3 or seek and maintain QRIS level 4 by the end of the grant period. QRIS 

program participation provides a structure to monitor and support appropriate learning environments 

and quality improvement efforts as measured by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale 

(ECERS), and either the CLASS or the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. The nature, context and 

content of interactions between the educators and children will be measured in the evaluation/

longitudinal study and participation in the QRIS by tools such as the CLASS and ECERs. To date, the 

majority of PEG programs are making steady progress in NAEYC accreditation and/or the QRIS 

system and are on target to meet the requirements no later than the end of the grant period. Preliminary 

data suggests that 37 percent of programs advanced at least one level in the QRIS in 2017.EEC also 

plans to work with individual communities to ensure the classroom quality data being collected as part 

of the evaluation is being used to support classrooms and programs in continuous quality improvement 

and to inform program implementation as it relates to curriculum and classroom learning environments. 

As mentioned in previous sections, EEC plans to continue to facilitate program level meetings with 

leadership staff to discuss and reflect on child level and classroom level data to support PEG planning 

moving forward. 

Individualized accommodations and supports so that all children can access and participate fully 

in learning activities 

As part of a cross-agency collaboration, Massachusetts adopted the Center on the Social Emotional 

Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) Pyramid model, providing a policy-level structure to 

support all programs in the mixed-delivery system an opportunity to understand and implement 

practices that support the individual needs of children, specifically around social and emotional 

development. Intensive professional development around the CSEFEL model continues to be offered to 

the mixed-delivery system, and is accessible to members of the PEG programs. As a result, many PEG 

programs across the state consider the practices as outlined in the model as a guide and integrate 

components in professional development opportunities for educators, family engagement staff and 

comprehensive service providers. To date, Boston, Lowell and Springfield are engaged in Pyramid 

model work through a joint initiative with EEC and ESE. Through this model, public school programs 

are receiving coaching and leadership from the communities are considering how they might continue 

to integrate features of this model into PEG classrooms. 

To ensure that all PEG programs are providing individualized accommodations and supports so that all 

children can access and participate fully in learning activities, EEC requires PEG programs to create 

and submit a plan for assessing the progress of children across developmental domains as a critical 

component of the standards-curriculum-instruction-assessment continuum. Systems in place to use data 

gathered from the comprehensive assessment system to inform continuous program improvement and 

instructional supports for children is key and is a requirement of PEG in each community. 

As part of a comprehensive assessment system, PEG communities use a developmental screening tool 

to determine individual needs and developmental milestones of children and use this data to inform 

instruction and refer children to additional screening if needed. EEC has allowed flexibility at the local 

level to determine the most appropriate tool. Most PEG programs are using the Ages and Stages 
ED 524B Page 40 of 62

Questionnaire, a tool that encourages the engagement of parents in the screening process. Some 

communities are also in the process of identifying and implementing a home language screening tool 

for children. 

TS GOLD is the required formative assessment tool statewide for PEG. Communities are working 

toward using the data collected to inform instruction and professional development for PEG educators 

at a local level, taking into account the needs of diverse learners, and this process is supporting 

identification of professional development topics related to assessment at a statewide level. PEG 

communities continue to discuss strategies to share data with kindergarten teachers or other elementary 

school administrators at the community level, in preparation for a child entering kindergarten. Lowell 

and Lawrence have developed a process to transfer student files, with formative assessment data to 

kindergarten teachers. Holyoke has leveraged the location of PEG classrooms in elementary schools to 

facilitate teacher-teacher conversations about expectations and, in some cases, individual children. 

Boston and Lawrence are piloting systems to partner PEG programs with particular elementary schools 

to explore ways to build communication, collaboration and streamline enrollment processes. 

Collaboration with local kindergarten readiness efforts, like Boston's Countdown to Kindergarten and 

Lawrence's Lawrence Learns have been built, as have efforts to support parents' early enrollment in 

kindergarten. 

Instructional staff salaries that are comparable to the salaries of local K-12 instructional staff 

All PEG funded lead educator salaries are commensurate to the public school prekindergarten 

educators. In most cases, this is a significant increase in salary, with the exception of some full-day 

Head Start programs where the salary increase is only slightly higher in PEG. ELPs in PEG 

communities report that identifying and hiring highly-qualified staff for PEG classrooms proved to be a 

challenge, as there is a shortage of highly qualified staff available in the general early childhood 

community in Massachusetts. Partners report that in their non-PEG funded programs, they encounter 

similar staffing challenges. We believe that by providing PEG educators a salary commensurate with 

the public school, we can anticipate increased staff retention in PEG-funded classrooms, allowing 

consistency and increased continuity of care for eligible children, a structure to implement a process of 

continuous quality improvement in PEG classrooms, and additional opportunities to build competency 

and overall capacity of classroom educators through ongoing professional development. 

Although the base salary of PEG educators is comparable to the salaries of local K-12 instructional 

staff, the actual relative compensation of the full-time, full-year PEG educators is less than the public 

school staff when broken down to an hourly rate. Local K-12 instructional staff work fewer hours per 

day and only nine months per year, compared to the PEG educators who work longer hours per day for 

the entire calendar year. It is difficult to ascertain how many PEG educators have left PEG programs 

for a public school position, as ELPs do not have information from all staff that may have been 

collected during an exit interview. In year two of PEG, grantees have not reported this as a consistent 

challenge, although the question of how they might retain and compensate staff after the grant funding 

is gone is beginning to surface in conversations around sustainability. 

Program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement 

EEC awarded a contract with a vendor to perform a multi-component longitudinal evaluation of the use 

of PEG funds in Massachusetts, to learn from the communities implementing the PEG grant, support 

quality improvement at the local level, and inform decisions about sustaining and expanding programs 

and policies developed through this grant. 

Abt Associates, a research firm located in Cambridge, MA, in partnership with the University of 

Massachusetts Boston, was awarded a contract to implement the evaluation beginning in January 2016. 

Abt is working closely with the EEC PEG team to plan and inform the implementation of the 
ED 524B Page 41 of 62

evaluation. 

Over the years of PEG funding, the multi-component evaluation plan includes: 1) a formative 

evaluation of PEG implementation and PEG-participating children's development completed in year 

one, 2) an evaluation of the impacts (short-term and longitudinal) of PEG programs on children and 

families, and 3) an analysis of the costs of the quality improvements with preliminary estimates of costeffectiveness. 

In the first year, EEC was particularly interested in understanding: how each grantee is implementing 

their PEG programs; how implementation of PEG requirements distinguishes PEG classrooms and 

teachers from non-PEG classrooms in similar programs in the community; how PEG participation has 

shaped programs; what PEG implementation and associated inter-agency collaborations require of 

ELPs and LEAs; what approaches to collaboration and leadership are most effective; and the needs and 

skills of the population PEG programs serve. 

The implementation and outcomes evaluation of Year 2 has identified the ways in which PEG 

programs continue to improve and show success in achieving the goals of the program. 

Findings on Year 2 Educator Supports 

In the second year of PEG implementation, programs continued to maintain highly-educated teaching 

staff. PEG programs retained most of their teachers from Year 1 to Year 2; 77 percent of lead teachers 

and 70 percent of non-lead teachers continued teaching in the second year of the program. 

Programs continued to provide professional development opportunities to educators through training, 

coaching by local school district staff, and formal release time for teacher planning. In Year 1, only four of 

five communities provided PEG coaching. 

• Training. Compared to Year 1, in Year 2, PEG lead and non-lead teachers received, on 

average, more training. Also, the differential in the amount of training between lead and 

non-lead teachers that was identified in Year 1 narrowed in Year 2. 

• Coaching. Nearly all lead and non-lead teachers reported receiving coaching in Year 2, and 

the proportion of teachers that received coaching was higher in Year 2 than in Year 1. In 

both years, most coaching was provided by PEG coaches employed by the local school 

district. 

• Release time for planning. In Year 2, more lead teachers reported having formal release time 

for instructional planning, although the majority still reported that the amount of release 

time was not sufficient to complete their job responsibilities. 

In Year 2, PEG programs responded to implementation challenges identified in Year 1, and most 

notably expanded and improved some of the professional development opportunities to educators. In 

particular: 

• PEG communities and programs intentionally increased the alignment across the different forms 

of professional learning (i.e., training and coaching) and the coherence of the professional 

learning, classroom curriculum, and assessments. 

• PEG districts and programs expanded the professional learning opportunities for non-lead 

teachers. 

• PEG programs focused more on establishing a professional learning community for teachers, 

which represents a potentially powerful avenue for sustaining improvements in programming 

and instruction. 

• Teacher assessment of the usefulness of the training and coaching remained decidedly mixed. 

PEG districts and programs may want to explore further which professional opportunities would 
ED 524B Page 42 of 62

be more meaningful for improving their practice. 

Findings on Year 2 Classroom Quality 

Observations of the 48 PEG classrooms in Year 2 using the CLASS, a standardized measure of overall 

instructional quality with a focus on interactions among teachers and children in the classroom, showed 

overall improvements compared to Year 1. 

• For the Classroom Organization domain, the average CLASS score across all PEG 

classrooms rose from 5.2 to 5.7, which represents a significant increase. Substantially 

more classrooms were rated as high quality on this domain in Year 2 (75 percent) than 

in Year 1 (40 percent). 

• For the Emotional Support domain, the Year 2 score (5.9) was more similar to the Year 1 

score (5.7), and represents a significant increase. The proportion of classrooms rated as 

high quality increased from 60 percent to 80 percent. 

• For the Instructional Support domain, although the proportion of classes rated as moderate 

quality increased slightly from 75 percent to 79 percent, the average score remained 

relatively unchanged from Year 1 (3.2) to Year 2 (3.1). 

Improved scores from Year 1 to Year 2 at least in part reflected development over time in teachers who 

were there for both years. The majority of lead teachers were retained in PEG classrooms from Year 1 

to Year 2. Excluding new teachers from the analysis, the average scores improved on all three domains 

(Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Percentage of PEG Classrooms in Different Quality Categories by CLASS Domain, Winter 2017 

and Winter 2016, Classrooms with Same Teacher in 2016 and 2017 (n = 36 classroomsa) 

 

a Boston=9, Holyoke=4, Lawrence=8, Lowell=6, Springfield=9 

The findings on classroom quality suggest that there is still some work to do to identify which 

professional learning opportunities will significantly strengthen instructional quality (e.g., support for 

teachers to provide more individualized instruction). This challenge is not unique to PEG, as the 

instructional support domain tends to be lower and the hardest to improve in the broader early 

childhood literature. 

Findings on Year 2 Family Supports and Comprehensive Services 

Community and program leadership made efforts in Year 2 to increase the level of supports for families 

and to introduce more intentionality in the focus of the supports. Overall, family engagement was 

perceived as an area of improvement by a majority (65 percent) of program directors in Year 2. 

PEG programs reported focusing less on individual parent social activities and events and focusing 

more on an approach to building parent capacities in Year 2, not only to increase home support for 

child learning and development, but also to enhance parent mental health as well as parenting and 

broader skills for the current job market. A high proportion of teachers (74 percent) reported 

participation in home visits, which raises the potential that deeper connections are being made between 

the classroom and the home. 

The parent-program connection is an area that merits additional exploration for the PEG program. 

Although challenges remain with engaging and serving all families, given the other demands that many 

PEG parents have, universal participation may be unrealistic, yet programs should continue to be 

creative about ways to deliver programs and supports to parents that are flexible and responsive to 

different parent schedules. 
ED 524B Page 43 of 62

Conclusions 

A continuing theme of PEG implementation is the notable variation both across and within 

communities in the reach and intensity of supports for educators and for families. More needs to be 

learned about the extent to which variation in supports and services is based on (a) differences across 

programs in the intentional emphasis on different parts of the PEG model; (b) differences within 

programs in the level of need of individual educators and parents that may arise because of scheduling 

challenges, educator or parent motivation, or the like; and/or (c) structural and capacity challenges in 

fully implementing some or all of the PEG supports. 

Overall, it appears that the key quality components of the PEG model are being implemented with 

increasing intensity. Whether or not the PEG model impacts child outcomes will be better understood 

in spring 2018, when impact study findings from the PEG evaluation will be available. 

On-site or accessible Comprehensive Services for children and community partnerships that 

promote families' access to services that support their children's learning and development 

Plans to deliver high-quality comprehensive services and community and family engagement strategies 

have been required of all PEG grantee communities from the beginning stages of the implementation 

year. Like other PEG-required high quality preschool program indicators, EEC provided guidance in 

the DSS tool to every grant community with the expectation that each community develop and submit a 

plan and budget that meet expected programmatic enhancements. 

All PEG communities include a Head Start partner and many communities have adopted components 

of family engagement and comprehensive service strategies based on the Head Start model. 

Additionally, as part of the QRIS, programs are required to be trained in and adopt the Strengthening 

Families framework. In most non-Head Start community based organizations, offering a menu of 

comprehensive services at this level is a new practice, but has been refined in year two based on 

challenges and lessons learned from year one of implementation. 

There remains a significant amount of variation in community level plans to offer comprehensive 

services, as some services are being offered directly by the LEA partner, some via PEG funds, some 

accessed via other EEC-grant funded initiatives and others are contracting services to existing 

community vendors. Grantees continue to report that these additional services allow for greater access 

to specialized support staff, including but not limited to literacy specialists, mental health consultants, 

nurses, occupational therapists, vision and screening services, and speech therapists. 

In Year 1, all communities discussed the ongoing challenges in providing these services to children, 

highlighting the challenge of creating a streamlined process for creating access to services for children 

who are in various ELPs in one grantee community. In places where the provision of services varies 

across all ELPs, LEAs report the challenge of monitoring the provision of these services, and in 

response, have put clear expectations in place around what documentation will be collected during the 

audits to verify implementation of comprehensive services paid for by the grant. EEC staff continue to 

support communities through ongoing technical assistance and attendance at monthly grantee meetings 

to ensure comprehensive services are being adequately funded and accessible moving forward. 

In response to the lessons learned in the first two years of PEG, grantee communities have made 

progress in the effective implementation of these services. Overall, grantees have refined the approach 

to comprehensive services, and, in most cases, have a more targeted approach to what services they 

provide and at an increased intensity. Furthermore, grantees across the state have highlighted the need 

to increase and streamline access to mental and behavioral health services for children in PEG. 

• In year two, Boston ELPs all contracted with a community organization that provides mental 

and behavioral health consultation for children, onsite technical assistance for educators, and 
ED 524B Page 44 of 62

training. 

• In Lowell, a comprehensive service and family engagement coordinator was a newly funded 

position in PEG and provides oversight and coordination of all comprehensive services and 

general resource referrals for families. 

• Lawrence also increased the intensity of mental and behavioral health supports for children in 

year two. One ELP in particular funded a new mental health consultant position that provides 

support to children and families. 

• In planning for year two, Springfield LEAs and ELPs created a comprehensive service menu to 

provide programs guidance on what specific services would be available to all children, 

regardless of the program they are enrolled in. 

• ELPs in Springfield and Holyoke included onsite mental health consultation in their plans for 

year two. 

In Springfield, Lowell, and Lawrence, plans for year two comprehensive services also include onsite 

speech/language, occupational and physical therapy, in some cases contracted directly by the public 

school but also through contracts with local community organizations. Various technical assistance 

providers working with children and families in PEG programs has led to local level efforts to 

coordinate the team of technical assistance providers available to staff in the early care and education 

programs. The procedures and guidance for the coordination of services is in development across 

grantee communities. 

Every PEG community continues to engage with local EEC-funded CFCE grantee coordinators and 

other community partners to conduct outreach and provide support to educators working with families 

enrolled in the community partner programs, with a particular focus on outreach strategies for hard-toreach children and families, including those not currently served by early education and care programs. 

Although programs varied in the ways they provided these services, most programs have employed 

staff whose primary focus is working with PEG families and have instituted home visiting, volunteer 

and learning opportunities for parents, and screening and referrals for children and families. In most 

communities, family engagement staff are bilingual and work collaboratively with educators and 

leadership of public schools and community based providers to define and implement a communitylevel strategy to integrate family engagement strategies throughout the preschool programs. 

The majority of PEG programs (25 out of 28 centers - in Boston some smaller programs did not include 

this position) had a family support coordinator who organized group parent engagement activities and 

provided case management to PEG families. Programs continued to offer a robust set of opportunities 

for family engagement, including home visits. In Year 2, community and program leadership made 

efforts to increase the level of supports for families and to introduce more intentionality in the focus of 

the supports. Overall, family engagement was perceived as an area of improvement by a majority (65 

percent) of program directors and PEG programs reported focusing on building parents' capacity to 

support their child's learning, development, and safety. A high proportion of teachers (74 percent) 

reported participation in home visits, which raises the potential that deeper connections are being made 

between the classroom and the home. 

The following positive changes were reported for PEG family support efforts during Year 2: 

• Increased number of programs with dedicated family support staff and enhanced coordination in 

family support services across programs; 

• Increased consistency of individual contact with families through parent-teacher conferences 

with all families; 

• New strategies to build connections among parents and engaging parents about their child's 

learning and development in the classroom; 

• Parent education opportunities based on parent needs through enhanced partnerships with local 
ED 524B Page 45 of 62

agencies 

 

In Year 2, as in Year 1, PEG offered comprehensive services to families through a combination of 

program, district and referral-based staff. Family support specialists reported being more intentional 

and proactive in their planning for comprehensive services in Year 2 and noted that stronger 

relationships with the parents translated into better services for the families. It appeared that in Year 2, 

PEG programs more consistently linked parents and children to a range of health and social services 

and provided more services directly at the programs, especially mental health support services. PEG 

programs also increased their ability to link families to material supports, such as food and clothing and 

transportation. 

In general, family support specialists identified a high need for services among PEG families, and most 

challenges for families were directly related to the families' lack of income. The reported challenges 

include: 

• Unemployment, housing and transportation. 

• In two communities, specialists reported that increased numbers of families were facing 

homelessness or having to double up with other family members. 

• Many PEG families lived in neighborhoods with high levels of violence. 

• Some PEG families struggled with mental health and physical health problems. 

• In two of the communities, family support specialists described families as having increased 

fears about deportation, which negatively impacted the families' willingness to get involved 

with the program. 

PEG programs invested a great deal of staff time and resources in support for families, including home 

visits, multiple family events, case management and targeted mental health and behavioral supports 

(both to children directly and to support teachers working with particular children and families). 

In Year 2, PEG programs have demonstrated that collaborations between private early education 

programs and public school districts can effectively implement high quality early education programs 

and provide an effective entry point to the education system for families and children entering the 

system for the first time. 

Evidence-based health and safety standards 

Quality program standards, including evidence-based health and safety standards, for all early care and

education settings have been adopted by the Commonwealth. These include EEC licensing of preschool

programs, the QRIS, Federal Head Start Performance Standards, and NAEYC accreditation standards.

The EEC licensing regulations are recognized as some of the most ambitious in the country. Ensuring

all programs are frequently monitored and well-supported is crucial to the health and safety of children,

and to align the state's monitoring performance with its robust regulations, EEC continues to develop

new differential monitoring processes that will maximize the utilization of agency staff, enable more

frequent interaction between EEC staff and programs, and acquire additional licensing staff to improve

caseload ratios. 

Selection Criteria (D)(4) from NIA 

Describe the number and percent of Eligible Children served and the cost per slot.

All PEG-funded HQPP slots for eligible children reported here are considered new preschool slots, as 

Massachusetts focused on expanding access to preschool rather than improving quality in existing 

state-funded classrooms. None of the PEG-funded classrooms were supported by any of the grant 
ED 524B Page 46 of 62

funding that EEC has considered its key support for state preschool. As of December 1, 2017, PEG 

programs were serving 25 percent of eligible children in the five PEG communities. Expenses that 

contribute to the cost per slot are based on the remaining amount total funds available for grantee 

communities to serve eligible children ($14,250,000), after subtracting the LEA funding contribution to 

the PEG longitudinal evaluation ($648,617.00). The remaining sum after this calculation 

($13,601,383), divided by the number of new preschool slots (800), results in the cost per slot of 

$17,001.73. 
ED 524B Page 47 of 62

3. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships (Selection Criteria E 

of the application) 

Describe the extent to which the State has collaborated with each Subgrantee to ensure that each 

Subgrantee is effectively implementing High-Quality Preschool Programs (Selection Criteria E 

(1-9) of the application) and how the State ensures strong partnerships between each Subgrantee 

and LEAs or other Early Learning Providers, as appropriate.

EEC has developed a multi-pronged strategy to ensure that each subgrantee is effectively implementing 

HQPP that includes strong partnerships between EEC and subgrantee communities, as well as 

collaboration among partners within and across communities. These collaborative structures allow for 

careful monitoring and evaluation of program implementation, continuous program improvement, and 

program quality results. 

Attendance at Local Grantee Meetings 

Since the earliest stages of implementation, EEC's staff have supported subgrantees in the development 

of their local PEG programs. EEC staff have at times served in the role of a mediator and at other times 

have delivered answers to policy questions generated as programs looked for guidance on allowable 

implementation practice. In addition to this local-level support, EEC successfully completed a PEG 

Implementation Guide that provides general policy guidelines to answer questions that have surfaced 

over the course of the first year of PEG. 

Monthly LEA Calls 

EEC has begun to conduct monthly calls with LEAs from each community to discuss programmatic 

and fiscal updates. The calls also serve as a platform for grantees to discuss successes and challenges, 

creating a network of support among them. When topics are relevant to ELPs, representation from the 

community-based programs join as well. EEC is also offering a monthly check in with each LEA to 

provide TA and discuss challenges as they arise. 

Statewide Grantee Meetings 

EEC facilitates statewide grantee meetings at least twice per year to discuss general program updates 

and provide opportunities to discuss successes and challenges in implementation. Meetings have 

featured panels, presentations of evaluation data, across-community discussions around specific quality 

components, and time for community level planning. The network of learning has elicited positive 

responses from grantees, and contributes to the overall effort to ensure program quality. 

Longitudinal Evaluation 

Over the years of PEG funding, the multi-component evaluation plan includes: 1) a formative 

evaluation of PEG implementation and PEG-participating children's development, 2) an evaluation of 

the impacts (short-term and longitudinal) of PEG programs on children and families, and 3) an analysis 

of the costs of the quality improvements with preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness. 

The implementation findings of the first year evaluation were shared with communities individually 

and on a statewide level at two statewide meetings. Individual meetings with programs to review year 

one and two implementation and outcome findings are also planned, and have been completed in 

Boston. Programs are paying close attention to these results and have adjusted their approaches to 

educator supports and supports for families in response. 

Fiscal and Program Audits 
ED 524B Page 48 of 62

EEC requires that all PEG-funded partners in each community complete a DSS document to outline an 

implementation plan for HQPPs for eligible children. All quality criteria are used to guide collaborative 

local system-building efforts for preschool expansion services. These quality criteria encompass many 

of the elements measured through EEC's QRIS, those outlined by NAEYC Accreditation and include 

the HQPP from the USDOE. 

Explicit guidance on quality expectations from EEC is outlined in the DSS document and is intended to 

guide implementation plan development, driven by collaboration between the LEA and ELPs in each 

partnership, allowing for local level flexibility to ensure the plan addresses the unique needs of the 

community. All PEG grantee plans are submitted, and reviewed and approved by EEC staff on an 

annual basis. 

Ongoing monitoring of quality components occurs through a fiscal and programmatic monitoring/audit 

process that is scheduled to occur on an annual basis. EEC fiscal and programmatic staff conducted a 

monitoring visit to every PEG community by February 2016 to serve as a technical assistance fiscal 

and program compliance review for the PEG grant recipients. The purpose of the review was to 

introduce and train subgrantees on the monitoring procedures we expected them to use twice a year 

with each of their ELPs. One formal monitoring visit occurred in the first year before EECs audit of 

LEAs in the summer of 2016 and the initial audit in year two is finalized (with the exception of one 

LEA). The review and formal audit provided an opportunity for EEC to assess all LEA's compliance 

with the terms and conditions of the PEG grant, as well as, providing technical assistance if findings or 

issues of non-compliance were identified. EEC highlighted sound and innovative administration and 

management practices that were already in place. 

As a follow-up to the monitoring process in year one, yearly meetings between the Commissioner of 

EEC, the Superintendent of the LEA and the executive leadership of the community based partners to 

discuss progress and maintain the connection with leadership in each community. These meetings 

proved to be beneficial in year one and are underway in year two. 

Regional Monitoring Teams 

Three Regional Monitoring Teams (RMTs), one in each participating community, consist of an EEC 

Regional Director or designee, the, regional staff currently responsible for oversight of related state 

grant activities and initiatives, and program licensors. The RMTs assess progress on grant milestones in 

each community and discuss specific successes and challenges as needed, while informing areas of 

focus in LEA audits of ELPs. RMT's discuss progress within the QRIS system, identification of 

potential barriers, and identifying technical assistance that may be required. EEC licensing staff 

participate to discuss any regulatory considerations, and offer a broad perspective of the organizations 

that are involved in PEG. The RMT's are fully implemented and will continue in Year 3. 

 

Local Partnerships 

Local partnerships provide the cornerstone of the Commonwealth's plan. Each LEA serves as the 

state's subgrantee for funding. Each subgrantee community was chosen in part due the high level of 

needs of children. As a result, communities have experience serving children with high needs 

including English language learners, homeless children and children in foster care. Programs are able to 

continue the high quality services that they have always provided to these families. 

· The McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness has been used to provide guidance around the 

resident requirements for these programs. As of December, 27 of the children being served are 

known to be homeless, and instable housing and associated attendance problems have also been 

reported anecdotally across the communities. 

- Grantees anecdotally report the increased number of children that are involved in the child welfare 
ED 524B Page 49 of 62

system as participating in PEG in comparison to year one. As of December, 32 children enrolled 

are involved in the child welfare system. 

These collaborations are expected to support program design, coordination of program activities and 

funding, and coordinated decision-making among the LEA and participating EEC-licensed programs. 

Through local collaboration, each community has addressed challenges in system alignment and have 

supported organized and focused planning for referral and enrollment systems, transition to 

kindergarten activities, the provision of comprehensive supports for children and families, and 

professional learning for educators and leadership. 

Central to the success of these collaborations have been the clear structures and roles that have included 

opportunities for collaboration at multiple levels of program staff. The public school PEG coordinators 

have played a critical role in facilitating the partnerships with the EEC-licensed partner programs, 

managing the collaboration and ensuring that the shared vision and goals of the community organize 

the focus of the collaboration. 

In all PEG communities, the primary mechanism for this collaboration was the creation of a steering 

committee with representation from the LEA and each EEC-licensed provider. In some communities, 

multiple subcommittees were formed to ensure communication at different levels of leadership, such as 

subcommittees of executive management and of center directors, as well as those planning for 

particular programmatic requirements of the grant, such as family engagement supports, curriculum 

choices, and professional development activities. 

The collaborative decision making that has resulted has been important in the following areas: 

• Considering how to improve access to prekindergarten for all children locally and integrating the 

PEG program into any local enrollment systems; they have also considered how best to reach 

families and manage referrals. In some communities the public school has used their kindergarten 

registration resources to manage such a system. 

• Identifying key points of alignment to ensure smooth transition to kindergarten; these include 

aligned curriculum, familiarity with kindergarten expectations, conversations between PEG 

teachers and kindergarten teachers about classroom structures and expectations, and information to 

share with kindergarten teachers. They have also coordinated information sharing with parents 

about kindergarten enrollment and transition. 

• Engaging in continuous quality improvement; these groups provide a platform to review program 

data and make decisions about program adjustments in response. Such efforts should build stronger

and more consistent programming locally over time, although more support is needed to ensure that 

this work continues, as kindergarten and first grade data becomes available for review. A central 

focus of local data conversations include planning for professional development of educators and 

decision making around targeted services for children and families enrolled in the program. 

 

After two years of implementations, the basic structure of the program and the roles of each partner 

have become fairly well defined. Management structures are in firmly in place and include the 

following components: 

• Executive management - Boards or steering communities that include the executive leadership of 

the EEC-licensed programs and district staff meet quarterly in Boston and Lowell. In Lawrence, 

executive management is convened on an as-needed basis. 

• Program management - Steering committees or management teams staffed by the program 

managers in each agency meet monthly in all communities. In Holyoke and Springfield, executive 

managers are included in these meetings when issues are being discussed that require their 
ED 524B Page 50 of 62

attention. 

• Director meetings - In Boston, the directors meet monthly. As the program has matured, Boston 

Public Schools has increasingly used these opportunities to provide technical support to the 

directors in order to build their capacity as instructional leaders. In Lawrence, the directors meet 

monthly with each other and the public school district's Early Childhood Director, who also 

coaches PEG teachers, to discuss program implementation. 

• Subcommittees - In Lowell and Springfield, subcommittees are convened monthly for ongoing 

planning of particular program components, such as professional development and family 

engagement/ comprehensive services supports. These groups are staffed by program directors, 

other program and district staff working on these issues (such as coaches and family support staff) 

and PEG managers from all agencies. Other communities include these topics as part of other 

standing management meetings. 

• Superintendent- Commissioner Meetings - EEC's Commissioner meets with the Superintendent 

of each community and the program leadership once a year to discuss lessons learned and plans for 

the future. 

Monitoring - Each public school district conducts a programmatic and fiscal monitoring visit to 

every program twice a year. EEC then conducts a similar visit with the public school districts once 

a year, reviewing their program management and their monitoring processes and findings. 

While details of coordinating sharing child assessment data between PEG and kindergarten teachers/

administrators is underway, some key components of transition to kindergarten activities are planned to 

include; 

- Organized kindergarten registration events held jointly between PEG programs and the public 

schools 

- Records review to ascertain if the PEG programs already have on file information that is needed 

for kindergarten registration that can be sent directly to the school district 

- Planning for sharing of information between PEG teachers and kindergarten teachers 

Each community made their own decisions about the best organization of resources and services, given 

the expertise and capacity of each partner. 

- In Boston, for example, a strong early childhood department that has invested a great deal in its 

own internal curriculum and professional development efforts has taken a leadership role in 

organizing joint professional learning activities, and supporting curriculum implementation 

through coaching 

- Across all communities, the LEAs and ELPs are working together to organize professional 

development. Most communities are implementing subcommittees under the leadership of the 

EECs Workforce Specialist to organize their planning. By collaborating they can reduce costs 

of training and leverage existing resources more intentionally 

- Some communities share consultants that provide comprehensive services to reduce costs and 

improve coordination 

- Family engagement staff work together to offer joint family events 

The collaborative approach and the ability to plan locally has allowed each community to think 

creatively about the best ways to build on prior collaborations in the community. The varied nature of 
ED 524B Page 51 of 62

the programs in each community reflect the different landscape and needs in each. This flexibility has 

allowed for the braiding of PEG, subsidy and Head Start funding in Boston, which reduced the cost per 

child. 

As the programs mature, the integration of services and opportunities to reduce costs through more 

efficient collaboration continue. Comprehensive services is one area that has proven more expensive 

for programs than originally planned. Some programs planned to use contractors with whom they 

already had relationships to provide services, but planning for jointly services continue. Some programs 

have pooled funds to hire staff collectively, or have funded public school staff, to serve as specialized 

therapists. Programs that share the same location have had greater success in sharing these services. 

Additionally, the fact that the public schools, who provide services for children with IEPs, are part of 

the collaboration has supported conversations about the best ways to ensure children in community 

programs receive services. 

4. Alignment Within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum (Section F of the application) 

Describe progress the State has made for alignment within a birth through third grade continuum in 

activities for birth through age five programs ((F)(1)(a-b) in the NIA) and kindergarten through third 

grade ((F)(2)(a-d) in the NIA).

In the summer of 2013, Massachusetts applied for a grant through the National Governor's Association 

(NGA), Policy Academy-State Strategies to Improve Early Learning Outcomes. This provided 

Massachusetts an opportunity to draft a comprehensive Birth to Grade 3 Policy Framework, and 

formalize structures for collaboration and coordination of early learning policies and programs through 

the creation of a cross-sector NGA Policy state team, representative of all three state agencies under the 

Education Secretariat (EEC, ESE and DHE), as well as early childhood partners. 

In the spring of 2015, the team expanded to include additional representation from our state's education 

agencies, including our state's family engagement policy specialist, Head Start State Collaboration 

Director, and various education specialists. The team also included partners within health and human 

service agencies, including early intervention, home visiting and early childhood mental health. Under 

a new Governor and Secretary of Education, our state's Birth to Grade 3 Advisory Group is now under 

the leadership of Undersecretary Ann Reale. 

The work of the advisory has resulted in valuable partnerships, and an unequivocal commitment to 

expanding our work and to ensure alignment with our vision for Birth to Grade 3 systems as outlined in 

Building the Foundation of Future Success for Children from Birth through Grade 3. Members of the 

Advisory Group has broadened its collaboration by participating in national technical assistance 

opportunities such as the workforce learning table sponsored through the BUILD Initiative and the 

Center for Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (2016 and 2017), a family engagement consortium 

sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers focused on supporting states to build a Birth 

through Grade 12 family engagement framework (2017-2018), and a K-3 Policy Academy supported 

by the Education Commission of the State to consider policy levers that states can consider 

implementing in the K-3 space that build on the work of its early childhood systems, birth to five. 

These varied national opportunities position the state agency staff to continue coordinating and 

collaborating in an effort to strengthen services in the infant, toddler and early elementary space and 

opens the opportunity to engage critical partners in the PEG planning. 

1. Transitions for Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age Five 

(a) Our LEAs and ELPs have worked diligently to engage hard-to-reach families in PEG. 

While each community varied in its outreach strategies, there was an intentional and agreed 
ED 524B Page 52 of 62

upon goal of ensuring that education agencies worked to educate families about the benefits 

of preschool. Communities targeted outreach efforts to underserved and high need 

populations, including immigrant communities and homeless shelters. 

PEG programs in four communities are located in various locations and provide access to 

services for families across the community. This has been largely successful, although 

looking forward, communities are evaluating the location of PEG programs to determine 

whether they might relocate certain PEG classroom locations to areas with a higher demand 

for services. 

As mentioned in previous sections, EEC and ESE are working together to provide support to 

PEG grantees to consider ways in which they might adjust referral and placement processes 

at the local level to include more children with disabilities in PEG classrooms. 

(b) The PEG team regularly attends local PEG meetings to monitor PEG implementation 

and to strategize when challenges arise. While no major concerns have arisen regarding 

increased costs for other programs serving young children, the PEG team is cognizant of the 

possible challenges and will work proactively to address them. Concerns about attention to 

infant/toddler services, workforce development, as well as ensuring that identification of 

Bachelor degree teachers for PEG doesn't destabilize other early childhood classrooms, 

remain of utmost importance. 

2. Transitions for Programs Serving Children from Kindergarten to Grade 3 

(a) The PEG plan includes the use of TS GOLD as well as other standardized assessments 

of child outcomes outlined in our evaluation plan. The data from these assessments will 

inform professional development and family engagement practices, and will also provide 

EEC with information on where children are developmentally when they enter kindergarten. 

With representation from ESE, there are opportunities for coordination of transition 

practices as children move from preschool into kindergarten, including how to share data 

between prekindergarten and kindergarten educators, a priority in year two. 

Grantees report that to overcome the challenges of sharing specific developmental 

information about children as they transition to kindergarten, time must be spent making 

connections and building relationships with principals and other local elementary school 

administrators. Grantee communities are at various stages of connecting with these 

administrators, but there has been progress in smaller communities where it might be more 

likely the PEG program will know exactly what school a child will attend in kindergarten. 

For example, in Lawrence, ELPs have been paired with specific elementary schools that the 

current PEG children are likely to attend next year and they are engaging in a planning 

process to share administrative and developmental information to support the transition to 

kindergarten. 

Given the requirement for joint professional development, the PEG program provides early 

childhood administrators and educators in the five PEG communities with the opportunity to 

think about the alignment of learning environments, curriculum, instruction, assessment and 

family engagement opportunities across preschool and kindergarten 

 (b) One of the goals for the state's Birth to Grade 3 Advisory Group include the 

development of a comprehensive policy agenda that increases access to high quality early 

childhood programs and ensuring that children move through their early learning years with 

continued high quality experiences that ultimately lead to proficiency across developmental 

domains. Many of our PEG communities envision increased access to high quality 

preschool programs as a critical lever to improving child outcomes in the early years and 
ED 524B Page 53 of 62

beyond. 

As discussed above in the overview, we see this work as only being possible when local 

governance structures exist that allow for public and community-based preschool and 

kindergarten partners to collaborate together. Although this is complex issue, PEG 

programs are beginning to make more intentional connections with specific elementary 

schools and public school administrators. 

 (c) Plans for engaging parents and families in transitions between preschool and 

kindergarten are included as part of the grant's family engagement strategies. Each PEG 

community either has existing systems for engaging families in moving from preschool into 

kindergarten or they are collaboratively developing them as part of their PEG plans. Boston 

has a comprehensive approach to support all children in the city as they enter kindergarten; 

this initiative is called Countdown to Kindergarten. Other PEG communities have similar 

types of transition initiatives underway. Additionally, EEC in partnership with ESE, 

facilitated regional grantee meetings to enhance the coordination of grantee services, 

including local efforts to support families with the transition to kindergarten. Although some 

progress has been made to support these activities, this will remain an area of focus in year 

three and four. 

(d) Steps you have taken to build upon or align: 

(1) Child learning standards and expectations; 

As a state, we work very closely with our state education partners to ensure that our 

standards and expectations are attainable and aligned across systems. As mentioned in 

previous sections, the Birth to Grade 3 Advisory Group developed a statement that 

outlines these aligned expectations and we see our state standards (found in our 

Curriculum Frameworks) as one way that we ensure children have access to high quality 

early learning experiences. 

(2) Teacher preparation, credentials, and workforce competencies; 

Massachusetts participated in a learning table sponsored by the Center for Enhancing 

Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) and BUILD to focus on teacher preparation, 

credentials and workforce competencies in the B-3 space. The state team focused on 

moving forward a draft Birth to Grade 3 certification framework. The work of this state 

team will be linked to our state B-3 Advisory Group and PEG will benefit from the work 

of this group. As part of a broad workforce agenda, EEC is also evaluating and revising 

educator core competencies and categories of study that will inform credentialing 

moving forward. Additionally, MA engaged in a national, technical assistance 

opportunity, the K-3 Policy Academy sponsored through the Education Commission of 

the State. The focus of the K-3 policy academy is workforce development and seeks to 

align the workforce focus at EEC with K-3 to create a broader B-3 workforce agenda 

that engages EEC, ESE and the Department of Higher Education (DHE). 

(3) Comprehensive Early Learning Assessment Systems 

As mentioned in section 1(c), Massachusetts is currently using TS GOLD in many of its 

preschool and kindergarten classrooms. Conversation about our state's Comprehensive 

Early Learning Assessment System, including how to strengthen and align screening 

and assessment practices across the Birth to Grade 3 continuum, are underway with our 

state Birth to Grade 3 Advisory Group. 
ED 524B Page 54 of 62

(4) Data systems; and 

EEC is in the process of strengthening its data infrastructure for subsidized early 

education services. Discussions about how to incorporate data needs of the PEG 

program are underway. Children enrolled in PEG have been assigned a SASID. As the 

state continues to build its longitudinal data systems, having SASIDs for PEG enrolled 

children will allow us to understand the impact that PEG has on children as they move 

into the K-12 system. 

(5) Family engagement strategies 

All of our PEG programs are required to use the Strengthening Families framework to 

guide its work around family engagement. PEG communities look to Head Start's family 

engagement framework to guide community and program level practices. As the state 

rolls out its PEG evaluation, plans for how to better understand family engagement 

practices and the impact of those practices on child and families has been reviewed and 

shared with grantees. Attention continues to be paid to identifying new ways that the 

resources of each program, the public schools and EEC can be leveraged to increase the 

connections with families of children three years old and younger and conveying to 

them information about the PEG programs and the importance of prekindergarten. 

Additionally, participation in CCSSO's Family Engagement Consortium provides our 

state with a unique opportunity to build a birth to Grade 12 family engagement 

framework that builds on the work of Early Intervention, home visiting, early education 

and care programs, including Head Start and the PEG program, with the K-12 system to 

ensure that families have consistent opportunities to build relationships and engage with 

educators and practitioners around their child's development and learning from the 

earliest years up through high school. 
ED 524B Page 55 of 62

Section A: Part C - Competitive Preference Priorities

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Contributing Matching Funds (if included in the State's 

approved application). 

Describe the progress the State has made on its credible plan for obtaining and using non-Federal 

matching funds to support the implementation of its ambitious and achievable plan during the grant 

period. For progress not made in this area, please describe the State's strategies to ensure that 

measurable progress will be made by the end of the grant period. Please describe any changes made 

to the data reported in Table 7(a); explain if your Year 3 Target differs from the Year 3 Actual.

 

 Massachusetts has met its target for obtaining non-Federal matching funds via allocation of Chapter 70 

dollars. 

Chapter 70 education aid is the Commonwealth's primary program for distributing its portion of 

PreK-12 public education funding to the state's 328 local and regional school districts. The Chapter 70 

formula is written to ensure that each school district has the resources to provide an adequate education 

for all of its students. The formula accomplishes this by taking into account the ability of each district 

to contribute to the education costs of its students. The formula's broad goal is to ensure that less 

wealthy districts receive more state aid than wealthier ones, which have more of an ability to 

contribute. 

In state fiscal year 2018, the Commonwealth is spending $49M in state dollars through Chapter 70 

funding to support prekindergarten students. Of this, $14.1M are allocated to the 5 communities where 

the PEG program is in place. This amount exceeds that $5.9M required of PEG for the state match. 

EEC is able to claim these funds for our matching requirement for PEG Grant because no other agency, 

including ESE (the agency that administers Chapter 70), count these funds as a matching requirement 

towards any other programs. 

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Supporting the Continuum of Early Learning and 

Development (if included in the State's approved application). 

Describe progress made in creating a more seamless progression of supports and interventions from 

birth through third grade, such as high-quality infant and toddler care, home visitation, full-day 

kindergarten, and before and after care services for, at a minimum, a defined cohort of eligible children 

and their families within each high need community served by each Subgrantee. For progress not 

made in these areas, please describe the State's strategies to ensure that measurable progress will be 

made by the end of the grant period.

Massachusetts continues to build on the existing system framework for birth to grade three alignment 

efforts. Massachusetts has made intentional efforts to support the initial roll out PEG, and continues to 

work extensively with each grantee to plan and implement local birth through grade three efforts, 

monitoring their progress, and making recommendations for enhancing the work in future years of 

implementation. 

The establishment of cross sector partnerships, at the state level and the local level, is a success to 

report in year two, as considerable efforts have been made towards this goal. Although we are 

confident to report our success in accomplishing the foundation of this work at the state and local level, 

we recognize the need to continuously support this work in year two as a priority. In addition to the 

Birth to Grade 3 Advisory Group, there are other state level partnerships that indicate our progress 

toward creating a more seamless progression of supports. 
ED 524B Page 56 of 62

· As described in earlier sections of this report our LEAs and ELPs worked diligently throughout 

the spring, summer and fall to actively reach out to hard-to-reach families to engage them in 

learning about PEG opportunities. In local meetings, communities continue to discuss strategies 

for improving their outreach to hard-to-reach families. These efforts include collaboration with 

CFCE grantees, as well as other community organizations that support early intervention 

services. Outreach to engage families who have children in early intervention programs was 

challenging in year one, partly due to the eligibility criteria of no prior formal education 

experience in PEG and the fact these children were frequently referred to inclusive preschool 

settings when they were three years old. In recognition of this challenge, and to support the 

enrollment of children coming from other education programs during the birth to grade three 

years, EEC provided flexibility to this requirement, allowing up to 20 percent of enrolled 

children to have had prior formal education experience (and 50 percent in Springfield). 

· In the first two years of the grant, the PEG team began work with our state 619 coordinator, Head 

Start State Collaboration Office, ESE Early Learning team, and EEC inclusion specialist to 

develop joint professional development on inclusion to ensure that children with disabilities can 

have their needs met in community-based programs. This collaborative effort to co-construct a 

professional development plan with PEG communities (including ELPs, Head Start Disability 

Coordinators and public school early childhood special education staff) came about as 

challenges related to inclusion of children with disabilities were being discussed in 

communities. This joint professional development will serve as an opportunity to strengthen the 

work of the early childhood field to successfully include children with disabilities in all settings, 

including community-based programs. This effort also features planning around placement of 

children with IEPs in PEG classrooms, and the provision of service delivery models for these 

children. PEG communities continue to engage in this work and are working toward locally 

driven goals outlined in action plans and supported through technical assistance at the local 

level. 

In addition to effective state level efforts toward this goal, there has been considerable efforts at the 

local level in each grantee community. 

Children with IEPs 

While many children with IEPs attend community-based programs, the majority of them have 

received their special education services in public school settings. As the PEG sites were identified 

and in many cases designed, communities were in a unique position to collaborate to better serve 

children with disabilities in community-based settings and many proposed collaborative models 

where ELP staff and public school early childhood staff support children with disabilities. The 

partnership between district and ELPs has allowed them to build an infrastructure to properly refer 

children. LEA and ELP staff meet regularly and as part of these meetings, the communities have 

been building the process for referring children. These conversations also allow for community 

partners to work together to determine how to best respond to a child's needs, and the most 

appropriate placement for the delivery of IEP services, if the child is identified as eligible. 

Cross-sector Partnerships to Support Kindergarten Transitions and Alignment of Practice 

Through PEG, the Commonwealth has an opportunity to strengthen formative assessment practices 

in the preschool and kindergarten space and to create better alignment in assessment practices and 

the transition of data between preschool and kindergarten. Towards this efforts, PEG communities 

are creating plans to share prekindergarten data in PEG classrooms with kindergarten teachers in 

the local public schools. This practice was challenging to implement in year one, and this remains 

an area of focus for year two and beyond. 

In year two, some PEG communities have invested time in establishing relationships with local 
ED 524B Page 57 of 62

elementary school principals as a strategy to enhance the coordination of kindergarten transition 

activities for families and collaboration between PEG programs and kindergarten educators. 

Additionally, All PEG communities are planning events to support families in the kindergarten 

registration process. In many cases, PEG communities are offering these events to families at 

various times and locations to provide increased access to support. Additionally, PEG programs are 

offering families' information about required documentation for the application process and 

resources about what to expect in kindergarten classrooms. 

Targeted discussions about teaching and learning in the early elementary years and its alignment to 

approaches in prekindergarten are continuing to surface across the state. Although these 

conversations have surfaced in different ways in each community, and are at various stages of 

development, each highlight the trend toward cohesion in identifying and articulating a shared 

vision for classroom teaching and learning across the continuum. In some communities, 

discussions about the best ways to adapt and improve a shared curriculum have been the primary 

focus, while others have considered the implications of the CLASS observation tool for creating 

goals for both prekindergarten and kindergarten learning environments. All communities have also 

made time for discussions of the goals that teachers have for children as the enter kindergarten and 

the extent to which these goals are appropriate and supported by current programming. 

Competitive Preference Priority 3: Creating New High Quality State Preschool Slots (if included 

in the State's approved application). 

Describe progress made in using at least 50% of the State's federal grant award to create new State 

Preschool Program slots that will increase the overall number of new slots in State Preschool 

Programs that meet the definition of High-Quality Preschool Programs. For progress not made in this 

area, please describe the State's strategies to ensure that measurable progress will be made by the 

end of the grant period.

As stated in prior sections of this report, the only state funding provided to preschool programs comes 

in the form the grants to programs. All of EEC's state dollars at this time are allocated to quality 

supports and all funds to increase access to early education are sourced from CCDBG funds. Therefore, 

PEG funding represents an innovative approach to preschool financing that EEC hopes is replicated 

and replaced with state dollars by the end of the grant period. 

As mentioned in earlier sections, and as described in great detail in the sections that follow, the

Commonwealth Preschool Partnerships Initiative (the Planning Grant) has been funded by the State in 

fiscal year 2016 and 2017, providing a unique opportunity for existing PEG communities, and other

communities interested in the PEG model, to plan for high quality preschool programming.

Additionally, there are bills pending in the legislature - An Act ensuring high quality early

education,” H.2874 filed by Representative Alice Peisch and S.240 filed by Senator Sal DiDomenico.

If passed, these bills would provide funding for communities who have a plan to expand preschool. 

All funds received through PEG have been allocated as required in the support of the creation of new 

preschool slots. Specifically: 

Only 5 percent of funds have been retained by EEC for program administration and 95 percent of funds 

have been granted to LEAs to support expansion of new slots in licensed ELP programs. 

Each LEA has retained no more than 5 percent for program administration, thereby passing 95 percent 

of local funds on to fund direct service. 

ELP programs have been designed specifically to meet the PEG requirement of high quality (as 
ED 524B Page 58 of 62

described in detail above.) 

All program implementation has taken place in the five high needs communities outlined in EEC's 

application for PEG funds: Boston, Lowell, Lawrence, Holyoke and Springfield. 

As of December 1, 2016, programs were serving 763 children as compared to the original target of 755. 

Ongoing enrollment and periodic child turnover continues to increase this number. Braiding of funding 

streams in Boston has also allowed that community to serve more children than originally planned and 

MA has identified 800 potential slots in PEG-funded programs each year. 
ED 524B Page 59 of 62

Section B: Budget Information

Budget and Sustainability (Section G in the application) 

1. Please provide a brief explanation of any discrepancies between the State's approved budget and 

its total expenditures for the reporting year. Explain carry-over funds that have not been expended or 

obligated from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

Expenditures are defined as money that has been liquidated, not money obligated or encumbered. 

Expenditures are funds that have been liquidated for services rendered between January 1 and 

December 31, 2017. Funds are considered obligated under two circumstances. The first is when year 

three funds have been encumbered in the state accounting system prior to December 31, 2017. For 

example, funds that have been encumbered in the state accounting system for year three include funds 

for the longitudinal system as well as funds in the contracts for the LEAs for year three of 

programming that began in September of 2017 and will end in August 2018. The other circumstance is 

that fund obligation includes personnel costs (payroll, associated fringe and indirect) which are 

considered obligated because staff are hired and we anticipate funding their positions throughout the 

entire grant period. It should be noted that personnel costs are not encumbered in the state accounting 

system. 

The vast majority of the funds are encumbered through contracts, in particular contracts with LEAs for 

95 percent of the funds. These contracts were put in place in August 2017 for services that the LEAs 

and ELPs (through subcontracts with the LEAs) would render between September 1, 2017 and August 

31, 2018. All year 3 PEG funds subgranted to the LEAs were to be used for services during this time 

period, so that PEG funds could be used to fund a full program year. In year two, EEC made a 

decision to move to a cost reimbursement process with LEAs and funds will not be paid to the LEA 

until invoices are submitted. As a result, EEC has only expended funds from the year 3 budget to 

cover EEC staff and fringe costs, travel costs, a small portion of the longitudinal evaluation and 

payment for the first three months of programming to LEAs. The bulk of the evaluation costs and the 

amounts subcontracted to the LEAs and budgeted for year three will not be spent until later in year 

three, as planned. 

When we review our expenditures and encumbered funds for year three, we find that there is a 

discrepancy in state spending of $548,052 based on the approved budget from August 2017 (this is 

currently in Grads360). There were some marginal changes in staffing that occurred in year three of the 

grant that contributed to the discrepancy, as Sarah Volkenant was on leave for four months in 2017, 

leaving some personnel and fringe funds unspent, and a reconciliation of the Interagency Service 

Agreement (ISA) spending claimed by ESE also has necessitated a reallocation of fringe funds across 

years 1-4. Additionally, the majority of the funds currently encumbered in a contract to Abt Associates 

for the PEG evaluation have not yet been spent, as the year 3 evaluation is planned to be conducted 

between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018. Indirect spending was lower than budgeted as a 

result and funds we were required to allocate for participation in technical assistance were not fully 

spent. Additional discrepancies in funds allocated to subgrantees are discussed in question 3 below. 

 

2. Please describe any substantive changes that you anticipate to the State's Preschool Development 

Grant budget in the upcoming fiscal year (January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018).

EEC submitted a budget amendment in August 2017 that was approved by the USDOE in August 25, 

2017. The only changes we anticipate in our current budget amendment request are the following: 
ED 524B Page 60 of 62

• Reduced personnel costs in Year 2 resulting from a maternity leave taken by one of the PEG staff. 

• Small reallocation of fringe expenditures across years 1-4 as a result of expenditures through an 

ISA with ESE to cover the time spent by Donna Traynham on this grant. 

• Changes in indirect spending resulting from all other changes discussed. 

• Reconciliation of spending of the Year 2 funds indicated that grantees did not spend all of the 

funds allocated in Year 2 and these funds have been moved to Year 3 in the same line. As we 

are still disbursing Year 3 funds to grantees, we are only able to finalize the reconciliation of 

Year 2 expenditures. 

• Finally, we did not use all of our budgeted funds “for grantee participation in technical 

assistance” in Year 3 and so would like to reallocate these funds as well. 

3. Describe the State's progress on its plan for sustainability at the end of the grant period to ensure 

that the number and percentage of Eligible Children with access to High-Quality Preschool Programs 

in the State will be maintained or expanded, including to additional High-Need Communities.

Central to EEC's planning for sustainability has been the review of strategic plans submitted by the 

communities who received planning grant funding in year one of the PEG programs. The purpose of 

the planning grant was to support communities in identifying the local infrastructure, funding and 

supports that would be needed to increase access to high quality preschool programs, addressing all the 

high quality components of PEG, to children ages 2.9 through kindergarten entry. Thirteen 

communities were awarded the Commonwealth Preschool Partnerships Initiative (the Planning Grant) 

in 2016, Athol, Brockton, Cape Cod, Fall River, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, North 

Adams, Pittsfield, Somerville, Springfield and Worcester. The themes identified in these strategic 

plans were communicated to the MA legislature in the fall of 2016. The strategic plans documented 

strong need for both expanded access and quality improvements to early education opportunities for 

three and four year old children in the thirteen communities. 

• Many communities noted the need to provide greater access to children not currently attending 

any formal early education program. 

• All communities noted a strong need for affordable early education among families just over 200 

percent of the poverty line and ineligible for any childcare subsidies, yet unable to bear the full 

cost. 

• Transportation was noted as a need for families in all communities but only some included the 

provision of transportation in their plans; others looked at how programs might be distributed 

geographically to address this need. 

All plans also noted the need for on-going professional development supports for educators, in addition 

to efforts to ensure a competent and well-educated workforce through degree requirements and other 

measures of competency for educators. 

• On-going professional supports such as trainings, coaching and professional learning communities 

were considered in all plans. 

• Efforts to develop pathways to degree attainment were included in many plans through 

collaboration with local institutions of higher education. 

• Ways to increase educator compensation were considered as important to recruitment and 

retention, although not all plans committed to salaries commensurate with those in public 

schools. 

The importance of collaboration between public schools, early education providers and other local 

stakeholders was acknowledged in all plans, both through the appreciation expressed for the value of 
ED 524B Page 61 of 62

the collaborative planning process and the integration of such collaborations in the leadership and 

decision making structures. 

• The public school was identified as the lead agent in all but one plan. 

• All plans outlined collaborative management structures that included local early education 

providers. 

• Many plans included an advisory group or steering committee to provide guidance to the 

community management, which included a broader group of stakeholders in the community, 

such as institutions of higher education and business leaders. 

• The planning process provided the opportunity to develop a local system-wide vision for early 

education and effectively identify and deploy resources. 

One consistent message conveyed by all planning grant communities was that the planning process was 

an essential step in building the relationships and shared vision that is needed to implement publicly 

funded preschool through a public-private mixed delivery system. 

In response, the legislature including funding for planning grants in year two. These grants were used 

to provide new communities and opportunity to start the planning process or to support continued 

development of local plans to build in the specificity needed to transition to implementation and 

systematic feedback on the planning process to EEC. The themes of these plans were submitted in a 

report to the state legislature in early 2018. Strategic plans submitted to EEC by these communities 

focused on local needs and documented local efforts to simultaneously expand access while also 

building program quality components similar to Massachusetts' Preschool Expansion Grant model. 

Each community engaged their early education stakeholders in the planning process and proposed local 

governance structures for expanding preschool through a public/private partnership design. Grantees 

were required to develop plans that considered both expansion with their existing financial resources 

and with additional funding and supports. Activities that the grantees proposed with current resources 

included joint professional development opportunities, aligned curriculum, and developmental 

screening of children. Activities that the grantees said would be feasible with additional resources 

included the expansion of prekindergarten seats offering a variety of schedules, coordinated enrollment, 

family support services, behavioral health consultation, educator coaching, salaries commensurate with 

public schools that would help to attract and retain highly qualified educators, and pipeline programs 

with local community colleges. 

 

In reviewing both the most recent planning grants, communities have clearly expressed the need for 

expansion of access to prekindergarten seats, noting large numbers of children entering kindergarten 

without any prior early education experiences and detailing the cost and logistical barriers to families to 

accessing these programs. The planning grants have provided a much desired catalyst for communities 

to build local collaborations in support of the expansion and alignment of early education opportunities. 

The strategic plans that have resulted provide powerful road maps for the multitude of ways a 

community might build a mixed delivery system across public and private programs to coordinate 

prekindergarten access. At the same time, it is clear that while some alignment can be developed 

within current funding levels, the full implementation of these plans to expand access require additional 

funds. 

EEC is also supporting continued conversations about sustainability in each of the PEG communities. 

Each year, the Commissioner of EEC meets with each school district Superintendent and the executive 

leadership of the ELPs to discuss the PEG program and local plans for preschool expansion. A primary 

topic of conversation at this year's meetings, which occurred in early 2018, was the lessons learned 

from PEG and how these lessons are shaping the communities' plans for preschool expansion when 

PEG funding ends. Each community has engaged in its own planning for sustainability locally, and 

EEC is encouraging communities to think about how to blend local, state and federal funds to support a 
ED 524B Page 62 of 62

mixed delivery model. Each year, the Commissioner of EEC meets with Superintendent of each 

participating public school district and the local PEG leadership teams. In Year 3, local partners have 

begun to raise questions about how to advocate for additional state funding to sustain PEG 

programming after the federal grant period. Toward this goal, LEAs invited local elected officials 

including state representatives and city mayors to participate in these meetings to begin local 

discussions around sustainability. Communities discussed the critical components of their PEG 

programs and the impact on children and families. In each community, parents of children enrolled in 

the PEG program made statements about the personal impact on their family, citing the value of the 

program in supporting the needs of the entire family. 

In Boston, the Mayor's Office and BPS have been working for the past few years on their own needs 

assessment and planning process. Mayor Walsh recently announced a commitment to universal 

prekindergarten and proposed a change in the use of Convention Center funds that would provide the 

city the necessary funds. Acknowledging that Boston does not have a problem of access, but one of 

quality, the planning team is developing a system for both expanding seats in the high-quality BPS 

program and continuing to build community-based programs' quality capacity. Planning for 

implementation continues, and local stakeholders consistently integrate lessons learned from PEG in 

planning for future efforts. 

EEC also continues to work closely with the state legislature as they discuss the feasibility of state 

funding for universal prekindergarten. EEC has reported to the legislature on both the findings of the 

year one and two evaluation of the PEG programs and the results of the strategic plans submitted as a 

result of the preschool planning grants. The continued planning grant funding in year two reflects the 

legislature's commitment to this issue. 

4. Please provide a brief explanation of any discrepancies, if any, between the Subrecipients' 

approved budgets and their total expenditures for the reporting year. Explain carry-over funds that 

have not been expended or obligated from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

The PEG grant is structured to support programs in running from September to August, resulting in a 

delay in spending from year to year. Although the grant year 3 has ended, programs are still in the 

middle of their planned expenditures of these funds. Additionally, in the last two years, programs have 

encountered periodic challenges in hiring staff and when positions fall open, they may remain open for 

a period of time, leading to unspent funds. While these funds have always been allocated by the 

subgrantees to other needed services in their communities to enrich the program, these services 

generally are planned for the following program year. 

As of December 2017, all year three funds have been obligated. However, due to the program design 

and length of the program year, we do not expect liquidation until later in 2018 to cover all costs of 

implementation of year three of the program.