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

40–225 PDF 2008

INVESTING IN EARLY EDUCATION: PATHS TO

IMPROVING CHILDREN’S SUCCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JANUARY 23, 2008

Serial No. 110–75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on January 23, 2008 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 4

Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut, prepared statement of ............................................................ 4

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 5

Additional submissions: 

DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Connecticut, prepared statement of ................................ 6

Melmed, Matthew, executive director, Zero to Three, prepared 

statement of .................................................................................... 77

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 6

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 7

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

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Chun, Elisabeth, executive director, Hawaii Good Beginnings Alliance ..... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Haskins, Ron, Ph.D., senior fellow, economic studies, Brookings Institution ................................................................................................................. 43

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

Karolak, Eric, executive director, Early Care and Education Consortium .. 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Kolb, Charles E.M., president, Committee for Economic Development ....... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Phillips, Deborah A., Ph.D., professor, department of psychology, Georgetown University ............................................................................................. 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Letter, dated January 30, 2008 ................................................................ 20

Priestly, Kathleen, early education coordinator, Orange City School District ................................................................................................................. 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

(1)

INVESTING IN EARLY EDUCATION: PATHS TO 

IMPROVING CHILDREN’S SUCCESS 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mazie Hirono presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Payne, Kucinich, Holt, Bishop of 

New York, Sarbanes, Sestak, Hirono, Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, 

McKeon, Petri, Castle, Platts, Keller, Kline, Foxx, and Davis of 

Tennessee. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Lynne Campbell, Legislative Fellow for Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education 

Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor (Early 

Childhood); Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood Education and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff 

Assistant, Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; 

Danielle Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Stephanie Moore, General 

Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief 

Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Mark Zuckerman, Staff 

Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; James 

Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Cameron 

Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director; Kirsten 

Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Rob Gregg, Minority 

Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Chad 

Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director 

of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Hannah Snoke, 

Minority Receptionist/Administrative Assistant. 

Ms. HIRONO [presiding]. A quorum being present, the committee 

will come to order. 

Good morning. On behalf of Chairman Miller, I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing, ‘‘Investing in Early Education: Paths 

to Improving Children’s Success.’’

I cannot think of a more critical issue for us to explore in our 

first full committee hearing of 2008 than the need for expanding 

quality early education opportunities for our nation’s children. 

2

As we will hear from our panel of experts today, providing a good 

educational foundation for our children during their earliest years 

of life not only improves student success down the road, but is vital 

to building a stronger, more innovative, and competitive future for 

our country. 

Over the past decade, there has been groundbreaking research 

on brain and child development that underscores the importance of 

the first 5 years of a child’s life. In combination with their genes, 

children’s experiences in these critical early years influence brain 

chemistry, architecture, and growth in ways that can have lasting 

effects on their health, learning, and behavior. 

Families are children’s first and most important teachers 

throughout life, but with nearly 12 million children under the age 

of 5, or nearly two-thirds of all American children under 5, in some 

type of regular child care arrangement, early care and education 

providers also play a great role in children’s development and 

growth. 

As a nation, we simply cannot afford to ignore the types and 

quality of early care and education settings that are available to 

our children. Research shows that the achievement gap we see in 

elementary school and beyond exists before children enter kindergarten. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study overseen by the 

Department of Education, for example, found twice as many 4-yearolds from upper-income family households were proficient in early 

math skills when compared to 4-year-olds from the lowest-income 

households. What this means is that if education reform begins in 

elementary school, we are starting 5 years too late. 

But the quality of early education is not just an issue for lowincome families. Finding high-quality, affordable care and education can be difficult for all families. The average cost of child care 

averages between $4,000 and $10,000 a year and usually ranks as 

the second highest expense for families after housing. 

Federal, state, and local programs have shown us that investments in high-quality early education can make a tremendous difference in children’s futures both in and outside the classroom. 

High-quality early education can improve children’s reading, math, 

and language skills, strengthen parenting practices, and help increase school readiness and lead to better health and behavior. 

But we also have a long way to go to ensure that all children can 

get a high-quality early education foundation. Pre-K and child care 

standards and oversight vary greatly across states. A vast majority 

of states have no training requirements for child care providers 

prior to working in a classroom, and 13 state pre-K programs meet 

five or fewer of 10 key quality criteria. 

The first 5 years of life provide us with an incredible opportunity 

to ensure that all children have the tools they need to achieve in 

elementary school and beyond. Investments in these programs 

must be made wisely, and we must ensure that we target resources 

to what works. 

But it is clear that new and greater investments must also be 

made. If we are to succeed at reforming our education system and 

ensuring success for all children, then improving the early care and 

education settings for our youngest children must be one of our top 

priorities, and if we are to maintain our leadership in this global 

3

economy, we must focus on investing in our children during their 

most formative years. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and look 

forward to hearing from each of you on what the science tells us 

about what is working and what challenges lay ahead. 

Thank you. 

Pursuant to Rule 12(a), all members may submit an opening 

statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent 

record. 

I now recognize the senior Republican member, Mr. McKeon, for 

an opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and Labor 

Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to our hearing: ‘‘Investing in Early 

Education: Paths to Improving Children’s Success.’’

I can’t think of a more critical issue for us to explore in our first full committee 

hearing of 2008 than the need for expanding quality early education opportunities 

for our nation’s children. 

As we will hear from our panel of experts today, providing a good educational 

foundation for our children during their earliest years of life not only improves student success down the road, but is vital to building a stronger, more innovative, and 

competitive future for our country. 

Over the past decade, there has been groundbreaking research on brain and child 

development that underscores the importance of the first five years of a child’s life. 

In combination with their genes, children’s experiences in these critical early 

years influence brain chemistry, architecture, and growth in ways that can have 

lasting effects on their health, learning, and behavior. 

Families are children’s first and most important teachers throughout life. 

But with nearly 12 million children under the age of five—or nearly two-thirds 

of all American children under five—in some type of regular child care arrangement, 

early care and education providers also play a great role in children’s development 

and growth. 

As a nation, we simply cannot afford to ignore the types and quality of early care 

and education settings that are available to our children. 

Research shows that the achievement gap we see in elementary school and beyond 

exists before children enter kindergarten. 

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study overseen by the Department of Education, for example, found twice as many 4-year-olds from upper-income family 

households were proficient in early math skills when compared to 4-year-olds from 

the lowest income households. 

What this means is that if education reform begins in elementary school—we’re 

starting 5 years too late. 

But the quality of early education is not just an issue for low-income families. 

Finding high-quality, affordable care and education can be difficult for all families. 

The average cost of child care averages between $4,000 and $10,000 a year—and 

usually ranks as the second highest expense for families, after housing. 

Federal, state, and local programs have shown us that investments in high quality early education can make a tremendous difference in children’s futures—both in 

and outside the classroom. 

High quality early education can improve children’s reading, math, and language 

skills, strengthen parenting practices that help increase school readiness, and lead 

to better health and behavior. 

But we also have a long way to go to ensure that all children can get a high-quality early education foundation. 

Pre-k and child care standards and oversight vary greatly across states. 

A vast majority of states have no training requirement for child care providers 

prior to working in a classroom and thirteen state pre-k programs meet 5 or fewer 

of 10 key quality criteria. 

The first five years of life provide us with an incredible opportunity to ensure that 

all children have the tools they need to achieve in elementary school and beyond. 

Investments in these programs must be made wisely and we must ensure that 

we target resources to what works. 

4

But it is clear that new and greater investments must also be made. 

If we are to succeed at reforming our education system and ensuring success for 

all children, then improving the early care and education settings for our youngest 

children must be one of our top priorities. 

And if we are to maintain our leadership in this global economy, we must focus 

on investing in our children during their most formative years. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and look forward to hearing 

from each of you about what the science tells us about what is working and what 

challenges lay ahead. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Chairman Miller, for holding this important hearing on early childhood education. 

As the member of the board of an early childhood education program in Braddock, 

Pennsylvania I have been able to see first hand the incredible benefits that early 

childhood education provides to children, families, and communities. Students that 

participate in high-quality early childhood education do better in school, are less 

likely to commit crimes, and are more likely to attend college or become gainfully 

employed after high school, than their peers. In fact, studies of high-quality early 

childhood education programs show that for every dollar invested in these programs 

they provide an economic benefit to society of between $1.25 and $17. 

Earlier this year, this committee reauthorized the Head Start Program. I believe 

that the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 will significantly 

enhance what is already a very good federal program. Today, I look forward to 

learning more about how the federal government can help to improve early childhood education and to hearing where our investment is having the most impact. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

[The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Connecticut 

Chairman Miller, thank you for convening a hearing today on one of the most important investments that we can make in our public education system: early education services. As members of the Committee on Education and Labor, few things 

are more important to us than the success of our children. In light of overwhelming 

evidence supporting investments in early education services, it is critical that we act 

expeditiously in delivering these services to our Nation’s children. 

The success of our education system directly relates to the potential health and 

prosperity of our Nation. In order for our education systems to be successful, we 

must remain vigilant of effective academic programs and improve and expand investment until these systems reflect our highest aspirations. In the past decade, 

education research has consistently concluded the same message: investments in 

quality early education services provide substantial, sustainable, and cost-effective 

benefits. 

Early education service investments, specifically during the initial years of life, 

facilitate mentally, physically, emotionally, and academically prepared students in 

the future. This in turn, provides opportunity for success in institutions of higher 

education and ultimately expanded opportunity for professional success in latter 

years. These investments reduce the need for disciplinary programs in primary and 

secondary school as well as reduce the need for future social services by expanding 

potential for professional success. 

Early education service investments are especially important for children from 

low-income families as the potential for academic failure is disproportionately higher for this demographic: high school dropout rates are high and higher education 

matriculation rates are low. Federal programs, like Head Start, address the nutrition, emotional, social, and academic needs of young children from low-income families and will ultimately prepare the most susceptible children for academic and professional success. 

5

As we look to further integrate and improve early education programs in national 

education priorities, we must reflect on the successes of public and private programs 

at the state and local levels. I am proud to represent a state that has continued 

to set high standards for early education funding and quality of programs. According 

to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Connecticut has 

one of the highest per pupil expenditure rates in the Nation. During the 2005-2006 

academic year, Connecticut averaged $7,101 per pupil on early education programs. 

This funding is used to deliver quality programs that incorporate physical, language 

and literacy, cognitive and intellectual, emotional and cultural focuses in early education curriculum. 

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that investments in early education are inextricably 

linked to potential future academic and professional success. Because these gains 

are aggregate, it is imperative that we act now with outreach expansion and program improvement. For these reasons, I joined with my fellow Connecticut colleagues, Representative DeLauro and Senator Dodd, in introducing legislation that 

will facilitate these efforts. 

The Early Childhood Investment Act (H.R. 2616) will establish a grant program 

to reward public and private entities that strengthen collaborative efforts with early 

education services. Additional health and education services will be used when the 

time is most critical in a child’s life: from birth through the age of five. These investments will produce healthier, happier and better prepared children in both the short 

and long term, while sharing federal costs with the local, state and private entities. 

In order to create a mentally, physically, emotionally and academically prepared 

student body and in turn, professional workforce, we must prioritize investments in 

quality early education services. 

[The statement of Ms. DeLauro follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Connecticut 

Chairman Miller, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I was glad to join you last year as co-chair of the Speaker’s National 

Children Summit and I am delighted to see your committee addressing one of its 

central issues: early childhood education. This is one of the most important issues 

facing the future of our country and I am glad the committee is investing the time 

and energy to examine it closely. 

Each of us believes that children should grow up healthy and safe—they should 

have the opportunity to learn and participate fully in society. That is why investing 

in early childhood education, whether through pre-k programs or child care, is so 

critical. With a Majority in Congress committed to the well-being of our children, 

I know we can make that vision a reality. 

Today, the parents of more than 55 million school-age children work outside the 

home. A third of those children either live in low-income households or would be 

poor if their mother did not work. That means millions of parents are out of the 

house, and we know that their children are likely to be cared for in a setting outside 

the home. 

So for many working women, child care and early childhood programs are the only 

source of peace of mind that comes with knowing that their child will be safe and 

sound during the time they cannot be with their children. Parents can focus on their 

jobs, confident that their children are in safe, responsible hands. Yet, early childhood programs are critical not only because they keep our children safe, but also 

because they provide them the opportunity to learn and be productive during those 

hours. 

We now know that 80 percent of brain development occurs by age three, with up 

to 90 percent of its capacity in the first five years. Prominent scientists all agreed—

the first year is critical in laying a foundation for future development, with neuroscience pointing the way to how positive relationships and experiences play a large 

role in the development of the child’s brain. And while early abuse, neglect, or trauma can have a profound negative impact on a child’s development, we also know 

he or she will recover far more quickly with the right care in the right environment. 

We know that the time children spend in a child care or pre-k programs help to 

influence lifelong learning patterns. Quality early care can make a big difference in 

children’s cognitive development and positively affect children’s performance well 

into their school careers. 

In this area, we must look to states that are leading the way. For example, Connecticut established school readiness funding in 1997 to serve three and four yearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
6

old children and is now looking at pre-natal through grade three services with their 

long-term initiative ‘‘Ready by 5 & Fine by 9.’’ They are working on a comprehensive 

early childhood investment plan which will coordinate and leverage resources in a 

strategic manner. 

Yet, despite the work in states like Connecticut, quality early childhood programs 

simply are not readily available to the families that need them most. Three out of 

five young children are in child care every day—nearly 12 million children—but only 

1 out of 7 children who are eligible for federal child care assistance receive any benefits under the Child Care Development Block Grant. Further, the cost is often extremely high—reaching up to $14, 647 a year for center-based infant care and 

$10,920 annually for a 4-year-old in a center. 

In the case of early-learning programs, the situation is dire. For over 4 decades, 

Head Start, the federal early childhood development program has provided comprehensive child development, literacy, and family services to more than 18 million 

infants, toddlers, and 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income and working-poor families. 

But today, only about 45 percent of those eligible receive Head Start services. 

We clearly need new thinking in this area. That is why I am proud to have 

worked with my colleagues Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Joe 

Courtney, in introducing legislation to create and enhance public-private-partnerships that will strengthen investment in early childhood development programs. 

‘‘The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007’’ would establish a grant program to 

award funding to a public-private partnership in a state which will then leverage 

additional resources to supplement existing state and federal funds in local community initiatives. It would also improve access to and quality of early childhood development for children from birth through age five and their families. 

Partnerships can be effective in leveraging funding from nonprofit or for-profit organizations, private entities and state government to increase investment in high 

quality early childhood development programs including: parent development and 

support (such as home visiting), child care, Head Start, preschool and other related 

early childhood development activities. 

We must recognize the value of engaging the private sector. Public funding is 

vital—it must continue and we need to expand it. But the fact is public investment 

alone has not been enough to reach all of our nation’s young children and make a 

lasting difference in their earliest years. If we want to ensure our children have 

every opportunity to succeed, we need to establish public-private partnerships and 

leverage resources to begin opening new doors. 

Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, we need to confront the chasm that exists between 

what we know is good for America’s children and what we actually do as a country 

to make it happen. We must fashion a public policy agenda that focuses on the earliest years of life and increases the quality of care for our children. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Kucinich follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Ohio 

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and for continuing 

the discussion about the importance of early childhood education. Over the last decade, research has repeatedly shown that early childhood education has immense 

benefit for the social and emotional development of a child, as well as his or her 

educational and vocational attainment later in life. These individual benefits translate to large-scale societal benefits in the form of a healthier and better-educated 

workforce and decreased demand on social service networks, just to name a few. 

I am eager to hear the testimony presented today. The Chairman has assembled 

an impressive group with decades of experience and ‘‘practice wisdom’’ in the early 

education field. I am confident that today’s proceedings will bring us significantly 

closer toward the goal of ensuring that every child in America has access to highquality, full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education. 

I am excited that this endeavor is well under way in my congressional district. 

Through a year-long planning process, the Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners developed a universal prekindergarten model. The program addresses all 

the components of high-quality early education programming: low child to staff ratios; a research-driven, proven curriculum; professional and workforce development; 

wraparound health and social services; family engagement; and monitoring and 

evaluation. I am particularly proud of the fact that this program was the product 

of a process that engaged over 200 stakeholders, from researchers and policy experts 

7

to program managers and direct service workers. So often, in our zeal to create effective programming, we neglect the bounty of research available in the wisdom of 

front line staff. I firmly believe that any early education endeavor must have the 

input of the direct service staff and others who face the lived reality of the programs 

we offer. 

Thank you again, Chairman, and thank you to our panel, for all of your efforts 

in furtherance of early education. I stand ready and willing to do whatever it takes 

to ensure that every child in America has access to high-quality, full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased to be here examining early childhood education, an 

issue this committee knows well. 

Last year, we worked together to write and pass a bipartisan 

Head Start reform bill that significantly strengthens early childhood education opportunities for disadvantaged children. I was extremely proud to be a part of crafting that legislation which reaffirmed our commitment to target the federal investment in early 

childhood education to serve disadvantaged children, those who are 

already at risk of falling behind even before they enroll in school. 

Research has shown that early childhood education pays significant dividends in preparing children for success in school and in 

life. Several studies have shown that children enrolled in early 

childhood education programs enter elementary school better prepared than their peers. It is for this reason that I am a strong proponent of federal programs, such as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Head Start, Early Reading First, and many others which ensure that children are ready to learn effectively when 

they enter kindergarten. 

At the same time, there is much we do not know about the longterm effects of early childhood education programs on student academic performance and whether these educational benefits continue into middle and high school. 

In addition, much more work needs to be done to increase coordination of the various federal early childhood education programs at 

the state and local level. 

Before Congress and this committee even consider efforts to expand the federal role in early childhood education, I believe we 

need to focus on the following three principles. 

First, any federal program, existing or otherwise, must preserve 

and promote the role of parents to choose an education provider. 

Children enrolled in early childhood education programs are benefiting from a diverse group of public and private providers. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through 

local school districts and private providers, administers the Head 

Start program and ensures that its services are meeting the unique 

needs of disadvantaged children. States have established pre-kindergarten programs aligned with their K-12 systems, and faithbased and private providers offer programs tailored towards parents’ specific goals. 

This diversity of programs and providers in which parents have 

control over their children’s education and choose what program 

works best for them is one of the great strengths of our early childhood education system. Because of that diversity, we have avoided 

many of the criticisms of our K-12 education system. 

8

Second, the federal investment should be narrowly targeted to 

those students who need it and those parents who can least afford 

it. Before enacting any new or duplicative initiatives, we must 

focus on serving those children not presently being served by the 

Head Start program. Since 1965, our federal education programs 

have been focused on ensuring that low-income and disadvantaged 

students and parents have access to those programs that will help 

them succeed in life. I strongly believe that any federal childhood 

education program must continue this focus. 

And, third, the federal investment in early childhood education 

must be focused on ensuring that public and private providers are 

running high-quality programs. Over the last few months, a number of legislative proposals have been introduced that seem to focus 

on increasing the number of students enrolled in federally funded 

early childhood education programs. 

These legislative efforts overlook the fact that the percentage of 

3-to 5-year-olds in the United States enrolled in some kind of early 

childhood education program has skyrocketed over the last decade, 

even without one-size-fits-all federal mandates. They also ignore 

the tremendous effort of the states in taking a leadership role to 

create and fund early childhood education programs. 

From Alabama to Florida to Virginia, states are leading the way 

in increasing access to pre-kindergarten programs. The federal role 

should recognize that fact and focus on ensuring the quality of 

these existing programs so that children are ready to learn when 

they enter kindergarten. 

Five years ago, when we first began the process of reforming and 

strengthening the Head Start program, this committee examined a 

limited proposal to move administration of the program to the 

states in order to better align the federal program with what is 

happening at the state and local level. Ultimately, we did not follow that approach, mainly because of concerns that doing so would 

divert federal early childhood support to state-based systems focusing on educating children. 

Given those concerns about moving Head Start to a state-structured system, I think that it is ironic that most of the early childhood education initiatives that have been proposed would mandate 

federal services administered by the U.S. Department of Education 

and provided at the state or local level. Nonetheless, today’s hearing presents us with an important opportunity to consider how 

early childhood education helps put children on the path to success. 

I look forward to hearing about the latest research into how children learn, and I am pleased to have program providers here with 

us to share their insight and experience with successful program 

operation. 

Once again, I would like to commend the chairman for convening 

this hearing and thank the witnesses for offering their considerate 

expertise. 

Our nation’s flexible, dynamic, and diverse system of early childhood education providers helps ensure a strong foundation for our 

children’s future educational success. I look forward to hearing 

more about that system today. 

Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

9

[The statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Senior Republican, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Miller. I’m pleased to be here examining 

early childhood education, an issue this committee knows well. 

Last year, we worked together to write and pass a bipartisan Head Start reform 

bill that significantly strengthens early childhood education opportunities for disadvantaged children. 

I was extremely proud to be a part of crafting that legislation, which reaffirmed 

our commitment to target the federal investment in early childhood education to 

serve disadvantaged children—those who are already at risk of falling behind, even 

before they enroll in school. 

Research has shown that early childhood education pays significant dividends in 

preparing children for success in school and in life. Several studies have shown that 

children enrolled in early childhood education programs enter elementary school 

better prepared than their peers. It is for this reason that I am a strong proponent 

of federal programs, such as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Head 

Start, Early Reading First, and many others, which ensure that children are ready 

to learn effectively when they enter kindergarten. 

At the same time, there is much we do not know about the long-term effects of 

early childhood education programs on student academic performance and whether 

these educational benefits continue into middle and high school. In addition, much 

more work needs to be done to increase coordination of the various federal early 

childhood education programs at the state and local level. 

Before Congress and this Committee even consider efforts to expand the federal 

role in early childhood education, I believe we need to focus on the following three 

principles. 

First, any federal program, existing or otherwise, must preserve and promote the 

role of parents to choose an education provider. Children enrolled in early childhood 

education programs are benefitting from a diverse group of public and private providers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through local school 

districts and private providers, administers the Head Start program and ensures 

that its services are meeting the unique needs of disadvantaged children. States 

have established pre-kindergarten programs, aligned with their K-12 systems. And 

faith-based and private providers offer programs tailored toward parents’ specific 

goals. This diversity of programs and providers—in which parents have control over 

their children’s education and choose what program works best for them—is one of 

the great strengths of our early childhood education system. Because of that diversity, we have avoided many of the criticisms of our K-12 education system. 

Second, the federal investment should be narrowly targeted to those students who 

need it and those parents who can least afford it. Before enacting any new or duplicative initiatives, we must focus on serving those children not presently being 

served by the Head Start program. Since 1965, our federal education programs have 

been focused on ensuring that low-income and disadvantaged students and parents 

have access to those programs that will help them succeed in life. I strongly believe 

that any federal early childhood education program must continue this focus. 

And, third, the federal investment in early childhood education must be focused 

on ensuring that public and private providers are running high-quality programs. 

Over the last few months, a number of legislative proposals have been introduced 

that seem to focus on increasing the number of students enrolled in federally-funded 

early childhood education programs. These legislative efforts overlook the fact that 

the percentage of 3 to 5 year olds in the United States enrolled in some kind of early 

childhood education program has skyrocketed over the last decade, even without 

one-size-fits-all federal mandates. 

They also ignore the tremendous effort of the states in taking a leadership role 

to create and fund early childhood education programs. From Alabama to Florida 

to Virginia, states are leading the way in increasing access to pre-kindergarten programs. The federal role should recognize this fact, and focus on ensuring the quality 

of these existing programs so that children are ready to learn when they enter kindergarten. 

Five years ago, when we first began the process of reforming and strengthening 

the Head Start program, this Committee examined a limited proposal to move administration of the program to the states in order to better align the federal program with what is happening at the state and local level. Ultimately, we did not 

follow that approach mainly because of concerns that doing so would divert federal 

early childhood support to state-based systems focused on educating children. Given 

10

those concerns about moving Head Start to a state-structured system, I think that 

it’s ironic that most of the early childhood education initiatives that have been proposed would mandate federal services administered by the U.S. Department of Education and provided at the state or local level. 

Nonetheless, today’s hearing presents us with an important opportunity to consider how early childhood education helps put children on the path to success. I look 

forward to hearing about the latest research into how children learn. I am also 

pleased to have program providers here with us to share their insight and experience with successful program operation. 

Once again I’d like to commend the Chairman for convening this hearing and 

thank the witnesses for offering their considerable expertise. Our nation’s flexible, 

dynamic, and diverse system of early childhood education providers helps ensure a 

strong foundation for our children’s future educational success. I look forward to 

hearing more about that system today. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. 

Now I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, all of whom 

have very impressive backgrounds. More extensive bios will be 

made part of the record. 

The first witness is Deborah Phillips. Dr. Phillips is currently 

professor of psychology and associated faculty in the Public Policy 

Institute at Georgetown University. She is also co-director of the 

university’s research center on children in the U.S. Prior to this, 

she was the first executive director of the Board of Children, Youth 

and Families of the National Research Council’s Commission on Social and Behavioral Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. 

She co-edited ‘‘From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of 

Early Child Development’’ and is now a member of two organizations that were created to continue the work of ‘‘Neurons to Neighborhoods,’’ the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 

and the Forum on Early Childhood Program Evaluation based at 

Harvard University. Her research focuses on the developmental effects of early childhood programs, including both child care and 

pre-K settings. 

Current studies are focusing on how children who vary in temperament are differentially affected by child care experiences and 

on an evaluation of the Tulsa, Oklahoma, pre-K program as it affects both cognitive and social-emotional development. Dr. Phillips 

has also served on numerous task forces and advisory groups. 

Kathleen Priestly will be introduced by Congressman Payne. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

It is really an honor for me to introduce someone from my congressional district, Kathleen Priestly, who is the supervisor for 

early childhood education in Orange, New Jersey. 

As supervisor, Ms. Priestly has the opportunity to supervise not 

only preschool and kindergarten teachers and teaching assistants, 

but also to support a team of early childhood master teachers, social workers, nurses, preschool intervention specialists, inclusion 

teachers, and fiscal administrative assistants. She also collaborates 

with principals, Head Start, and center directors, and other district 

administrators. 

Prior to her current position, she has worked for the New Jersey 

Department of Education in the Office of Early Childhood Education focusing on professional development and technical assistance for district administrators expanding preschool education 

11

throughout New Jersey. Before that, Kathleen was a teacher of 

young children for more than 25 years. After graduating from Boston College, she came to New Jersey and attended Rutgers University where she pursued her master’s and other advanced graduate 

degrees. 

Currently, she is an advocate for early childhood education 

through her work and outside committee and organization work. 

She has been committed to the implementation and expansion of 

preschool education in New Jersey and continues to lead and participate in local and national committees and organizations. 

So we are so pleased to have you with us today. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

It gives me great pleasure to introduce my friend from Hawaii. 

And thank you for this beautiful lei, Elisabeth. 

Elisabeth Chun is the executive director of the Good Beginnings 

Alliance, Hawaii’s statewide 501(c)3 intermediary organization, legislatively named to spearhead efforts to create a coordinated early 

childhood education and care system. Ms. Chun received a BA in 

history from Carleton College and a master’s of education in educational psychology with a special education focus from the University of Hawaii. 

Prior to joining Good Beginnings in 1997, Ms. Chun was in the 

governor’s Office of Children and Youth as a program manager for 

Hawaii’s Federal Child Care and Development Block Grant. In 

early 1996, she transferred to the Department of Human Services, 

the new lead agency for the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant, the Child Care Development Fund. From 1997 to 1998, Ms. 

Chun served as president of the Junior League of Honolulu and 

was involved in coordinating various volunteer efforts centered on 

positive parenting. 

She currently serves on the Samuel N. and Mary Castle Advisory 

Board as well as the Hawaii Children’s Trust Fund Advisory Council and the Hookakoo Corporation supporting conversions, charter 

schools, and early education in Hawaii. In 2007, Ms. Chun was recognized for her work in Hawaii’s early childhood movement by both 

the Hawaii Pacific Business News and the University of Hawaii 

College of Education. 

Charles Kolb. Since September 1997, Charles Kolb has served as 

president of the Committee for Economic Development, CED, with 

offices in New York City and Washington, D.C. Prior to joining 

CED, he served as general counsel and secretary of United Way of 

America from 1992 to 1997. 

During nearly 10 years of government service, he held several 

senior-level positions, including high-ranking positions with the 

U.S. Department of Education. Prior to government service, Mr. 

Kolb practiced law at two Washington, D.C., law firms, Covington 

& Burling and Foreman & Dyess. 

He holds an undergraduate degree from Princeton University, a 

master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford, 

and a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law 

where he was editor-in-chief of the Virginia Journal of International Law. He is also the author of a book on policymaking in 

12

the Bush White House and numerous law review and op ed articles. 

Eric Karolak—am I pronouncing your name correctly? Karolak—

thank you. 

Dr. Karolak directs the efforts of the Early Care and Education 

Consortium, ECEC, an alliance of more than 7,600 early learning 

programs providing care and education for nearly 800,000 children 

in 49 states and the District of Columbia. 

From 2001 to 2006, Dr. Karolak led the National Childcare Information Center, the largest federal clearinghouse and technical assistance center, focused on child care and early education for lowincome families. He has worked closely with states developing the 

technical aspects of child care assistance programs, quality rating 

systems, and partnerships across early education programs. 

He has conducted policy research and fiscal analysis in the areas 

of child welfare, child care, and public housing. Dr. Karolak also 

has served on the boards of a national policy initiative, a nonprofit 

child care center, a local government agency, and a metropolitan 

United Way. He is a graduate of the Ohio State University. 

Last but not least, Ron Haskins. Dr. Haskins is a senior fellow 

in the economic studies program and co-director of the Center on 

Children and Families at the Brookings Institution and is senior 

consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. He is 

the author of ‘‘Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 

Welfare Reform Law,’’ Brookings, 2006. 

Prior to joining Brookings and Casey, he spent 14 years on the 

staff of the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as 

the subcommittee staff director. From 1981 to 1985, he was a senior researcher at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development 

Center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He also 

taught and lectured on history and education at UNC-Charlotte 

and developmental psychology at Duke University. 

Dr. Haskins has edited and co-edited several books and is a contributor to numerous books and scholarly journals on children’s development and social policy issues. He holds a bachelor’s degree in 

history, a master’s in education, and a Ph.D. in developmental psychology from UNC-Chapel Hill. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Before we begin, let me briefly explain our lighting system. The 

light is green when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow 

light, it means that you have 1 minute remaining. And when the 

light turns red, your time has expired, and you need to conclude 

your testimony. 

Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Dr. Phillips. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH PHILLIPS, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

PSYCHOLOGY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you very much. Those were wonderful supportive opening statements. Thank you so much. 

13

And I am really delighted to be here this morning to talk with 

you about this topic that I have been studying for 35 years and is 

very near and dear to my heart, as well as to yours. 

In my written testimony, I have three sections where I talk 

about brain development, trajectories of early achievement, and investments that work. But in my spoken comments, I am going to 

really focus on brain development and early education, focusing on 

what we did not know or know very firmly when I last testified for 

you 7 years ago. 

With regard to early brain development, brains are built over 

time, neural circuits are wired in a bottom-up sequence with simple 

circuits and skills providing the scaffolding for more advanced circuits and skills, and the capacity for change decreases with age. 

From the moment that we are conceived, our brains greedily recruit information from their surrounding environment like a 

sponge to shape their underlying architecture and neurochemistry. 

But like a sponge, they are not at all discriminating about what 

they soak up. If what surrounds them is toxic—prenatal alcohol exposure, child abuse, maternal depression, so on—they will soak this 

up. If that environment is responsive and stimulating, the brain 

will absorb this. And no mistake about it, these two brains will 

look and respond very differently. 

This is not a random process. Brain circuits that process basic 

information, like differentiating the sounds of your native language, are wired earlier than those that process more complex information like learning to read and to write. 

Once a circuit is up and operating, it participates in the construction of later developing circuits. A sturdy early foundation leads to 

a well-functioning efficient brain. A weak early foundation leads to 

a fragile over or underreactive neural system. 

The developing chemistry of the brain also matters greatly. During the infancy, toddler, and preschool years, the brain’s stress response system gets calibrated, just like you calibrate the thermostat for your home heating system. Under most circumstances, 

these systems learn to ramp up very quickly in response to threat 

and then to ramp back down and return to baseline levels of functioning when the threat has passed. 

But under conditions of what we have come to call toxic stress, 

the architecture and chemistry of the developing brain are disrupted. Not only does the stress system get activated at a lower 

threshold of stress—in effect, a kitten becomes a tiger—but it has 

a much harder time calming back down to baseline levels of functioning. 

What we see in the short term are children who are highly reactive to stressful events, who have trouble reading social cues, and 

who interpret social interactions that are otherwise innocent, like 

a bump in the hallway, in suspicious ways, like a taunt, and they 

have substantial learning and memory difficulties. 

In the longer term, we see greater susceptibility to physical illness and mental health problems. 

This is all quite recent work. What is very new and relevant to 

today’s hearing is that child care experiences, especially during the 

toddler years, appear to affect this developing stress response system. 

14

I am going to jump ahead to early investments, in the interest 

of time. 

The question of whether we can intervene successfully to foster 

early learning of both cognitive and social skills has been answered 

in the affirmative and should be put to rest. Evidence from the 

small modeled, tightly controlled Abecedarian and preschool programs that I am sure you know well has been widely cited. It tells 

us importantly what is possible. 

But this evidence begs the question of whether and how more 

typical early childhood environments affect important developmental outcomes. Can the levers that can reasonably be pulled by 

public policy make a meaningful difference in the life chances of 

young children across the nation? Absolutely. This goes to what is 

feasible and effective. 

Significant variations in the quality of more typical early care 

and education programs have the potential to produce lasting repercussions for both children and society as a whole. Evidence repeatedly points to beneficial impacts at the highest end of the quality spectrum and to detrimental impacts at the lowest end. 

Very recent evidence from research on typical child care settings 

has linked the healthy or unhealthy development of the stress response system in toddlers and young preschoolers to the amount of 

attention and stimulation they receive from their child care provider, to the nature of the peer interactions they encounter in child 

care, and to child-adult ratios. 

Combined with children’s extensive exposure to child care in the 

United States, typically starting around 4 months of age, developmental and neuroscientists alike approach child care as a massive 

sustained intervention in the lives of young children. The U.S. military has figured this out and has supported extensive ongoing 

training and accreditation of all of its child care programs as pivotal to military preparedness and ensuring a next generation of effective soldiers. 

Pre-kindergarten programs represent another form of increasingly typical early childhood education programming. I have been 

involved in a 5-year-long evaluation of the Tulsa pre-K program 

which is universal. Seventy percent of 4-year-olds in Oklahoma and 

in Tulsa go to this program. In brief, three findings that are important to you, and then I will stop if that is all right with you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. First, students who participated in this Tulsa preK program experienced an 8-month gain in their letter-word identification scores, an 8-month gain in their spelling scores, and a 5-

month gain in their applied problems or pre-math skills. 

Tulsa public schools contracts with Head Start. Head Start has 

to comply with all of the same quality standards. The children in 

Head Start experience a 5-month gain in prereading, a 3-month 

gain in prewriting, a 5-month gain, just like the public school kids, 

in pre-math. These gains place Tulsa Head Start programs on a 

par with other states’ pre-K programs that have been evaluated. 

Why? We cannot say for sure, but they all employ BA-level early 

childhood credentialed teachers who are paid the same wages as 

the elementary and secondary teachers in Tulsa. 

[The statement of Dr. Phillips follows:]

15

Prepared Statement of Deborah A. Phillips, Ph.D., Professor, Department of 

Psychology, Georgetown University 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am delighted to be here this 

morning to talk with you about Investing in Early Education: Paths to Improving 

Children’s Success. I have had the opportunity to testify for you in the past and it’s 

nice to be back. I also had the opportunity to help plan the Speaker’s Summit on 

America’s Children held last May, which addressed many of the issues that are likely to arise here today. I am especially encouraged that both the Summit and your 

discussion today start with scientific knowledge as your departure point for considering the next policy steps. 

I am a developmental psychologist who has studied the effects of early environments on young children for the past 35 years. My central focus has been on early 

educational settings and their effects on children’s well-being and development, including child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten programs. Before joining the 

faculty at Georgetown University in September 2000, I spent seven years at the National Academy of Sciences, the last three of which were devoted to writing the comprehensive report on early development titled, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The 

Science of Early Childhood Development. I am now involved with the follow-on to 

this work under the banner of the National Scientific Council on the Developing 

Child, which is continuously updating the knowledge base and policy recommendations that we synthesized in Neurons to Neighborhoods. My remarks today will 

draw heavily upon the work of the Council, as well as upon my own NICHD-funded 

research on child care, longstanding work with Head Start, and recent multi-year 

evaluation of the Tulsa, Oklahoma Pre-K program. 

There has been a virtual explosion of research in neurobiology and the behavioral 

and social sciences that bears directly on this hearing. What we now know about 

the conditions that start children along promising or worrisome pathways is leaps 

and bounds ahead of where we were even a decade ago. I will focus my remarks 

on what is new * * * what didn’t we know or know firmly when I testified in 2001. 

They are directed to three points: (1) Brain Development: Brains soak up the environments around them like a sponge and what they absorb makes the difference between a sturdy or fragile foundation for subsequent development. What is new is 

that we now understand, in great detail, how this works and what neurological systems and thus which aspects of development are most profoundly affected. (2) Trajectories of Achievement: Income-linked disparities in what children know and can 

do are clearly evident well before they enter kindergarten and are predictive of later 

school success and life achievements. The evidence linking a child’s location on the 

early learning curve to his or her trajectory through school and beyond is firmer 

than ever before, and (3) Investing in Early Education: Children’s experiences in 

early education settings display astonishing variation with significant implications 

for development. What is new is that we now have documented impacts on early 

brain development and we know more about the active ingredients of these experiences. 

Early Brain Development 

Brains are built over time, neural circuits are wired in a bottom-up sequence with 

simple circuits and skills providing the scaffolding for more advanced circuits and 

skills over time, and the capacity for change decreases with age. 

In the first few years of life, our brains are creating 700 new synapses every second. Synapses are the life-line of our neural systems, supporting communication 

from one neuron to the next, just like phone lines used to connect one home to another. They determine which neurons are activated (thus, what our brain knows and 

can do) and how efficiently our brain processes information. From the moment we 

are conceived, our brains—guided by the instructions provided by our genes—greedily recruit information from their surrounding environment in order to know which 

synapses to keep and which to discard. The synapses that get activated a lot, whether they are those that establish a well-working or compromised visual system or 

that tell us to speak English rather than Ukranian or that prime us to be fearful 

or trusting of others, create the underlying architecture of the developing brain. 

Those that don’t get used, whither away through a process called ‘‘pruning’’. 

This is not a random process. Brain circuits that process basic information (like 

the visual and auditory and motor systems) are wired earlier than those that process more complex information (like reading emotions, or doing algebra, or running 

a marathon). Once a circuit is up and operating, it participates in the construction 

of later-developing circuits. The shaping of higher-level circuits thus depends on the 

successful, strong wiring of the lower-level circuits. A sturdy early foundation leads 

16

to a well-functioning, efficient brain; a weak early foundation leads to a fragile, 

over- or under-reactive neural system. 

The developing chemistry of the brain also matters greatly. Notably, during the 

infancy, toddler, and preschool years, the brain’s stress response system gets calibrated, just like you would calibrate the thermostat for your home heating system. 

In the first five years of life, these systems learn to ramp up rapidly in the face 

of stress, and to ramp back down and return to baseline when they have done their 

job. But, under conditions of what we have come to call toxic stress, such as child 

abuse or neglect, severe maternal depression, parental substance abuse, or family 

violence, persistent elevations of stress hormones and altered levels of key brain 

chemical produce an internal physiological state that disrupts the architecture and 

chemistry of the developing brain. Not only does the stress system get activated at 

a lower threshold of stress (e.g., a kitten becomes a tiger), but it has a much harder 

time calming down to baseline levels of functioning. 

Over time, associated disruptions of the immune system and metabolic regulatory 

functions lead to a lifetime of greater susceptibility to physical illnesses and mental 

health problems. What we see in the short term are children who are highly reactive to stressful events (that would not bother other children), who have trouble 

reading social cues and interpret social interactions in ‘‘suspicious’’ ways (e.g., an 

innocent bump in the hallway becomes a taunt), and who have learning and memory difficulties. This is all quite recent work. What is very new and relevant to today’s hearing is that child care experiences, especially during the toddler years, appear to affect this developing system. 

Today, we also have a much more nuanced understanding of why early experiences hold a special place in the equation of brain and skills development: 

1) When neural circuits are first forming, the molecular and cellular mechanisms 

that guide neural plasticity are highly active, enabling circuits to undergo substantial changes in architecture, chemistry, and gene expression in response to experience. The information-processing circuits of our young brains are eager to be customized * * * to react to the lessons—both positive and negative—that early life experiences have to teach. 

2) It is far easier to form a pattern of connections in a neural circuit that does 

not already have an established configuration. When a circuit first develops, our 

genes dictate the blueprint of what goes where, but in a relatively imprecise and 

weak way. It is the brain activity set in motion by experience that sharpens and 

strengthens these innate patterns of connection. One these connections stabilize, it 

is more difficult for subsequence experience to change the initial formation. Early 

experience trumps later experience. 

By the same token, skills beget skills. All capabilities are built on a foundation 

of capacities that are developed earlier. It follows that: 

• Early learning confers value on acquired skills, which lead to self-reinforcing 

motivation to learn more. 

• Early mastery of a range of cognitive, social, and emotional competencies makes 

learning at later ages more efficient and, therefore, easier and more likely to continue. 

• Early intervention, in effect, lowers the cost of later investment. 

This is true for the brain and it is true for society. This explains both smart rats 

and the cost-benefit ratios that are linked to strong early childhood programs. This 

is why both neuroscientists and economists (and business leaders) have singled out 

high-quality early education as their best bet for an early investment of public dollars. 

Trajectories of Achievement 

One of the most significant insights about educational attainment in recent years 

is that educational outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood can be traced back 

to capabilities seen during the preschool years and the experiences in and out of 

the home that foster their development. For example, reading scores in 10th grade 

can be predicted with surprising accuracy from knowledge of the alphabet at kindergarten entry. Differences in high school completion can be traced back to preschool 

achievement test scores. Children thus embark on successful or unsuccessful pathways through school during the preschool years. Moving a child who has embarked 

on a pathway towards failure onto one that guides him or her toward success becomes increasingly difficult and costly over time. 

By the preschool years, however, the gap in what children living in impoverished 

environments and those who escape these environments know and can do has already emerged. Low- and higher-income children are already moving along different 

trajectories well before school entry, not because their brains are different or because they have different capabilities, but because their early environments in and 

17

out of home do not constitute a level playing field. This is not new knowledge. But, 

today, we have yet more evidence documenting this troubling fact, we have documented specific deficits not only for early literacy development, but also for early 

numeracy development, and there are exciting new efforts to develop curricula that 

address these specific deficits in early learning. 

We know, for example, that children living in poverty hear, on average, 300 fewer 

words per hour than do children in professional families, and these differences predict 3rd grade vocabulary and reading comprehension scores. Children whose mothers have less than a high school degree test, on average, at the 38th percentile in 

kindergarten-level letter recognition, while those with college-educated mothers test 

at the 69th percentile. Differences in vocabulary growth between children in low 

socio-economic households and high socio-economic households begin to appear as 

early as 18 months, the age at which the ‘‘word-learning explosion’’ (when children 

learn, on average, 9 words a day) begins. 

Low-income children are also not exposed to the board games and other math-related experiences (e.g., Which is bigger? Which pairs of socks go together?) that foster early understanding of numerical concepts. We see the impact in the fact that 

low-income 5-6 year olds show the same knowledge of numbers as do middle-income 

3-4 year olds. 

Exacerbating these trends is the fact that children living in poverty who cannot 

avail themselves of programs such as Head Start are in some of the nation’s poorest 

quality child care settings in which ample and rich language, let alone counting 

games, are rare to non-existent. Children growing up in working poor and modest 

income families, who fall between the cracks of eligibility for programs like Head 

Start and affordability of high-quality child care also experience developmentally 

stunting early childhood settings. 

By age 4 or 5, children all over the world have mastered the fundamental grammatical system of their native language, including verb declensions, gender agreement, embedded clauses, and the like. They can understand other people’s points 

of view, experience emotions that are important to the development of conscience 

(e.g., shame and guilt), and can sit quietly with a group of children and pay attention for at least brief periods of time. Many preschoolers have also learned amazingly sophisticated numerical and scientific concepts, and love the sense of discovery 

that comes from acquiring this knowledge. Having entered the crucible of peer 

groups, on average, by 11⁄2 to 2 years of age, they have also acquired a large repertoire of early social skills * * * or deficits. This fact has led experts in the development of aggressive behavior and delinquency to refer to early childhood experiences as the headwaters of susceptibility to health and mental health problems, aggression, and enduring victimization. There is a great deal at stake here. 

Investing in Early Education 

The question of whether we can intervene successfully to foster early learning of 

both cognitive and social skills has been answered in the affirmative and should be 

put to rest. Evidence from the small, tightly-controlled Abecedarian and Perry Preschool programs has been widely cited. It tells us, importantly, what is possible. 

But, this evidence begs the question of whether and how more typical early childhood environments affect important developmental outcomes. Can the levers that 

can reasonably be pulled by public policy make a meaningful difference in the life 

chances of young children across the nation? Absolutely. This goes to what is feasible and effective. 

Significant variations in the quality of more typical early care and education programs have the potential to produce lasting repercussions for both children and society as a whole. Evidence points to beneficial impacts at the highest end of the quality spectrum and to detrimental impacts at the lowest end. 

We do, however, have firmer evidence than ever that, for children whose life circumstances lead to greater vulnerability, the nature of their out-of-home experiences 

is particularly important and the impacts of variation in quality are greater. Combined with children’s extensive exposure to child care in the U.S. (starting around 

4 months of age on average) and our growing knowledge of environmental influences 

on early brain development, it is critical to approach child care as a massive, sustained intervention in the lives of young children. From the child’s point of view, 

child care is no less an early intervention program than is the Abecedarian or Perry 

Preschool program or Head Start program, although most child care settings are not 

designed or funded with this in mind. 

For example, from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, we have learned that: 

• Children in center-based classrooms that were in compliance with American 

Academy of Pediatrics and American Public Health Association guidelines for ratios, 

group size, and caregiver training, and whose teachers had a college education perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
18

formed at age level on a school readiness test, while children from classrooms that 

did not meet these guidelines performed 14 percentiles below this norm—not an inconsequential gap. This translates into children who know substantially more 

words, who can correctly identify the letters of the alphabet, can count and can understand instructions on a par with their age group versus children who cannot. • Not only did higher quality child care—defined by the more proximal indicator 

of sensitive and stimulating adult-child interaction—predict higher levels of pre-academic skills and language performance during the infant, toddler, and preschool 

years, but in third grade, higher quality early childhood care continued to be linked 

to higher scores on standardized tests of math, memory, and vocabulary skills and, 

the effects on vocabulary endured through sixth grade. 

From other child care research, we have recently documented that: 

• Quality of child care affects the developing stress response system. Specifically, 

during the toddler and young preschool years, when the anterior cortical regions of 

the young brain are undergoing rapid development, exposure to long days in child 

care with peers can disrupt normal patterns of cortisol (e.g., a stress hormone) metabolism for some children, notably those with more immature social skills and 

those who experience peer rejection. Importantly, these effects were reduced for children who received high levels of attention and stimulation from their child care providers and who were in programs with smaller peer groups and child-adult ratios. 

We do not yet know if these findings have long-term consequences or whether they 

are a blip on the long path to maturity. 

Thus, variation in the quality of typical early child care has important and enduring effects on child development. The military has figured this out and has supported extensive, on-going training and accreditation of all of its child care programs 

as pivotal to military preparedness and ensuring a next generation of effective soldiers. 

Pre-Kindergarten programs represent another form of increasingly typical early 

childhood education programming. I have been involved in a 5-year long evaluation 

of the universal, school-based pre-kindergarten program in Tulsa, Oklahoma with 

several colleagues from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute (Professors William 

Gormley, Ted Gayer, and Carolyn Hill). Oklahoma has the largest pre-kindergarten 

program in the country, with the highest penetration rates among 4-year olds (currently hovering around 70%), and Tulsa is the largest school district in Oklahoma. 

Here are some of our latest findings: • Students who participated in the Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) pre-K program in 

2005-06 experienced an 8-month gain in their letter-word identification scores, an 

8-month gain in their spelling scores, and a 5-month gain in their applied problems 

(pre-math) scores, relative to students who had not attended the program. This is 

the third time we have found significant gains for pre-K students. • These substantial positive effects characterize Hispanic, African American, 

White, and Native American children. Similarly, we are documenting sizeable gains 

for disadvantaged, near-poor, and middle-class children. We have further discovered 

bigger effects on Spanish-speaking Hispanic students (and children who have a 

Mexican-born parent) than on English-speaking Hispanic students (and children 

who have a U.S.-born parent). 

• The Tulsa Head Start program, which contracts with the Tulsa Public Schools 

and must comply with all of their pre-K standards (including a BA-level, 

credentialed classroom teacher whose wage matches the TPS wage), is also producing substantial learning gains for four-year-olds, though effects are less dramatic 

than for TPS students. For Head Start, pre-reading skills are boosted by 5 months, 

pre-writing skills by 3 months and pre-math skills by 5 months. (Note that our research was not designed to make a direct comparison across these two programs 

(e.g., children were not randomly assigned to TPS and Head Start classrooms) and 

it is likely that the populations of children served by these two programs differ in 

meaningful ways.) 

• Our data also speak to the issue of universal versus targeted preschool. Specifically, the presence of middle-class peers has positive effects on the cognitive development of disadvantaged children. Effects are much more noticeable in half-day 

classrooms, where students are more heterogeneous socio-economically. 

Why do we get these powerful effects, which are surprisingly comparable to those 

found for the Abecedarian and Perry Preschool programs? We have begun to address 

this question and can point to a few clues: 

First, the Tulsa pre-K program’s classroom quality is superior to other schoolbased pre-kindergarten programs on multiple measures and the Tulsa Head Start 

program’s classroom quality is superior to other Head Start programs on multiple 

measures. It is probably not coincidental that every pre-K program—whether TPS 

or Head Start—must employ a BA-level teacher with an early childhood credential, 

19

sustain a classroom size of no more than 20 students, and employ an assistant 

teacher to establish a 1:10 teacher:student ratio. It is a mixed delivery system (although the vast share of pre-K classrooms are in the public schools), but not with 

mixed quality standards. Every child is guaranteed a floor of quality below which 

his or her classroom will not fall, and it is a relatively high floor. 

Second, Tulsa pre-K teachers (in TPS and Head Start classrooms) are paid at the 

same level, with the same benefits, as elementary school teachers in Tulsa, so there 

is no incentive for the best teachers to migrate to elementary classrooms if they 

don’t want to. As in elementary education, wages and working conditions affect our 

ability to attract and retain the very best teachers. I strong suggest that these incentives be a centerpiece of your policy discussions. 

Third, as we’ve begun to look at what predicts higher quality interactions and 

more time on instruction in the pre-K classrooms, cutting across TPS and Head 

Start programs, the important elements that are emerging are: (a) the teacher’s 

classroom experience, (b) the teacher’s Grade Point Average in college, (c) and reliance on a relatively structured, clearly paced curriculum (perhaps especially for children who have not been exposed to early learning opportunities at home). As a next 

step, we will be examining which elements of classroom experience and teacher 

qualifications predict the students’ test scores. 

Conclusions and Implications 

What can we conclude from this work on typical early childhood programs about 

the wisest investments in early education? Neuroscience and economic evidence 

point to investments in high-quality early childhood programs as a promising avenue for fostering healthy development, a strong start in school, and, ultimately a 

productive citizenry. Developmental and education science point to specific avenues 

for ensuring that these investments fulfill their promise. 

First, what happens inside the classroom door, whether it is called child care or 

Head Start or pre-K, is where the action is. Mixed delivery systems are fine, they 

are the norm, and they offer working parents the range of options they need. The 

challenge is one of ensuring equity of access to developmentally-supportive educational and social experiences for all children across these systems. This is an especially compelling message having just celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday. 

Today, poor children, who are disproportionately children of color, are not treated 

equitably in our early childhood system. This involves looking across child care, 

early education, and Head Start legislation to begin the task of ensuring that each 

strand of funding supports the healthy development and early education of young 

children—not in a cookie-cutter way, but to the same extent. In this context, the 

disparity between the 4% set-aside for quality improvements in the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant and the 40% set-aside in Head Start is impossible to justify. Young children and notably young children’s brains are blind to these distinctions. They have the same needs whether they walk through a door labeled Head 

Start, Pre-Kindergarten, or Sally’s Super child care center or Hannah’s Happy child 

care home. 

Second, classrooms that work depend on well-designed curricula based on the latest knowledge about how children learn and develop, and on a qualified and stable 

workforce of early childhood teachers who know how to bring these curricula to life 

to foster early learning and development. Programs that show promising evidence 

of success with low-income preschoolers, in particular, blend age-appropriate content 

tied to what children are ready to learn with forms of instruction that transmit this 

content in ways that excite and motivate young children. A curriculum is only worth 

the paper it is printed on unless it penetrates the classroom and affects the quality 

of teaching that children receive every day. National concern has galvanized around 

teacher shortages, large class sizes, and poor teaching quality at the elementary 

level. Comparable concerns need to be directed at the preschool level. 

Third, teaching quality depends on the teacher and his or her working conditions. 

This is precisely why we require elementary school teachers to have Bachelor’s degrees, specialized training, and a teaching credential. Yet, the vast majority of preschool children are in programs and settings with adults who have little more than 

a high school education and a fingerprint that clears them of a criminal record. You 

have addressed this in the Head Start program and I applaud your efforts. While 

there is no magic in a B.A. or a credential, they do increase the odds that children 

in Head Start will be exposed to the kinds of early learning environments that will 

get them ready for both the cognitive and behavioral demands of school. But, there 

is large variation among teachers with all of these qualification and so the next step 

is to ensure that the best teachers who want to teach young children are drawn into 

and retained in early child classrooms. As Oklahoma discovered, this involves minimizing the separation between preschool and elementary education policies, perhaps 

20

especially with regard to wages, benefits, and working conditions. I hope you will 

keep this in mind as you embark on re-authorizing No Child Left Behind. You have 

a rare opportunity, in this legislation, to support state efforts and research aimed 

at building effective early childhood programs and to ensure that these mostly-fledgling programs, like the brain, are built on a sturdy—rather than a fragile—foundation of effective and committed teachers, age-appropriate instruction that instills 

knowledge and excitement in young children, and equity of access to these opportunities. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions today and in the crucial months that lie ahead. 

[Additional submission from Dr. Phillips follows:]

January 30, 2008. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: I am writing to clarify comments I made at the hearing 

on Investing in Early Education: Paths to Improving Children’s Success regarding 

financing for early education. In response to a question, I noted that we are spending billions of dollars on child care and early education in this country ($24.8 billion 

of federal and state dollars according to the testimony provided by Dr. Haskins—

and this does not include the Dependent Care Tax Credit or Dependent Care Assistance Plans) and posed a hypothetical question regarding the return on investment 

these dollars are reaping. In this context, I noted that ‘‘* * * the challenge is not 

spending more money; it is spending what we have wisely.’’

To clarify, this statement expresses my concern about existing federal and state 

early childhood programs that all too often do not put children first; that do not invest in early education in ways that have been proven repeatedly to foster early 

learning and development. Consider the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

that requires only that funded providers have a fingerprint that clears them of a 

criminal record. This stands in start contrast to the Head Start program, in which 

your reauthorizing legislation supports enhanced teacher education, training, compensation, and career ladders. 

These disparities fly in the face of what we now know about both early brain development and the ingredients of early education programs that promote school 

readiness, as described in my testimony. This is the context in which I expressed 

my concern about adding funding to these programs as presently configured, rather 

than using what we are spending to ensure that all children receive developmentally beneficial, effective care and education, whether funded via the CCDBG 

or Head Start or any other public ‘‘early education’’ program. From the child’s standpoint, the funding stream is irrelevant. What matters is what happens once he or 

she walks through the door. This mirrors the recommendation made in Neurons to 

Neighborhoods regarding child care and early education, which involved ‘‘reviewing 

the entire portfolio of public investments in child care and early education’’ to ‘‘ensure the following priorities: (a) that young children’s needs are met through sustained relationships with qualified caregivers, (b) that the special needs of children 

with developmental disabilities or chronic health conditions are addressed, and (c) 

that the settings in which children spent their time are safe, stimulating, and compatible with the values and priorities of their families.’’

There is no question that your goal of supporting the kinds of preschool education 

that will ensure that all children are ready for school will require an infusion of new 

funding. The Committee on Economic Development has estimated that full-day, fullyear universal high-quality preschool (not including infants and toddlers) will require $38.7 billion in new funding (Committee on Economic Development, 2006). I 

cannot imagine a more credible estimate of necessary new funding. And, I cannot 

imagine a more proven, cost-effective vehicle for ensuring that young children receive a solid foundation for early learning, a firm hand hold toward this nation’s 

promise of equal opportunity, and the start they need to help America compete in 

a global market as they grow up. 

I am very grateful to have had this opportunity to testify before you. I would be 

happy to address any questions you have as you continue the remarkably important 

work of the Committee. 

Sincerely yours, 

DEBORAH A. PHILLIPS, PH.D., 

Professor of Psychology and Public Policy, Georgetown University. 

21

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Priestly? 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN PRIESTLY, EARLY EDUCATION 

COORDINATOR, ORANGE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Thank you, Ms. Hirono and members of the committee. 

I am proud to represent the New Jersey educators who have passionately worked for universal access to high-quality preschool education programs. As we have all said, we know that children who 

attend preschool education programs that meet high standards will 

experience greater success in elementary school and well beyond. 

In my 30 years of work as a teacher of young children in general 

and special education, as a staff developer, and in my work at the 

Office of Early Childhood Education, my primary responsibilities 

there included the coordination and delivery of professional development for preschool teacher leaders, which had a big impact on 

all of our children, and I also provided implementation support to 

local district professionals. 

I experienced the growing pains of our preschool movement from 

all angles, but I truly have seen the remarkable benefits from highquality preschool. The 33,000 residents in my district include 75 

percent African-American children, 13 percent white, and 12 percent Hispanic, the vast majority from low-income families. I oversee the education of 765 3-and 4-year-olds in multiage inclusive 

classrooms at 10 different sites. 

The Orange Board of Education offers preschool education 

through a mixed delivery system that includes classrooms in public 

school buildings, at Head Start facilities, and private child care 

centers. We contract with Head Start and child care providers partly because of space constraints, but more importantly because we 

appreciated the experience of the existing local Head Start and 

child care providers. Our district applies the same high standards 

to classrooms at all of these sites. 

Preschool education in Orange is now looked upon as part of a 

continuum of early childhood education, preschool to grade 3, and 

part of the larger whole school reform plan for preschool to grade 

12. 

Since the initiatives have been put into place, Orange has experienced remarkable growth and achievement. Five years ago in 2002, 

only 55 percent of our fourth-graders scored proficient on New Jersey’s state test of literacy. Now, in 2007, 83 percent scored proficient, a 50 percent increase overall. Similarly, in math in 2002, 

37 percent were proficient, while in 2007, this increased to 86 percent, a 70 percent increase. 

This improvement in test scores corresponds to improvements in 

access and quality of preschool education for our children. These 

scores are comparable to districts throughout the state, many serving more advantaged families and some right in our neighboring 

communities. 

In addition to the evidence of this progress, we have results of 

a statewide evaluation on the effects of providing increased access 

to high-quality preschool and children’s achievement in kindergarten and first grade in districts similar to ours across New JerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
22

sey. The National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University has found that the pre-K group made substantially 

larger gains in language, literacy, and math than did children who 

did not attend pre-K, and gains from 2 years of pre-K beginning 

at age 3 were nearly double for language and 70 percent larger for 

math. 

In addition, parents tell me stories regularly about what their 

children have learned, and kindergarten teachers and principals 

marvel at the difference between the children who have attended 

and those who have not. 

But how are we achieving these results? Recently, on visits to 

some of my preschool classrooms, I was extremely proud to see children engaged with materials and interacting with their peers in 

well-organized learning environments. I saw teachers supporting 

and stimulating children throughout their group times and individual work. 

The children were learning about the physical properties of liquids and solids, talking about sounds that were in the nursery 

rhyme they read, graphing how many children were in class and 

how many were absent, discussing how many blocks they would 

need to carry out their plan to build a castle, and signing in to 

work at the computer. 

This learning went way beyond the traditional academics and included learning to think ahead, negotiate play with others, take 

turns, and solve conflicts with the help of their teachers. 

We did not achieve this, though, without some critical components, the most important of which is that the child comes first in 

every decision. Our preschool teachers are college educated and 

hold state licenses in early childhood education, and they receive 

the same pay as any public school teacher, regardless of where they 

work. They understand child development and the components of 

high-quality preschool education. 

We implement a comprehensive research-based curriculum that 

emphasizes teaching to the whole child—cognitive, social, physical, 

and emotional. We have small class sizes of 15 with a teacher and 

an assistant. We provide mentoring to new teachers to support 

their success as they learn to individualize strategies to maximize 

children’s learning. We involve parents and help parents receive social services when needed. 

We engage in systematic planning and evaluation at every 

level—the child, the classroom, the center, the district, and the 

state—to strengthen what works best and improve what did not. In 

addition to adequate financial support from the state, we benefit 

from regular implementation support from the Department of Education both of which are crucial to our success. 

Given the clear and impressive success of this and other 

preschools throughout the nation, I would recommend that NCLB 

reauthorization recognize the benefits of a high-quality education 

for young children and include a preschool education component. 

Further, I recommend that the committee immediately take 

steps to help states increase preschool education access and quality. 

I applaud all three pieces of legislation currently being considered for their strong provisions to help states implement high-qualVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

ity programs and their rigorous attention to the elements that 

make these programs so beneficial for young children. Pre-K legislation would mark a major accomplishment for this committee as 

states across the country struggle to raise or maintain the quality 

of their programs in spite of impending deficits and as several governors have put their administrations on the line on behalf of preK. 

This investment can literally change children’s lives. I have 

spent my entire career in the field of early childhood education, 

and I cannot think of any other better use of our tax dollars. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Priestly follows:]


prie-1.eps
24


prie-2.eps
25


prie-3.eps
26


prie-4.eps
27


prie-5.eps
28


prie-6.eps
29

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Chun? 

STATEMENT OF ELISABETH CHUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GOOD BEGINNINGS ALLIANCE 

Ms. CHUN. Aloha. It is a pleasure and an honor to be here today 

to present to this committee on the importance of early education. 

I will give Hawaii’s perspective on an issue, and I come with a 

strong belief that there is a great potential for our nation when we 

focus our resources on our youngest children. 

The Good Beginnings Alliance was created in 1997 to provide 

leadership in our state and our communities around early childVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

prie-7.eps
30

hood education because we believe we need to have an integrated 

early childhood system, first to five, that supports parent choice 

and also supports quality early education programs from family 

child care, from center-based, and on to something called familychild interaction, which happens in our communities where parents 

come with their children and learn at the same time. 

I was just on the Island of Kona last weekend, and I was driving 

down to a beach community where there, I could see, were no 

preschools, and I was wondering what happens to the young children in these communities before they come to kindergarten, and 

as I was leaving that road, I looked up and there was a sign that 

said, ‘‘Come register for Keiki Steps.’’ That is one of our major programs that invites parents of young children to come with a quality 

early education educator to learn how they can best support their 

children’s learning. This is what this is all about. 

As states strive to implement quality early education programs, 

the results of this investment are apparent, but few states and 

communities have the resources necessary to deliver high-quality 

programs. They need support to increase the quality of programs 

as well as making programs affordable to our families. 

Right now, I would like to encourage and support and thank 

Congresswoman Hirono for the Pre-K Now Act, which provides incentives for states to ensure that, as they rush to increase capacity, 

they also address the quality of early childhood programs. 

We also know that states face specific challenges in developing 

early childhood educators. We have a lack of early childhood teachers, and we are very pleased at the recent loan forgiveness fund for 

early educators, and we encourage them also to focus on expanding 

access to early childhood courses. 

From the Hawaii perspective again, we have been a leader in 

early education. In 1943, we were among the first states to implement statewide public free kindergarten for all 5-year-old children. 

That came with the acknowledgement that education must begin 

early and that our economy depended upon a strong future workforce, and our current workforce depended upon families who knew 

that their children were in strong early learning environments 

while they were working. 

We are now grappling with how do we support children under 

the age of 5. Forty percent of our current families with young children cannot afford preschool attendance, and we know that those 

programs that receive federal and state subsidies now have long 

waiting lists. If our families are to work and to support their families, they need safe, quality places for their children in order to 

make sure that they lift themselves out of poverty. 

We are also so concerned about Gap Group families, those families which do not qualify for early education programs with federal 

or state subsidies, but yet cannot afford preschool tuition. They 

often have to make choices of programs that are not always stable 

or in places that are not stable and of unknown quality. 

We have made progress in Hawaii. In 2001, the Pre Plus program, which was envisioned by our then Lieutenant Governor 

Mazie Hirono, implemented state-funded preschool facilities on elementary school campuses. This program, now known as Pre Plus, 

built 16 programs on elementary school sites. This is a public-priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
31

vate partnership; private programs run the programs that are located on elementary schools. Over 300 children are now served by 

these programs. 

We know more investment is needed. In my testimony, you will 

see that in our outlying areas especially, over half the children of 

low-income do not have access to programs, and if we would develop those programs, we do not have capacity yet to fund places 

for those children. 

We also know, as we are developing right now our Keiki First 

Early Childhood Program, that when we look to expand our early 

childhood programs, we need more teachers. If we are to serve 80 

percent of our 4-year-old children, we know we need to double our 

current workforce. We need 370 new early education teachers, and 

310 of our existing teachers will require more education, and 200 

need to go from an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s degree. 

So I will end where I began, in that we do need federal support 

for early education in our state. We need to help our teachers 

maintain scholarships and loan forgiveness. We need to help our 

universities create incentives for early education programs, and we 

need to help our early education programs maintain quality. Our Keiki First program estimates that $170 million will be 

needed annually in order to support a 4-year-old program. That is 

for direct services and other programs. I urge you to consider your 

ability to support the state’s expansion of quality. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Chun follows:]

Prepared Statement of Elisabeth Chun, Executive Director, Hawaii Good 

Beginnings Alliance 

As Executive Director of Hawaii’s Good Beginnings Alliance I am honored to 

present testimony as to the importance of investing in early education as a critical 

path to improving children’s success. I bring Hawaii’s perspective on this issue and 

a strong belief that there is a great potential benefit to our nation when we focus 

our resources on children. 

The Good Beginnings Alliance (GBA) is a statewide, non-profit, community organization created in 1997 by the Hawaii State Legislature (Act 77) to provide state 

and community leadership for the development of an integrated early childhood system in Hawaii. 

Since 1997, Good Beginnings Alliance as Hawaii’s designated early childhood 

intermediary organization has followed its mission to ensure that all of Hawaii’s 

children are safe, healthy and ready to succeed by shaping public will and public 

policy; mobilizing action; and maximizing resources. Our goal is to improve results 

for young children birth through the first eight years of life—the most critical time 

of a child’s life. 

GBA as an organization has 14-member Board of Directors representing each 

county (Big Island, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu), business, philanthropy, early childhood 

and early care (ECEC) professionals, consumer of ECEC services, health, resource 

and referrals, the University of Hawaii, early intervention, Head Start, and the 

Interdepartmental Council. 

The board’s composition encourages a public-private partnership in order to collaborate and pool local resources to meet defined needs. The partnership works together to support local community planning efforts, develop policy, build a sustainable resource base, coordinate the early childhood education system, and advocate 

for comprehensive services for children and families. 

Why Quality is Important 

Brain research now tells us that children begin their learning even before they 

are born and that nearly 85% of a child’s intellect, personality and social skills are 

developed by the time a child is five years of age. 

It is evident that by age six years there are large and preventable gaps between 

the development and academic abilities of high and low income children. Research 

32

has shown that high quality early childhood education programs make a difference 

in the educational, social, emotional, and physical outcomes, especially for high-risk, 

low-income children. As researchers and noted economics have demonstrated, investing in our youngest children’s quality early experiences has short and long term 

savings for us as a society. 

As more states strive to implement quality early learning programs, the results 

of this investment are apparent. High quality child care, Head Start and Early 

Head Start, and other early childhood learning experiences exist, but few states and 

communities have a large supply of high quality programs because resources remain 

hugely inadequate both for quality of the program and to keep programs affordable 

for families. 

What do we mean by quality? There is no single component, just as children do 

not develop in silos of cognitive, social, emotional and physical development. What 

we do know from research on programs such as the child care in Abecedarian, the 

preschool programs of High Scope, and high quality state prekindergarten programs 

is that there must be in place standards for programs, such as accreditation and 

Head Start program performance standards, and standards for children’s learning 

and development, such as state early learning standards and the Head Start Child 

Outcomes Framework, the model for many states’ standards. Specifically in a program we know there must be: 

• Teachers with education, including ongoing professional development, that allows them to select and use appropriate curriculum to individualize instruction to 

support children meeting the state’s early learning standards and to support children’s social and emotional development; 

• Learning environments with appropriate teacher-child ratios and groups size, 

health and safety conditions met, and developmentally appropriate materials for important play and instruction; and 

• For those children who need more services, the availability and collaboration 

with health, social services, and other supports for them and their families; 

We also know from the research of programs that had long-term outcomes for the 

participating children that quality does not come cheaply, regardless of the setting 

of the program. If we care enough to invest in the education of our young children 

it will make a life-long difference for them and for all of us. 

Critical Role of Federal Support 

The federal investment in early childhood education is critical. The federal Child 

Care & Development Block Grant provides most of the funding for child care assistance as well as quality initiatives for all programs regardless of the family’s income, 

such as licensing, professional development and education scholarships, and resource and referral. Head Start and Early Head Start are key programs in our 

states, and yet many eligible children are unable to attend for lack of funding. Special education for infants, toddlers and preschoolers has had its funding cut at the 

federal level. These programs provide the foundation for early childhood education 

in Hawaii as in every state, and yet none have had a significant increase in funds 

for six years. Given what we know from the research on the value of the investment 

in high quality early childhood programs, they should be made Congress’ first priority for increased investment starting now. 

While increased federal funding is a top priority, I know that this is not the appropriations committee. It is also important to look for new ways to encourage 

states to focus on quality. This is especially crucial right now, as state policy makers 

are feeling political pressure to serve more children. Legislation such as Congresswoman Hirono’s PRE-K Act would provide incentives for states to ensure that as 

they rush to expand capacity, they do not do it at the expense of quality. 

One of the specific challenges states are facing around the country (including Hawaii) is a lack of qualified early education teachers. I am encouraged by the actions 

this Committee has already taken this year to provide loan forgiveness for early 

educators, and encourage you to continue to focus on increasing access to training 

in the field of Early Childhood Education. 

Hawaii’s Progress and Challenges 

I’d like to take a moment now to talk from a state perspective. Hawaii was an 

early leader in the promotion of early education. Led by advocacy from our philanthropic leaders, Hawaii in 1943 was one of the first states to implement a full day 

public kindergarten program for all five year old children. This action was prompted 

by the acknowledgement that children’s educational journey must begin early and 

that our Hawaii economy depended upon an educated future workforce and a current workforce that could be confident that its youngest children were in the best 

nurturing environment while the parents worked. 

33

Today we, like many states, are grappling with how to best serve our children in 

the years before kindergarten. Almost 40% of our young children live in families 

who cannot afford to send their children to early education programs. The early 

childhood programs that do receive federal and state subsidies—such as Head 

Start—are filled to capacity and have waiting lists. This is troubling because lowincome families require this support for their youngest children if they are to seek 

employment and lift themselves out of poverty. 

We also recognize an increase in the number of ‘‘gap group’’ families. These parents earn too much to qualify for federal or state need-based subsidies or programs 

such as Head Start, and yet do not earn enough to pay for preschool tuition. Their 

choices of placements for young children are limited, often not stable, and of unknown quality. 

We have made some progress in increasing capacity. The 2001 Legislature with 

the support of then Lieutenant Governor Mazie Hirono allocated $5 million dollars 

for the biennium to build preschool facilities on elementary school campuses. This 

program known as Pre Plus is now a very successful public/private partnership. Private agencies are contracted to operate the preschool programs on public school 

land. PrePlus resulted in the construction of 16 new preschool sites allowing over 

300 preschool children to be served. 

Hawaii is also envisioning its four year old program to be available in three different types of settings: center-based preschool; family child care; and family child 

interaction learning programs in which the adult caregiver remains with the child 

and also receives education as how best to support the child’s learning. 

But even with the three options, more investment is needed if we are to accommodate the growing demand for early education. We must increase the capacity of the 

current system to address the expanded need for early education programs, as the 

graphs attached show. One illustrates the number of low-income four year olds now 

receiving subsidized preschool or tuition payments as well as the estimated percentage of four year olds that could be served in 2009 given Hawaii’s current capacity 

by school district. Both of these graphs demonstrate the lack of enrollment for our 

low-income children as well as the lack of capacity to increase enrollment. 

Of course, preschool is about more than just providing a safe place for children 

while parents work. In Hawaii, as in states across the country, we are constantly 

struggling to improve academic achievement. We know that young children are entering kindergarten not prepared for success in school. The 2007 Hawai’i State 

School Readiness Assessment report reflects that only one out of every five children 

entering kindergarten classes possessed adequate early literacy skills. And, in 70% 

of these classes the majority of entering kindergarteners did not possess skills in 

critical pre-math concepts. 

While 61% of entering kindergarten children attended some preschool or formal 

early learning experiences before kindergarten, a significant percentage of children 

had no such experience. In Hawaii, we estimate that 5,530 four year old children 

are currently not being served in any type of program. 

Even for those children lucky enough to attend preschool, the quality of their 

early education programs is not even. In Hawaii we estimate that 6950 children are 

currently in programs that need quality improvements to instruction and program. 

Approximately 22% of our preschool programs are nationally accredited mostly by 

the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Hawaii has been fortunate to have an ongoing mentoring program for early childhood programs seeking 

National Association for the Education of Young Children accreditation. However, 

Hawaii needs new investment to encourage programs to seek such accreditation and 

to gradually address program improvements leading to higher quality. 

Hawaii, like other states, recognizes that we need early childhood teachers who 

are well-prepared and qualified to teach and inspire others to follow their path. I 

do not want to imply that we have not made progress in this area—we have. But 

there is still substantial room for improvement. In order to deliver quality early 

education services to the over 83,000 children under six years of age in Hawaii, our 

current teacher resources are woefully lacking. . 

In order for Hawaii to serve 80% of its four year old children in an early education 

experience with a teacher who has a bachelor’s degree and training in early education, 370 new early education teachers need to be recruited and trained with an 

additional 470 new recruits for associate teachers. Furthermore, 310 of our existing 

teachers will require more early childhood education courses, and 200 existing 

teachers will need to attain a bachelor’s degree. These numbers may sound small 

to those of you from larger states, but consider this: we essentially need to double 

our early childhood educator workforce immediately if we are to provide universal, 

voluntary four year old program. 

34

This brings me back to where I began my testimony: the need for new federal support. Our teachers will need scholarships and loan forgiveness. Our public universities will need incentives to provide expanded access to early childhood education 

courses. Our early childhood programs will need quality improvement funding. 

Hawaii’s early learning community, plus business and state and county departments have come together in a legislatively created Early Learning Task Force to 

describe the needs and recommend solutions for Hawaii’s early education system. 

This Task Force’s plan ‘‘Keiki First’’ estimates that Hawaii will need $170 million 

annually to deliver a quality early learning program to approximately 12,640 four 

year olds. This figure includes funds for direct services, infrastructure, and capitol 

investment for facilities. Every state is working to make these large scale investments—some are further along than others—but as we—the advocates—push the 

states to fund these crucial programs, we need federal support as well. 

Our children, and ultimately our communities and our country, will benefit greatly from a visionary and holistic approach to expanded federal support for quality 

early education. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you might have.


chun-1.eps chun-2.eps
35

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Kolb? 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES KOLB, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. KOLB. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to thank you and the fellow members of your committee for focusing on the importance of early education. 

‘ First, a little bit about the Committee for Economic Development. We are a business-led public policy organization with over 

200 senior business leaders from across the country and about 25 

university presidents who make up our board of trustees, and it is 

our trustees who decide to get engaged in issues, such as campaign 

finance reform, health care, globalization and trade and, of course, 

education, which has been one of our major projects really for much 

of our now 66-year history. 

Some of you will remember that in 1989, the first President Bush 

convened a summit in Charlottesville with just about all of the nation’s governors, and out of that Charlottesville education summit, 

with bipartisan leadership from then Governor Bill Clinton, Governor Roy Romer, and others, came a series of six national education goals, and these arose in the first Bush administration, and 

they were continued through the entire Clinton administration, 

and one of those goals—I believe the first goal—was that, by the 

year 2000, all of our children—not some, but all of our children—

would arrive at school ready to learn. It did not happen. You have 

to ask yourself why it did not happen. 

Well, when CED 6 years ago went into the issue of early education reform, we began with that question, why didn’t it happen 

and what would it take to make it happen, and beginning in 2002, 

we produced two reports. 

The first was called ‘‘Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive 

and Just Society,’’ and I believe that the day we released this report, we came up to the Congress and met with Senator Kennedy 

and also with Congressman Castle to talk about the importance of 

investing in early education. 

In 2006, we released our second report, ‘‘The Economic Promise 

of Investing in High-Quality Preschool.’’ Now we are a business 

group, and we chose that word ‘‘investing’’ for a reason, because 

business leaders understand that if you make the right investments at the front end, you tend to get better results in the future. 

Or to put it differently, a business leader who has a problem with 

his or her product or service does not fix it at the end, does not 

fix it in the middle. They fix it up front, and there is a reason for 

doing that. 

We have tried over the last several years to explain, really to explore deeply, the issue of the economic returns to these front-end 

investments in early education. Now, you know, we often like to 

tease the French for a variety of reasons—and they are teasable—

but they get it right. If you look at how France as a country invests 

in early education, they get it right. The British get it right. 

But when you look at where the United States of America, the 

richest country ever in the history of the world, if you look at 

where we stand in the OECD rankings, we are not first. We are 

36

not fifth. We are not 10th. We are near the bottom. Why is that? 

You get out what you put in. 

And so our effort over the last several years has really been to 

try and influence the debate so that more and more people in this 

country, including leaders in the Congress, will focus on the importance of these front-end investments. 

We have a problem in this country when it comes to making investment decisions. We have triple deficits, trade, budget, savings. 

We do not invest enough in our infrastructure. We do not invest 

enough in foreign languages. Oddly, we overinvest when it comes 

to caloric consumption. That is why we have an obesity epidemic. 

But we do not seem to be able to get these investment issues 

right from the start, and I would hope that one of the things that 

your committee can do—and your fellow colleagues in the country—is to demonstrate the leadership that we need to make these 

investments in early education a national priority. In my view, if 

you want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed, whatever you 

think of it, if you want it to succeed, it is not going to get there 

unless you get it right up front. I mean, when you go to test the 

fourth-graders and the eighth-graders, if these young people have 

not gotten what they need up front, you are not going to be getting 

100 percent proficiency. 

So let me conclude by asking you to help this country make early 

childhood education the number one domestic priority. Investing in 

our children is not only the right thing to do, it is investing in our 

future and it is investing in our democracy. CED, as a group of 

business and academic leaders, is ready to help. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Kolb follows:]

Prepared Statement of Charles E.M. Kolb, President, Committee for 

Economic Development 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

present the views of the Committee for Economic Development on the importance 

of early education to ensure our country’s economic competitiveness and growth. 

CED was founded in 1942 by a group of business leaders and university presidents who were deeply concerned about the postwar economy. Our founding Trustees were worried about the ability of the U.S. economy to evolve from a wartime 

to a peacetime footing without experiencing another major recession or depression. 

They were also concerned about the strength of various postwar international institutions and began galvanizing business community support for what became the 

Bretton Woods System, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the 

Marshall Plan. One of our founders, Paul Hoffman, then the CEO of Studebaker, 

was asked by President Truman to serve as the first Marshall Plan administrator. 

For more than 65 years, CED has been an important voice in the American business community in supporting sound economic and fiscal policy. We now have some 

200 Trustees—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—on our board. Most of 

them are senior corporate executives and presidents of some of this country’s greatest colleges and universities. Our policy work, which ranges from campaign finance 

reform, health care reform, and education reform to global trade and macroeconomic 

policy, is strictly nonpartisan. We begin each of our projects with no ideological axe 

to grind and no political leanings. Each year our Trustees decide the issues we 

study, and it is the CED Trustees who actually determine our findings and recommendations. 

Our mission has been to propose policies that ensure steady economic growth at 

high employment and reasonably stable prices, increased productivity and living 

standards, greater and more equal opportunity for every citizen and an improved 

quality of life for all. In short, I think of CED as representing the best of business 

thinking in the nation’s interest. 

37

It was with that background that CED trustees have addressed the issue of early 

childhood care and education. Since the 2002 release of our groundbreaking early 

education report, Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive and Just Society, CED 

has been engaged in a national campaign to build momentum surrounding investments in early education. The Committee for Economic Development followed that 

report with several issue briefs and the 2006 policy statement, The Economic Promise of Investing in High-Quality Preschool. 

Early learning programs have long prepared children for early educational success, but investing in high-quality early education also offers promising ways to 

strengthen the future economic and fiscal position of states and the nation. Highquality early education programs have long-lasting effects, improving students’ outcomes well into their adolescent and adult years. Economically, the long-term impacts of high-quality early learning programs translate into significant public and 

private benefits, with returns far exceeding the costs. 

Today’s business leaders appreciate that early childhood education is important 

to future U.S. economic competitiveness and a worthwhile investment. A December 

2005 poll of business leaders shows that more than 80 percent agree that public 

funding of voluntary prekindergarten programs for all children would improve 

America’s workforce. Business leaders see these programs as investments in human 

capital formation, and CED has been working with economists and others to quantify the solid economic returns associated with early care and education. 

Access to early education, however remains limited and uneven. Because the 

United States still views financing the care and education of young children as primarily a family responsibility, many children do not have early learning opportunities available to them. Children of higher-income and better-educated parents are 

the most likely to have the advantage of formal early education. 

Investing in children early is crucial. Learning is cumulative, and children develop skills during their early years that facilitate later learning. Currently, America is spending billions of its education dollars on remedial efforts. Gaps in student 

ability are already apparent by kindergarten, and those gaps are often difficult and 

costly to correct later. When a business has a problem, it tries to fix it at the front 

end, not at the back. Moreover, to guarantee positive outcomes—such as the success 

of the No Child Left Behind Act—America must work harder to educate our youngest citizens. 

Children who participate in high-quality early education programs demonstrate 

higher academic achievement, are less likely to repeat a grade or require special 

education classes, and are more likely to graduate from high school and enroll in 

college. Students are also less likely to participate in criminal activity during their 

juvenile or adult years, or be victims of child maltreatment or neglect. Adults who 

have had the benefit of an early learning opportunity are also less likely to be unemployed and more likely to have higher earnings than similar students who do not 

participate in these programs. These adults are also less likely to depend on public 

assistance, become teenage parents, or endanger their health by smoking. 

The positive impact of early education programs on students’ lives increases the 

likelihood that these students will become net economic and social contributors to 

society. Implementing preschool programs for all students whose parents want them 

to attend is expected to generate significant public and private benefits, producing 

$2 to $4 in net present-value benefits for every dollar invested. Federal, state, and 

local budgets will improve significantly when governments can dedicate more resources to productive endeavors, rather than to remediation, incarceration, and welfare. For every preschool dollar spent, states are projected to recoup 50 to 85 cents 

in reduced crime costs and 36 to 77 cents in school savings. 

Sustained investments in early education are also a cost-effective way to improve 

long-term economic growth and living standards. By 2080, preschool programs could 

boost America’s gross domestic product by 3.5 percent, as well as raise long-run 

state employment levels by 1.3 percent. 

The United States also lags other countries in early education and care investments. While the United States continues to debate about increasing its investments 

in young children, other industrialized countries have already done so. Many nations far surpass us in making early learning opportunities available to all. The 

United States has the highest child poverty rate of the 20 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Fortythree percent of infants and toddlers in America live in low-income families with 

incomes below 200 percent of poverty, and a fifth live below the poverty line. Highquality early education and care can help lift these families out of poverty. 

CED believes that broadening access to early care and education programs for all 

children is a cost-effective investment that will pay future dividends. And while 

early education must be an economic and educational priority, it is also part of a 

38

continuum of necessary childhood investments, beginning in the prenatal months 

and spanning the infant, toddler, and later school years that together will have the 

greatest impact on children’s development, and ultimately, America’s economic wellbeing. 

CED recommends that communities, states, and the nation make access to publicly funded, high-quality early education programs an economic and educational 

priority. The economic benefits of early learning will be greatest when all states implement high-quality, publicly funded early education programs and make them 

available to all three- and four-year-old children whose parents want them to attend. Early learning programs should provide adequate classroom hours to ensure 

improvements in student learning that will translate into economic benefits. States 

should embrace diverse providers that meet quality standards and the needs of the 

communities they serve. Maximizing program access and efficiency will require federal and state governments to coordinate publicly funded prekindergarten, Head 

Start, and child-care programs. Business should support early education programs 

and other complementary childhood programs and services, emphasizing the strong 

returns on investment and the leveraging of current expenditures. 

Furthermore, CED recommends that publicly funded early education programs 

meet the quality standards necessary to deliver their potential economic benefits. 

To provide the greatest economic benefits possible, state prekindergarten programs 

and the federal Head Start program should assess their existing program standards 

and realign them with the factors known to contribute to improved early childhood 

learning and development. Early learning programs should adopt an age-appropriate, research-based curriculum that embraces whole-child development and is 

aligned with content standards in kindergarten and elementary education. All publicly funded early learning programs should employ high-caliber teachers with bachelor’s degrees and specialized early-education training. A national board should be 

created to review and report on state early education and care standards. 

Finally, CED recommends that federal, state, and local governments consider the 

broad economic benefits of early care and education when deciding how to allocate 

resources in the face of competing uses and demands. Funding provided for early 

learning programs should be commensurate with the cost of providing a high-quality 

education to fully capture the economic benefits of these programs. 

CED believes that the implementation of these recommendations in all our states 

and the nation will strengthen our democracy and ensure U.S. economic competitiveness and growth through a highly-educated and skilled workforce. 

The Committee for Economic Development’s early care and education policy statements are available online at www.ced.org.

Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive and Just Society (2002): http://

www.ced.org/docs/report/report—preschool.pdf 

The Economic Promise of Investing in High-Quality Preschool (2006) http://

www.ced.org/docs/report/report—prek—econpromise.pdf 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Dr. Karolak? 

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

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION CONSORTIUM 

Mr. KAROLAK. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

today. 

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

Education Consortium, an alliance of America’s leading providers 

of quality early learning programs. As Representative Hirono mentioned, we reach more than 800,000 children every day in almost 

every state in the union. Increasing national investments and improving outcomes for young children are essential for America’s 

continued wellbeing and our national competitiveness. 

Now, based on our experiences educating young children, I have 

four points I would like to make today. First, investing in young 

children is cost effective and it makes sense. Second, there is no 

single program or investment that works, no one right answer. 

Third, investing early is key. We cannot wait until just the third 

39

and fourth year of life to improve a child’s chances in life and in 

school readiness. And, fourth, quality counts and quality costs. 

In the interest of not repeating testimony—Mr. Kolb and Dr. 

Phillips have done quiet well on several of these points—I would 

like to skip to my second point, if you are following, in the written 

testimony, and that is that there is no single program or type of 

investment that works, no one right answer to this issue. Rather, 

there are multiple programs, multiple pathways to achieving outcomes for children. 

America cannot afford to view child care as just a way to get parents to work and early education as something altogether different. 

In reality, as parents and children experience this, there is s a continuum of early care and education. It spans a range of settings—

child care, Head Start, public school pre-K, family child care—and 

levels of quality, dependent in large part on locality, on what parents can afford, and what public support is available. We should be 

investing in multiple programs and at all age levels. 

But when investing, rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all institutional framework, leveraging community-based providers and their 

existing resources is the most cost-effective way to do this. Millions 

of children are already in these programs, often in facilities designed for young children. We have a long history and expertise, 

as my colleague from New Jersey referenced, in delivering programs to young children. Working parents especially look to our 

centers for something they cannot find elsewhere, and that is fullday, full-year programs that serve children birth to school age. 

States are seeing the value of this community-based approach, 

especially in delivering state-funded pre-K, although not without 

challenges for providers, and most recent research has emphasized 

the benefits that accrue both to local and state education agencies 

and to early learning centers when this kind of collaboration occurs. 

My third point is that investing early is key. Dr. Phillips has referenced that brain development begins from inception and that 

really no moment is too early. I would like to simply emphasize 

that. As Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman concluded, 

‘‘The longer we wait to intervene in the lifecycle of the child, the 

more costly it is to remediate or to restore the child to its full potential.’’ That means the return on investment that Mr. Kolb spoke 

of begins to decline. 

Still, infants and toddlers are everywhere—everywhere—the 

most expensive age group to provide with quality services and typically the most difficult kind of care for parents to find and afford. 

The situation in California is dire, as I am sure Mr. McKeon and 

Mr. Miller knew, with annual costs approaching $11,000. Nationwide, we in our centers have infant-toddler waiting lists in many 

communities, both suburban and inner city low-income. America 

cannot afford to keep these kids waiting. 

Lastly, I want to emphasize that quality counts and quality 

costs. Research that you have heard referenced today is predicated 

on program quality. No one is coming here asking for money for 

nothing. It is money for quality. Yet investing responsibly then 

means supporting effective programs that are well implemented, 

well funded, and continuously improved. 

40

We invest in our centers in curriculum, in facilities, in educational materials, and especially in our workforce. But these and 

other elements of quality are costly, more expensive than what 

most parents alone can afford. Recognizing that high-quality standards must be backed by sufficient public resources is essential to 

making sure these investments in young children are successful. 

Take workforce qualifications. Now, while the consensus in research has been elusive concerning the necessity of a bachelor’s degree for producing quality outcomes, we understand that expectations around the early childhood workforce are in flux. In our experience, we have qualified, effective, and committed early childhood 

teachers who have bachelor’s degrees, and we have qualified, effective, and committed early childhood teachers who do not. 

In either case, recruiting and retaining such qualified, effective, 

and committed staff is a challenge. I hear this from my nonprofit 

members, from for-profit corporate and proprietary child care providers, from Head Start agency directors. This is a universal issue. 

It affects schools as well because they, indeed, hire away from 

many of our centers. 

So teacher qualification requirements must consider the significant resources necessary to competitively recruit and retain qualified teachers, to support the current workforce in its rich diversity 

in obtaining bachelor’s degrees or other credentials, and in building 

the capacity of higher education to produce more graduates in education. 

The federal government’s interest in America’s global competitiveness and future wellbeing of our citizens warrants a greater investment in early childhood, one that is sufficient to reach the 

quality standards our youngest children deserve. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Karolak follows:]

Prepared Statement of Eric Karolak, Executive Director, Early Care and 

Education Consortium 

Good morning, Chairman Miller, Representative McKeon, and members of the 

Committee on Education and Labor. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on 

investing in young children. 

I am Eric Karolak, Executive Director of the Early Care and Education Consortium, an alliance of America’s leading national, regional, and independent providers 

of quality early learning programs. Consortium members operate more than 7,600 

centers enrolling more than 800,000 children in 49 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 with enrollments that reflect the rich diversity of our communities and nation. 

Increasing national investments and improving outcomes for young children are 

essential for America’s continued well-being and our national competitiveness. 

Based on our experiences educating children—recruiting teachers, meeting parent 

needs, collaborating with community partners, and managing budgets—I have four 

points to make today: 

1. Investing in young children is cost effective and makes sense. 

2. There’s no single program or type of investment that works alone to the exclusion of others; rather there are multiple pathways to achieving outcomes for children. 

3. Investing early is key. We can’t wait until children are age 3 or 4 to improve 

their chances for school and life success. 

4. Quality counts and costs. Policymakers must recognize the connection between 

standards and financing when developing programs. 

41

First, investing in young children is cost effective and makes sense. Research by 

Nobel laureates and Federal Reserve economists, drawing on 40 years of longitudinal studies on early learning programs, has demonstrated conclusively that investing in early childhood development especially for at-risk children yields extraordinary annual rates of return—ranging in real terms between 7 and 18 percent—

far exceeding the return on most investments, private or public. If early childhood 

education was a stock, many are fond of saying now, it would be wildly undervalued.1

And the benefits don’t just flow from focusing on cognitive development: the 

‘‘ABCs’’. Researchers emphasize that a balanced approach to emotional, social, cognitive, and language development will best prepare children for success in school 

and later in the workplace.2

We see these benefits and their promise daily, in the achievements of young children as they become literate, numerically adept, socially competent, and responsible 

through experientially rich, active learning environments. And we see it in the faces 

of parents, knowing that their children are safe and receiving stimulating experiences from committed teachers that prepare them for school and life. 

Second, it’s important to remember that there’s no single program or type of investment that works alone to the exclusion of others; rather there are multiple pathways to achieving outcomes for children, and the devil really is in the details. 

America can’t afford to view ‘‘child care’’ as just a way to get parents working and 

unrelated to ‘‘early education.’’ There is a continuum of early care and education 

from birth. It includes learning centers like those of the Consortium, Head Start 

agencies, school-based early childhood programs, and family child care homes, and 

it spans a range of settings and levels of quality, dependent in large part on what 

parents can afford and what public support is available. We should be investing in 

multiple programs and at every age level. 

Rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all institutional framework, leveraging community-based providers and their existing resources produces the greatest and most 

cost effective benefits. Millions of children are already in community-based programs, in facilities designed for young children. We have a long history and expertise in working with young children. Parents look to our centers to meet diverse 

needs and in turn we are responsive: our centers provide full-day and full-year programs; parents are always welcome; they’re considered full partners in their child’s 

learning and development; parents talk with their child’s teachers every day, and 

often participate in parent activities and on advisory boards. 

States are seeing the value of this community approach as well. All but three 

state prekindergarten initiatives allow preK to be offered in community-based centers, and one-third of children enrolled in state-funded preK are served in settings 

outside schools.3 We find that local school administrators are more likely to 

prioritize collaboration with community-based organizations when states require a 

percentage of funds be used for community-based delivery. 

State-funded preK programs are not typically structured around the schedules of 

parents. Taking advantage of existing community-based providers is less disruptive 

for children who do not have to be moved from one location to another each day, 

and allows their parents to focus on work and parenting rather than carpooling or 

worrying about their very young children being bussed about. Recent reports have 

documented additional benefits including efficiencies from investing in existing centers with experience working with young children, more stable sources of funding 

for participating community-based early learning centers, and spillover beneficial effects beyond the preK-aged classroom or program hours.4 It is now accepted that 

the best way to accomplish preK is through a mixed delivery model that taps the 

existing capacity and expertise of early care and education providers.5

Early Care and Education Consortium members participate in more than 20 

state-funded prekindergarten programs, in many cases contracting directly with 

school districts or state education agencies to provide these services. Our members 

also have informal partnerships with many public schools and in some cases kindergarten teachers come to our centers for school readiness training, and we are then 

able to send our staff to local public schools for in-service training for K-3 or other 

related issues. Our centers also work in many states to link students to services at 

the public schools, but still receive education and care in our centers. 

This brings me to my third point, investing early is key. If we wait until age 3 

or 4, it may be too late for some children and in general the public investment will 

be less rewarding. 

‘‘The basic principles of neuroscience and human capital formation,’’ researchers 

at Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child tell us, ‘‘indicate that later remediation 

will produce less favorable outcomes than preventive intervention.’’ 6 As a result, the 

return on later intervention is much lower. Nobel laureate economist James HeckVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
42

man concludes, ‘‘Life cycle skill formation is dynamic in nature. Skill begets skill; 

motivation begets motivation. * * * The longer we wait to intervene in the life cycle 

of the child the more costly it is to remediate to restore the child to its full potential.’’

We know this from working with the children, especially from our experience with 

infants and toddlers and their families. Babies are growing and learning all of the 

time. The first two years of life are a critical period for language and the development of self. Providing rich learning experiences, supportive learning environments, 

and positive relationships with children during the first three years is crucial to creating a foundation for learning. Failing to do so is to miss opportunities for improving school readiness and life success. 

Despite the importance of investing early, there is a dramatic need for funding 

for infants and toddlers. It is everywhere the most expensive age-group to provide 

with quality services, and typically the most difficult kind of care for parents to find 

and afford. In California, for example, average costs statewide run nearly $11,000 

for an infant in a licensed center.7 Nationwide, we have waiting lists for infant and 

toddler programs in many communities, both suburban and inner city low-income. 

Lastly, we can’t underemphasize that quality counts and quality costs. The research on the benefits of investing in young children is predicated on program quality. Investing responsibly means supporting effective programs that are well-implemented, well-funded and continuously improved. 

We constantly strive to build in better quality in our centers. We invest in curricula and the research to demonstrate its effectiveness, in facilities and educational 

materials and, most importantly, in the workforce. We all have programs to invest 

in staff, often linked to public-funded efforts like T.E.A.C.H.(r), and with the goal 

of helping the existing workforce obtain credentials and degrees. 

These and other elements of quality are costly. The cost of quality care and education is more expensive than most parents alone can afford. More federal investment is needed. 

For many early learning centers, Child Care and Development Block Grant funding is a foundation for quality. But current funding levels are inadequate and over 

time many states have increased income eligibility levels, raised parent copayments, 

and/or reimbursed providers at lower rates. In 2007, only 9 states set child care assistance reimbursement rates at the federally-recommended level.8

As a result, we’ve seen families receiving child care assistance forced to leave our 

programs and seek cheaper, lower quality arrangements when income eligibility levels were raised or copayments increased. And we’ve been forced to make difficult 

decisions regarding whether to continue enrolling families receiving child care subsidies and even whether to keep centers open in certain areas. In 2007, one of the 

nation’s largest providers had to close 20 percent of its centers in Texas. 

States are addressing quality with limited funding. Recognizing that communitybased providers reach the largest number of young children, states like Pennsylvania have invested in voluntary, quality improvement strategies that include financial supports for reaching higher quality levels, and program ratings for parents.9

Others like Minnesota are piloting an innovative endowed fund that finances the 

cost of quality preschool through outcomes-based scholarships to families of at-risk 

children.10

Recognizing that high quality standards must be backed by sufficient resources 

is essential to making successful investments in young children. Take the issue of 

workforce qualifications. While a consensus in research has been elusive concerning 

the necessity of a Bachelor’s degree for quality outcomes, we understand that expectations concerning the qualifications of the early childhood workforce are in flux.11

Our experience is that there are qualified, effective, and committed early childhood 

teachers who have Bachelor’s degrees, and there are qualified, effective, and committed teachers who do not have Bachelor’s degrees. In either case, recruiting and 

retaining qualified staff is a challenge. The range of qualified teachers reflects regional labor market conditions, what parents are able and willing to afford, and the 

infrastructure of state and community programs for developing a pool of early childhood educators. Teacher qualification requirements must consider the resources necessary to competitively recruit and retain teachers, support the current workforce 

in obtaining a degree or other credential, and build the capacity of higher education 

to produce graduates in early childhood education. 

In conclusion, the federal government’s interest in America’s global competitiveness and future well being warrants a greater investment in early childhood, one 

that is sufficient to reaching the quality standards our youngest children deserve. 

Thank you for the opportunity to brief you today. 

43

ENDNOTES

1 Art Rolnick and Rob Grunewald, ‘‘Early Childhood Development: Economic Development 

with a High Public Return,’’ Fedgazette (December 2003), p. 7; James Heckman, ‘‘Catch ’em 

Young: Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children is Both Fair and Efficient,’’ Wall Street 

Journal, January 10, 2006, p. A14;; and Rolnick and Grunewald, ‘‘The Economics of Early Childhood Development as Seen by Two Fed Economists,’’ Community Investments (Fall 2007), pp. 

13-14. 2 Jack P. Shonkoff, ‘‘A Science-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy,’’ presentation at 

the Council of State Governments Eastern Regional Conference, Boston, September 7, 2007. 3W. Steven Barnett, Jason T. Hustedt, Laura E. Hawkinson, and Kenneth B. Robin, The 

State of Preschool 2006: State Preschool Yearbook (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2006), pp. 196-197. 4Karen Schulman and Helen Blank, A Center Piece of the PreK Puzzle: Providing State Prekindergarten in Child Care Centers (National Women’s Law Center, November 2007). 5For example, PreK Now, a leading national advocacy organization that advances high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten for all three and four year olds, strongly supports offering preK 

in diverse settings. Visit its policy position, School Choice in PreK, online at http://

www.preknow.org/policy/choice.cfm. 6Shonkoff, ‘‘A Science-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy.’’

7 California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, 2007 Child Care Portfolio (December 

2007). 8Karen Schulman and Helen Blank, State Child Care Assistance Policies 2007: Some Steps 

Forward, More Progress Needed (National Women’s Law Center, September 2007). 9More than a dozen states have established quality rating and improvement systems, and 

many more are developing them. For an overview, consult Anne Mitchell, Stair Steps to Quality: 

A Guide (United Way: Success by 6, 2005). The rating system in Pennsylvania is Keystone 

STARS, and more information is available online at http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/

PartnersProviders/ChildCareEarlyEd/KeyStoneStarChildCare/. 10The Minnesota Early Learning Foundation’s pilot program is designed to reward performance and encourage high quality and innovative practices among providers by empowering at—

risk parents with resources to access high-quality early education. Visit the Minnesota Early 

Learning Foundation website (http://www.melf.us/) for more information. 11See, for example, Diane Early et al., ‘‘Teachers’ Education, Classroom Quality, and Young 

Children’s Academic Skills: Results from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs,’’ Child Development (March/April 2007): 558-580. Among other issues, the impact of a Bachelor’s degree where 

an effect has been found has not been isolated from other variables like compensation. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Haskins? 

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, 

ECONOMIC STUDIES, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. HASKINS. Representative Hirono, Mr. Castle, members of the 

committee. Thank you for inviting me here today. 

This committee, as I suspect all of you know, has been at the 

forefront of almost every significant development in early childhood 

education or child care in this country for the last half-century and, 

as shown by last year’s Head Start reauthorization, it would be expected the committee would continue to play that role. 

I just want to make three points. The first one has already been 

made. I think everybody on this panel agrees and, indeed, I think 

almost everybody who knows the research agrees that preschool 

packs a powerful punch. There is no question, based on the Perry 

Preschool, Abecedarian, Chicago Child-Parent Centers that we 

have all seen, that compared to almost any other intervention, the 

only intervention I can think of that can produce the range of benefits of preschool is adoption, but I have studied intervention programs most of my adult life, and nothing is as powerful as preschool. 

Second point: Just because preschool worked in several instances, it does not follow that people who pour money into preschool necessarily get a return. Several witnesses have already 

made this point, but I think it bears repeating, and I think the best 

example of what we would get from a national program, which, of 

44

course, is the interest of this committee, is what we are getting 

from Head Start. 

There is a lot of room to disagree. I think we probably disagree 

on this panel. But I would say on the whole, Head Start has turned 

in a mediocre performance after more than 40 years of existence. 

I base that on the national random-assignment study that was ordered by this committee in 1998 that shows very modest effect 

sizes, much more modest, for example, than the state preschool 

programs and not even on the same continent with the Abecedarian program and the Perry Preschool program and also on the 

FACES study that has been reported to this committee in the past. 

So I think, on the whole, the evidence shows that Head Start is 

not producing the results that we would really like to have, namely 

big impacts on children, powerful impacts on school performance, 

and powerful impacts on other developmental measures, like finishing school, going to college, avoiding teen pregnancy, avoiding 

crime and delinquency, all of which have been shown by one or 

more of the other studies to be possible. 

Therefore, since we have been doing this for roughly 40 years 

with modest changes—and some of the changes in last year’s bill 

I strongly support. I think they were very wise decisions about coordination and so forth—I think we need to think fairly radically. 

Now, first, I would not change the Head Start statute and willynilly make all sorts of changes in Head Start and turn it over to 

states or anything like that. But I do think that we should give the 

states much more flexibility than they now have. 

If you look at the chart in my testimony on spending on preschool, you will see that there is a host of programs and three very, 

very big programs—Head Start is one of them, state preschool 

which is a relatively new entry and growing rapidly, and then the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant—all of those spend billions and billions of dollars, and yet there is very little coordination 

around the country. There are even a number of people—we had 

a meeting on this at Brookings a couple of years ago. I believe you 

might have been there—and there were several people in the states 

who said it was difficult to get cooperation between these various 

programs. 

So I think the only way that we can get cooperation and have 

a focused, unified strategy in some state or locality—it would not 

necessarily have to be a state. It could be a city. It could be a county—is to give the Secretary the authority to allow a state or locality 

to have the control of Head Start funds as well as the other funds, 

which they basically already have, and to create a unified program 

under several conditions. 

We make a deal with them. If you will conduct this experiment, 

we will give you additional funds, but you must first ensure that 

all kids at 150 percent poverty get at least a 4-year-old program. 

Secondly, that there be a third-party evaluation. And, finally, that 

the state or locality would increase its spending by a certain 

amount—I said 5 percent per year over inflation in my testimony, 

but it could be whatever you select—to show that they are really 

serious about this, and if the federal government would match that 

and pay for the evaluation. 

45

I think if we did something like this that we might really find 

out that localities can do a very good job of coordinating this money 

and increasing the quality to Head Start. I think that this committee and the Congress have focused too much in the past on just 

increasing the number of kids who are getting into preschool programs. That will not do it. If more kids get what is offered by Head 

Start, we will have very modest impacts. We need much bigger impacts. 

So we not only need to increase coverage and increase the number of kids in the program, we also need to increase quality at the 

same time, and I do not think we can necessarily control that from 

Washington. 

I would point out to the committee—I give some examples in my 

testimony—that there is a new program in Minnesota that is being 

funded by donations from business and other organizations. They 

intend eventually to build a $1.5 billion fund, and they are going 

to fund preschool programs for kids ages 3 and 4 plus a home visiting program for kids who are seriously disadvantaged, and they 

are going to allow parents to make the decision. It is going to be 

a competitive system. 

That is the kind of thing that I think we need to have. We need 

more experiments like that in the country, and this committee and 

the federal government could play a role. 

This is a time of permanent child care, and in preschool programs, it is the time to get the most out of what we have, and we 

need new ideas and new approaches at the local and state level. 

I hope this committee will decide to be adventurous. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Haskins follows:]

46


hask-1.eps
47


hask-2.eps
48


hask-3.eps
49


hask-4.eps
50


hask-5.eps
51


hask-6.eps
52


hask-7.eps
53


hask-8.eps
54


hask-9.eps
55

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

For Mr. Kolb, I am very glad, representing the business community, as you do, that you say, I believe, that investing in quality 

early education is a number one priority for your organization and 

the people with whom you work. You also mentioned that other 

countries are doing far better than we are. Is it because they are 

investing much more financially in preschool programs? You mentioned France and Great Britain. 

Mr. KOLB. Congresswoman, I am not sure that it is a question 

of absolute dollars. I think in cases like France and the U.K., there 

has been a national commitment. 


hask-10.eps
56

A couple of years ago, we held a conference on early education 

in New York, and I remember at the time Beverley Hughes, who 

was the minister in Tony Blair’s Cabinet in charge of early education, said that this issue had been a priority for the Blair government. Now I suspect, if you look at the numbers, they probably 

spend less than we do, certainly in the aggregate, and quite possibly on a per student basis. 

But we are not there yet as a country. And I think Ron Haskins’ 

point about looking at ways to coordinate all the dollars that are 

being spent—federal, state, local, and private—is a very interesting 

issue for us. 

Ms. HIRONO. At the same time, though, we know that all across 

our country, there are various kinds of preschool programs taking 

place in both the public and the private sector, and I would like 

to ask all of you whether or not you think that the federal government’s involvement in this area in supporting preschools should be 

more in supportive as opposed to supplanting what is going on in 

our various states and jurisdictions, if you can all briefly respond 

to where and how the federal government involvement should be. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Do you want me to start? 

Ms. HIRONO. We will start with you. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I will go first. 

I think, going back to the point that was just made, it is very 

important—we are spending billions—billions—of dollars on early 

childhood education in this country. Sometimes we call it the Child 

Care and Development Block Grant. Sometimes we call it Head 

Start. You know, sometimes we call it pre-K. Sometimes we call it 

Title I. I mean, the dollars are being spent, and the question is how 

to make sure we are getting the return on investment that we are 

hoping to get and that we know we can get. 

And so the challenge is not spending more money; it is spending 

what we have wisely. We know so much more now about how to 

direct those dollars. You have heard it from every single one of us. 

I am so impressed by how consistent this panel is. It is about the 

quality of the teaching force. It is about keeping them in their jobs 

with livable wages that are on a par with elementary school teachers so that you do not have a brain drain off of pre-K into the kindergarten classroom which is often right next door. 

It is about working with parents effectively. It is about making 

sure that those teachers are armed with knowledge about child development and about instruction in academic and social skills that 

really produces learning. We have curricula that work. We know 

how to do this at the pre-K level. We just have to arm the teachers 

with that information and make sure that they are qualified and 

know how to bring that curricula to life. 

To me, those are the bottom line, and figuring out how the federal government can foster those ingredients is the key to the castle, no pun intended. 

Ms. HIRONO. Ms. Priestly, would you like to add to that? 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Sure. I would like to relate it to my own experi- ence in that whether it is the State of New Jersey’s $800 million—

or whatever we are at right now—for investment in preschool or 

my $8 million in my own district, that is a big responsibility, and 

I take it very seriously. 

57

I was speaking to the assistant commissioner of early childhood 

the other day, and, you know, she said the same thing, and we said 

we know now how to be effective and efficient, and it is, you know, 

very important. 

In my own case, I have a large Head Start center that I work 

very closely with, and our state dollars are added to the federal dollars to help that program meet the standards that we have. So, 

whether it was reducing class size or hiring teachers with BA’s, 

whatever we needed, the—Dr. Phillips said without the retention 

of teachers, we have seen a big difference. 

Since we have been able to provide professional development and 

in-class support, their turnover has dropped dramatically. So it is 

supporting those classrooms in other ways, the adoption of the curriculum. We are using the same model throughout. So I think it is 

an almost independent, you know, case-by-case situation state by 

state as to where the money is needed. 

Ms. HIRONO. My 5 minutes is ending, so if everyone else could 

just respond with maybe two sentences, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. Chun? 

Ms. CHUN. Well, very quickly, I do not believe it is supplanting. 

I think it is supporting what the state is trying to do and encouraging the states. Federal money can encourage the states to maintain quality in their work. We all know we need a quality workforce, and we do need new investments. Many states have not been 

able to invest large sums of money as yet, and the federal encouragement will help us greatly. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Karolak? 

Mr. KAROLAK. You can tell Ms. Chun and I are close to the 

ground. 

I would also say it is not just the federal government. It is the 

federal government and the state. Some of the solutions are extending loan forgiveness to early childhood teachers so they have 

the same benefit that public school pre-K teachers would have in 

getting a BA. 

I have to say, though, to be a realist, if my bosses, all 18 of them, 

came to me and said, ‘‘Do this, that, and the other thing, and do 

it with no new money,’’ it would be a challenge, and I think that 

we have to be careful in not simply saying it is a matter of reshuffling the dollars, but thinking carefully about what those dollars 

are going to buy and where they are going to buy it and that there 

may be some offsetting factors in terms of access and accountability. 

You know, one of the issues that is closest to us in terms of the 

child care assistance program is subsidy reimbursement rates, and 

they are dire. They are incredibly low in some states. Last year, 

in Texas, the largest early learning provider in the State of Texas 

closed 20 percent of its locations because it could not make the subsidy reimbursement work for its budgets. That is a problem, and 

I think at some point resources are a part of that. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Haskins? 

58

Mr. HASKINS. The role of the federal government is to support 

states, parents, and localities in developing the system that best 

meets their needs, and there are five ways we do it. 

The first is research. We have magnificent research on preschool 

programs, and it is largely because of federal investments. 

Accountability: The federal government should demand accountability from anybody that has its money, and that should include 

measures of child performance. In fact, that is the key. 

We should focus our resources on the poor and try to get the 

states to do the same thing, make sure the poor are covered under 

some definition. I would go with 150 percent of poverty. 

And, finally, whatever we do should involve parent choice. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much. 

And now I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much. And I am pleased to be here. 

And I am pleased with the panel. 

And I agree with the bottom line that all of you, as far as I can 

ascertain, that is the importance of early education. I do not think 

there is any question in our minds about that, but I also agree with 

what, I think, virtually all of you have said, and that is that there 

is some real confusion, if you will, as to exactly what works in early 

education. 

And here is part of my confusion, my deja vu. We just spent 5 

years working on Head Start and Early Head Start here in this 

committee, and we finally got a bill passed. It was signed about a 

month ago or something of that nature, and I visited a number of 

the Head Start operations in Delaware where I am from, you know, 

to see what they are doing, and I think we have done some good 

things in that bill. I mean, we have demanded higher credentials 

for the teachers and those kinds of things. 

But Head Start and Early Head Start clearly conflict with prekindergarten in terms of age. I do not think conflict, but they run 

across the same populations to a great degree. 

And there are other programs as well. There is a program called 

KinderCare—you are probably familiar with it—in Newark, Delaware, and I saw what they are doing, and they are doing some very 

good—that is the private enterprise—things, and I appreciate your 

work on that. That is something else which helps a far as kids are 

concerned. 

But, you know, I worry about this. I worry. We just got through 

Head Start, and all of a sudden, we are talking about another federal expansion perhaps in doing more in terms of pre-kindergarten 

or whatever, and now are we doing perhaps what Dr. Haskins has 

asked? Are we stepping back and looking? Are we spending our 

money wisely? Are these the things that we should be doing? Are 

we coordinating well as far as our states and school districts are 

concerned? These issues are of great concern to me. 

And I have another abiding issue, and that is the role of the parents and what longitudinal studies do we have with respect to the 

parenting, that is how kids do in households with both parents in 

the household. What are the income circumstances? Clearly, lower 

income is probably going to mean lower education for the parents, 

which means lower opportunities for the kids. Do we have studies 

that really show that? 

59

Or do we have a problem here in this country right now in a lack 

of coordinated focus on what we are doing in all of these early education programs that we need to go back and revisit rather than 

just continuing to create the next best thing that seems to work in 

some way or another? 

That is really just a very general discourse I just went off, but 

I would be interested in any comments you may have on the need 

to get a sharper focus on what we are doing in our early education 

programs. If there are no volunteers for that, I——

Mr. KOLB. Thank you. 

Sometimes in Washington, Congressman, my sense is that there 

is a great tendency to focus on programs and less so on people. 

Now that is a broad generalization. 

But when I served in the Education Department under Reagan 

and Bush I, I remembered when I oversaw the Budget Office, I was 

surprised to find that the people in the Education Department who 

ran—I think it was called Even Start at the time—a program 

called Even Start and then Chapter I, now Title I, never talked 

with the people two buildings over who ran Head Start, and yet if 

you look at the continuum, the age continuum of the children being 

served, there was no excuse for that, and so you had a lot of good 

programs, well-intentioned programs, but not so much effort, particularly on the part of the bureaucracy, to focus on serving the 

people. 

So I would agree with you on the point that we need to think 

about spending wisely, better, more flexibly, but we do make a 

point in the CED report that—in the first one—access to early education is limited in this country, and it is uneven, and part of that 

has to do with the amount of resources being spent, and we also 

indicate that—and we believe quite strongly in this—public investment still remains inadequate. 

Now that, in my view, does not take anything away from your 

point about spending wisely, spending better, and more flexibly, 

and focusing on the young people and getting out of this sort of categorical programmatic mindset. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. HASKINS. I think, first of all, yes, we have a big problem, the 

same problem we had in 1964 and 1965 when we declared a war 

on poverty, and that is that a lot of children live in poverty and 

deep poverty, and their parents’ child-rearing practices are not conducive to adequate child development. That is the whole philosophy 

behind Head Start. 

We are much better off as a nation because of Head Start and 

our investments in preschool programs, but on a 10-point scale, we 

are 3 or 4. We could do a lot better, and I do not think we can put 

out, you know, a formula saying, ‘‘If you do these five things at the 

county level, everything is going to be fine.’’

I think you have to follow the same approach—it is probably not 

very popular on this committee—that we followed in No Child Left 

Behind. We have to let the states and localities figure it out for 

themselves. We have to set up a system that they have incentives 

to do so and reward good performance and punish bad performance, and that is the kind of system that I outline in my testimony. 

60

I think that is the only way that we are really going to produce 

change across the whole country. 

There will be places that figure it out gradually, like the Minnesota example I gave you, and there are others around the country as well. But if we want to affect change in the whole country, 

we have to put a system in place that rewards good programs and 

punishes bad programs or defunds them. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Can I chime in briefly on this? 

Mr. CASTLE. It is up to the chairwoman. 

Ms. HIRONO. The time has expired. 

Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know, it is incredible that our predecessors in 1965 wrote 

such a bill as Head Start, and they did not really realize that the 

actual—at that time—physical development of the brain depended 

so much upon that external stimulus. They were really very prophetic. They wrote a great program without the knowledge that we 

have now on that. 

Well, we now know that physical stimulation is an essential part 

of that development, and we tried to incorporate that knowledge 

into the recent reauthorization of Head Start, which was a bill 

which I introduced, and what more can we do because we are really have made some major breakthroughs understanding how the 

brain is physically developed by that external stimulus? What more 

can we do? 

Obviously, more students would be helpful. How about more 

Early Head Start? Is there anything to be gained by having the inclusion of maybe some more nonpoverty students in that mix. 

Dr. Phillips, would you start responding to that? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I would be happy to. Thank you. 

And thank you for your decades of tireless work on these issues. 

In Tulsa, we actually looked at classrooms that had mixed-income groups of children versus classrooms that were primarily lowincome children. It is a universal pre-K program, so we find, you 

know, dramatic impacts across the income spectrum, across every 

single racial group. We cannot find a child hardly who is not positively affected by the program. 

So we have a situation there where we have low-income children 

who are, just because of their neighborhood, in primarily low-income classes and low-income children who are in mixed classrooms 

with middle-and upper-income children. The low-income children 

who are in the mixed-income classrooms do better than the children who are in exclusively low-income classrooms. 

In all of these classrooms, you have a BA-level teacher, certified 

teacher, well-paid teacher, and so, you know, there is research in 

the field at the elementary level as well, though with mixed findings, about the effects of mixing low-income children into a more 

socioeconomically diverse group. We do always assume that targeting is the right thing to do, and I understand that from an economic perspective, but there are peer group effects, and they do 

matter. So, you know, that is where the evidence is now. 

Mr. KILDEE. I certainly want to keep that focus upon those who 

are, you know, locked in poverty. This has been one of the great 

aspects of Head Start. 

61

But there is an interaction. There is child society out there, isn’t 

there, you know, certain things that adults really never have to impart to children. They impart certain things one to another. You 

know, I will use the home example. My parents never taught me 

how to play hide-and-seek. My brother, a year older than I was at 

that time, taught me that. 

There is a certain child society out there, and perhaps without 

losing the emphasis about the special need that poverty children 

have, perhaps a mixture might be helpful because of this child society that does exist. 

You know, we are talking about No Child Left Behind now, and 

we are wondering how a child going from the fourth to fifth grade 

or the fourth grade, from one year to another year meets adequate 

yearly progress, right? There must be some direct relationship between what happens with those Head Start kids and their ability 

to, in the fourth, fifth, sixth grade, meet adequately progress. 

And, Mr. Kolb, you mentioned the interrelation which very often 

we do not see often enough, right, or do not talk to one another 

often enough. Do you see Head Start really helping No Child Left 

Behind as that program is improved and implemented more? 

And any of you may respond. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I can give a quick answer just from the FACES 

data, for example. Dr. Haskins talked about the FACES data, but 

also in the FACES data is a wonderful chart showing what happens to the children who are in Head Start at the end of kindergarten, and the children who made more progress in Head Start 

made additional progress and greater progress than the children 

who in Head Start made less. 

In other words, you create this sort of push, and if the push is 

stronger in Head Start for whatever reason, then they go a little 

farther and a little faster in kindergarten as well. So I think, right 

there, just even in that little short-term window, you have pretty 

compelling evidence that strong gains in Head Start can boost your 

gains in No Child Left Behind. 

Like others have said here, I would love to see greater attention 

to preschool education in No Child Left Behind. I think you have 

a remarkable opportunity here with a piece of legislation that is in 

place to invest where everyone on this panel is telling you you are 

going to get the greatest investment for your dollar. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

And, again, in case I do not get a choice towards the end of the 

program, I really appreciate, Madam Chair, the panel we have 

here. I think we have a really great cross-section of expertise out 

there, and I very much appreciate this. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. 

I want to agree with my colleague, Mr. Kildee. I think we have 

an excellent panel, and I appreciate the comments that you have 

made. 

I want to give you just 30 seconds on my background because I 

know a little bit about a lot of things, and so I am sort of a dangerous person, but I have a background in education. I was on the 

62

school board. I was on the original Partnership for Children Board 

in North Carolina, the Smart Start program, and I have not heard 

any of you mention that, and my doctorate is in higher education 

and curriculum and teaching, so I have done a little bit of work in 

the area of human development. 

I am very curious that none of you have mentioned something 

that I think we should do in this country, even having come from 

a higher education background. We do it exactly backwards. Why 

is it we pay university professors $150,000 a year for teaching the 

best and the brightest who make it to the universities, and we are 

paying people in child care minimum wage? 

I think we have it exactly backwards in this country, and how 

in the world we change that value system, I do not know. But I 

have always felt that the system is backwards in that respect, and 

none of you have made that recommendation. So I would like you 

to think about that in the future. 

I also want to say that I am extremely impressed with most of 

you talking about the issue of accountability, and that is coming 

from witnesses on both sides of the aisle, and that, again, has been 

one of my big issues here in the federal government. I think whatever program gets money from the federal government, we need 

strong accountability. 

Now I am hearing a little bit of mixed comments from you. And 

I am going to quit talking in just a minute and ask my question. 

I do not believe that there is much debate in what works and does 

not work in early childhood programs. Now you all might correct 

me on that, but, again, with my limited background in this area, 

I think we know a lot about what works and does not work. 

I believe that, to a certain extent, you should give some flexibility, but I also think that if you are going to give out money for 

programs, you have to make people justify the flexibility that they 

have because if they are going to go off on tangents, if they are 

going to ignore the excellent research that is out there, then there 

has to be a justification for that, and I do not see how you can, 

again, allow wide latitude if you are going to do this. And the other 

is I agree about the silos that we have. 

Now I would like to ask this question. Has anybody done anything to look at what the cost would be to bring the programs to 

where you think they should be? And this could be a pretty short 

answer. You can tell me any billions you are talking about. But 

what I would like to know is, has anybody looked at putting all 

those programs into one program, eliminating the administrative 

costs that exist out there? 

I know we have 43 worker training programs in the State of 

North Carolina. I think there are 73 at the federal level. I do not 

even know how many early childhood programs, but let us say you 

collapse all the early childhood programs into one and you say to 

the states, ‘‘We will continue to give you the amount of money the 

federal government is giving you, but you have to have one administration and one plan,’’ which could have many parts, and then see 

what happens. Who has done that study or who needs to do that 

study? 

We will start at the end and come up, and please answer fairly 

quickly. 

63

Ms. PHILLIPS. I have been talking a lot, so I sort of wonder if others would like to go first. 

Mr. KOLB. Also, if I had had a sixth minute, I would have gone 

on to Smart Start and Jim Hunt, Jr., who is one of our heroes at 

CED, and when we released our first report, Jim Hunt was the 

keynoter. So we are a big fan of what you all have done in North 

Carolina. 

Second, on the compensation, I could not agree with you more. 

I have a 10-year-old fifth-grader at home. She had the benefit of 

having a really good pre-K experience. I have had a lot of education, big consumer. I could not begin to do what those teachers 

did, and I would come home, and I would say to my wife, you know, 

‘‘They do not pay those men and women enough for what they do.’’

On the third point, I do not know if anyone has done it. It needs 

to be done. But I keep hearing analogies to welfare reform where 

you actually did break down some of these categories, gave states 

some flexibility, and you got some—with waivers and other things 

here in Washington—creative results. 

Mr. HASKINS. The major pieces the states already control, and 

they could do a pretty good job of coordinating those if they would 

do it. Some states, especially North Carolina, and a few others 

have done that. 

The biggest piece that they cannot control is Head Start because 

it is funded from the federal government directly to the Head Start 

authority. In some states like Washington, at least for over a 

multiyear period, they had success coordinating all those programs. 

The person that ran the state preschool program was a former 

head of the Head Start Association in the state, and that helped 

a lot. But many states, notably North Carolina, have had a lot of 

trouble, and they have not been able to coordinate the program. So, 

if you want them coordinated, I think that is a key. 

But a second point I would make: There is another way to do it 

completely separate, and that is have competition and only allow 

federal funding for programs that have produced success, and then 

they can figure out how to coordinate it themselves. 

Ms. FOXX. Nobody is answering how much money. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I will. 

Mr. KOLB. $35 billion was what we estimated. 

Ms. FOXX. $35 billion? 

Mr. KOLB. For universal pre-K. This was 6 years ago. That is in 

our report, Congresswoman. It is probably larger than that at this 

point. 

Ms. HIRONO. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Hare, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to see you 

sitting in the chair this morning. 

I would just like to maybe ask two questions, one for Mr. Kolb. 

Many times before this committee, you know, I have talked about 

the decline in manufacturing jobs as a result of trade policies that 

do not work, and in 2004—a city in my district, Galesburg, Illinois, 

had a Maytag plant—we lost 6,800 workers to Senora, Mexico, and 

it had a devastating impact, as you can imagine, on the community 

and the local economy. 

64

My question is, in your testimony, you mention the economic 

promise of investing in early education, and I am wondering can 

investments in high-quality pre-K serve as a long-term economic 

development solution for trade-impacted communities looking to 

create jobs and build, you know, a productive workforce, such as 

the City of Galesburg? 

Mr. KOLB. I think that it is part of the answer. I do not think 

it by itself will do that, but I think if you do not start at the beginning, you are not likely to get those results. 

CED has looked at the whole issue of trade and the impact of 

globalization, and what we also do not do well as a country is to 

provide sufficient assistance to those people who, for no reason of 

their own, are adversely affected by free trade. 

On balance, open borders, free trade, going back to Adam Smith 

who got the arguments right, you know, in 1776, has been a plus 

for this country, and there have been lots of people who have benefited, but there are also lots of people who have been hurt, as I 

said, through no fault of their own, and we need to do a better job 

through adjustment assistance, through insurance, or other programs that CED has talked about in other reports. 

But this, I would see, as part of the strategy of trying to make 

the front-end investment in future productivity. 

But if you go through and you train for one thing and then, 

through no fault of your own, you find out that your skill is no 

longer valuable, then we need to think about how to help those 

people with income support and other types of assistance because 

it is not their fault. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. 

My other question is for Ms. Priestly and Ms. Chun, if you could 

maybe talk about this a bit. According to the National Center for 

Education Statistics, they report the status of education in rural 

America, and it says rural areas maintain the lowest level enrollment in pre-K programs when compared to urban and suburban 

areas. 

My congressional district has a lot of rural areas, and, you know, 

sometimes you would swear that if you do not live in Chicago or 

Rockford or Peoria that you do not have kids that need pre-K, you 

do not have people that need health care in the rural communities, 

and so, you know, in your experience in hard-to-serve areas, what 

are some of the major barriers in expanding access to pre-K programs? 

In other words, what can we do to expand those, and what strategies would you recommend for improving and delivering services 

pre-K, particularly in the rural communities? 

Ms. CHUN. I can start that. In Hawaii, as I demonstrated in my 

chart, we have a number of rural communities where developing 

new facilities will be very difficult. We are bringing together families and young children in something, as I said earlier, called parent and child early learning interaction programs in which they 

come to a neighborhood place, very much donated sometimes by the 

elementary school, and they have a quality educator. In fact, our 

Keiki Start program recommends that person actually have beginning with an associate’s degree. 

65

But they are from the community and they come up from the 

community so the families and parents know them, and through 

this program, we are actually developing new people to go into the 

field as well as expanding access. We are lucky they can be on the 

front lawn all year round of the elementary schools, and they do 

quality interaction activities. So they increase the early education 

as well as get them ready to go into elementary school and use a 

good provider as well as we are building the field at the same time. 

Ms. PRIESTLY. And I would just say while I happen to live and 

work in the very populated area of New Jersey, and New Jersey 

being a small state, we do have rural areas that were of high consideration during our expansion in New Jersey, and I have colleagues who work in those areas. 

So, while we are following the same guidelines and accountability measures in how we are implementing it in their areas, everybody has to address it according to the needs of the area, and 

the first thing we do is, obviously, find the families and find the 

children and see what the needs are. But we are providing those 

programs. 

Transportation becomes an issue in our rural areas. We have to 

look at that differently. I am in a walking district, two miles 

square. Everybody can get there, you know, some way. So I think 

that is one of the big hurdles. 

The support staff, the teachers, everybody—just making sure we 

have enough staff—is important, as you mentioned, and then training them well to be able to go out in the field there, but it certainly, I think, extends from making sure we are finding all those 

children who need it. 

Mr. HARE. One last comment. I will not go into this. I think you 

mentioned teacher mentoring programs in your remarks. I think 

those are wonderful things to do. If we are going to, you know, A, 

recruit and then retain teachers, regardless of whether it is pre-K 

all the way up, I think those are wonderful things, and we need 

to do more of them, and I am hoping as we do the NCLB that we 

can, you know, really bump up the teacher mentoring programs. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Keller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And as I was listening to our experts, I was reflecting on my own 

life. I have three very small children and a fourth on the way in 

a couple of weeks. So, frankly, I am just happy to be out of the 

house right now. [Laughter.] 

But I was thinking about why they had a good early education 

experience, and in each case, they had a very high-quality teacher, 

and it pretty much turned out to be luck on our part that we just 

ended up with someone who is a great teacher. 

Mr. Karolak, can you tell me if parents are out there today and 

they are looking at early childhood programs, what would be the 

top three elements that you would recommend to a parent as to 

what they should be looking for in an early childhood education 

program? 

Mr. KAROLAK. Thank you for the question. 

66

You know, there is no question that the most important determinative quality is the staff. I mean, on some level, all you have 

are your staff. They are the folks who work with children every 

day. They meet parents every day. They talk about the learning 

and development of the child with the parent every day. There is 

no doubt that is the most important element of quality. 

Besides that, though, there are other factors, having a solid curriculum, an intentional curriculum that is backed by research. 

When I took this job about a year ago, I was, I have to say, surprised. I did not realize how much money was put into curriculum 

development by the various providers that I represent who are very 

much large-scale providers, for-profit and not-for-profit. 

So having a plan of action for that staff person, the teacher to 

work with is very important, and I think there are many other factors as well. 

Mr. KELLER. So, if we had the top three, it would be teacher 

quality, number one, a solid curriculum, number two. Is there a 

number three? 

Mr. KAROLAK. I hesitate to rank further down, but I also think 

that it is really important that you have a developmentally appropriate early learning environment that is experientially rich, that 

is aimed at young children. We see on both the child care and in 

some cases in public school pre-K that those environments are not 

quite right. 

Mr. KELLER. What does that mean? Like puzzles that have 

ABCs? Or what type of environment are you looking for? 

Mr. KAROLAK. It is a fallacy to think that focusing on cognitive 

development alone is the best way to prepare children for school 

and life. Researchers have found—and we see this every day in our 

classrooms—that a balanced approach, that is focused on cognitive, 

social, emotional development, language development, that is what 

prepares children best, and, indeed, that includes——

Mr. KELLER. Okay. I am just trying to get through that. I do not 

want to cut you off, but I do not have a—so good teacher quality, 

good curriculum, some type of positive environment that focuses on 

lots of things—academics, social development, the whole package? 

Mr. KAROLAK. Well, part of that experientially environment is 

materials, educational materials. Children need to have things to 

work with, and they need to have people who can encourage them 

to work collaboratively with other children. That is part of that social-emotional development. 

Mr. KELLER. I appreciate that. And you have a doctorate, but if 

I was going to talk to a regular parent and say, ‘‘I want you to pick 

an experientially enriched environment with collaborative skills,’’ 

they would say, ‘‘What the hell are you talking about?’’ I mean, the 

average parent is not going to know what you are talking about. 

But you know what you are talking about. 

Mr. KAROLAK. Well, you should be going to look at that center——

Mr. KELLER. Right. 

Mr. KAROLAK [continuing]. Wherever that location is, and you 

should be evaluating that on your own, but there are resources 

available through a number of national organizations, also some 

federally funded——

67

Mr. KELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Kolb, you said that the federal government sometimes tends 

to focus on programs instead of people, and I agree with that, and 

the teacher quality issue is a perfect example. How does a parent 

know on the front end when you go to interview different early 

childhood education programs whether this program is going to 

have a good teacher? And as a parent, I just looked around and 

asked people, but maybe you have some ideas. 

And then, second, do you have any ideas, if quality is so important for the teachers—and I think we agree it is—on how we attract the higher quality folks and, I guess, weed out the folks who 

are not so high quality? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. 

Mr. KOLB. As you asked the question about your three things you 

would look for, I have first quality of the teachers and the curriculum; second, the environment, just the overall environment. 

You know, is it playful? Do the children interact? Do they get the 

curriculum? 

The third thing I put down was openness to parents because remember a lot of what happens during a child’s life is not just in 

a preschool or early education environment. It is in the home, and 

so I think you need to look for what the environment of that school 

is and if the teachers are open to engaging the parents in what is 

going on in that young person’s life throughout the day and also 

kind of taking those principles home. 

On the issue of quality, I think you have to look at it from a 

pipeline perspective. I mean, there is a story in the Washington 

Post this morning, I believe, about what bond traders are making 

in New York, you know, and some of them are in their early 20s. 

It is multiples, frankly, of what we pay people in early education. 

So we need to value those skills and put a higher price tag on those 

skills, if you will, and then encourage people early on in their careers to look at becoming engaged in early education. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. KOLB. You are welcome. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank the panel. I think this has been a very great discussion, and I really had a revelation here. I did not think that Ms. 

Foxx and I would really be on the same page that much, but I find 

today with your profound statement about the necessity of having 

quality people at the early end I could not agree with you more. 

I knew the longer we stayed here, there would be something that 

we are going to find in common. 

As a matter of fact, from experience, I taught school for a number of years, and I started out as a secondary school teacher, like 

most men do, and was a coach and all that, but then I was disappointed at the preparation that the kids had, and I said, ‘‘Well, 

let me just try junior high school level,’’ and I went the opposite 

direction. 

And after 3 years in high school, 3 years in junior high, decided 

I still was not satisfied, so I actually went to elementary school for 

about 3 or 4 years and taught a sixth-grade level, and I agree that, 

believe it or not, the necessity to have strong, positive teachers in 

68

elementary school and just getting down to preschool is just as important, and so I would hope that we could do something with No 

Child Left Behind. 

I agree that preschool somehow should be—or pre-K—involved in 

NCLB. I do not think it will happen as we reauthorize it, but I 

would like to see something come up perhaps as soon as possible 

to deal with that. 

I coached on the high school level, but then I also coached a little 

Pop Warner where you take the kids at 7 or 8 years old, and you 

teach them the fundamentals. Those kids usually avoid injuries, 

and when you teach them properly at the early age, they become 

better participants. 

So I guess my time is running out. 

Let me just ask, Ms. Priestly, in your opinion—and anyone else 

could jump in if there is any time left—what immediate steps do 

you think we can make, this committee can make, to increase highquality early education for all children? What would be some things 

that you would like to see or you would recommend? 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Well, first of all, along with Ms. Foxx, I know now 

that you said you agree on certain things. The accountability part, 

the leadership part is so important. We keep talking about, you 

know, the people in the relationships, and I think the support has 

to stem, you know, with our collaboration, our collaboration with 

Head Start and other private providers, just like we are doing 

today. 

I think that has made a big difference in our small district, that 

the collaboration, having that time to be able to get together and 

see what we bring to the table and how we can support each other, 

and what we need, and so, of course, the dollars are important. We 

need the dollars to support every level right down to those classroom materials that the children interact with every day along 

with their relationships with the adults. 

As the committee, of course, you are looking, you know, nationally, as the Congress, and, of course, the dollars and the laws that 

follow it. You know, even on our local level, we say if we did not 

have the guidelines and certain things in code, it would be a lot 

harder to make sure these programs are of quality because, as you 

start out and build those relationships, those guidelines from the 

experts are really important, and it is easier to implement the program. 

So, again, I think in your capacity, that is where it stands, provided those regulations are appropriate for young children and the 

teachers that work with them. 

Mr. PAYNE. Great. I thank you very much. I think that the environment, as it was mentioned by Mr. Kolb, is very important, but 

we do have differences. 

The Kerner Commission report, you know, written 50 years ago, 

I guess, almost, talked about, you know, two societies, poor and 

rich. We really have to somehow deal with the whole question of 

poverty, the environment, where kids will learn better. The facilities, the community, the housing, the nutrition, all of these things, 

I think, go into having a strong education at a beginning level. 

And so I would just like to once again, since my time has expired, really thank all of you for your wisdom and, hopefully, we 

69

will be able to get it straight. One thing, I never hear a cry for 

vouchers in very good school districts. You know, they do not ask 

for them because the public school is doing the job. I would like to 

see that really in every school district. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS OF TENNESSEE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to thank the panel for being here today. Thank you 

for your involvement and your concern in educating young children. 

Just a small background, my father has a sixth-grade education. 

I came out of the mountains of Tennessee. My father grew up in 

the Depression Era, and I was able to put myself through college. 

I was able to come to Congress, started several business. So just 

because you are poor does not mean you cannot succeed, and I hope 

everybody understands that. 

The person that started Ford Motor Company, Henry Ford, once 

said, ‘‘If you think you can do a thing or think you can not, you 

are right,’’ and I use that a lot when I talk to young people back 

in my district. So I think it is important that we understand that 

having a family atmosphere, having people around you that want 

you to succeed, as well as programs at the federal and state level, 

community level, are all important. 

So thank you for your interest in young children. 

And with that, I would like to yield the remainder of my time 

to my good friend from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Davis. 

If you believe in mental telepathy, we have a great example of 

it right here. I was going to make the same comments about poverty that my colleague just made. 

I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina in the 1950s and 

1960s—I graduated from high school in 1961—and I can tell you 

that everybody in my class was extraordinarily poor, and I was 

among the poorest of those. My dad had a ninth-grade education; 

my mother, a sixth-grade education. They were not unintelligent 

people. They did not have formal education, just like most of the 

people in my area. 

And when I reflect a little bit on my background and the people 

that I grew up with, we were all poor, and yet we did not have any 

government programs at all to help us get out of poverty or to 

learn, and yet I would put my class that graduated in 1961, of all 

poor people, up against any high school graduating class right now 

in terms of their ability to learn and what they did learn. 

So I wanted to make that comment about the fact that it is not 

always poverty, and I see well-to-do people right now whose children are not getting the kind of educational stimulus and background that a lot of poor children are getting. So I think it is wrong 

that we always focus this on the issue of poverty because there are 

lots of different ways that you can be impoverished, and you can 

be impoverished right now, not just with material things, but with 

the environment. 

So that was sort of leading up to the question that I have. I am 

very much a small government person. However, I am realistic 

enough to know that we are not going to get rid of most of these 

70

government programs that we have. So it seems to me that what 

we have to do is to look at how do we balance the role of the government and the role of parents here. 

And I will tell you again I taught in a university for 15 years. 

I told my students everybody could make an A. Not until I had 

been teaching for a long time did I reflect back. I had almost a perfect bell-shaped curve in grading every single semester. Now it 

made a believer out of me that it exists. I did not believe it when 

I started teaching. 

So we are going to have that. I do not think we can deny the fact 

that we are going to have differences in ability and differences in 

performance, but how do we balance the role of the parents and 

these well-intentioned government programs in helping our children do better? So any kinds of responses that you can give, I 

would appreciate it. 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Well, I would just start by saying—and then passing it along—we include parents every step of the way, from the 

very beginning with a family or parent interview, to home visits, 

to parent education, parent workshop, programs in the classroom, 

out of the classroom. It is a major, major component where I am, 

and I think that is important for everyone in whatever way when 

we are dealing with children who exhibit challenging behaviors or 

other learning delays that the parents are included in everything 

we are dong. 

Ms. CHUN. I think this goes back to the discussion earlier on 

what is a quality program, and a quality early education program 

recognizes that the parent is the child’s first teacher, and what 

they need to do is stem from the home experiences, build on the 

home experiences, and encourage the parents to remain involved 

with their young child. 

The reality is, in Hawaii especially, and I think around the country, 75 to 76 percent of the parents of our young children are working and need a place for their child to be. So, as this is a workforce 

reality, we have to make sure that as we develop the programs, we 

maintain the component. That is the strength of Head Start. 

And in the Keiki First program that we are doing in Hawaii, we 

maintain that role, that parents come with the child. They come in 

a way that they are involved. If they cannot be there during the 

day, they are involved and knowledgeable about their child’s program, and they are part of the whole picture for a young child. 

When I look at later education and we go back and wonder what 

can we do with families——

Ms. HIRONO. Can you wrap up? The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Sarbanes, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I salute you for 

your work on this issue and convening the hearing today. 

I had a couple of questions that are sort of scattered around, but, 

Dr. Phillips, I am very intrigued by all the brain research that you 

alluded to, and I was wondering when does the kind of impediment 

to good brain development get to the point of warranting characterization as brain damage in a sense. 

71

I mean, nobody talks about it in that way, but I imagine you 

could point to at least an analogy there to brain damage, and 

maybe brain damage is when circuits that have already been built 

are broken as opposed to circuits that do not get built in the first 

place, but if you could just react to that prism, if you would——

Ms. PHILLIPS. It is a hard question because, in a way, you are 

asking, I think, about thresholds. At what point, you know, is the 

damage so severe that you cannot turn it around. Is that a fair 

characterization? 

Mr. SARBANES. Fair enough, yes. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. You are right. It is not that circuits are not getting 

built. What is happening is that they are getting built in a very 

fragile way. So I think the stress literature is very instructive here. 

So what happens with a child who is growing up with a persistently depressed parent, for example, going to the importance of 

parents, who is not able to get beyond that depression to interact 

in responsive kind of serve-and-return ways, what happens with 

that child, if you look at their brain, is that their brain looks like 

the brain of the depressed mother, okay, in terms of its electrical 

activity. It looks like our brains look when we see a very sad movie. 

The difference is that our brains recover very quickly when we 

walk out of the movie, you know, but, you know, you have to fix 

the mother to fix the baby’s brains. Otherwise, they are in that persistent environment. 

There is really minimal evidence, except in the visual system and 

so on, for example, that there is a window that slams shut at some 

point and there is no point of return where damage cannot be repaired. The brain story is more one of it just gets harder and harder and harder to fix damage that is done when children are young. 

Going back to fetal alcohol syndrome, you know, I mean, that is the 

challenge. 

That is the neuroscience equivalent of the economist and 

businessperson saying invest early. It is just more efficient because 

those circuits have not gotten solidified yet. 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay. I am also curious how you see the interplay of early childhood development with this whole new technology era that we have living in, particularly how much technology young children are consuming today, and I would like you 

to answer—and anybody can answer—in a couple of ways. 

One is, you know, what is the harm that is presented by that, 

but, also, do you envision good uses of technology by young children 

and starting at what age and at what levels of consumption, because we are certainly moving in a direction where using those 

tools, I think, effectively to help children learn and to spur cognitive development makes sense. 

But trying to find what that happy medium is, is, I think, tricky. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. So I have a colleague who actually studies this. I 

would be happy to give you her name, a couple actually who look 

at technology with very, very young children, toddlers, and uses of 

technology. It can be a curse, and it can be a blessing, and it all 

boils down, like a curriculum, to what happens in whose hands is 

that technology being put, and in terms of young children, you 

know, what is the role of the adults who surround them in sort of 

introducing them to that technology, you know, working with them 

72

around that technology. It depends. I know I sound terribly like a 

researcher saying that, but, actually—and I am sorry Mr. Hare is 

not here—technology is also part of the answer to rural families 

and children. 

Mr. SARBANES. Right, right. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. You know, huge, tremendously exciting, advancements are being made in long-distance learning that can be applied 

for teachers, that can be applied to early childhood classrooms. So, 

again, it is——

Mr. SARBANES. Right. I have run out of time. Thanks very much. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Sestak, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

‘ SESTAK: Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I walked in, Dr. Phillips, when you were mentioning a comment—and I am sorry I did not catch it, therefore—on the military 

and some impacts. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Oh, yes. 

Mr. SESTAK. What was that statement? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. So the four branches of the U.S. military——

Mr. SESTAK. I did not see it in your testimony, but dare I 

just——

Ms. PHILLIPS. It is buried somewhere. I can tell you. 

Mr. SESTAK. That is okay. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I do not talk about it very much in this particular 

testimony, but the four branches of the military require every single one of their child care homes and centers to be accredited, 

NAEYC accredited. This is a voluntary program, but they are a set 

of comprehensive guidelines. You may be familiar with it. 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes, I did note there was some study done. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes. 

Mr. SESTAK. There are so many studies. 

I spent yesterday, you know, at a community pre-K or whatever, 

with a lot of people talking about this issue. I am quite taken by, 

as my colleague was, by a lot of the research you have done. 

I had to spend the time about 2 years ago with my young 4-yearold daughter in an oncology ward, brain tumor, and I watched, and 

we were discussing the impact upon these various 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-yearold kids as they went through brain tumors and chemotherapy and 

radiation and all, and, you know, sat down with some doctors afterwards, and they almost speak like you do about, you know, how is 

the support from the families and what the impact is upon them, 

you know, like your analogy, you know, like watching a bad movie, 

and are they able to come out of it or not. It depends upon the support system. 

And I am quite taken in the area here of pre-K, and I very much 

do agree with the issue of the colleague on the other side about 

parents and support, but the fact of the matter is our families are 

being structured as they were 50 years ago, back in the 1960s and 

the other areas. I spent 31 years in the military, so I am very familiar with what we do there. 

My take on all of this is that—and I am not so much asking a 

question—I am just so taken with what I consider a minimal investment in order to have the cognitive ability of these children to 

garner so much for our economy for themselves. I mean, every 

73

study I read varies, but if it is $1 in, it is either $7 out or $8 or 

$6 out or $16 on the outside. 

And, you know, as I was sitting here yesterday, I was so struck, you know. No Child Left Behind, up until last year, $54 billion underfunded or $51 billion, and, you know, college affordability going 

out of sight, and to get attention to this issue is hard because you 

do not see the deficits that you are creating. It is not a negative 

impact, so to speak, right there where your kid cannot go to college. 

It is, you know, so obvious, it is a deficit you are building up in 

the future. 

So I do not have much to add, except I thought all your testimony was tremendous. I have the kids into military all the time. 

On long-distance learning, you are absolutely right, and there is a 

lot to learn from it. I have nothing more to add, just I think this 

is where I would put the marginal dollar when and if we get it. 

Thank you. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This has been 

a really stimulating discourse. 

It is a very important issue, and as the child of a mother who 

started her early career as an early childhood educator, I can truly, 

truly relate to where we are today. It is actually kind of dumbfounding that we are not much further advanced because the 

daycare movement has been going on for quite some time, and that 

has evolved into our early childhood education, and in a city like 

New York, you know, we had really, really struggled around that. 

I remember parents taking buses to Albany, and I am on there 

with my lunchbox because my mom is in the movement, and we 

are trying to make sure that mothers, families have access to early 

childhood education. 

So I want to direct my question, first of all, to Ms. Priestly. Everyone acknowledges the importance of parental involvement, and 

I want to make sure that we are really talking about all parents 

because, you know, I come from a very fortunate, two-parent household, and I have had it all my life, but I think oftentimes we do 

not look at the fact that there are a lot of younger parents out 

there, there are a lot of caregivers, foster care, grandparents, there 

are single-parent households, and we know that their involvement 

in early childhood education is critical. Head Start, for example, 

prides itself on the success of the participation of parents in the 

Head Start program. 

Can you describe successful parental outreach strategies used by 

your school district, and I am particularly interested in the strategy used to reach out to parents of English language learners and 

other parents who have traditionally been less involved in their 

children’s school. 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Thank you. 

Everything you said is what I experience every day. I actually 

have a social worker who is under me. That is her role, and I say 

her role. It is all of our role. That is the thing. It never ends. She 

helps coordinate. Because we have family workers that are in each 

of our child care centers in Head Start, we treat that like everyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
74

thing else that we do on a tiered level where we just brainstorm. 

We get together and we brainstorm, and nothing is thrown out. 

Whether we are reaching two parents or we have 100 parents at 

anything we do, whatever we need, and that is where I started to 

list between home visits, the parent interviews. It is not about the 

quantity of time with the parents, the quality of the time from our 

end, whatever we can do to bring that parent in, not waste their 

time, go to their homes, meet them on neutral turf. You know, 

again, we never say, ‘‘Oh, we are not going to have any more of 

those workshops or meetings because only six parents came.’’ Those 

six parents go out and tell six more parents——

And you mentioned English language learners, especially the cultural aspect of that. At our local Head Start, our numbers have increased dramatically of the English language learner families, and 

we were not reaching them as well, so, again, we had to sit down 

and brainstorm, and we started to have—you know, we always 

have translators—families who came together. They walked the 

children together. We started with that group, asked them to get 

some other people, promised child care at night, what time works 

best for you. We found Friday nights when they pick the children 

up from aftercare, they will stay. 

You know, again, I have lists and lists of things that we have 

tried, what works, what does not. We always reflect back on what 

works, who did we reach, and then at our own meetings, I meet 

with the center directors in Head Start, everybody. We all meet 

once a month in a, you know, regular structured meeting, and at 

that time, that is what we share, you know, how were you successful with your parents. 

And then we also have a big movement with transitioning families from early intervention into preschool, from preschool to kindergarten, and then we make sure that we are bringing in people 

from the community as well as foster parent groups. We cover it 

all. It is an integral part of our program. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very good. That is very encouraging, and perhaps 

that is a model that can be built out upon across the nation. 

Ms. PRIESTLY. I can get you more information. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Much of the testimony today highlights the benefits of early 

childhood education for all children and its linkage, therefore, to 

the long-term success of the county. In particular, it is noted that 

children from low-income households benefit the most from quality 

early childhood education. Can you explain why children from lowincome households seem to benefit the most from early childhood 

education compared to children from other socioeconomic groups? 

Mr. HASKINS. I would say the reason is that the increase in quality——

Ms. HIRONO. Excuse me. If you can just keep your answer very 

brief because we are out of time. Go ahead. 

Mr. HASKINS. Okay. I would say that the answer is somewhat 

straightforward. The environment in which they are reared in 

terms of the language they hear, the discipline, the order compared 

to the high-quality child care center—the high-quality child care 

center is much better on all those dimensions relative to their 

home than it would be for middle-class kids. 

75

A lot of people do not like that, but there is a ton of research to 

show that that is the truth, and, in fact, that is the basic idea behind Head Start, that Head Start can put kids in a center and give 

them experiences with teachers and curriculum and so forth that 

they would ordinarily miss out on in their home and that will affect 

their development, and it turns out that is true. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Holt, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair and commend her for holding these 

hearings, and I must say all the witnesses have presented articulate and really useful testimony. 

But we all feel this frustration. Whenever we talk with constituents who speak their minds to us, they accuse us of being shortsighted and not spending time on or devoting appropriations to 

what is really important to Americans or making the most efficient 

use of their resources, and this is, of course, probably best example, 

when you look at the cognitive benefits and the social benefits and 

the behavioral benefits. $33 billion calculated some years ago or, 

say, $100 billion today should not seem like too much, and, in fact, 

considering the way we have been spending money in the last few 

years only to hurt ourselves, no one can ever say to me again for 

a social program, ‘‘We just do not have the money,’’ or for an educational program.’’

But let run through three questions I would like to have answered. I will lay them on the table, and recognizing the limited 

time, I would like you to run through them quickly. 

There is, as Dr. Phillips and others have pointed out, quite a bit 

of research. One of the questions is are the training programs at 

the college and university level behind the curve, or are they really 

up to date in teaching? And this would be for teacher training as 

well as for teaching those who go into parent training. Are they up 

to date on the research? 

And I would like to ask, Ms. Priestly, what would you say are 

the most important lessons that New Jersey has learned that we 

should share with the country, and specifically in special education? Is recognition of the special needs and differentiation more 

or less important in the pre-K years, or is it, say, equally important 

as later? In other words, should we have special programs for special students in these years? 

Let me let it go at that because there is probably not time for 

my other questions. 

Ms. PRIESTLY. Okay. If I start with your last one about special 

needs children, I will never stick to the time, but just let me briefly 

say because, you know, that is one of my pets of this. 

I pride myself on the fact that we have—we will fall into the lessons of New Jersey, too. One of the biggest and most important 

parts of the whole early childhood movement in New Jersey is 

that—and, in my case, right in my district right now—we have inclusive programs. Our 3-and 4-year-olds—you know, identifying 

those learning differences and social disabilities and everything is 

very important, but it is how we handle it. 

It is working with the parents, it is the early intervention strategies, it is training the teachers, and what we have done is our chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:22 Sep 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-75\40225.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
76

dren are all—except for a couple of self-contained special education 

classes where the needs at this moment cannot be met in the general education classes, our 3-and 4-year-olds with disabilities are 

included in the general ed preschool classrooms, but not without 

support. We have preschool inclusion teachers who go into those 

classrooms and work alongside of the classroom teacher. 

We use it as a consultation model as well. We do teacher training 

so that they are modeling for those classroom teachers because we 

know that all the intervention strategies need to happen on a regular basis to make a difference at the same time we work with the 

parents to see what else can be done at home, and so, again, that 

teacher education part is very important, and the training is very 

important. 

And then whatever other needs, as I said, are not met in the general ed class, then we provide those services, whether it is additional speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, whatever is identified in their individual education plan. 

So that to me is one of the lessons. 

The other thing we did is we—I always talk about the tiered approach because you cannot do it all quickly. So, when we worked 

with the leaders, the supervisors and master teachers and everybody in New Jersey so that they would be able to go back to their 

districts, get the training and go back and make sure things happened, one of the other things we did was create a preschool intervention and referral specialist team not to identify children and 

send them to special programs, but to work with the parents and 

the teachers. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Let me ask the others, particularly on the 

preparation in the teacher training and parent training programs, 

whether we are current. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I cannot directly address that because I have not 

looked specifically at that. I know there are concerns about that, 

but I can give you a couple of observations. 

Ms. HIRONO. Can you be sure to keep your response short because we are also going to be called for a vote on the floor in a few 

minutes. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Okay. Then I will just give you two sentences. The 

teachers in Tulsa who provided more time on task and provided 

better instruction for their students got higher grade-point averages out of their BA’s in early education and education. That suggests that the teachers who are really getting the most out of their 

undergraduate educations are doing the best are doing well. 

So, clearly, those schools are doing well. We are talking about, 

you know, schools in Oklahoma. We are not talking, you know, better excellence, but they are not your Harvard School of Education. 

So, yes, they can do a perfectly good job. 

Mr. HOLT. I think Ms. Chun is trying to get a word in here. 

Please. 

Ms. CHUN. Just real quickly, in Hawaii, we are expanding our 

distance learning, and with the distance learning, we know we 

must combine that with mentoring in the classroom. We also realize we must increase the preliteracy abilities of our early education 

teachers to be able to teach preliteracy concept along with strong 

child development. We are looking closely at our courses right now 

77

with our community college and how they articulate to our higher 

education. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

I would like to once again thank all of our witnesses for coming 

today and enlightening us. I think we are all on the same page on 

the importance of quality early education. 

I would like to add, though, that there was a lot of testimony and 

discussion about the need for coordination of early childhood services, and that is important, which is why we took numerous steps 

in the new Head Start law to improve coordination at the state and 

local levels. 

At the same time, though, we know that it is not just coordination. When we look at the fact that 39 states do not require child 

care providers to have any training before entering a classroom, 

that oversight and accountability of child care is generally minimal, 

and, in fact, in California, the Chair noted that programs are only 

inspected once every 5 years. One-third of the state’s pre-K programs do not meet more than half of the key quality criteria. And 

Ms. Chun explained that Hawaii has literally half of the necessary 

workforce to provide high-quality care and that low-and middle-income families are priced out of quality child care and preschool experiences. 

So, when we look at the national picture of standards and quality 

of child care and pre-K education, we conclude that the big solution 

is not just about coordination, that is oversimplifying, that we really need to look at standards, and we need to provide, I think, more 

funding—appropriate standards, and funding and federal support. 

So, with that, if there are no objections, the members will have 

14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing 

record, and without objection, this hearing is concluded. Thank 

you. 

[Additional submission by Ms. Hirono follows:]

Prepared Statement of Matthew Melmed, Executive Director, Zero to Three 

Chairman Miller and Members of the Committee: My name is Matthew Melmed. 

For the past 13 years I have been the Executive Director of ZERO TO THREE, a 

national non-profit organization that has worked to advance the healthy development of America’s babies and toddlers for 30 years. I would like to start by thanking 

the Committee for its continued interest in early childhood education. I would also 

like to thank the Committee for providing me the opportunity to discuss the importance of investing in early education, particularly for our nation’s infants and toddlers. 

The Importance of the Earliest Years 

Some may wonder why babies matter in public policy. While almost every social 

policy—from education to welfare reform to substance abuse and mental health—

affects infants and toddlers, the impact of these policies on very young children is 

seldom sufficiently addressed. Instead, policies often focus on the effects of ignoring 

the needs of infants and toddlers, for example, by having to address the cognitive 

gaps between low-income preschoolers and their more affluent peers or providing intensive special education services for problems that may have begun as much milder 

developmental delays left untreated in a young baby. 

Science has significantly enhanced what we know about the needs of infants and 

toddlers, underscoring the fact that experiences and relationships in the earliest 

years of life play a critical role in a child’s ability to grow up healthy and ready 

to learn. We know that infancy and toddlerhood are times of intense intellectual engagement.1 During this time—a remarkable 36 months—the brain undergoes its 

most dramatic development, and children acquire the ability to think, speak, learn, 

and reason. The early years establish the foundation upon which later learning and 

78

development are built. If experiences in those early years are harmful, stressful, or 

traumatic, the effects of such experiences become more difficult, not to mention 

more expensive, to remediate over time if they are not addressed early in life. 

All babies and toddlers need positive early learning experiences and consistent 

quality caregivers to foster their intellectual, social, and emotional development and 

to lay the foundation for later school success. The years during this most critical 

of developmental stages may be even more crucial for young children living in poverty. 

Of the 12 million infants and toddlers living in the United States, 44%—a staggering 5.4 million—live in low-income families (defined as families with incomes at 

or below twice the federal poverty level or $41,300 for a family of four).2 What is 

particularly troubling, in addition to the rise of childhood poverty, is the fact that 

very young children are disproportionately impacted by economic stress—that is, the 

negative effects of poverty are likely to be more severe when children are very 

young and their bodies and minds are still developing. Infants and toddlers in lowincome families are at greater risk than infants and toddlers in middle- to high-income families for a variety of poorer outcomes and vulnerabilities that can jeopardize their development and readiness for school, including learning disabilities, 

behavior problems, mental retardation, and developmental delays.3

Mr. Chairman, my message to you is that babies can’t wait! We know that investing in quality early care and education programs for our nation’s infants and toddlers promotes healthy development in young children. 

Investing Earlier 

Although there is a growing interest nationwide in early childhood services in the 

years immediately preceding kindergarten, for our most vulnerable at-risk infants 

and toddlers, the achievement gap often emerges long before they reach the preschool door. We know that high quality early learning experiences during the infant 

and toddler years are associated with early competence in language and cognitive 

development, cooperation with adults, and the ability to initiate and sustain positive 

exchanges with peers. With high quality, effective services, those infants and toddlers who are competent, yet at-risk for compromised development, will be better 

equipped to reach their full potential in life. Without increased investments focused 

on the availability and accessibility of quality early care and education experiences, 

many infants and toddlers will continue to be left behind. 

Not only do infants, toddlers, and their families pay a price for our failed policies, 

so does all of society. Effective, evidence-based early childhood policies, programs, 

and services go a long way in supporting stronger families and communities. They 

are also fiscally sound investments which can reduce the need for more expensive 

reactive interventions and governmental supports in the future. In fact, economists 

have found that for every dollar invested in early childhood programs, savings of 

$3.78 to $17.07 can be expected.4 While many of these savings benefit individuals, 

the public reaps far more of the benefits in terms of reduced crime, abuse and neglect, and welfare dependency while increasing educational performance and job 

training, leading to higher incomes and a more productive workforce. Playing catch 

up later in life is expensive and inadequate. We need to address the needs of vulnerable infants and toddlers today. Children who start behind, stay behind! 

High quality early care and education programs provide protective buffers against 

the multiple adverse influences that may hinder a young child’s development in all 

domains. Therefore, it is extremely important to invest in programs such as Early 

Head Start, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Early Head Start 

Early Head Start is the only federal program specifically designed to improve the 

early education experiences of low-income infants and toddlers. The mission of Early 

Head Start is clear: to support healthy prenatal outcomes and enhance the intellectual, social and emotional development of infants and toddlers to promote later success in school and life. It does so by offering early learning experiences, parent support, home visitation, and access to medical, mental health and early intervention 

services. This comprehensive approach supports the whole child—physically, socially, emotionally and cognitively—within the context of the family, the home and 

other child-serving settings. 

Research demonstrates that Early Head Start is effective. The Congressionallymandated Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project—a rigorous, largescale, random-assignment evaluation—concluded that Early Head Start is making 

a positive difference in areas associated with children’s success in school, family selfsufficiency, and parental support of child development. For example, Early Head 

79

Start produced statistically significant, positive impacts on standardized measures 

of children’s cognitive and language development.5 Early Head Start also had significant impacts for parents, promoting family self-sufficiency and parental support 

of child development. Children who participated in Early Head Start had more positive interactions with their parents than control group children—they engaged their 

parents more and parents rated their children as lower in aggressive behavior than 

control parents did.6 Early Head Start parents were also more emotionally supportive and less detached than control group parents and provided significantly 

more support for language and learning than control group parents.7

Furthermore, a follow-up wave of research demonstrated that a number of the 

positive impacts of participating in Early Head Start are still demonstrated two 

years later, showing that children who attended Early Head Start and pre-kindergarten between the ages of three and five experienced the most positive outcomes.8

Unfortunately, Early Head Start is reaching only a small proportion of at-risk 

children and families—only three percent of all eligible children and families are 

served.9 Increased funding for Early Head Start will ensure that we reach the most 

at-risk infants and toddlers early in life when we have the best opportunity to reverse the trajectory of poor development that can occur in the absence of such supports. It will also help us ensure that parents have the supports they need to sufficiently nurture the healthy development of their infants and toddlers. 

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) 

Second only to the immediate family, child care is the context in which early 

childhood development most frequently unfolds, starting in infancy.10 According to 

2005 data, 42 percent of one-year-olds and 53 percent of one-to-two-year-olds have 

at least one regular non-parental care arrangement.11 The increase in the number 

of working parents with babies and toddlers comes at a time when science has demonstrated the critical importance of supporting the development and learning of children ages birth to three, and makes the need for quality child care even more significant. However, more than 40 percent of infants and toddlers are in child care 

rooms of poor quality.12

The evidence associating the quality of infant and toddler care with early cognitive and language outcomes ‘‘is striking in consistency.’’ 13 High quality child care 

is associated with outcomes that all parents want to see in their children, ranging 

from cooperation with adults to the ability to initiate and sustain positive exchanges 

with peers, to early competence in math and reading—all of which are key ingredients to later school success. 

While hours of care, stability of care, and type of care are all associated with developmental outcomes, it is the quality of care, and in particular, the quality of the 

daily interactions between child care providers and infants and toddlers that most 

significantly impact development.14 Elements of high quality infant and toddler 

child care include: small groups; high staff-to-child ratios; a consistent caregiver; 

health and safety; and cultural and linguistic continuity.15 Quality child care is also 

contingent upon the special training that caregivers receive in the profession of 

early childhood development.16 High quality child care where providers are both 

supportive and offer more verbal stimulation creates an environment where children 

are likely to show more advanced cognitive and language development.17 It provides 

environments and opportunities for socialization, problem-solving, empathy building, 

sharing and relating. 

Research indicates that the strongest effects of quality child care are found with 

at-risk children—children from families with the fewest resources and under the 

greatest stress.18 Yet, at-risk infants and toddlers who may benefit the most from 

high quality child care are unlikely to receive it—they receive some of the poorest 

quality care that exists in communities across the United States.19 The results can 

be devastating. Poor quality child care for at-risk children may diminish inborn potential and lead to poorer developmental outcomes.20

CCDF is a block grant that provides funds to help improve the quality and supply 

of child care for low-income children and their families. Through the use of subsidies, CCDF helps working parents make informed choices about the most appropriate child care for their children. The infant-toddler set-aside of CCDF, currently 

prescribed through the appropriations process, has helped states focus on the unique 

needs of infants and toddlers by investing in specialized infant-toddler provider 

training, providing technical assistance to programs and practitioners, and linking 

compensation with training and demonstrated competence. The quality set-aside, 

currently 4% of the total amount provided under the law, allocates funds to states 

in order to support and develop innovative strategies for improving the quality of 

child care. Despite modest increases in federal child care funding, CCDF funds are 

insufficient to serve all eligible children. 

80

Congress should ensure that all babies and toddlers, particularly those living in 

poverty, have access to quality child care when their parents are at work. An increase in federal funding for child care would lead to increased investments in quality and would help to ensure that more low-income infants and toddlers have access 

to quality child care settings. More funding needs to be directed specifically at improving the quality of care for infants and toddlers, including professional development opportunities with infant-toddler content for early childhood staff who work 

with this age group. 

Part C of IDEA 

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes federal support for early intervention programs for babies and toddlers with disabilities 

and provides federal assistance for states to maintain and implement statewide systems of services for eligible children, birth through age two, and their families. For 

young children with disabilities, early intervention provides intensive services and 

supports to promote the highest possible level of developmental competence. For 

young children at significant risk, early intervention can protect them against influences that may compromise their development. 

Under Part C, all participating states and jurisdictions must provide early intervention services to any child below age three who is experiencing developmental 

delays or has a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability 

of resulting in a developmental delay. In addition, states may choose to provide 

services for babies and toddlers who are ‘‘at-risk’’ for serious developmental problems, defined as circumstances (including biological or environmental conditions or 

both) that will seriously affect the child’s development unless interventions are provided. Early intervention services under Part C may prevent or minimize the need 

for more costly services under Part B of IDEA later in a child’s life. 

Despite the promise it holds for the future, there is a wide variation in the percentage of infants and toddlers enrolled in Part C programs across states. Currently, 

states carry a significant burden to fund Part C programs, in part, because of inadequate federal funding. The result is that many eligible infants and toddlers do not 

receive the early intervention services they desperately need in order to reach their 

full potential in school and in life. Increased investments in early intervention programs will go a long way in addressing developmental delays at a time when we 

can have the greatest impact on a child’s future. 

Building the Capacity of our Nation’s Early Childhood Workforce 

Our nation’s early childhood workforce is facing a major crisis. Finding and supporting well-trained early childhood professionals who work with children age birth 

to five is a challenge; it is particularly difficult for professionals working with children birth to three. There is tremendous variability among the teachers and providers who make up the early childhood workforce (child care providers, Head Start 

and Early Head Start teachers, child welfare workers, and infant and early childhood mental health professionals). According to the U.S. Department of Education, 

training for infant/toddler professionals is minimal, contributing to overall personnel 

problems.21 The need for more and better qualified providers cuts across a range 

of disciplines and professions. 

One of the most consistent findings in developmental research links the quality 

of care that young children receive to virtually every measure of development that 

has been examined.22 This is particularly true for low-income children who are atrisk for early developmental problems and later educational underachievement. 

However, unlike programs that exist for elementary and secondary education teachers, the U.S. higher education system lacks a robust infrastructure to develop the 

next generation of early childhood professionals. We must build the capacity of our 

nation’s early childhood workforce by creating economic incentives—including adequate compensation and loan forgiveness—to enable early childhood providers to 

seek out training opportunities which will allow them to provide the care needed 

while reducing the harmful staff turn-over currently plaguing the system. Likewise, 

it is imperative that colleges and universities are afforded grants in order to infuse 

infant and toddler coursework into their programs and develop and disseminate distance learning courses. 

Conclusion 

During the first three years of life, children rapidly develop foundational capabilities—physical, social-emotional, and cognitive—on which subsequent development 

builds. These areas of development are inextricably related. Yet, too often, we ignore 

the early years of a child’s life in making public policy, waiting until at-risk children 

are already behind physically, emotionally, or cognitively before significant investments are made to address their needs. We must change this pattern and invest 

81

in at-risk infants and toddlers early on, when that investment can have the biggest 

payoff—preventing problems or delays that become more costly to address as the 

children grow older. 

All young children should be given the opportunity to succeed in school and in 

life. Ensuring that infants and toddlers have strong families who are able to support 

their healthy development will help lay the foundation for a lifetime of success. We 

must increase federal investments so that infants, toddlers and their families have 

access to developmentally appropriate early learning programs such as Early Head 

Start, quality and affordable child care, and early intervention services to help ensure that they are ready for school. 

I urge the Committee to consider the very unique needs of infants and toddlers 

as you invest in early childhood programs. 

Thank you for your time and for your commitment to our nation’s at-risk infants, 

toddlers and families. 

ENDNOTES

1Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2Douglas-Hall, Ayona and Chau, Michelle. 2007. Basic facts about low-income children: Birth 

to age 3. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/download—217.pdf (accessed December 10, 

2007). 3Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of 

early childhood development. 4 Heckman, James, Grunewald, Rob, and Reynolds, Arthur. 2006. The dollars and cents of investing early: Cost-benefit analysis in early care and education. ZERO TO THREE Journal 26 

(6): 10-17. 5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2002. Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts 

of Early Head Start. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs—resrch/reports/impacts—exesum/impacts—execsum.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006). 6 Ibid. 

7 Ibid. 

8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

2006. Research to practice: Preliminary findings from the Early Head Start prekindergarten followup. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs—resrch/reports/prekindergarten—followup/prekindergarten—followup.pdf (accessed October 23, 2006). 9 Note: 61,243 is the exact number of children under three served by Early Head Start in Fiscal Year 2005. Head Start Program Information Report for the 2004-2005 Program Year, Early 

Head Start Programs Only. Retrieved October 23, 2006. Note: 2,552,000 children under three 

in the U.S. live below the federal poverty level. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Current population 

survey, 2006 annual social and economic supplement. POV34: Single year of age—Poverty status: 2005. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/pov/new34—100—01.htm (accessed October 23, 2006). 10Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science 

of early childhood development. 11Schumacher, Rachel, Hamm, Katie, Goldstein, Anne, and Lombardi, Joan 2006. Starting off 

right: Promoting child development from birth in state early care and education initiatives. 

Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy and ZERO TO THREE. 12 Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child 

Care Centers, Public Report, 2nd edition. (Denver Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver, 1995). 13Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science 

of early childhood development. 14 Ibid. 15Lally, J. Ronald, Griffin, Abbey, Fenichel, Emily, Segal, Marilyn et al. 2003. Caring for infants and toddlers in groups: Developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: ZERO TO 

THREE. 16 National Research Council. 2000. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 17 Ibid. 18Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science 

of early childhood development. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 U.S. Department of Education. 2001. 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/index.html (accessed December 29, 2006). 22Shonkoff, Jack and Phillips, Deborah. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science 

of early childhood development. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ