U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–199 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–864 

EXAMINING QUALITY AND SAFETY IN CHILD 

CARE: GIVING WORKING FAMILIES SECURITY, 

CONFIDENCE AND PEACE OF MIND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING QUALITY AND SAFETY IN CHILD CARE, FOCUSING ON GIVING WORKING FAMILIES SECURITY, CONFIDENCE, AND PEACE OF 

MIND 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL E. SMITH, Staff Director 

PAMELA SMITH, Deputy Staff Director 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairman 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa (ex officio) 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex officio) 

JESSICA MCNIECE, Staff Director 

(II) 
C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 1 

Burr, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............... 1 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............ 3 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 3 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ................. 5 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 27 

Hagan, Hon. Kay R., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ............. 34 

WITNESSES

Karolak, Eric, Ph.D., Executive Director, Early Care and Education Consortium, Washington, DC ......................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Bryant, Donna M., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, University of North Carolina 

FPG Child Development Institute, Chapel Hill, NC ......................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Brantley, Charlotte M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Early 

Learning, Denver, CO .......................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

(III) 

(1) 

EXAMINING QUALITY AND SAFETY IN CHILD 

CARE: GIVING WORKING FAMILIES SECURITY, CONFIDENCE AND PEACE OF MIND 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m. in Room 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Mikulski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Casey, Hagan, Franken, Bennet, 

Blumenthal, and Burr. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. This hearing will come to order. The Chair, 

Senator Mikulski, is stuck in traffic. So I’m going to get it started, 

but she’ll be here momentarily. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today on this extremely important topic, which is on early childhood education and 

care, and it’s something that I know that our Ranking Member, 

Senator Burr, cares about a lot. 

And why don’t I pass it off to you? If you have any statements 

you’d like to make, please do. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURR

Senator BURR. Well, I thank my colleague, and I look forward to 

the Chair’s arrival. I apologize for the weather to our guests from 

all over the country, but occasionally this happens. And I know 

that Maryland was deluged last night, and the Chair has to drive 

in from Maryland, so I’m sure she’s been taking some alternative 

routes. 

If I could, in her absence, let me talk about the Child Care Protection Act of 2011. This is a bill that Senator Enzi and I have introduced and the Chair has graciously co-sponsored. It’s one of 

many proposals for CCDBG reauthorization related to quality and 

safety that I believe this subcommittee, the committee and the 

Congress needs to consider. We’ll hear about another one from Senator Casey, who is just arriving. 

As we discussed at our last hearing, CCDBG has not been reauthorized since 1996, and there are critical, commonsense changes 

needed to ensure that infants and toddlers receive high-quality 

care in a healthy and safe environment, and I want to stress high 
2 

quality in a safe environment. Far too many kids in this country 

are in child care subsidized and paid for by the Federal Government that is not safe, healthy, or of general good quality. 

While it’s important for working parents to have the access to 

child care, what’s more important is to have access to quality child 

care. One of the more commonsense changes that I propose is a 

background check. When parents leave their children in the care 

of someone else, they want to know that their children are in a safe 

place. Parents shouldn’t have to worry that they might be dropping 

their children off to be cared for by someone who has been convicted of a violent crime. 

Although a recent survey found that 95 percent of parents with 

children under 5 support a background check for child care providers, and 85 percent of parents assume that the child care providers have gone through a background check or they wouldn’t be 

there working with children, only 10 States require that child care 

providers complete a comprehensive background check, State and 

Federal fingerprint checks, as well as comparing individuals’ 

names against sex offender lists and child abuse and neglect registries. 

The Child Care Protection Act would institute a comprehensive 

background check for child care providers to assure parents that 

their children are being taken care of by quality individuals in a 

safe environment. Let me just highlight for a second for my colleagues some of the pieces that are found in this Act. 

It requires States that receive funds under the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant program to conduct comprehensive background checks, State and Federal fingerprint checks, sex offender 

registry checks, and a check of child abuse and neglect registry for 

all licensed, regulated, or registered providers. 

It makes individuals ineligible to be employed by a child care 

provider, operate a family child care home, or receive child care 

subsidies if such individual refuses to consent to a background 

check, makes false statements in connection with a background 

check, is registered or required to be registered on a State sex offender registry, or has been convicted of a violent crime, including 

child pornography, spousal abuse, a crime involving rape or sexual 

assault, kidnapping, arson, or physical assault, battery, or other 

drug-related offenses committed within the last 5 years. 

It requires that background checks be processed as expeditiously 

as possible, and restricts fees to the actual cost or less to the State 

for the administration of background checks. 

It requires complete background checks to be repeated every 5 

years, and it requires States to have an appeals process in place 

by which a child care staff member may appeal the results of a 

criminal background check to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the individual’s criminal background report. 

It becomes effective 2 years after the enactment of this Act. 

It’s very straightforward and I think easy to understand what 

we’re getting at. We’re trying to bring the uniformity across the 

country of the need to police better those who work in child care 

facilities and to give that ultimate assurance to every parent that 

if there are Federal funds involved, then the individuals who have 
3 

worked there have been thoroughly vetted and checked. And I 

would hope that my colleagues unanimously would support this 

Act. 

And with that, I will conclude, as I see our illustrious chairwoman entering the room, and I’m sure she will have some remarks to make. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. Good morning, everybody. Sorry I’m late. 

Senator Franken, thanks for kicking off the hearing. 

I’m going to catch my breath a minute. 

Senator Casey, I know you’re going to have some ideas to 

present. But first, I understand that they’re evacuating 100,000 

people from Wilkes-Barre, so I know you’ve got a lot on your mind 

this morning, and our heart goes out to your constituents. 

For those of us who are coastal Senators, we know what it’s like 

to live through hurricanes and floods, and Minnesota has had its 

share, yes, earthquakes, etc. So this seems kind of a benign environment compared to what’s going on. 

Let me just say a few words, and I’ll give my own statement a 

little bit later. I’m going to go right to you because I know you have 

another commitment and an emergency situation. 

First of all, thanks for everybody coming, our experts and our 

colleagues. The purpose today is really on quality and safety and 

making sure that families have confidence and peace of mind when 

they turn to use child care, and I’m going to compliment my colleagues on their initiatives and the ideas in the legislation they’ve 

introduced. 

Senator Burr and I have worked for some time on protecting vulnerable populations. I want to thank him for his contribution, on 

his idea on child safety and making sure that we really do the appropriate screening so no child is vulnerable in child care, and we 

look forward to seeing how we can incorporate that in upcoming 

legislation. 

Senator Casey is a longstanding advocate of children. Every 

issue, he makes sure there’s a children’s focus as we look at it and 

has put a lot of thought into both the reauthorization of the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant, and also the emphasis on 

quality and safety. 

Senator Casey, why don’t we hear your ideas? We’ve heard Senator Burr’s. Then we’d like to go to our distinguished panel, and 

hi to you. And then we can have just a general conversation. But 

if you need to go, I think we have an idea of where you want to 

go ahead; OK? 

So, Senator Casey, why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Madam Chair, thank you very much. We’re 

grateful for this opportunity. We’re also grateful that you got here. 

I was actually traveling similar roads last night, and it was bad 

last night. I can only imagine how bad it is today where you were, 

so thank God you’re here. 
4 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and all of our colleagues. I know that Senator Mikulski, as the chair of the subcommittee, has had a determined focus on a number of issues that 

relate to children, especially today on this issue of child care. And 

I know that Senator Burr and Senator Franken, who started us off 

today, have similar concerns. 

I think we’re focused principally on one of our priorities, our children, and obviously their parents and their caregivers, because if 

we say we care about our kids, and as I’ve often said, every child 

is born with a light inside them, if that light is going to reach the 

full measure of its potential, then we’ve got to get a number of 

things right, and one of those, of course, is child care. 

For the reasons that Senator Mikulski just outlined, if it’s in a 

phrase, it’s peace of mind, so that when a parent begins a relationship with a child care facility, that they can do that with the peace 

of mind to know that they’ll be getting the kind of care they would 

hope to see, as if they were with their child every moment of the 

day and that that child is going to have the kind of quality early 

care and education that we should have a right to expect. 

I’ll just highlight one piece of legislation, and then we can move 

on. I have a bill called Starting Early, Starting Right, Senate bill 

1155, and it basically focuses on four major areas. 

First, the health and safety issues, obviously. 

Second, access to child care and payments to providers. There’s 

a whole series of provisions on that. 

Obviously, third, quality, the quality of the care and the services 

provided. 

And then finally, the workforce that we need to have in place to 

take care of our children. 

So I think this issue of child care is a bipartisan concern. No 

matter where you turn, we have folks in both parties all across the 

country concerned about this as a major part of our workforce and 

as a major part of our ability to grow the economy of the United 

States of America, and this is one of the most important hearings 

we’ll have, I think, on any issue that relates to children this year, 

and I want to thank Chairwoman Mikulski for bringing us all together. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Casey. 

This is the second of our hearings. The first one was about ‘‘do 

we get a bang for the buck? ’’ In other words, we have to have a 

frugal government, and therefore our investments need to be very 

targeted, and we established that in early education and it was a 

terrific investment. Again, we like to be evidence-based and datadriven. Now we’re onto quality and safety, and we want to get— 

and I think this is what Senator Burr and Senator Casey have 

talked about, and other of our colleagues have talked about—now 

we’d like to get ideas from our panel on what you think are the 

must-do list to ensure that we can ensure safety and quality, but 

also look at the budget realities, that we can’t have every training 

program we’d like to have, but we need to have a must-do list than 

a should-do list and a we-would-like-to-do list. And if you could 

share your insights, your experience, your scholarship with us, it 

would be greatly appreciated. 
5 

I’m going to introduce Dr. Karolak, who represents, as the executive director, the Early Child Care and Education Consortium. This 

is an alliance of more than 7,500 early learning programs providing 

care and education to over a million children in all of our States 

and the District of Columbia. You led, Dr. Karolak, as I understand, the National Child Care Information Center, which was the 

largest clearinghouse and technical assistance program for early 

education care. And one of the questions I’ll ask you later, I’ll just 

tell you now, is that we had an excellent hearing where we reviewed also military child care for information purposes, and we 

know that they have a national hotline for individuals to report 

any issues related to safety violations or suspected child neglect or 

child abuse, because as much as we want to do inspections, they 

might be limited by the State to one a year. We’re going to insist 

on inspections in whatever we do, but there’s nothing like people 

being on the ground. So we need watchdogs. 

You know, we all like to do hotlines, so that will be one of the 

questions I ask you. But I know that you’ve conducted policy research and fiscal analysis in the area of child welfare. So we’ll look 

forward to having your testimony. And we’ll just introduce everybody. 

Senator Burr, did you want to introduce Dr. Bryant? 

Senator BURR. I would be delighted to. Donna Bryant is the senior scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the 

finest institutions in the country, I might add. That’s tough for a 

Wake Forest graduate to admit, but given that two of my sons, 

both my sons graduated from Chapel Hill, I have to claim part of 

it. 

Dr. Bryant has been at Frank Porter Graham for 33 years. Her 

current research focuses on the evaluations of quality indicators 

and quality rating and improvement systems. Over the years, Dr. 

Bryant has conducted studies on child care centers, family child 

care home visit programs and other programs that provide early 

intervention and prevention for at-risk children. She’s done much 

of the evaluation work for the North Carolina Smart Start Program, which I know Senator Bennet is familiar with. 

We are delighted to have you here today and to have your expertise and knowledge as part of this hearing. Thank you for being 

here. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And then, Senator Bennet, Dr. Brantley. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET

Senator BENNET. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to 

thank you and Senator Burr for your bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our children have access to safe and high-quality 

childcare. It’s always such a pleasure to come to these committee 

hearings because of that. 

I also want to thank you for bringing Charlotte Brantley to 

Washington to highlight some of the great work happening in Colorado on this topic. I’ve had the honor of working with Charlotte, 

and she’s got a wealth of experience and great insights to share 

with the committee today. 
6 

Charlotte has dedicated her career to the field of early childhood 

development and education. She has a deep understanding of the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant, is a leading advocate, an 

incredibly skilled practitioner, and I’m so pleased to welcome her 

here today. 

Charlotte runs the Clayton Early Learning Center in Denver. 

Last year Clayton was named a Center of Excellence by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. Clayton is part of the 

Denver Preschool Program, which provides parents with additional 

subsidies to attend high-quality child care centers like Clayton. I 

might add that it also enabled the Denver Public Schools in 1 year 

to go from serving 500 4-year-olds in early childhood education to 

2,000 4-year-olds in early childhood education. 

Clayton is a model in continuous improvement using research to 

identify the best practices and integrating them into the learning 

environment for the children and their Head Start and Early Head 

Start programs. Charlotte understands early learning policy options, and I hope you will enjoy her testimony. I apologize that I 

will likely have to step out for votes on the Banking Committee. 

But the one thing I can tell you about Clayton is that every one 

of us would be proud to have our children or grandchildren in that 

program, and that ought to be the standard we have for all the 

children across the United States. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Welcome. Dr. Karolak, we’re going to go right 

with you and then work down. We know that many Senators wanted to come, but once the President announced his jobs speech 

today, everybody is doing double duty and triple time. So don’t 

think that because they’re not here—they’re represented very well 

by their staffs, and I think there is a mood in this subcommittee 

for us to really try to form a bipartisan bill, and we look forward 

to your advice and counsel. 

Doctor, do you want to kick it off? 

STATEMENT OF ERIC KAROLAK, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION CONSORTIUM, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. KAROLAK. Understood. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, Senator Franken, and other members of the subcommittee. It’s a real privilege to be here with you today and to 

have the committee focused on the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant and possible reauthorization in the near term. 

Those 7,500 centers enrolling nearly a million children in every 

State in the country share something in common. They share a 

common commitment to developing high-quality early learning programs at scale. However, my members represent only a small portion of the child care market, and quality varies widely in this diverse industry. 

Just about every parent I’ve spoken with—rich, poor, urban, 

rural—anguishes whether they’ve found the right, the best arrangement for their child, and too often care bought with public 

subsidies is of lower quality than it should be. Still, for the families 

who receive this help, this assistance is nothing short of an economic lifeline. 
7 

Child care is a vital resource. Parents need child care in order 

to go to work, and children in care learn the skills they need to succeed in school and in life. This two-generation impact, benefits to 

the child and to the parent, helps our Nation stay competitive with 

a stronger workforce today and into the future. 

It’s impossible really to talk about one component of child care 

in isolation. Health and safety requirements are the foundation for 

quality, and quality has an impact on the cost of care, and cost affects affordability and access, and all of these are a function of the 

available public and private resources. 

Since 1990, CCDBG has helped literally millions of Americans, 

low-income working families, pay for child care, but its requirements and funding levels have been limited. States are required to 

have health and safety regulations, yes, but standards specifically 

vary by State, and vary widely. And funding has not kept pace 

with the growth in demand or the rise in cost. Over the last decade, the number of children likely eligible rose, while the number 

of children helped through CCDBG actually fell. Today, only one in 

six eligible children receives assistance. 

Stagnant funding has also dramatically eroded CCDBG’s buying 

power. In 2001, 22 States reimbursed child care at the federally 

recommended level, which meant a parent with CCDBG could purchase care at three out of four providers in her community. Today, 

however, only six States reimburse at that level, and many pay far 

less, which means that parents are less able to access high-quality 

care, and participating providers have fewer resources with which 

to deliver it. 

Now, the recession has affected squeezed family budgets, and 

we’re beginning to see cuts at the State level. North Carolina’s 

child care waiting list increased nearly 25 percent in the last year. 

In Maryland, Child Care Resource Network, a vital support for 

training and quality improvement, was cut by nearly 20 percent 

last year. Our members across the country have seen families lose 

child care assistance and reluctantly leave our programs to seek 

cheaper, lower-quality arrangements. 

So this is the context as we examine ways to improve CCDBG. 

What can be done quite literally really depends on the resources 

that we are able to bring to bear in any reauthorization. With few 

resources, States could lengthen the eligibility period to 1 year and 

create different initial and continuing eligibility limits. This would 

improve continuity of care and provide an added measure of stability for families and providers. 

With more robust additional funding, States could develop quality rating and improvement systems, which I understand the other 

speakers will speak to also. Although half of the States currently 

have quality rating and improvement systems, most do not adequately fund the cost to reach or maintain higher levels of quality. 

That will need to be addressed if the potential of quality rating and 

improvement systems is to be realized. 

Other ideas along a kind of resource reform continuum include 

incentivizing quality and reimbursement policies. States should be 

required to raise rates over time at least to that minimum Federal 

recommended level so that parents have greater buying power in 

the marketplace. 
8 

1 ECEC Child Care Provider Survey 2009 (Early Care and Education Consortium, May 2011). 

Available online at http://ececonsortium.org/ChildCareProvSurvey.pdf. 2The 2007 Child Care Licensing Study (National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center and the National Association for Regulatory Administration, February 2009), pp. 

8–9. Available online at http://www.naralicensing.org/2007lLicensinglStudy. 

Strengthening health and safety requirements and making them 

more uniform across States and among providers is important. We 

support basic child protection such as annual inspections and minimum pre-service and ongoing training requirements. 

Moving toward requiring providers paid by CCDBG to meet minimum licensing standards. Unlicensed providers have become a 

large part of the subsidy system in a number of States, accounting 

for 1 in 5 children served overall. This is a long-term goal that will 

require new strategies and resources to address. 

There is much that can be done if we commit ourselves. Pursuing 

any of these reforms without adequate funding will mean either 

the anticipated improvement will not materialize or that fewer children will be served and working parents will lose access to care, 

to that vital economic lifeline. We can’t afford either of those options. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karolak follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC KAROLAK, PH.D. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Burr, and members of the Subcommittee on Children and Families. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on 

quality and safety in child care. 

I am Eric Karolak, executive director of the Early Care and Education Consortium 

(ECEC), an alliance of America’s leading national, regional, and independent providers of quality early learning programs. Consortium members operate more than 

7,500 centers enrolling nearly 1 million children in all 50 States and the District 

of Columbia. Our members include private non-profit organizations and for-profit 

companies who offer full-day/full-year programs for children birth through age 12, 

State-funded prekindergarten, before- and afterschool programs, extended day, and 

summer programs in licensed centers with enrollments that reflect the rich diversity 

of our communities and Nation. 

ECEC’s members share a commitment to providing quality child development and 

early learning programs at scale—across the member locations of a State association, across the hundreds of centers of a modern corporation, across the affiliates 

of a national non-profit. Everything we do is devoted to assuring that the children 

in our care are happy and successful, and develop to their full potential as students, 

future employees, and citizens. 

This commitment to quality shows in results from a recent survey of our membership,1 which found that: 

• six out of ten ECEC member centers surveyed were accredited or seeking accreditation; 

• more than 70 percent of ECEC member centers participate in their State’s quality rating and improvement system—more than a quarter at the highest quality rating possible; 

• more than 60 percent of our lead teachers have 5 or more year’s experience, and 

nearly one-third have 10 or more year’s experience. 

ECEC is the largest national organization of licensed child care centers; of centers 

participating in the child care subsidy program and in the Child and Adult Care 

Food Program; of community-based providers of State-funded prekindergarten; and 

of providers of employer-sponsored child care programs—all signs of the confidence 

public and private consumers place in ECEC’s members as providers of high quality 

child care and early learning programs. 

However, ECEC members represent only about 7 percent of the more than 

110,000 licensed child care centers operating nationwide, and none of the nearly 

200,000 licensed family child care homes, nor any of the countless unlicensed providers.2 Quality varies widely in this diverse industry. And too often, the care that 

is bought with public subsidies is of lower quality than it should be. Still, for the 
9 

3 Vandell, D., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & the NICHD Early 

Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development, 

81(3), 737–56. 4 Art Rolnick and Rob Grunewald, ‘‘The Economics of Early Childhood Development as Seen 

by Two Fed Economists,’’ Community Investments (Fall 2007), pp. 13–14. This overview and numerous other works exploring the economic returns from investing in high quality early childhood programs are available from the Web site of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank at 

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicationslpapers/studies/earlychild/. 5 Hannah Matthews, Child Care Assistance in 2009 (Center on Law and Social Policy, March 

2011), p.3. Available online at www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/childcareassistance 

2009.pdf. 6 Base year funding for CCDBG has remained essentially flat since 2000. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 included $2 billion in funds for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, but States have expended these one-time monies. 

families who receive help with the cost of child care, this assistance is nothing short 

of an economic lifeline. 

Child care is a vital resource for America’s families, our communities, and our Nation’s future. 

Parents need child care so they can go to work. With child care, families can get 

ahead because parents have the support and peace of mind they need to be productive at work. Children in child care learn and develop skills they need to succeed 

in school and in life. The most recent findings from the National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development’s study of child care show that the positive effects 

of high-quality child care on academic achievement and behavior in a child’s early 

years last at least through adolescence.3 And numerous economic analyses detail the 

substantial return on investment expenditures on quality early childhood education 

and care have, up to a return of $8 for each $1 spent.4 This two-generation impact— 

benefits to the child and to the parent—helps our Nation stay competitive, with a 

stronger workforce now and in the future. 

It’s impossible to talk about any component of child care in isolation. Health and 

safety requirements are the foundation for quality. Quality has an impact on the 

cost of care, which affects program access and affordability. And all are affected by 

the available resources. 

The child care market is in reality countless local markets with wide variations 

in the quality of care provided. Some local markets operate well, others imperfectly 

with resulting shortages or other dysfunctions. No matter the market, quality costs. 

Some parents enter these markets with college degrees, ‘‘9-to-5’’ jobs, and healthy 

incomes; others have fewer advantages, work non-traditional-hour jobs in our 24/7 

economy, and live in underserved areas. Over the last 15 years, I’ve heard from 

many parents in a variety of socio-economic circumstances, from Philadelphia attorneys to Toledo factory workers, anguished about whether they’ve found the best possible child care arrangement for their child. 

Since 1990, the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) has helped 

literally millions of low-income working Americans pay for child care, care they otherwise might not be able to afford but which they need to work or to attend job 

training or educational programs. While CCDBG has helped low-income working 

families afford child care, its requirements and funding levels have been limited. 

We all know that strong health and safety requirements are the foundation of 

quality programming, but at the time CCDBG was created States strongly opposed 

national standards in this area. States were required to have health and safety regulations, but what those requirements were was left to the discretion of the States. 

CCDBG also was designed to help States improve the quality of child care. States 

must spend at least 4 percent of their block grant award on activities that improve 

the quality of care. On average, States spend nearly 7 percent on these quality initiatives; along with additional funds targeted for other quality activities and improvements in infant/toddler care and school age care, State spending on quality activities in 2009 approached 1 billion or about 11 percent of CCDBG expenditures.5

New health and safety requirements, like new quality initiatives, will come with 

added costs to the States and to providers. 

Over the last decade, Federal funding has not kept pace with the growth in demand or the rise in the cost of child care.6 As a result, during this period, the number of children living in low-income families that may be eligible for child care as-
10 

7 Hannah Matthews, Child Care Assistance: A Program That Works (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2009), p. 2. Available online at http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/ 

0452.pdf. 8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Services Policy, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and 

Receipt for Fiscal Year 2006 (April 2010). Available online at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.shtml. 9Karen Schulman and Helen Blank, State Child Care Assistance Policies 2010: New Federal 

Funds Help States Weather the Storm (National Women’s Law Center, September 2010). Available online at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/statechildcareassistancepolicies 

report2010.pdf. 10 ‘‘Additional Child Care Funding Is Essential to Prevent State Cuts’’ (National Women’s Law 

Center, August 18, 2011). Available online at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/additional-childcare-funding-essential-prevent-state-cuts. 11 ECEC Child Care Provider Survey 2009 (Early Care and Education Consortium, May 2011), 

p. 10. 12 ‘‘CalWORKS Stage 3 Funding is Crucial for Families, Child Care Providers and the Economy’’ (Early Care and Education Consortium, Updated December 8, 2010). Available online at 

http://action.ececonsortium.org/site/DocServer/ECEClCallParentlStorieslupdatedl12.8. 

10.pdf. 13 Child Care and Development Fund Report of State and Territory Plans, FY2010–11 (Child 

Care Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

sistance rose while the number of children helped through CCDBG actually fell.7

Today, only one in six eligible children receives assistance through CCDBG.8

Stagnant funding has brought a dramatic erosion in the buying power of CCDBG, 

with hardships for families and participating providers. In 2001, 22 States reimbursed child care at the federally recommended 75th percentile of the State’s market rate survey. In other words, in nearly half the States, a parent with CCDBG’s 

assistance could choose to buy child care from three out of every four providers in 

her community. In 2010, only six States reimbursed at the 75th percentile, and 

many States pay far below that essential level.9 This dramatic reduction in reimbursement rates means parents are less able to access high quality care; providers 

participating in the subsidy program have fewer resources with which to deliver 

quality programming; and other providers are deterred from participating in the 

subsidy program. 

And in the last few years, we’ve seen the impact of the economic downturn, compounded by State budget cuts. Family budgets have been squeezed, and many 

States have cut back general fund appropriations for child care. North Carolina’s 

waiting list for child care assistance increased from 37,900 in 2010 to 46,700 in 

2011; in Maryland, funding for the Child Care Resource Network, a vital support 

for training and quality improvement, was cut by nearly 20 percent; Arizona has 

cut the number of children receiving child care assistance from 48,000 to 29,000 

since February 2009; and in Denver, CO they’ve stopped accepting applications for 

child care assistance altogether.10

As a result, ECEC members have seen families receiving child care assistance 

forced to leave our programs and seek cheaper, lower quality arrangements. And 

many providers have been forced to make difficult decisions regarding whether to 

continue enrolling families receiving child care subsidies and even whether to keep 

centers open especially in low-income neighborhoods.11

Families are under huge stresses in our rapidly changing economy. With twoincome families now the norm, child care is as vital to the family economy as it is 

to the economy of our communities and our Nation. For many parents, if they lose 

child care assistance, they have no alternative but to buy cheaper care that is less 

safe and less stable, making it harder for parents to work, and less supportive of 

their child’s healthy growth and development. As a Tehachapi, California bank employee, facing the loss of child care assistance told us recently, ‘‘I am very concerned 

of who my children will be with on a day-to-day basis as I will not have a stable 

child care for them.’’12

It is important to keep this context in mind as you examine ways to improve the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant. Congress has a number of options to consider, drawing on innovations pioneered in States with CCDBG funds and benefiting 

from a rich body of research in early childhood education. What improvements specifically can be accomplished is a function of the level of resources that can be 

brought to bear in reauthorization. 

For example, with few new resources, CCBDG reauthorization could require 

States to lengthen the eligibility period for child care assistance to 1 year, and to 

create different initial and continuing income eligibility limits. Already 25 States 

have annual eligibility determination, and 11 States allow families to remain in the 

subsidy program at a higher income level than the threshold for initial eligibility.13
11 

Services, n.d.). Available online at http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/files/resources/sp1011full-report.pdf. For States with tiered income eligibility levels, the most recent census is included in Child Care 

and Development Fund Report of State and Territory Plans, FY 2008–9 (Child Care Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.). 

Available online at http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stateplan2008-09/index.html. 14 NAEYC Quality Rating and Improvement Systems Toolkit (National Association for the 

Education of Young Children, July 2010). Available online at http://www.naeyc.org/policy/ 

statetrends/qris. 15Office of Child Care, ‘‘FFY 2009 CCDF Data Tables (Preliminary Estimates),’’ Table 4—Percent of Children Served in Regulated Settings vs. Settings Legally Operating without Regulation. Available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdfldata/09acf800 

lpreliminary/table4.htm. 

This would enhance quality by assuring continuity of care, insulating children from 

abrupt changes in their care arrangements caused by temporary or modest changes 

in family circumstances, and providing an added measure of stability for low-income 

families and the providers who serve them. 

With robust additional funding, States could develop voluntary quality rating and 

improvement systems (QRIS) that provide a framework for parents to understand 

different levels of quality and for programs to be rewarded and compensated for the 

additional costs of achieving and maintaining higher levels of quality. Already half 

of the States have a QRIS; however, most do not include adequate resources for provider supports and financial incentives that are essential to make meaningful and 

sustained quality improvements. In fact, most do not even pay at the 75th percentile 

for higher quality care.14 Adequately-funded, QRIS can create a roadmap to quality 

for programs, help parents navigate the market, and move more low-income children into quality programs. 

In between these ends of a reform continuum, there are many potential improvements and a few that deserve consideration include: 

• Incentivizing quality in reimbursement policies. Ultimately, States should 

be required to raise rates over time at least to the 75th percentile of currently valid 

market rates. This would increase the buying power of CCDBG and allow parents 

to access higher quality providers. • Strengthening health and safety requirements and making them more 

uniform across States and among providers. Many minimum standards vary 

widely from State to State and by type of provider. These fundamental elements of 

quality should not be subject to the accident of location or the choice of provider. 

We support basic, consistent child protections in health and safety regulations. With 

appropriate funding, changes could be made that would fundamentally improve 

quality by, for example, requiring annual inspections and setting minimum pre-service and on-going training requirements for providers. • Moving toward requiring all providers paid through CCDBG funds to 

meet minimum licensing standards. The government requires States to regulate 

child care, but in practice unlicensed providers have become an important part of 

the subsidy system in a number of States, accounting for 1 in 5 children served 

overall.15 This trend has arisen because of the lack of supply of licensed care in underserved areas, the prevalence of shift work and non-traditional hours, and other 

factors. Changing the trend is a long-term goal that will require significant and targeted additional resources and strategies to address its causes. One first step is to 

require States to address in their block grant plans how they are aligning policies 

and reimbursements to support this goal. • Establishing payment policies that mirror generally accepted payment 

practices providers use with private paying parents (those not receiving 

CCDBG assistance). For example, parents typically pay to enroll their child in a 

child care program and if their child misses a day their tuition isn’t reduced. The 

program provider has to pay staff and other costs regardless. However, in many 

State subsidy programs providers are paid based on attendance, with a complicated 

process of downward adjustment in reimbursements for absent days. Steps such as 

this one would harmonize CCDBG’s interface with the child care market, reduce distinctions between children based on their participation in the subsidy program, and 

encourage more licensed providers to participate in State child care assistance programs. 

Each of these improvements and the others we’re discussing today promises improvements in the quality of care accessible to children of low-income working families. Each comes with a cost. Pursuing any of these reforms without adequate funding will mean either the anticipated improvement in quality will not materialize, 

or that fewer children will be served through CCDBG and working parents will lose 

access to care, to that economic lifeline so critical for families, communities, and our 

Nation. We cannot afford either of these options. 
12 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with you today. 

Senator MIKULSKI. That’s very meaty. Thank you very much, 

doctor. 

Dr. Bryant. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA M. BRYANT, Ph.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA FPG CHILD DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, CHAPEL HILL, NC 

Ms. BRYANT. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, Senator Franken, and Senator Blumenthal, for inviting me to speak 

with your committee about what research tells us about child care 

quality and the implications for CCDBG. I feel like I’m a researcher sandwiched here between two practitioners and policymakers, and I get to speak for just a little bit about what the data 

tell us. 

I have four points to share with you. First, high-quality early 

learning matters to young children. You previously have heard evidence on this. You heard evidence about the famous early studies 

and heard evidence about the cost effectiveness. But we have a 

wealth of studies in early child care that show that the quality of 

children’s care affects, short-term and long-term, their language, 

cognitive, and social outcomes. We also have evidence that quality 

has a stronger effect for low-income children and at-risk children, 

the very children served by CCDBG. 

My second point is that we researchers, and I think the policymakers and practitioners have agreed with this, that we have a 

broad definition of what constitutes quality, we know how to measure it, and we know the precursors of quality. They include things 

such as better child care ratios, lower group size, better preparation for teachers, teacher beliefs and motivation also make a difference, professional development, good supervision, and wages. If 

I really want to improve one early childhood program, I’d pay attention to one or more of these variables and put them in place. 

But what if you wanted to improve lots of programs? Well, my 

third point is that communities and States have been our experimental laboratory for the last 20 years, developing and implementing programs that are based on these predictors of quality, 

programs that try to improve large numbers of child care. These include salary supplement programs that try to reduce turnover, 

scholarships for teachers to obtain more education, and a variety 

of on-site professional development programs that are sometimes 

called consulting or coaching or mentoring or TA. Don’t get into an 

argument with people about what they want to call their program, 

I have discovered, but these are programs where one-on-one help 

is provided, individualized help is provided to child care teachers 

and family child care providers. Many of these programs have been 

developed, and many have been proven to work, but no single 

intervention will help a State improve quality across large numbers 

of programs. So some States, like my own, have undertaken coordinated child care quality improvement programs like Smart Start. 

Another comprehensive quality improvement effort recently, in 

the last 15 or 20 years, has been the development, as Eric said, in 

half the States of quality rating and improvement systems, QRIS’s. 

These are tiered systems of quality that build the capacity for qual-
13 

ity and reward programs for achieving accountable higher levels. 

Usually they’re called Star programs, 3-star programs or 4-star or 

5-star programs. I believe that these programs set the stage for additional Federal efforts. 

CCDBG already commits to quality through the mandatory 4 

percent set-aside, which has affected quality. But you asked how 

you could do more. I believe there are a number of ways you could 

make quality the baseline, as opposed to an add-on, in CCDBG. It 

could include policies to encourage States to develop their QRIS 

programs, and for those that already have QRIS, to increase participation in the QRIS program. 

You could require States to evaluate their funded quality improvement programs to assure they are meeting their goals. Payment levels for children and child care subsidy could be tied to the 

tier of quality that the child is attending. 

Turnover could be reduced, as Eric mentioned, and I know that 

Charlotte will talk about this. Turnover could be reduced by having 

longer periods of eligibility. CCDBG could encourage collaboration 

in pursuit of quality across many of the auspices of care, child care, 

Head Start and pre-K, by asking States to report through these reporting mechanisms do you have common linkages across your 

standards, across your quality improvement programs. So you 

could try through reporting to make States focus on it. 

In short, quality for children from low-income families could become a more central goal of CCDBG. I’m quite impressed by a 

study that came out last year showing that over 1,000 children in 

almost 700 pre-K programs that children from low-income families 

make no gains in programs of low quality, no cognitive language 

or social/emotional development gains over the course of a year 

spent in low-quality care. They do make gains, however, at the 

high end of quality, and the higher the quality, the more gain the 

child makes. I think all low-income parents should be able to obtain a subsidy that lets their child enroll in one of these higherquality programs. 

Thank you for letting me speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bryant follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNA M. BRYANT, PH.D. 

SUMMARY

Extensive evidence shows that the quality of a child’s early care and education 

experiences influence the child’s language, cognitive and social outcomes, effects 

that are more pronounced for children of low-income families. We have broad agreement about what constitutes ‘‘quality’’ and we know how to measure it. 

Improving quality is a different matter. Predictors of quality include child-teacher 

ratios, group size, teacher beliefs and motivation, professional development and 

training, good supervision, and wages; the evidence on teacher education is not as 

clear-cut—as in K–12, the content and quality of professional preparation and ongoing professional development seem to be most important. 

Based on these predictors, many programs have been developed to improve quality, including salary supplements to reduce turnover; scholarships for teachers to obtain more education; and on-site professional development through consultation, 

coaching, mentoring, or technical assistance. No single intervention or approach will 

help a State improve quality across large numbers of early education programs, so 

some States have implemented more comprehensive, coordinated interventions (e.g., 

NC’s Smart Start). The most promising and comprehensive quality improvement effort has been the development in about half the States of Quality Rating and Im-
14 

provement Systems (QRIS), tiered systems of quality that build the capacity for 

quality and reward programs for achieving accountable higher levels of quality. 

The existing Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) commitment to 

quality via the 4 percent minimum set-aside requirement could be increased by several efforts that would make quality the floor of CCDBG. This could be accomplished by encouraging States to develop QRIS and motivating those that have 

QRIS to increase QRIS participation; to evaluate their funded quality improvement 

programs to assure that they are meeting goals; to tie payment levels for children 

in child care subsidy to the tier of quality their program provides; and to reduce 

child turnover by establishing longer periods for eligibility determination (i.e., a 

year). CCDBG could encourage collaboration in pursuit of quality across child care 

sectors by requiring States to report on whether they have common standards 

across auspices (child care, Head Start, pre-K) and whether their quality support 

efforts are aligned with their standards. 

In short, quality for children from low-income families could become a more central goal of CCDBG, rather than a secondary or tertiary goal. Research shows that 

below certain thresholds of quality, children from low-income families make no cognitive, language or social gains, but they do make gains at the higher levels of quality. Low-income parents should be able to obtain a subsidy that would pay for their 

children to enroll in care that is not only safe but that helps them grow and develop. 

Thank you Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr and other members of the committee 

for inviting me to speak today on what research tells us about child care quality 

and the implications for policies in the Child Care and Development Block Grant. 

My name is Donna Bryant and I am a Senior Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham 

(FPG) Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill. 

When I started at FPG 33 years ago, the Abecedarian children were ages 1–6 and 

they filled the classrooms in our building. I worked on the studies that came after 

Abecedarian—studies of home visiting, Head Start, and public pre-k; and evaluations of North Carolina’s comprehensive Smart Start early childhood program and 

several States’ child care Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS). My current work is to help evaluate a network of 12 very high-quality early childhood 

schools around the country called Educare. 

Today I have four points to share with you. First, quality early learning matters 

to young children. Second, we can define what we mean by quality and we know 

many of the factors that lead to it. Third, States have been experimenting with a 

variety of large-scale quality improvement initiatives and have set the stage, especially with Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), for additional Federal 

efforts. And fourth, as you fulfill your charge to consider policy options within the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant, there are ways to integrate quality as 

part of the baseline, rather than an add-on. These ways could build on current public policy work in the States and our science of early development. 

I. QUALITY MATTERS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

At previous hearings this subcommittee has heard about the important difference 

that receiving high-quality early care and educational experiences can make in the 

lives of all children and especially in the lives of children from low-income families. 

The Abecedarian Project and the Perry Preschool Project showed that high-quality 

child care experiences yield good cognitive and social outcomes for children from 

low-income families, outcomes that translate into life-long savings in terms of increased education and employment and decreased criminal activities (Campbell, et 

al., 2002; Schweinhart, et al., 2005). These pioneering studies have been followed 

by dozens of other studies of early childhood programs that were of much larger 

scale than Abecedarian and Perry—programs for children from low-income families 

such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and public pre-k, as well as community-based 

child care and nursery school programs for children from families with all levels of 

income. Extensive evidence links the quality of these types of child care with children’s academic and social development (Lamb, 1998; Vandell, 2004), although the 

effects are typically not as strong as Abecedarian and Perry because the programs 

are generally not as good. In addition, many studies show that children from lowincome families make even greater gains than non-poor children in community care 

(e.g. Burchinal, et al., 2000; Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 2001) and pre-kindergartens 

(Gormley, et al., 2005). 

The conclusion from these studies is that better programs lead to better outcomes 

for children, especially for children from low-income families. 
15 

II. WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHAT ARE ITS PRECURSORS?

‘‘Quality’’ is a broad but commonly used term that encompasses many interrelated components of a good child care and early learning experience for infants, 

toddlers, or preschoolers—learning and developing in a stimulating and safe environment with an interesting variety of materials and with teachers who frequently 

interact with them with positive, responsive language and intentionally teach them 

new words, concepts and skills throughout the day. Teachers should be covering language, early numeracy, science, social studies, and be especially attuned to every 

opportunity to promote socio-emotional and behavioral development. 

We have several widely-used observational measures of quality, all of them known 

by acronyms: the CIS (Caregiver Interaction Scale, Arnett, 1989), the CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System, Pianta, 2007), the ECERS–R (Early Childhood 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised, Harms, 1998), the ITERS–R (Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised, Harms, 2003), and the PQA (Program Quality Assessment, High/Scope, 2003). There are even more. Trained researchers can observe 

a classroom with these scales and arrive at a ‘‘quality’’ score. We know from research that these measures predict children’s cognitive, language and social outcomes. Even after we take into account the many other factors that we know influence a child’s development, such as parents’ education, family income, and mother’s 

age (teen mom), their child care quality helps predict their outcomes. 

Given that we know how to measure quality, how do we increase our numbers 

of higher quality programs? First, one needs to know the research on predictors of 

quality, summarized recently by Peisner-Feinberg and Yazejian (2010). The quality 

predictors are: better teacher-child ratios (e.g., 1 teacher/4 babies rather than 1/6) 

and smaller class size (e.g., 16 preschoolers rather than 20), although class size is 

not as important if the ratio is good; strong professional preparation and ongoing 

development (strong pre-service professional preparation and annual professional 

development in areas appropriate to the age-group they are teaching); good supervision and support from the director, higher wages, and low teacher turnover. 

If I were a director and could only do one thing, I would say that it is to hire 

the right people, but there is no screening test to help a director pick out the best 

people. Research shows that teacher beliefs and motivation influence the quality of 

child care. Some studies show that more education is related to quality, but more 

recent studies do not. One explanation for these contradictory findings—which are 

comparable to what has been found in K–12 education—may be that educational attainment is part of a complex system and cannot be reduced to a single variable 

(BA/no BA) (Peisner-Feinberg & Yazejian, 2010). 

The educational attainment puzzle—the lack of a clear prediction of education 

level to quality—means that degrees and credentials alone are not sufficient to 

achieve quality. It is likely that the content of the education matters, as well as the 

context in which it was obtained. Child development is complex; strategies for teaching infants, toddlers and preschoolers are different and many children need individualized attention. A teacher needs to know how to observe and assess to best meet 

each child’s needs. Partnering with parents assures a stronger mutual focus on the 

child’s development and learning. This set of teaching behaviors is what is needed. 

A director’s most important job is to find and hire teachers and assistant teachers 

who can do these things. 

Even though there is not a clear recipe to follow to achieve quality, research has 

shown us many of the ingredients. We also know that thousands of directors across 

the country run great programs for young children (for example, the Educare programs that I currently work with) and that new directors can take a mediocre program and turn it around. This process is facilitated if the program is in a region 

or a State that has a coordinated system for assisting, recognizing and rewarding 

quality improvement. 

III. STATE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE CHILD CARE QUALITY

No single intervention or approach will help a State improve quality across large 

numbers of early childhood education programs. However, let me describe for you 

the traditional method of increasing quality and then outline for you some areas 

where we have seen creativity on the part of States that have decided to focus on 

quality. 

Regulation 

States typically regulate child care facilities. A blunt method—but an incomplete 

one—is for a State to require more stringent structural characteristics for child care, 

based on the research I cited earlier. A State can undertake improvements in areas 

such as the regulations about ratios of teachers/children and hours and types of 
16 

teacher training. Each of these may bear some relation to child care quality, and 

we have known for quite awhile that States that have more stringent structural regulations do have higher observed quality in classrooms (CQO Study Team, 1995). 

However, these types of regulatory improvements alone will not likely get a State 

where it wants to be in terms of quality. 

Systematic Quality Improvement Initiatives 

In addition to regulations that apply to all child care programs, beginning in the 

1990s States began to implement a variety of quality improvement initiatives that 

were based on the research linking specific factors to child care quality, initiatives 

that were more focused on quality. These early initiatives tended to focus on just 

one part of the quality equation. They did not necessarily try to change the underlying problem and they were not comprehensive. For example, State quality initiatives offered child care teachers scholarships in order to increase their education or 

implemented supplementary compensation and benefits programs in order to reduce 

staff turnover. My State, North Carolina, was an early innovator, so I will describe 

a few of its initiatives and the research findings. 

Programs to Increase Education 

The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® program (Teacher Education and Compensation 

Helps) began in North Carolina and is now implemented in 26 States. T.E.A.C.H.® 

provides scholarships to assist child care teachers, assistant teachers, and leaders 

with the costs of attending college including tuition, books, travel, and work release 

time. Participants agree to continue their employment for a specified time and receive a bonus or pay increase when their educational goals are met. A 2009 survey 

of T.E.A.C.H.® States reported turnover of 11 percent or less (CCSA, 2010), a rate 

far lower than the national rate of 30 percent (Whitebook, et al., 2001) and even 

better than the public school teacher turnover rate which is 17 percent nationally 

(NCTAF, 2006). 

Professional Development Through Consultation, Coaching, Mentoring, and Technical Assistance (TA) 

States also have recognized the value of site-based professional development and 

program quality improvement strategies, variously called consultation, coaching, 

mentoring, or TA. This help is provided by individuals with a wide variety of qualifications and competencies, and the State child care agency—which may use Federal 

as well as State child care dollars to finance this work—has discretion to set appropriate standards (or not) for this type of strategy. These consultants focus on a variety of content and visit their clients anywhere from just a few on-site visits to much 

more frequently. The majority of these programs use a classroom observational tool, 

followed by one-on-one consultation visits with the teacher and/or director to discuss 

and help with areas of needed improvement. In a recent study with colleagues in 

5 States, we randomly assigned 101 consultants from 24 agencies to use a particular 

model of consultation or to use their agencies’ typical approach to consultation. We 

found that the child care teachers helped by these consultants made significant 

gains in their classroom quality regardless of the approach used by the consultant 

(Bryant, et al., 2009). The gains were significant, but modest. 

Professional Development/Training Plus Consultation 

Other studies have combined training plus consultation to improve the quality of 

Head Start classrooms (Farmer-Dougan, et al., 1999; Peisner-Feinberg, 1998) as 

well as improvements in specific content areas such as the teaching of math 

(Clements & Sarama, 2008) or literacy (Smith, et al., 2008). My Teaching Partner 

is an innovative web-based consultation intervention developed by Bob Pianta and 

colleagues (Pianta, et al., 2008) that gives teachers access to video clips of high-quality teaching and web-based consultation that provides ongoing feedback to teachers 

through a protocol that focuses on specific dimension of the CLASS observation 

measure. In random studies of these interventions, the group of teachers that received the special training and consultation made significant gains on the quality 

measures used in the studies. The gains were typically of the same magnitude as 

in our study of in-person consultation—statistically significant but not huge. 

My summary of the widely used consultation approach to improving early childhood quality is that it is not a silver bullet, but one of the better ones we have because it begins where the teacher is, builds on strengths, and can address weaknesses. Consultation should be based on research; grounded in observation; tied to 

early learning, program, and professional development standards; individualized for 

the client, and given time to work. We need to be realistic about the amount of 

change to expect from consultation, but indeed quality improvements can be made. 
17 

Comprehensive Statewide Initiatives 

Some States have recognized the valid but piecemeal approaches described above 

cannot have the type of systemic impact that they are seeking for improved quality 

and outcomes for young children, particularly their low-income and at-risk children. 

As a result, some States have developed organized systems of early childhood programs. 

North Carolina pioneered a comprehensive approach to early childhood health and 

development. Beginning in 1993, NC’s Smart Start initiative created a unified approach to governance that involved State and regional leadership and accountability, and started to work more systematically to address improved quality in 

early learning. A variety of efforts received funding, and the State meaningfully increased its State contribution on top of the Federal CCDBG funds. All of the efforts 

I described above were included and, in addition, because of the broad-based understanding of child development, home visiting and health interventions were also 

part of this comprehensive approach. Over half the funds were devoted to child care 

quality and access. Four statewide assessments of early childhood classroom quality 

from 1994 to 2001 showed significantly improved quality over time (Bryant, Maxwell, & Burchinal, 1999; Bryant, Bernier, Peisner-Feinberg, & Maxwell, 2002). Although the Smart Start evaluation showed that programs participating in more of 

the quality enhancement opportunities made greater gains on quality measures, 

particular interventions that made the most difference in quality could not be identified. [The Smart Start evaluation also positively linked higher classroom quality 

to preschoolers’ receptive language, literacy, math, and social skills. (Bryant, Maxwell, Poe, & Taylor 2003)]. 

QRIS As the Framework for Quality 

The last decade has seen the development of a very promising State strategy to 

improve child care quality—statewide Quality Rating and Improvement Systems 

(QRIS). A QRIS is a systematic approach ‘‘to assess, improve, and communicate the 

level of quality in early care and education programs’’ (Mitchell, 2005, p. 4) that can 

bring together a fragmented set of resources to build an aligned and comprehensive 

system of early care and education. Oklahoma (1998) and North Carolina (1999) 

were the first and now 25 States have a QRIS with all five important elements used 

to create stepping stones to increasingly higher levels of quality. These components 

are: (1) quality standards (child, program, practitioner); (2) accountability measures 

to monitor the standards; (3) outreach and support to programs and practitioners; 

(4) financial incentives; and (5) dissemination of ratings and information to parents 

to raise awareness and market demand for quality. 

A QRIS develops levels or steps between basic licensing quality and high quality, 

usually with 3, 4 or 5 steps or levels. These steps then become the structure for 

aligning funding to programs by a variety of important methods, including increasing child care subsidies (with rates increasing at higher quality levels); requiring 

all programs participating in child care subsidy to participate in the QRIS; merit 

or grant awards to programs as they achieve higher levels of quality; support 

awards to get to another level of quality; priority access to professional development 

support such as T.E.A.C.H.® and coaching, mentoring and professional development. Even though most State QRIS systems are relatively new, a few studies already have shown that quality improvement has occurred over time (summarized 

in Tout & Maxwell, 2010). 

States are able to customize their QRIS to their own political and economic context. With a few exceptions, most States invite centers and FCC homes to participate voluntarily. States that have put relatively more resources into their QRIS can 

afford to hire independent observers to validate the quality of the programs at the 

higher levels; States with fewer resources rely on self-report or accept the reports 

of other validators (e.g. accepting NAEYC accreditation or a Head Start program’s 

3-year site-visit report). Some States offer significant financial rewards for attaining 

a higher star level while others offer much smaller amounts. States differentiate 

award levels based on the enrollment of at-risk children into the program (i.e. children from the subsidy program or those who have a developmental delay or disability). Many States increase the child care subsidy rates for children in programs 

with more stars, although the amounts differ. States may prioritize access to professional development and other quality improvement supports in order to assure an 

integrated approach to quality improvement. 

One study of these naturally occurring differences between States is underway, 

but more research on QRISs would lead to better understanding of how to weight 

various components in the system, how to better match quality improvement interventions to programs at different levels, and how to persuade all programs (especially those of low quality) to participate in the QRIS and receive quality improve-
18 

ment help. Certainly the focus on QRIS in the Early Learning Challenge will help 

push and refine this work. 

QRISs, Early Learning Standards, and Professional Development Systems 

QRISs developed around the same time that the standards-based education movement began. All 50 States now have early learning standards for what preschoolers 

should know and be able to do, typically developed by departments of education (or 

wherever State pre-k resides) (Scott-Little, et al., 2010). Thirty-two States now have 

infant/toddler standards, half developed by the department of education and half developed by the State’s department of human services (Scott-Little, et al., 2010). Simultaneously, many States developed early childhood professional development competencies, specifying the skills that people teaching young children should have. 

Community colleges, colleges and universities may or may not be required to teach 

these competencies. The QRIS systems have typically developed out of the departments of human resources/social services, where child care resides. The more sophisticated of these systems incorporate the early learning standards and the professional development competencies as part of the comprehensive vision. And then 

there are all of the Head Start and Early Head Start programs, which do not reside 

in education or health. As you can tell, many agencies are now involved in efforts 

to improve quality and their efforts would be more effective if they were better 

linked. This leads me to one of the questions you asked me to address. 

IV. WHAT CAN CCDBG DO TO IMPROVE QUALITY?

In your invitation, you asked for my recommendations on how to improve child 

care quality and safety within the existing CCDBG program. Given its commitment 

to quality through the 4 percent minimum set-aside requirement, Federal policy has 

already affected quality, but it could do much more. The minimum amount of quality set-aside could be raised—many States are already using a higher percentage 

for quality. Given the importance of quality to the children served by the block 

grant, an alternative strategy could be to make quality the basic floor of the program through the following possible strategies. States could be required to use their 

quality funds on interventions that have been shown to work, such as QRIS, that 

influence teaching and learning practices and with research evidence that links the 

practices to children’s outcomes. States could be required to link their payment levels for children in child care subsidy to participation in these efforts. 

Knowing that continuity is important for children, you could establish longer periods for eligibility determination (i.e., a year) so children are not evicted from child 

care as soon as a parent earns a bit too much. The data and reporting requirements 

should also be aligned. (I believe Charlotte Brantley will address these two recommendations more thoroughly.) You could encourage those States without QRIS 

systems to develop them (as the Race to the Top/Early Learning Challenge Fund 

is doing). In short, you can embed pay for performance more strongly within the 

CCDBG, based on objective standards-based practices and their implementation. 

Quality for low-income children and families could be a more central goal, rather 

than a tertiary goal. 

Change in the CCDBG should bring with it changes in Federal leadership for the 

other early childhood programs as well. We need to work harder at unifying the 

many early learning programs we fund. This will happen within those States fortunate enough to receive the Challenge funds, but that will leave out many States. 

I also hope that when the Federal Government provides CCDBG, IDEA, and Head 

Start funds, the States and Head Start programs would be asked to report on 

whether they have common standards across programs, whether the system of 

teacher and provider supports is aligned with the quality standards, and whether 

it applies to all sectors of the early childhood system (child care, Head Start, preK, early intervention/preschool special education). If we measure collaboration, we 

will get more of it. This should help better leverage resources and most significantly, 

best serve the target population of high-risk children that these programs are designed to serve. 

In closing, I want to be clear about why we should use public resources for improved quality for our children. Right now, CCDBG and the States’ child care systems do not serve all of the at-risk children who qualify and we don’t provide quality care to all of those we currently do serve. This situation seems to legitimize a 

discussion of trading off higher quality for more access. This is a choice that would 

bewilder Solomon and we should not be asked to choose. 

Let me describe a study that is relevant to this issue. Quality programs make a 

difference in the learning and social skills of all children, but for children from poor 

families, they make even more difference at the higher ranges of quality. Last year, 

my FPG colleague Peg Burchinal led a study of over 1,000 public pre-k children who 
19 

all qualified for free or reduced price lunch, relating their language, math, and behavioral scores at the end of the school year to the quality of their classroom 

(Burchinal, et al., 2010). These children were in 670 preschool classrooms in 11 

States. The study’s purpose was to test whether there might be a minimal ‘‘justgood-enough’’ threshold of quality, above which the quality difference would not 

matter. 

Not only did these authors find NO evidence of a just-good-enough threshold of 

quality, they found the opposite: for these poor children, below certain thresholds 

there were NO gains and the association between quality and children’s gains was 

stronger at the higher quality levels than at the lower levels. Poor children, those 

who get the CCDBG subsidies, may get no social or academic benefit from attending 

low-quality care. Low-income parents should be able to obtain a subsidy that would 

pay for their children to enroll in care that is not only safe but that helps them 

grow and develop. 

The Federal framework for the CCDBG does matter and there are approaches you 

can take to put more resources into quality improvement. I hope that we can move 

towards both goals—greater accessibility and higher quality—at the same time. But 

make no mistake about it, we will not realize a quality agenda if we don’t find a 

better way to infuse quality into the floor of the CCDBG. 

REFERENCES

Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., & McCarty, F. (2000). Structural model of Head Start 

classroom quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 115–34. 

Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541–52. 

Bryant, D., Maxwell, K., Poe, M., & Taylor, K. (2003). Smart Start and Preschool 

Child Care in NC: Change Over Time and Relation to Children’s Readiness. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute. Available at: http://www.fpg.unc 

.edu/smartstart/. 

Bryant, D., Bernier, K., Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Maxwell, K. (May 2002). Smart 

Start and Child Care in North Carolina: Effects on Quality and Changes over 

Time. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute. 

Bryant, D., Wesley, P., Burchinal, P, et al., (2009). The QUINCE-PFI Study: An 

Evaluation of a Promising Model for Child Care Provider Training. Final Report. 

The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Available at: 

http://www.childcareresearch.org/childcare/resources/19474?q=QUINCE. 

Burchinal, M., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D.M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children’s 

social and cognitive development and child care quality: Testing for differential 

associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental 

Science, 4, 149–65. 

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R. & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income 

children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 

166–76. 

Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). 

Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project. 

Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57. 

Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a 

research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 443–94. 

CQO Study Team. (1995). Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers 

[Technical Report], Denver: Department of Economics, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy, University of Colorado at Denver. 

CCSA, 2010. Turning Back the Tide of Teacher Turnover. Available at: http:// 

www.childcareservices.org/ldownloads/FactSheetlTurnoverl02l10.pdf. 

Early, D., Bryant, D., Pianta, R., Clifford, R., Burchinal, M., Ritchie, S., et al., 

(2006). Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research 

Quarterly, 21, 174–95. 

Farmer-Dougan, V.A., Viechtbauer, W., & French, T. (1999). Peer-prompted social 

skills: The role of teacher consultation in student success. Educational Psychology, 

19, 207–19. 

Gormley, W.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal 

pre-k on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872–84. 

Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating 

Scale-Revised. NYC: Teachers College Press. 
20 

Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. (2003). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating 

Scale-Revised. NYC: Teachers College Press. 

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (2003). Preschool Program Quality 

Assessment, 2nd Edition (PQA) Administration Manual. High/Scope Press: Ypsilanti, MI. 

Lamb, M. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, and correlates. In I.E. 

Sigel & K.A. Renninger (Volume Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. (Vol. 4)(pp. 

950–1016). Child Psychology in Practice. NY: Wiley. 

Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Barbarin, O.A., Bryant, 

D., et al., (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s 

development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 743– 

49. 

Mitchell, A.W. (2005). Stair steps to quality: A guide for States and communities developing quality rating systems for early care and education. Alexandria, VA: 

United Way of America, Success by 6. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2006) Teacher Dropouts 

Cost Nation More Than $7 Billion Annually. Available at: http://nctaf.org/resources/news/presslreleases/CTT.htm. 

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.L., Howes, C., 

Kagan, S.L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to 

children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. 

Child Development, 72(5), 1534–53. 

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S. & Yazejian, N. (2010). Research on program quality: The evidence base. In P.W. Wesley & V. Buysse (Eds.), The quest for quality, (pp. 21– 

46). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K.M., Hamre, B.K. (2007). Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System—CLASS. Baltimore: Brookes. 

Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A.J., Downer, J.T., Hamre, B., & Justice, L.M. (2008). Effects of web-mediated PD resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–51. 

Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C., & Nores, M. 

(2005). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press. 

Scott-Little, C., Cassidy, D.J., Lower, J.K., & Ellen, S.J. (2010). Early learning 

standards and quality improvement initiatives: A systemic approach to supporting 

children’s learning and development. In P.W. Wesley & V. Buysse (Eds.), The 

quest for quality, (pp. 69–90). Baltimore: Brookes. 

Stipek, D.J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 305–25. 

Tout, K., & Maxwell, K.L. (2010). Quality rating and improvement systems: Achieving the promise for programs, parents, children, and early childhood systems. In 

P.W. Wesley & V. Buysse (Eds.), The quest for quality, (pp. 91–112). Baltimore: 

Brookes. 

Vandell, D. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill-Palmer 

Quarterly, 50, 387–414. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. That was part of exactly what we wanted to hear, which is data-driven and evidencebased. 

Ms. Brantley, we’re going to turn to you, and I know I called you 

Dr. Brantley. I think you deserve one. If anybody hasn’t given you 

an honorary doctorate, I’d like to do that today. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE M. BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CLAYTON EARLY LEARNING, 

DENVER, CO 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Thank you. I’ll take the honorary doctorate. 

Thank you very much. 

Well, good morning, Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, Senator 

Franken, and Senator Blumenthal. I very much appreciate the invitation to come today to address this issue that has certainly been 

near and dear to my heart and has actually helped frame a good 

portion of my career in the early childhood field. 
21 

I had the opportunity to actually teach at my alma mater at the 

University of Texas for a while in the Early Childhood Department 

there, and then went on to work for the State administration of the 

CCDBG. In fact, I was a State administrator when the CCDBG 

was first enacted in the early 1990s and went through the implementation process of that in the context of welfare reform as the 

1990s moved forward, and then had the opportunity to lead what 

was at that time known as the Child Care Bureau. Now it is the 

Office of Child Care. I spent about 21⁄2 years doing work in the 

Child Care Bureau, so I got to see it from the Federal administration side, and now have the incredible pleasure and opportunity to 

be able to see this program in action every single day in a local program in the city of Denver that you heard Senator Bennet mention. 

We are a Head Start Center of Excellence. We are also one of the 

12 operational Educare Schools now in the Educare Network of 

Schools that is growing across the country. We’re all Head Start 

and Early Head Start at our core, and also provide very high quality results-driven, data-driven, as Donna knows. Donna is the principal investigator on the nationwide implementation evaluation of 

the Educare model. 

I have seen the CCDBG, as I mentioned, kind of up one side and 

down the other since its inception, and many of the comments that 

my colleagues here, whom I’ve also worked with on these issues for 

a number of years, these are issues that are not new. We’ve been 

talking about these issues for a very long time, and I am very, very 

pleased to see this coming to a level of this kind of a hearing where 

we can really talk seriously about what we might be able to do at 

this point. I think we know what to do. I think our difficulty is 

often how do we go about doing it. 

From my perspective, the CCDBG is often the glue that holds 

multiple funding streams together. As States and program providers seek to offer comprehensive services that address child development outcomes, as well as supports for working parents, in a 

program like mine at the Clayton Educare School, we’re using the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant as that glue. We have 

Head Start. We have Early Head Start. You heard Senator Bennet 

mention the Denver Preschool Program. We also use the Colorado 

Preschool Program to fund the services that we offer. 

And yet you walk into the building and you cannot tell which 

child or which service or which teacher or which classroom is being 

funded by which one of those funding streams. You have to look at 

our auditable spreadsheets that are this thick and that wide and 

deep, our cost allocation plans to know what’s happening there. It 

looks easy. I’m here to tell you that it’s not to make it look that 

easy. 

I think that we have often put in place well-meaning but often 

disjointed program implementation policies and authorizations of 

programs that have inadvertently created barriers to delivering the 

quality services to those most in need. For example, in order to access a full working day of service that also addresses the child’s developmental and educational needs, families must qualify for and 

providers must juggle multiple funding streams that do not always 

coincide in terms of eligibility criteria, in terms of the quality 
22 

measurements and the standards, and in terms of the length of 

service. 

Providers of early childhood care and education that accept 

CCDBG child care subsidies face a constant threat of losing funding and children. The original focus of the program on supporting 

parents as they become engaged in work is critical to family selfsufficiency. However, with historically limited funding in the program, increased demand for the service, and increased wait lists in 

many States, again well-intentioned implementation policies have 

too often become the enemy of the good. 

In an effort to stretch the limited funding to serve as many as 

possible, we have set rates that do not reflect the true cost of quality and caused families and children to cycle on and off the program in relatively short bursts that neither support children’s development nor their parents’ long-term attachment to the workforce. The situation has only been exacerbated by the nature of program reports required of State administrators. These program reports tend to focus on the numbers served, not on how well they 

were served or what the outcomes might be either for the children 

or for the parents. 

In addition, while we have attempted to address the need for increased quality in services since the inception of this program, we 

have, quite frankly, not held ourselves accountable on any large 

scale for whether we have actually made a difference. 

So at your invitation, I am submitting the following recommendations on ways the CCDBG can become a vehicle for improved 

quality in all child care settings and can further ensure continuity 

of care in evidence-based programs for our highest-need children. 

To formalize in statute the program guidance that has been in 

place since 1999, addressing alignment of eligibility periods with 

Head Start or State-funded pre-kindergarten programs for children 

who are enrolled in both the CCDBG and one or the other of those 

programs. 

To require States to establish eligibility redetermination policies 

that support continuity of care for all children for a period of at 

least 12 months, including limited or no reporting changes in family income or work arrangements of the parents during the authorized period, as is already the case with the Head Start eligibility 

and with most State pre-kindergarten programs that are means 

tested. 

To encourage all States to build or continue to strengthen an existing tiered quality rating and improvement system such that all 

early childhood settings are included and incentivized to reach the 

higher levels of quality. 

To establish financial rewards for States that make steady 

progress in providing access to higher rated programs for higher 

needs children. 

In support of that one, to allow States greater flexibility in using 

contracts for CCDBG-funded slots with high-quality providers as 

measured by their quality rating improvement system by removing 

the requirement that each parent must always be offered a voucher 

in lieu of a contracted slot. 
23 

To require States to recognize the actual costs of higher quality 

when establishing reimbursement rate structures for CCDBG funded slots. 

To require that if States choose to use the CCDBG funding for 

licensing and monitoring, particularly if it’s new funding, that the 

work performed with the new funds are related directly to higher 

quality standards as measured by their quality rating improvement 

system. 

And finally, I would suggest that we continue to revise the State 

reporting requirements. I was quite heartened to see the changes 

that were put in place around reporting in the most recent version 

of the State planned pre-print for this program that is giving some 

additional guidance to States around the kinds of information that 

would be helpful for us to know at a national level and that would 

perhaps move the needle on quality. 

We should continue that process so that we begin to measure 

what really matters, including the number of CCDBG-funded children enrolled in higher-quality settings, the number of parents that 

remain employed, progress among providers in achieving the higher ratings within a State’s QRIS, the alignment of standards within 

a State across all early childhood settings, and the progress of 

teachers in achieving higher levels of professional preparation. 

I think that the process that many States are going through 

right now to get themselves ready to submit their application for 

the Early Learning Challenge Fund grants is actually also a bright 

spot in what’s going on right now in the environment. I think to 

some extent we’re signaling a new era here. Even though very few 

States in all likelihood are going to receive grants under that funding stream, the process that States are going through, I’m playing 

a role in that in the Colorado State process and in touch with some 

other States and the processes that they’re going through, the process alone is incredibly valuable to this field. It’s requiring States 

to really bring together all of the players in the early childhood 

arena, not just the direct education providers but also the care providers, the family home providers—what are parents doing, what 

is the health community doing, what is the mental health community doing, what kind of family supports do we have in place—all 

culminating in children’s school readiness and their success. 

It’s helping to examine what kinds of things could, in fact, be 

done that perhaps might not even cost new money but might be 

new ways of approaching the work that we do, might be new ways 

of encouraging providers to become engaged, encouraging families 

to become engaged that may not be as expensive in the long run 

as we think they are. Not to say that we don’t need additional 

money in this program; we absolutely do. I think we all know and 

accept that. I also, though, believe that the conversations that are 

happening are such that there are people at the tables who perhaps have not been there before who maybe have some resources 

that can be called upon. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brantley follows:] 
24 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE M. BRANTLEY

SUMMARY

Good morning Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr and members of the committee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding ‘‘Examining Quality and Safety 

in Child Care: Giving Working Families Security, Confidence and Peace of Mind.’’ 

I have been engaged in early childhood development and education throughout my 

career, and specifically involved in administering the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant (CCDBG) at the State, Federal and local program delivery levels. 

The CCDBG is often the ‘‘glue’’ that holds multiple funding streams together as 

States and program providers seek to offer comprehensive services that address 

child development outcomes as well as supports for working parents. However, the 

well-meaning but often disjointed way in which programs have been authorized and 

implemented has inadvertently created barriers to delivering quality service to 

those most in need. In order to access a full working day of service that also addresses the child’s developmental and educational needs, families must qualify for 

and providers must juggle multiple funding streams that do not always coincide in 

terms of eligibility criteria and length of service. 

Providers of early childhood care and education that accept CCDBG child care 

subsidies face a constant threat of losing funding, and children. The original focus 

of the program on supporting parents as they become engaged in work is critical 

to family self-sufficiency. However, with historically limited funding in the program, 

increasing demand for the service and increased wait lists in many States, wellintentioned implementation policies have too often become the enemy of the good. 

In an effort to stretch the limited funding to serve as many as possible, we have 

set rates that do not reflect the true cost of quality and caused families and children 

to cycle on and off the program in relatively short bursts that neither support children’s development, nor their parents’ long-term attachment to the workforce. The 

situation has only been exacerbated by the nature of program reports required of 

State administrators. In addition, while we have attempted to address the need for 

increased quality in services, we have not held ourselves accountable on a large 

scale for whether we have actually made a difference. 

At your invitation, I submit the following recommendations on ways the CCDBG 

can become a vehicle for improved quality in all child care settings and can further 

ensure continuity of care in evidence-based programs for our highest need children. 

1. Formalize in statute the program guidance in place since 1999 addressing 

alignment of eligibility periods with Head Start or State or local funded prekindergarten for children enrolled in both CCDBG and one or both of the other programs. 

2. Require States to establish eligibility redetermination policies that support continuity of care for all children for a period of at least 12 months, including limited 

or no reporting of changes in family income or work arrangements of the parents 

during the authorized period (as is already the case with Head Start and most prekindergarten programs that are means tested). 

3. Encourage all States to build or continue to strengthen an existing tiered quality rating and improvement system such that all early childhood settings (child care, 

Head Start, and preschool) are included and incentivized to reach the higher levels 

of quality. 

4. Establish financial rewards for States that make steady progress in providing 

access to higher rated programs (as measured by QRIS) for higher needs children. 

5. In support of No. 4, allow States greater flexibility in using contracts for 

CCDBG slots with high quality providers (as measured by QRIS) by removing the 

requirement that each parent must be offered a voucher in lieu of a contracted slot. 

6. Require States to recognize the actual costs of higher quality when establishing 

reimbursement rate structures for CCDBG slots. 

7. Require that if States choose to use CCDBG funding for licensing and monitoring, the work performed with the funds is related directly to higher quality 

standards as measured by QRIS. 

8. Revise State reporting requirements so that we begin to measure what really 

matters, including the number of CCDBG-funded children enrolled in higher quality 

settings, the number of parents that remain employed, progress among providers in 

achieving the higher ratings within a State’s QRIS, the alignment of standards 

within a State across all early childhood settings, and the progress of teachers in 

achieving higher levels of professional preparation. 

Good morning Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr and members of the committee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding ‘‘Examining Quality and Safety 
25 

in Child Care: Giving Working Families Security, Confidence and Peace of Mind.’’ 

I have been engaged in early childhood development and education throughout my 

career, and specifically involved in administering the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant at the State, Federal and local program delivery levels. From the late 

1980s through 1998 I was the State child care administrator in Texas, and then 

spent approximately 21⁄2 years leading the Child Care Bureau (now Office of Child 

Care) within ACF. Currently, I am president and CEO of a large non-profit in Denver—Clayton Early Learning—operating one of the Educare Schools. We also provide teacher preparation programs, curriculum design, and program evaluations. 

For a good part of my career I have worked on policies and administrative procedures related to maximizing the public investments our country makes in young 

children and their families through child care assistance, Head Start, and State and 

local prekindergarten programs. This experience includes working directly with 

State and Federal legislative bodies on bill language, drafting of State and Federal 

program rules and regulations, and program implementation at the local level. This 

background gives me a deep knowledge of both the day-to-day workings of the child 

care subsidies available to low-income parents through the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), as well as an appreciation of the opportunities and 

challenges faced by State and local administrators and the families that access the 

program. 

The CCDBG is an essential thread in the overall fabric of early childhood education and developmental supports, along with Early Head Start and Head Start, 

State and local prekindergarten programs, and programs for children with identified 

special education needs. While it was authorized as a separate program in legislation, has a separate appropriation, and its own set of regulations, at the local program level it is often the ‘‘glue’’ that holds multiple funding streams together. For 

example, it can be used to extend the day and year for children enrolled in part 

day, part year Head Start and prekindergarten programs. However, unlike these 

other programs a child’s eligibility for CCDBG funding is tied to the parent’s engagement in work or training. 

As our country has grappled with a growing understanding of the importance of 

the earliest years in a child’s development, the significance of early education to 

later academic achievement, and attempts to help low-income families achieve economic self-sufficiency, we have inadvertently created a jigsaw puzzle of programs 

and services, often with ill-fitting pieces. We talk about providing supports to children with ‘‘high needs’’, yet the needs of an individual child are often defined differently depending on the program or funding stream in which the child is enrolled. 

For example, a child from a low-income family is defined as needing comprehensive 

early education, family support and health/mental health services if he is enrolled 

in Head Start. The very same child is defined as only needing early education if 

enrolled in prekindergarten. And again, the very same child is defined as primarily 

needing safe child care during the hours his parent(s) is (are) working if he is enrolled in a CCDBG child care subsidy. Which of these programs the child is actually 

enrolled in is often the luck of the draw, and is highly dependent upon the funding 

source available at the time the low-income parent seeks a program, the parent’s 

knowledge of the programs available in the community, the parent’s work schedule, 

and the age of the child. As Louise Stoney and Anne Mitchell put it so well in their 

recent white paper entitled Toward Better Policy for Early Care and Education in 

the United States, ‘‘The US can no longer afford the inefficiency of making policy 

by funding stream.’’ 

This inefficiency is illustrated by a family, father David and sons Jeremy and 

Frank, currently enrolled in Clayton Educare. David has sole custody of his two 

young boys and was employed when they were first enrolled in our full-day, fullyear Early Head Start and Head Start program. Access to the full-day, full-year option requires that the parent qualify for both Head Start and the child care subsidy 

program, as the Head Start per child funding only covers part-day, part-year. When 

first enrolled, as a toddler and young preschooler, the boys were very shy, did not 

speak much at all, and seldom engaged in play with the other children. After the 

first year, both boys were making great progress as noted by their teachers both 

anecdotally and through various norm referenced assessments. However, David then 

lost his job. He was given a period of job search by his child care assistance caseworker and found temporary work, but that soon also dried up. As he reached the 

end of his allowable weeks of job search for the child care subsidy, he faced losing 

the full-day full-year services for his boys. By stretching resources, our program was 

able to cover the funding gap for a few months over the summer so that Jeremy 

could continue in the program until transitioning to kindergarten this fall. The 

younger child, however, is now enrolled in just part-day, part-year for his final year 

prior to entering kindergarten next fall. In addition to a shorter day, this also 
26 

means he is placed in a different classroom with new teachers and new peers. We 

are concerned that he may very well lose ground in this arrangement as the program ‘‘dosage’’ is simply not deep enough for our most-at-risk children, and the allimportant continuity of care has been lost. We frankly also question the wisdom of 

now risking the public investment already made in this child by not allowing continued child care funding to support bringing him across the finish line. In addition, 

David is now limited to just 3 hours per day to continue his job search (while Frank 

is in the part-day Head Start program). 

Unfortunately, this story is not unique. Providers of early childhood care and education that accept child care subsidies face a constant threat of losing funding, and 

children. The original focus of the program on supporting parents as they become 

engaged in work is critical to family self-sufficiency. However, with historically limited funding in the program, increasing demand for the service and increased wait 

lists in many States, well-intentioned implementation policies have too often become 

the enemy of the good. In an effort to stretch the limited funding to serve as many 

as possible, we have caused families and children to cycle on and off the program 

in relatively short bursts that neither support children’s development and school 

readiness, nor their parents’ long-term attachment to the workforce. The situation 

has only been exacerbated by the nature of program reports required of State administrators. When the primary marker of success is the number served, a ‘‘slot’’ 

occupied in 1 year by two to three children is cause for celebration. How different 

would our policies and therefore our celebrations be if instead we were asked to report on the number served in programs with proven track records of preparing children for success in school, and on the number of parents that remained employed 

while their children were enrolled? 

In recognition of the critical need to address the quality of settings in which children receive child care services, the CCDBG, as you are aware, offers small amounts 

of funding in the form of set asides for a variety of initiatives including teacher professional development, licensing and monitoring, classroom and playground enhancements, resource and referral for parents and providers, quality rating and improvement systems, and initiatives specifically addressing care for infants and toddlers. However, to date we have not held ourselves accountable on a large scale for 

whether the funded initiatives have actually made a difference in either measurable 

quality of settings, or child and family outcomes. I frankly believe that we have been 

fearful of the repercussions if our efforts were found to be inadequate. And they may 

well be inadequate, not for lack of trying, but for lack of both sufficient funding and 

comprehensive approaches aimed at true systems level change. 

I am heartened by the recent revisions to the State plan preprint for the CCDBG 

as I believe they clearly signal a new era is upon us. The changes offer greater guidance to States on ways the funds can and perhaps should be used to create a stronger foundation for more child and family outcome focused administration of the program. I am also very excited about the opportunity for States to compete for the 

Early Learning Challenge Fund grants. While to some extent it seems that we are 

all trying to front load everything we’ve been dreaming of into this one grant, I do 

believe the very process of applying is extremely valuable to States, even though 

only a limited number will receive funding. The guidelines for the grant application 

are causing strong examination of where States are, and again signal a new era of 

accountability for systems change that will help ensure that more high-need children are in higher quality settings based on evidence of what can really make a difference. 

It is also exciting to witness additional efforts on the part of the Federal Government to address long standing issues regarding the often fragmented approaches to 

school readiness and program monitoring across multiple funding streams and programs. Colorado is participating in this effort as one of the school readiness learning 

lab States. As a provider of a program of exceptional quality and proven child outcomes, I welcome the exploration of potential joint monitoring among funding 

stream administrators and a deep look at how school readiness is supported by multiple programs. At Clayton Educare, while we use multiple funding streams, the 

program functions as one. A visitor cannot tell which funding stream is funding 

which child, which part of the day, which teacher, or which set of classroom materials. We have vast amounts of paperwork that lay all that out, but it is invisible 

to the children, the families and our visitors. A reduction in that paperwork, greater 

alignment among program regulations and policies, and a clear focus on child outcomes among funding streams, would go a long way toward making our dreams of 

all children entering school ready for success a reality. 

With the new State plan, the Early Learning Challenge Fund guidance, and the 

school readiness and monitoring learning labs as backdrop, I bring recommendations on ways the CCDBG can become a vehicle for improved quality in all child 
27 

care settings and can further ensure continuity of care in evidence-based programs 

for our highest need children. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Formalize in statute the program guidance in place since 1999 addressing 

alignment of eligibility periods with Head Start or State- or local-funded prekindergarten for children enrolled in both CCDBG and one or both of the other programs. 

2. Require States to establish eligibility redetermination policies that support continuity of care for all children for a period of at least 12 months, including limited 

or no reporting of changes in family income or work arrangements of the parents 

during the authorized period (as is already the case with Head Start and most prekindergarten programs that are means tested). 

3. Encourage all States to build or continue to strengthen an existing tiered quality rating and improvement system such that all early childhood settings (child care, 

Head Start, preschool) are included and incentivized to reach the higher levels of 

quality. 

4. Establish financial rewards for States that make steady progress in providing 

access to higher rated programs (as measured by QRIS) for higher needs children. 

5. In support of No. 4, allow States greater flexibility in using contracts for 

CCDBG slots with high quality providers (as measured by QRIS) by removing the 

requirement that each parent must be offered a voucher in lieu of a contracted slot. 

6. Require States to recognize the actual costs of higher quality when establishing 

reimbursement rate structures for CCDBG slots. 

7. Require that if States choose to use CCDBG funding for licensing and monitoring, the work performed with the funds is related directly to higher quality 

standards as measured by QRIS. 

8. Revise State reporting requirements so that we begin to measure what really 

matters, including the number of CCDBG-funded children enrolled in higher quality 

settings, the number of parents that remain employed, progress among providers in 

achieving the higher ratings within a State’s QRIS, the alignment of standards 

within a State across all early childhood settings, and the progress of teachers in 

achieving higher levels of professional preparation. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express my thoughts about how we can 

move forward as a nation in addressing outcomes for our highest need children. The 

CCDBG is an essential component in our forward movement, and I look forward to 

changes that will support greater alignment of this program with others within the 

fabric of early childhood care and education. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Ms. Brantley. 

What I’d like to do now is turn to each one of my colleagues, 

starting with Senator Burr and going around—I’ll be the last—to 

make sure we each get a question in, and then I’m going to kind 

of run this like open mike, where anybody can ask a question or 

jump in. That’s why we wanted to do a roundtable, perhaps even 

cueing off of each other. 

Senator Burr, why don’t I turn to you, and Senator Franken, 

Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blumenthal, are you leaving now? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I apologize, Madam Chairman. I do have 

to leave. I’m going to try to get back, though. 

Senator MIKULSKI. OK. Well, go ahead. Do you want to go first? 

Thank you. I mean, we’re trying to keep this loose. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If I could ask a general question about 

background checks, and what role and how important do you think 

they are in this process. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. As a direct provider of services, maybe I should 

jump in with the first answer to that. I think they are incredibly 

important and necessary, and I think that anything that we can do 

to assist local licensed child care providers to access information 

that is outside of what their State has is very important. 
28 

We face this as a provider of services now. We do all the background checking we can possibly do, and yet we also know that 

there are databases that we cannot tap into that perhaps reside in 

New York State or someplace else where someone may have come 

from. So it’s a very important process to do. Protecting the children 

from people who have been known to cause harm to others is absolutely basic. 

Ms. BRYANT. From a researcher point of view, I have to say I 

don’t know research on this area. It’s obvious to me that children 

need to be protected from bad people. But I guess I would say— 

I mean, I think it’s an excellent idea. 

I guess I would say that once you do that, don’t forget that it 

alone, is not going to address quality. It’s not going to address the 

teaching and the caring that goes on during the day. So it seems 

to me like it should be the floor. It should be at a minimum that 

that should happen, and then pay more attention to the more important things. 

Mr. KAROLAK. Just to cascade, I would also say they’re very important. They’re one way of protecting children in care. They won’t 

guarantee quality, obviously. They also don’t guarantee safety— 

that children are safe. The best background check in the world, of 

course, won’t catch a first-time offender, and there are data issues. 

Charlotte mentioned access to databases. There’s also issues in 

terms of what the level of automation, the level of data that’s available in systems. 

But I think this is something we need to explore. We need to look 

at how there is variation over States. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And are there ways to, No. 1, make it 

more comprehensive? You referred to some of the gaps in databases, and also make it less costly. I realize they may be competing 

or contradictory goals. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Right, it won’t be free. That’s for sure. And, you 

know, the nitty-gritty details of it, I would have to admit, I’m not 

probably the person. I’ve got staff in my program who could tell 

you absolutely. I do know that there are issues in terms of where 

are people registered as offenders of certain types, and data systems that don’t talk to one another. Now, there are probably confidentiality issues around that. There are all kinds of other issues. 

From my perspective, though, what is paramount in terms of protection is the children, and as my colleagues are pointing out here, 

it’s not the absolute silver bullet, but it’s certainly a very important 

component, of knowing before you hire someone if there has been 

an issue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I understand that all of you agree that it’s 

necessary but not sufficient for quality. But often the floor or the 

minimum is important to guarantee peace of mind at a basic level. 

And I want to join in thanking all of you for being here and apologize that I do have another commitment that I’m going to have to 

leave to attend. But I really admire your work and thank you for 

giving us the benefit of it. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Senator Burr, for 

giving me the opportunity to ask a couple of questions. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Burr. 
29 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I might say 

to Senator Blumenthal, we estimate that the cost of the background check to be, on average, around $35 per background check. 

The Chairman told me that in Maryland it’s $54. Even if that’s a 

high water mark, which is an appropriate term I think today for 

Maryland—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR [continuing]. Then I think we would all agree this 

is affordable, and I would hope that we would all consider it not 

as an add-on but as a floor requirement for any participants in the 

program. So I thank you. 

Let me get back to quality, because it’s been the focus of the 

Chair’s interest since the beginning. Our last hearing I think was 

entitled ‘‘Are We Getting The Most Bang For The Buck?’’ And, Dr. 

Bryant, you described a recent study that set out to test whether 

there might be a minimal just-good-enough standard, and let me 

just read what your findings said. 

‘‘Not only did the authors find no evidence of just-goodenough thresholds of quality, they found the opposite. For 

these poor children, below certain thresholds there were no 

gains, and the association between quality and children’s gains 

was stronger at the higher quality levels than at lower levels 

for poor children. Those who get the CCDBG grant subsidies 

may get no social or academic benefit from low-quality care. 

We will not realize a quality agenda if we don’t find a better 

way to infuse quality into the floor of CCDBG.’’ 

And Ms. Brantley stated in her testimony, 

‘‘When the primary marker of success is the number 

served’’—in other words, a slot—‘‘occupied in 1 year by two to 

three children is cause for celebration, how different would our 

policies, and therefore our celebrations be if instead we were 

asked to report the numbers served in programs with a proven 

track record of preparing children for success in school and on 

the number of parents that remained employed while their 

children were enrolled? ’’ 

I think both statements get at the foundation of what we should 

stay focused on, the last being the threshold of the test, are we 

achieving what we set out to. 

In our last hearing, which was are you getting the most bang for 

the buck in quality early education and care, Dr. Bryant, the findings from the recent study you described seem to say that children 

of low-income parents, the target of CCDBG, will not realize the 

bang for the buck for the individual child, the family, or the American taxpayer until we get serious and set a floor of quality in the 

program. Have I got it exactly right? 

Ms. BRYANT. Yes. That most recent study I spoke about took 

place in 11 States, so a large number. I mean, I think you can generalize the findings. It was with preschoolers, not infants and toddlers, but I think it just re-inforces our belief that quality is important for all children, but especially for low-income children. So I appreciate the fact that your committee is trying to figure out how 

to infuse quality into CCDBG, and that’s probably not a real easy 
30 

thing to do, but I think you’ve heard some suggestions here today, 

and the question is how feasible are they to change the system. 

Senator BURR. Well, you said earlier you’re sandwiched between 

practitioners and policymakers. 

Ms. BRYANT. Yes. 

Senator BURR. And I’m trying to drill this point home for all the 

members of Congress, that from a policymaker’s standpoint, why 

would we fund something that had no effect? So if we’re going to 

fund it, which we all agree, not just for slots but for outcome, then 

why wouldn’t we set the floor to where more people had the opportunity to experience gain? 

Ms. BRYANT. Right. I mean, I absolutely agree with you. I understand that part of the reason for providing subsidies is so parents 

can go to work, and that’s great. But you want them to be secure 

at work that their kids are doing well and they’re learning something. So I think it would be wonderful if the baseline of CCDBG 

could be raised somewhat. 

Mr. KAROLAK. Senator, if I could jump in, quality counts. I mean, 

we all know that. I don’t think anyone would suggest that any kind 

of care is OK in terms of providing an outcome, a level of quality. 

But not only does quality count, it also costs, and that’s really the 

conundrum with the block grant. In order to define that level of 

quality, whatever the minimum base standard would be, we’ll have 

to have resources to be able to meet that level of quality. That’s 

part of the reason why we have children in some high-quality settings but not in all of those settings. And as long as we are looking 

at the kind of level of funding and the way it’s distributed through 

that reimbursement rate, and the pressures the States are under, 

and here as well, it’s going to be very difficult to obtain quality 

without paying more for it, and I think that’s really the heart of 

this matter. 

Senator BURR. I understand fully what you’re saying, but I want 

to go back to Ms. Brantley. This isn’t about slots. It’s about the outcome. Now, if you could serve 100 kids and have no quality, but 

you could serve 50 kids and have quality, what would you choose? 

I hope that is not the choice that we have. 

Senator MIKULSKI. That’s an excellent question. 

Senator BURR. But I don’t think we can look at it and say, ‘‘well, 

we can’t meet this requirement because then we either reduce slots 

or we don’t have a pool that’s big enough of professionals.’’ Well, 

that doesn’t lessen the fact that our policy should be that we’re 

going to make sure that every child that’s in the system has the 

opportunity to gain because there’s a quality metric there that 

we’re testing, and I would add to that individuals who have cleared 

some type of check that we know that safety is a factor. 

Ms. Brantley, I know you want to say something. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. This is, I think, the age-old dilemma in the program. I think you heard my colleague Eric. I believe he said one 

in six. I tend to spout out 15 percent, roughly the same, mathematically the same. 

We only reach approximately 15 percent of the potentially eligible children in this program anyway. It would take a whole—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. One in five, or five in zero? 

Senator BURR. One in five. 
31 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Fifteen, 1–5. Sorry. It would take more money 

than we can ever dream of appropriating to serve 100 percent. So 

we’re not going to serve 100. I think we have to start with that acceptance, frankly, much as we don’t want to, that we’re not going 

to be able to serve 100 percent of the eligible kids in this family. 

So then it does become a question of how well do we serve those 

that we can reach? We just went through a process in Colorado last 

year, not the most recent legislative session but the year before, 

and did enact a piece of legislation there with a lot of bipartisan 

support to extend the eligibility period to 12 months for all children, and to also align it with Head Start for children who were 

dually enrolled in both programs, and a lot of the conversation 

about that was an understanding that making that move would, in 

fact, could, probably will somewhat reduce our total numbers of 

children served, because we’re not going to have two or three kids 

occupying every slot every year. So it may, in fact, reduce it. 

But it is going to ensure, particularly in the Head Start child 

care connection, it’s going to ensure that children who are, in fact, 

enrolled in a program that is evidence-based and is intending to 

make a school readiness difference, that those children will get to 

stay there long enough for it to make a difference. In my written 

testimony I submitted to you a little paragraph about an actual 

family in our program who is right now facing having to pull back 

on the dosage, if you will—that’s one of Donna’s words—the dosage 

of the high-quality program that we offer because we cannot afford 

to have the child in the program full-day/full-year without CCDBG 

subsidy, and the father is no longer eligible because he’s lost his 

job. 

And so the child—we’ve already invested several thousands of 

dollars in this child and this family, and now we risk losing both 

the taxpayers’ investment, and we risk losing, way more important, 

this child’s absolute readiness for school. We’re going to do the best 

we can in a half-day, part-year, but if we had the CCDBG subsidy 

still in place, that glue as I mentioned before, we’d bring this child 

across the finish line for sure. 

Senator BURR. Well, I might add that the length of time that it’s 

been since we reauthorized the Act is a reminder to us of how 

things have shifted since then, and a new understanding of the 

continuity of care is one of many aspects, and all of these things 

beg us to do reauthorization, and to do it with the changes in mind. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BRYANT. Could I add to Charlotte’s comment that the research base for not kicking kids out in the middle of the year is 

that there’s a good bit of research about the attachment, particularly of infants and toddlers, to their care provider, and how the 

disruption that occurs when they are coming and going, and also 

the same would be true for preschoolers, but also for the learning 

gains, that it’s a very short period of time, even in a very highquality program, isn’t going to do them a lot of good. So I think 

there’s some support for that. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We’re going to move to Senator Franken now 

and come back. 

Senator Franken. 
32 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling these series of hearings on early childhood. 

We have obviously this budget debate going on, and I always 

think of this as the debate that has to be about long-term sustainability of our deficits and our debt and what works best for the 

long-term. And if you make the right investments at the right time 

and the right cuts at the right time, that’s going to have an impact 

on our long-term sustainability more than just focusing on shortterm cuts. 

Basically what I’m hearing, of course, is that this is underfunded 

and that we’re only serving about 15 percent of the kids who qualify. Is that right? And that we know that there is tremendous return on investment when kids have quality, high-quality care, and 

that it costs money to raise the quality. Is that right? Does everyone agree on that? 

So the question really is, are we being penny-wise and poundfoolish by cutting investment in our children? And as I know in 

your testimony, you’ve said that this has an economic development 

aspect to it because kids—when parents have good quality daycare 

for their kids, they’re free to go to work, and they can work and 

do their jobs. 

So I guess what I’m really asking is that if we’re talking about 

long term, the long-term economic health of this country, would it 

be wise to increase funding for these block grants and do it in quite 

a significant way? Could this be scaled up in a meaningful way? 

Could we be training high-quality early childhood care providers in 

quantities enough that we can reap the benefits that we see when 

kids do have good high-quality early childhood education and early 

childhood care? Anyone care to take that overarching generalized 

question? 

Mr. KAROLAK. Well, absolutely. We all believe these are the best 

programs you can invest in, and far better sources have said this 

to this subcommittee. Earlier this summer you heard from Art 

Rolnick, a Federal Reserve economist from your State, Senator, and 

a body of research has demonstrated that investments in high 

quality have enormous returns, as much as $8 to the dollar invested. And there are ways to direct those dollars into higher-quality settings, to incentivize so that more low-income children are 

served in higher-quality settings. We’re not saying nothing can be 

done. It just takes resources to do the best things, of course. 

I would go so far as to say that the shadow that’s not in the 

room—you’ve alluded to it—is the current economic condition the 

country is in, and private paying parents are absolutely feeling 

that. The government is feeling that at the Federal and the State 

levels, and it’s important to be thinking about how we parse the 

dollars so that we get the biggest bang for the dollar spent. 

The greatest challenge to quality most likely—I mean, we may 

look back in 6 months and say, actually the work being done by 

the Joint Select Committee or the work of the Congress as a whole 

in terms of grappling with the deficit, because if they choose to cut 

this program, which is a very real possibility, it would be simply 

devastating to the families that receive care, it would be a tremendous step backward for businesses trying to grow the economy, and 

it will ultimately hurt the children especially. 
33 

So the stakes are high, and questions about quality can’t be removed or separated out from issues about access and other aspects 

of how we fund this program. But absolutely, I think you’ll find 

uniform agreement that we all think investments in high-quality 

early childhood are worth making. 

Senator FRANKEN. When we compare how our kids are doing in 

school compared to other OECD countries, we see ourselves falling 

in comparison to them, and I’m wondering how early childhood and 

child care is conducted in these other countries that seem to be lapping us in achievement in school. Does anyone have any comment 

on that? 

Ms. BRYANT. In some of the countries that are ahead of us, they 

have universal access at ages 3 and 4, and lots more options for 

care for infants and toddlers. But I also think many of those countries are under stress now, and they’re probably conducting the 

same kind of conversations about how to keep their early childhood 

programs adequately funded. 

Senator FRANKEN. When you say universal, we’re talking about 

15 percent right now that we serve. 

Ms. BRYANT. Right. That’s just 15 percent of the low-income children who qualify. 

Senator FRANKEN. That’s 15 percent of the low-income. 

Ms. BRYANT. Right, right. 

Senator FRANKEN. And when they say universal, do they mean 

universal? 

Ms. BRYANT. Available, yes. Universally available. 

Senator FRANKEN. Available. And so—— 

Ms. BRYANT. But not necessarily—— 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. So they have a completely different emphasis on this than we do, and the results are pretty 

staggering when you look at what the test scores are in other countries compared to what they are in the United States and how we 

are just falling behind. We know that our future economic prosperity will depend on our workforce, the quality of our workforce, 

our ability to compete, and when we’re not making this investment, 

you wonder if we are hobbling ourselves for the future and whether 

we are hobbling our ability to pay off the debts that we are incurring and have incurred, and have incurred because of some bad 

policies in the past. 

Are we now compounding that by, in this time of fiscal restraints, cutting in the wrong areas? 

Senator MIKULSKI. I would like the answers to be crisp because 

I need to get to Senator Hagan. 

Senator FRANKEN. I’m sorry to make that question so long. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Well, if I may, one point that I think we need to 

bring up here in answer to that question that is a fundamental 

issue with the Child Care and Development Block Grant and why 

things are sometimes so hard to marry these together, the CCDBG 

with Head Start with pre-K with other early childhood intervention 

services and things like that. This country decided, or maybe by default because there was no decision, in this country access to early 

childhood care and education is primarily paid for by parents, unlike public school, unlike, you know, if you’re in Head Start maybe 

you get it without having to pay. 
34 

But most of the early childhood in this country is paid for by parents, and they’re having to purchase it—I know there’s probably a 

lot of parents in this room who either used to or are currently now 

trying to afford that when they are likely in their own careers at 

the lowest income level they may ever have because they’re new to 

the workforce, they’re young. 

So we have established early childhood as a market as if it was 

being sold like a loaf of bread in the grocery store, and the comments that my colleagues have made here about the market rate, 

the 75th percentile—this, that, the other—we have limited ourselves in actually being able to use this funding stream to pay for 

quality by looking at it through the lens of how child care is sold 

to families in the general population. And we know that the highest quality care is flat-out unaffordable to most of our families, and 

yet we also know now through more and more research that people 

like Donna are doing, and many, many others, that the quality of 

the environment that children are in, particularly birth to 3, birth 

to 5, has direct correlations to how they do later. And if you want 

to measure it by 3rd grade reading scores, by some other measure 

of success, there is a very high correlation. 

And yet we have established ourselves in this country in helping 

families pay for it based on the market driving forces in it, and it 

just simply doesn’t work, to be able to pay for quality with that 

kind of a mindset. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’m going to move now to—I know others 

want to comment. Perhaps later on. 

Senator Hagan. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAGAN

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I really do appreciate you and Senator Burr holding this hearing. I think it’s very, 

very important. 

In North Carolina, we’ve made really great strides. In 1993, 

under the leadership of former Governor Jim Hunt, we established 

Smart Start, which placed a huge focus in North Carolina on quality child care, and being sure that children are healthy and ready 

to begin kindergarten. 

I was in the State legislature from 1999 to 2008, and we worked 

hard to establish Smart Start, and More at Four. As so many parents know, and Ms. Brantley, just pointed out, early childhood 

years are the most formative of time for the brain, and the more 

we can do to help educate and to ensure that they have a quality 

setting, quality instruction, quality people, it really does make a 

difference long-term. 

I’m very interested in this hearing today, and I really do want 

to honor Dr. Bryant, for her work at the Frank Porter Graham 

Child Development Institute at UNC Chapel Hill. I think you all 

do great work, and I’m honored that you’re here with us today. 

In your testimony, Dr. Bryant, you say there’s no singular approach to helping States improve the quality of child care, and that 

there are several areas in which States can develop initiatives to 

improve the quality of child care, and in particular you discuss the 

quality rating and improvement system. I know that in North 
35 

Carolina we have the 5-Star rating program, and we’ve also got a 

program called TEACH, which is really helping people, who are 

employed in our child care centers, receive funding for extra education so they can do a quality job. 

I can remember being in the State legislature and getting postcard after postcard from these individuals saying thank you for this 

stipend to help me be better trained. 

Can you talk about whether or not other States are doing that? 

Is that anything that the Federal Government is also looking at? 

Ms. BRYANT. TEACH in specific is I think in 26, was in 26 

States. Sue Russell has exported that program to many, although 

I think a couple of States may have cut it as a result of their State 

cutbacks this year. But that makes me think about Senator 

Franken’s question about are there more cost-effective ways of 

doing things, and while we’ve put a lot of things in place in North 

Carolina to improve quality early childhood, I’ve always wondered 

if we are teaching—what we know is that the teacher is the most 

important factor in how well that classroom is run, what the kids 

are getting out of it, how much gain they make. 

I think we still could do a lot more in trying to find better ways 

of educating people for the early childhood teaching profession, and 

it may not necessarily be the same way you educate someone to 

teach high school. And we have sort of a graduated approach. In 

research, we look at it as is it a high school degree or a CDA, a 

child development credential, or an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree. A teacher’s progress along that educational continuum sometimes bears relation to the quality, but not always, 

and that’s just the same as K–12. I mean, it’s not an absolute predictor. And I’ve wondered if we could try some experimental ways 

of infusing quality in the early childhood profession. 

There was a recent paper about early childhood academies 

maybe being a way to get a lot of the important stuff in for people 

who just can’t take 9 years through TEACH and finally get to their 

degree. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Twenty-three thousand dollars a year. 

Ms. BRYANT. Pardon me? 

Senator MIKULSKI. For $23,000. 

Ms. BRYANT. Oh, yes. Duke University dropped their early childhood program years ago. I don’t know why they did it, really, but 

I figured it’s because if you were paying $50,000 a year for tuition, 

you weren’t going to have your daughter probably go to a teaching 

profession where you were making maybe $20,000 or $25,000 if you 

were lucky. 

So I think we could do some experimentation with the teaching 

core and how we improve that, and that may be a large-scale way 

to infuse quality everywhere. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. First I want to say to my subcommittee, I’m 

really proud of everybody. Your questions are so robust and content-focused, and I think there’s a spirit here to reauthorize the 

bill. I will be, after this hearing, consulting with members exactly 

on that. 

I remember before 1996 when there was just scattered kinds of 

child care programs. One was focused primarily, though, on those 
36 

on welfare, which was the old AFDC program. In 1996, this was 

all part of moving people from welfare to work. We had a booming 

economy. The Internet was coming. We thought America was going 

to head toward full employment, and we needed to provide the support services to do it. 

Well, the economy has changed, and this bill hasn’t been reauthorized since 1996, and there’s a new fiscal reality I think in the 

United States because we spent our money on other things; OK? 

We won’t go into that, but we have. 

So where are we? This is where I’d like to ask one of my questions. I think we have to find the balance between regulation and 

strangulation—regulation where we really insist on proper standards for safety and quality, and at the same time are not so rigid, 

one-size-fits-all out of Washington regardless of the size of the 

State or the demography of the State. 

And then we have what I call underground daycare. For all of 

us who know and have worked in child welfare, we know that the 

thing that we would fear the most is children in environments 

where there is no supervision, no nothing actually, and they are 

truly a vulnerable population. So that’s where I’m heading. 

So let me go to the safety questions. And then the other, you 

know, one of the big bugaboos besides money is mandates. Wherever you go, whether you’re talking about the reauthorization of 

title 1 or this bill, they say, oh, God, whether you’re a governor or 

a provider, don’t give us more mandates. So we need to have local 

flexibility, and yet national standards. So you see where I’m heading. 

Let’s go to the safety. I think there is the sense that there should 

be, as Senator Burr has done in his bill, background checks on 

those people we know will get government money. If government 

is going to help pay for child care, government should insist that 

people are fit for duty, and one of the criteria, of course, is that you 

do not have a record of criminal conviction, especially related to the 

abuse of children. So that would be No. 1. 

But the other goes to inspections. Now remember, States can 

only spend 4 percent, I think, on quality. They’re limited on administrative funds. The DOD bill—you know, if you’re in money from 

the Department of Defense, they mandate four inspections a year. 

I would imagine if I called the dynamic woman who was the governor of North Carolina, or Governor O’Malley, they’d say, ‘‘Barb, 

love to, but just can’t do it.’’ 

Do you believe that inspections of facilities are a necessity, and 

how frequently would you recommend them to be able to do that? 

I’m talking now about safety. I’ll get to quality. Do you have a recommendation on this? 

Ms. BRANTLEY. I’ll jump in again from the perspective of a direct 

provider currently, as well as someone who has dealt with those 

issues on both sides, both as the regulator and as the regulee—is 

that the word?—the person being regulated. 

Senator MIKULSKI. What’s the recommendation? 

Ms. BRANTLEY. I do believe inspections are incredibly important. 

I think they should occur. I think that even perhaps once a year 

is not necessarily good enough. I see the drill my own staff go 
37 

through when they know it’s time for an inspection. Things get 

really good when they—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. But that’s an announced inspection. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. That’s when they know that it’s time and it’s 

coming at some point, in the next few weeks or months. There’s 

sort of this mindset. In order to afford it, what we’re trying to accomplish in terms of on-site inspections, I would like to see us look 

down the road to ways in which we can be combining and joining 

forces with others who inspect. 

The program that I run, it’s a licensed child care facility, so it’s 

inspected by child care licensing, it’s inspected by the food program, it’s inspected actually by the local arm of the State health 

department, it’s inspected by Head Start, and it’s inspected separately by Early Head Start. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So we have multiple inspections. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Federal agency, and it’s inspected by the HIPPI 

USA because we use the HIPPI curriculum, and it’s inspected by 

Denver Public Schools because we are a Denver Public Schools Colorado preschool program provider, and now we’re being also inspected by the Denver Preschool Program. So we are inspected by 

funding stream, if you will. 

We are an incredibly high-quality program. We have all the stars 

you can get. We’d have more stars if there were more stars in Colorado’s QRIS. We have incredibly clean every 3 years Head Start 

and Early Head Start. There are never any findings in this program, and yet I am monitored by everybody and their brother. 

We’re spending a lot of money to—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, let me jump in here. First of all, that 

was very insightful, really tremendously insightful, and I’d like 

you, because you are an actual hands-on provider, to give me a list 

of everybody that inspects you. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. OK, I’d be happy to. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Because I think this is important, and I know 

it’s exactly the kind of thing that Senator Burr is keen on, needless 

duplication and so on. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. I think that the Office of Child Care is currently 

looking at that as well. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Let me go to my next point. One of our ways 

of thinking about it would be how certain inspections would deem 

appropriate for everybody; OK? It will be complicated, but there 

should be a way we’d make it for States to be able to do this. 

The second thing would be what I call good guy bonuses, that if 

you’re inspected and, gosh, you’re like, you should get fewer inspections every year, but some need more frequent inspections—in 

other words, the worse the record, the more frequent the inspection. So some might have to have four visits until they right their 

ship, and someone like you might have to only be inspected every 

other year. And I think there has to be a reward system. 

I’m a carrot and a stick kind of gal. So I think those are—do you 

think that’s a good way to think about it? 

Ms. BRANTLEY. I do think that there is some value in that. I also 

think, again, figuring out—and I will provide you with that list. I 

think figuring out where we can cut out the duplication would actually make it much more affordable to do those—— 
38 

Senator MIKULSKI. And perhaps make it much more flexible to 

the States to—— 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Yes. 

Senator MIKULSKI [continuing]. Keep up with that system. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Yes, right. 

Senator MIKULSKI. You know, I think where we all agree, then, 

is less Washington mandates, but certainly descriptive rather than 

prescriptive. 

Now, Dr. Karolak, that takes me to you. You were the hotline 

guy. You ran a hotline providing technical assistance? 

Mr. KAROLAK. The Technical Assistance Network that the Office 

of Child Care operates includes a hotline to help connect parents 

with providers. 

Your question earlier about could you report concerns about safety through that line, I’m not entirely sure. I’m sure if you did as 

a parent, they would get the appropriate attention. That line is 

manned very well, or staffed very well. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Do you like hotlines? Do you think they work? 

I used to love hotlines, but now I wonder do hotlines really work? 

They work in the Violence Against Women Act. We know that over 

a million women, in the original Biden legislation, have used it, 

and it’s been enormously successful. 

Mr. KAROLAK. Yes, I think there’s something worth looking at in 

terms of how that hotline that exists can be promoted to parents. 

Of course, you need to inculcate in parents an understanding of 

what quality is, what things to be concerned about when it comes 

to safety. 

Senator MIKULSKI. No. I’m talking about the guy that delivers 

the bread, and he just thinks something is funny every day; OK? 

Mr. KAROLAK. Sure. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’m talking about really what a hotline is, and 

again that’s the delicacy between reporting and snitching and retribution, because there’s a lot that goes on in communities. 

Mr. KAROLAK. It would be good to have a way for anyone who’s 

got concerns about a particular program, if there’s something going 

on in the neighborhood, to be able to report that. I think that’s 

probably a very good idea. I do think that ultimately it comes back 

to what does someone do with that information, and that requires—you know, we were talking about inspections, for example, 

and the workload that goes with that. That requires having folks 

able to go out on the ground to look into matters. 

I like this notion that you triage inspections so that problem providers get a little more attention, and some of the best programs 

maybe aren’t given full inspections. There’s key indicators that are 

focused on. And that is a way of triaging some of the workload. 

But a hotline will only identify something that needs to be followed up on. And so there’s a—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. But that’s pretty good. 

Mr. KAROLAK. Oh, absolutely. It might be a way that a program—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. That could be an option for a State to establish. In other words, rather than a national hotline where you get 

into privacy, who follows up, who tells who, more bureaucracy, 

more yeah-yes, yeah-yes, that you enable a governor through their 
39 

legislative body to think about that. What do you think, Senator 

Burr? 

Senator BURR. I think you’re onto something. I would caution all 

of us that hotlines in some cases can be used as a reason not to 

act, not to institute certain requirements that commonsense tells 

you you ought to do. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Like an inspection. 

Senator BURR. Like an inspection. I might say for the record, 

North Carolina does require four inspections a year. So we hit your 

threshold. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’d like to tell O’Malley about that. It’s bad 

enough we have to put up with your basketball teams. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. You’ve got quite a football team up there this year 

based upon how they played against—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. And fashionistas, I might add. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. But I think you raise two really important issues, 

and that’s how do we support the right policy, how do we reward 

people who go above and beyond from a standpoint of a quality institution and hopefully coordinate to where it’s not overload from 

the standpoint of reporting or inspections, and how do we supplement the public’s participation in the assessment of quality facilities or at-risk facilities I might say, and I think there’s a way to 

publicly promote that, but it does have to be done at the State level 

and not at the national level. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I think that’s something to think about. 

My last point, though, is about training and quality, because I 

think the consensus of the experts here is that one of the thresholds is that in order to get quality, you have to have people who 

know what they’re doing. Now, the average rate of pay for a child 

care worker in the United States is under $25,000 a year. They 

often make less than the people who are getting the subsidy. So 

this is an issue, and I’m not commenting specifically on the problem of pay. I mean, we would all like it to be higher. So to ask 

them to pay is, I think, a burden. So the question is what is it we 

require, and what is it we require at what level, and then who pays 

for it? 

The question is do you have minimal accreditation standards, licensing standards? There seems to be a difference between accreditation and licensing and so on. And yet people have to be trained. 

And yet is it the teacher, is it the college graduate, is it an assistant who is not a college graduate but who loves children and has 

a unique way and valuable skill set? 

You know, we’re talking about children—like everybody is going 

to show up with shiny, bright eyes and be toilet trained and ready 

to go, hoo-ha, give me that jar of Play-Doh. Many of our children 

have significant physical challenges, now a growing emotional challenge, particularly with the high rate of autism, particularly among 

our little boys growing up to be big boys. That’s an enormous, enormous challenge. 

So what do you think about that? How rigid do you think our 

training should be? Right now there are no training standards. 
40 

Ms. BRYANT. You’re right that the teacher is the most important. 

We do have standards that have been developed in almost every 

State, I think, for early learning, what children should know and 

learn, and we need to connect what teachers get taught so that 

they can teach to those standards. 

I think that licensing, just to clarify, licensing is what States do. 

When we say accreditation, typically we mean accreditation by the 

National Association for the Education of Young Children or one of 

the other national agencies, and that’s usually at the high end of 

quality. So State licensing is sort of the baseline quality, and you 

would hope to achieve national accreditation. A nationally accredited—many States’ QRIS’s says if you’ve achieved national accreditation, you’re at our top level. 

I got off track. 

For teachers, I think that it has to be individualized where they 

are, and I think that I want a college degree for every teacher because I think a college degree is the coin of the realm in our country. It’s a human capital issue. It doesn’t guarantee good teaching, 

and so they need training, technical assistance, consultation, whatever you call it, and possibly some of that is going to occur in the 

college classroom, or the community college classroom. 

TEACH is a good way of funding it. But again, it’s one of those 

dollars versus leaving people where they are issues. So I wish I had 

a solution for you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. This will be my last question. Dr. Karolak, 

what do you think about that? 

Mr. KAROLAK. Well, first I hesitate to add anything to what Dr. 

Bryant has to say on this subject. She’s a far greater expert than 

I am. But I would say, and I think this is—I know this is borne 

out by the research, that we know that the more early childhoodspecific training and education a provider receives, the better the 

work that she does, and the better the outcome, the experience for 

the child. 

And so I think that as we think about licensing standards, having States require pre-service and the ongoing training requirements that include early childhood development-specific training is 

very important and is a way of making sure that the workforce 

that is there and its experience is embraced and is developed in 

that kind of continuum that Dr. Bryant mentioned. 

I think it’s important to also note that the wage level, which is 

really the endpoint that we’re trying to get to when talking about 

that, is a function of the public and private dollars that are available in the child care arena, in the early learning arena. And unless we see some great change in the valuation—you mentioned the 

coin of the realm—unless we see a change in the valuation of early 

childhood development in the society, it would be very hard to 

move that wage level without some significant help from Washington. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, I think that’s an enormous challenge in 

today’s fiscal climate, but it is worth consideration. 

One of the things we note, though, in nursing, that there is a 

continuum of certification, whether it’s the certified nursing assistant, the licensed practical nurse, the 2-year person from our community college that performs an important role, to the 4-year bach-
41 

elor’s, to then a sophisticated master’s degree nurse practitioner 

like from an outstanding school like Chapel Hill or Hopkins or the 

University of Minnesota, there is a continuum and they’re called 

upon to perform different functions. 

Now, often we know a hospital, an acute care or a nursing home, 

again these are larger institutions with a lot of public participation 

and so on. But I think that there are lessons learned—— 

Mr. KAROLAK. Absolutely. 

Senator MIKULSKI [continuing]. Where we look at a continuum, 

and then also establish a career ladder, where if you enter at one 

level, that you can then move to another, and then that level takes 

you to another over your own time as you progress. And I think 

this is an area—I think we can get real clarity on the safety issues 

with good ideas and local flexibility. But I think this education, as 

well as the funding, is going to be one of our biggest challenges. 

Do you agree with that? 

Senator BURR. Madam Chairman, I agree with you, and I want 

to highlight something that Dr. Bryant said, and I would ask my 

colleagues to think about this in the context of K–12 and the reauthorization of that legislation. 

Basically, what you said is we’ve got to look at the way we teach 

these folks to make sure it’s appropriate for what we’re asking 

them to do. Well, Erskine Bowles, when he was president of the 

university system in North Carolina, raised with me one day that 

he wanted to look into whether we taught teachers the right way 

to teach today’s students. 

Now, unless you think about it in the simplicity of the way the 

statement was made, you wouldn’t realize we can’t teach teachers 

today the way we taught them 50 years ago because generationally 

and population-wise it’s different. By the same standpoint, we probably need to look at how we go through the instruction process for 

workers in this field to make sure that it’s appropriate for the curriculum that we’re asking to be adopted. If we’re not teaching them 

to meet the thresholds that you’ve identified, this is where you 

should be at the end of this period, then we’ve come up woefully 

short if we did everything else right. So it’s not only appropriate 

here; I would ask my colleagues to think about it from the context 

of the reauthorization of K–12. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, and before K–12, since we’re talking 

about early childhood, and Ms. Brantley, in your written testimony 

you said that the strategies for teaching infants, toddlers and preschoolers are different, so I think we have to be cognizant of that. 

I mean, not only are there differentiations between pre-K, but 

there are differentiations between infants and toddlers and other 

preschoolers. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Absolutely. And one of the things that we’re finding that also has to be addressed in this whole conversation about 

teacher preparation is who is it that’s doing the preparation of the 

teachers and how prepared are they? We discovered in Colorado 

that—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. I think that signals a time for another hearing and another day. I think the issue of training has to be dealt 

with, and we could go into this in a substantive way, but our time 

here in this room has really expired. 
42 

So thank you for your really content-rich, meaty contributions 

here, and the issues that you’ve raised that sparked a lot of thinking among ourselves. But what I hope that you come away with is 

that we really listened, we took it to heart, and we’re also listening 

to each other despite what’s on the media and so on. We’re actually 

listening and working together with each other, and this is why I’m 

optimistic that this subcommittee will be able to produce a reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and 

look forward to that. 

We’re going to be back to you when we hit a speed bump, a pothole, or flooding in our States. So thank you very much, and have 

a really safe trip home, and thanks for your willingness to come 

and testify. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Ms. BRANTLEY. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. You’re welcome. The record will remain open 

for 10 days. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ