U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–488 PDF 2015

THE FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESS: 

DISCUSSING EARLY CHILDHOOD 

EDUCATION AND CARE IN AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

Serial No. 113–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 5, 2014 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brown, Kay, E., Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security ........ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Dichter, Harriet, Executive Director, Delaware Office of Early Learning 

Carvel Building, Wilmington, DE ................................................................ 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60 

Whitehurst, Grover J. ′′Russ′′, Senior Fellow and Director of the Brown 

Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution, Washington,, DC ..... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Yalow, Elanna S., Chief Executive Officer, Knowledge Universe Early 

Learning Programs, Portland OR ................................................................ 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Additional Submissions: 

Ms. Brown: response to questions submitted for the record ......................... 214 

Ms. Ditcher: response to questions submitted for the record ....................... 219 

Holt, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey: ............................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 177 

Letter, dated February 14, 2014 from James J. Heckman, Professor 

of Economics, The University of Chicago ............................................. 178 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 212 

Chairman Kline: questions submitted for the record 212 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: ..................................................................................................

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 183 

Prepared statement of Otha Thornton, President, National Parent 

Teacher Association ............................................................................... 184 

Mr. Miller: .........................................................................................................

List of organizations supporting the Support for the Strong Start 

for America’s Act of 2013 ...................................................................... 101 

Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from Fight Crime: Invest in Kids ....... 103 

Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from Mission: Readiness Military 

Leaders for Kids ..................................................................................... 139 

Letter, dated February 4, 2014 from America’s Edge ............................ 153 

Letter from Shepherding the Next Generation ....................................... 155 

Summary from First Five Years Fund of selected governors’ investments in early childhood education ...................................................... 157 

Summary from First Five Years Fund of evidence base on preschool 

education ................................................................................................ 160 

U.S. News article: Why the GOP Should Get On Board with Preschool? ..................................................................................................... 161 

Prepared statement of First Focus Campaign for Children .................. 188 

Prepared statement of Matthew Josephs, Senior Vice President, Local 

Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) ............................................... 196 

Letter, dated February 18, 2014 from National Children’s Facilities 

Network .................................................................................................. 201 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

Page

IV 

Additional Submissions—Continued 

Mr. Miller—Continued 

Prepared Statement of Cleofias Rodriguez Jr., Executive Director 

of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association ......... 202 

Prepared Statement of Matthew E. Melmed, Executive Director, Zero 

To Three ................................................................................................. 205 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado: questions submitted for the record .................................................... 217 

Mr. Whitehurst: response to questions submitted for the record ................. 244 

Ms Yalow: response to questions submitted for the record ........................... 250 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

The Foundation for Success: Discussing Early 

Childhood Education and Care in America 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Wilson, Hunter, Roe, 

Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, 

Barletta, Heck, Miller, Scott, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney, Polis, Wilson, and Bonamici. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; Amy Raaf Jones, Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch Kumar, Professional Staff 

Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Senior 

Education Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex 

Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy 

Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Jamie Fasteau, Minority 

Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education 

Policy Advisor; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; 

Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; and Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. 

Well, good morning. 

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. 

To my colleagues, welcome to the first full committee hearing of 

2014. I am looking forward to a productive year. 

We are short one witness but are advised that is—will be filled 

here shortly. Something about rain and commutes, and those of us 

who spend time around here have great empathy and sympathy for 

that. 

Well, the debate on early childhood education has taken center 

stage in recent months. In his State of the Union address last week 

President Obama called early education, quote—‘‘one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

And there is certainly a lot of evidence to support that. Early 

childhood education and development programs can have a lasting 

influence on a child, laying the foundation for future success and 

achievement in school, the workplace, and life. 

Since the 1960s the federal government has played an active role 

in helping children—especially those in low-income families—gain 

access to critical early care and development services. The first program, established under the Social Security Act of 1962, helped disadvantaged families afford child care. Since then, dozens of additional federal programs have been established to provide a range 

of development services for children from birth through age five. 

According to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office, there are now 45 federal programs linked to early childhood 

education and care operated by several different federal agencies. 

These programs, as you can see from the graphic we have displayed on the screen and in the hearing room, are in addition to 

dozens of programs operated at the state level. The GAO report also found taxpayers dedicate more than $13 billion annually to support education or related services for children 

under the age of five—a hefty price tag that is getting even bigger 

thanks to new funding included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill. Despite this considerable investment, serious 

questions remain as to whether these federal programs are producing the positive results our kids deserve. 

The Head Start program, for example, has been the subject of 

concern since the release of the 2010 Head Start Impact Study and 

the 2012 Third Grade Follow-Up to the Head Start Impact Study. 

Head Start receives approximately $8 billion a year—more than 

half of the total investment in early care and development. Yet the 

studies found little difference between the achievement levels of 

children who had participated in the program and those who had 

not. 

During a visit to the Harlem Children’s Zone last summer I saw 

firsthand that amazing things can happen in Head Start classrooms. But these troubling studies highlight the need to assess the 

challenges facing Head Start and consider smart reforms to 

strengthen the program. In fact, many federal early care and education programs are in need of serious review. This should be our 

first priority, not rubber-stamping a 46th federal program. 

As we examine the current federal early childhood education and 

care system this morning, my Republican colleagues and I believe 

we should discuss opportunities to streamline the mountain of existing federal programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and improve 

transparency to make it easier for providers and parents to understand their options. And above all, we must work together to ensure these programs are serving disadvantaged families first, consistent with the original intent of the federal investment in early 

childhood programs. 

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 

recently took steps toward these fundamental goals with legislation 

to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. As 

you know, CCDBG provides funds to states to help low-income families access quality child care and has been due for reauthorization 

for over a decade. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

The Senate bill, approved by the committee late last year, includes several common-sense provisions that will help empower 

parents and enhance coordination between CCDBG and other federal early care and development programs such as Head Start. I 

believe this proposal provides a solid foundation to begin related 

discussions in this committee and look forward to working with my 

colleagues on this initiative in the coming months. 

And I now recognize my distinguished colleague from California, 

Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and The Workforce 

The debate on early childhood education has taken center stage in recent months. 

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama called early education 

‘‘one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life.’’ He’s right. Early childhood education and development programs can have a lasting influence on a child, 

laying the foundation for future success and achievement in school, the workplace, 

and life. 

Since the 1960s, the federal government has played an active role in helping children—especially those in low-income families – gain access to critical early care and 

development services. The first program, established under the Social Security Act 

of 1962, helped disadvantaged families afford child care. Since then, dozens of additional federal programs have been established to provide a range of development 

services for children from birth through age five. 

According to a 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office, there are 

now 45 federal programs linked to early childhood education and care operated by 

several different federal agencies. These programs, as you can see from the graphic 

we’ve displayed on the screen and in the hearing room, are in addition to dozens 

of programs operated at the state level. The GAO report also found taxpayers dedicate more than $13 billion annually to 

support education or related services for children under the age of five – a hefty 

price tag that is getting even bigger thanks to new funding included in the FY 2014 

omnibus appropriations bill. Despite this considerable investment, serious questions 

remain as to whether these federal programs are producing the positive results our 

kids deserve. 

The Head Start program, for example, has been the subject of concern since the 

release of the 2010 Head Start Impact Study and the 2012 Third Grade Follow-Up 

to the Head Start Impact Study. Head Start receives approximately $8 billion dollars a year – more than half of the total investment in early care and development 

– yet the studies found little difference between the achievement levels of children 

who had participated in the program and those who had not. 

During a visit to the Harlem Children’s Zone last summer, I saw firsthand that 

amazing things can happen in Head Start classrooms. But these troubling studies 

highlight the need to assess the challenges facing Head Start and consider smart 

reforms to strengthen the program. In fact, many federal early care and education 

programs are in need of serious review. This should be our first priority, not rubberstamping a 46th federal program. 

As we examine the current federal early childhood education and care system this 

morning, my Republican colleagues and I believe we should discuss opportunities to 

streamline the mountain of existing federal programs, reduce regulatory burdens, 

and improve transparency to make it easier for providers and parents to understand 

their options. And above all, we must work together to ensure these programs are 

serving disadvantaged families first, consistent with the original intent of the federal investment in early childhood programs. 

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee recently took 

steps toward these fundamental goals with legislation to reauthorize the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant. As you know, CCDBG provides funds to states to 

help low-income families access quality child care, and has been due for reauthorization for over a decade. The Senate bill, approved by the committee late last year, 

includes several commonsense provisions that will help empower parents and enhance coordination between CCDBG and other federal early care and development 

programs, such as Head Start. I believe this proposal provides a solid foundation 

to begin related discussions in this committee, and look forward to working with my 

colleagues on this initiative in the coming months. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this hearing, and the witnesses for your attendance 

today and your expertise. 

Quality early learning is a critical issue that President Obama 

and members of our committee have been highlighting for years. 

Last fall Congressman Hanna of New York and I introduced the 

Strong Start for America’s Children Act, a bold, innovative 10-year 

federal-state partnership that will expand and improve early learning opportunities for children nationwide. 

And just last month we got a down payment on those efforts 

from the omnibus appropriations bill, which provided 250 million 

in preschool development and expansion grants and 500 million in 

Early Head Start, including the same child care partnerships proposed in our bill. Indeed, this is an exciting time for early childhood education. 

Ask any parent in America how important access to pre-K is to 

their family or whether the quality of their children’s program matters and they will tell you how important it is that their children 

have a safe, high-quality learning environment. Or maybe ask elementary teachers, or law enforcement, or military and business 

leaders why they are fighting to expand and strengthen early childhood education around the country. They are all likely to engage 

you in the same discussion that we need to have today—how 

through quality early learning and child care the federal government can improve our nation’s educational outcomes, strengthen 

our economy, reduce crime and delinquency, improve the lives of 

multiple generations of children and families. 

We know from years of empirical longitudinal research that highquality preschool leads to good short-and long-term educational and 

economic outcomes for children, particularly those from low-income 

families. Despite what you may hear from critics, early childhood 

education has been proven over and over again to generate a substantial return on investment—one that far exceeds the ratio we 

use to determine whether most public projects can be considered 

successful for economic development. 

This has been proven not just in one study, but by decades of research across the country. The near-term effects include reading 

and math gains, fewer special education placements, and better 

health outcomes. The long-term benefits include better high school 

graduation rates, higher earnings, reduced crime, and fewer teen 

pregnancies. 

That is why states once again are increasing resources to early 

childhood programs, with at least 30 states bolstering early education investments in the last year. The federal government needs 

to support that action and partner with those states, counties, and 

school districts to give our youngest Americans a good start in life. 

You will also hear today that GAO has documented that the federal government has 45 programs in early care and education and 

already spends money on early education. What I believe the GAO 

report actually points is that there are just two programs that provide the bulk of federal role and funding for early education. 

There are a handful of other programs dedicated solely to special 

services to early education, such as services to students with disabilities and literacy support. The vast majority of those proCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

grams—75 percent—merely have a mention of early education and 

that means that the funds in those programs may or may not even 

be spent on early education. In fact, GAO does not document if 

funds in those programs are actually going to early education, just 

that the law says they could. 

Moreover, GAO could not find any duplication of services, despite 

there being some overlap in purposes of some programs. 

Today we will hear from Delaware’s Early Learning Director, if 

the trains permit. She has found that federal funds for early education, along with the innovative state and local efforts, can help 

transform children’s lives. 

The American people understand how important properly funded, 

quality early education programs are to our future. A recent national bipartisan poll showed that 70 percent of Americans, including 60 percent of Republicans, support more federal funding for 

better early education for children from low-income families. 

This is what the President proposed his fiscal year 2014 budget 

and in his State of the Union addresses for the second year in a 

row. He has seen the research and knows that federal action can 

generate state and local initiatives in support of young children 

and their families. 

He recognizes that even though we know quality early learning 

works well on so many levels, too many disadvantaged children 

don’t have access to any of the services, much less quality services. 

For example, only one in six children who is eligible for federal 

child care assistance receives it. Less than 45 percent of eligible 

children have access to Head Start. 

Even now, with low-income families—even now, when low-income families do have access to quality learning programs, they are 

often unaffordable. This has not only affected children and their 

family stability, but affects our jobs, our economy, and the success 

of the next generation. 

That is why we are doing something about it. We have more than 

60 organizations supporting my bipartisan Strong Start bill, ranging from business leaders to law enforcement to military leaders to 

elementary school principals. On top of that, some 500 state legislators of both parties have sent letters in support of the legislation. 

I urge the committee to consider the bill and to move it to the 

House floor for passage. 

In addition, I will be working with the administration to ensure 

that funds received through the omnibus bill are spent wisely. Let 

me be clear: Until this committee and this Congress decide to act 

on this issue in a responsible way, we are ceding control to legislate and managing this funding to the administration. 

Got that? Okay. 

Greater— 

Chairman KLINE. This would be the only place— 

Mr. MILLER. Great child care and early education investments at 

federal, state, and local levels are needed because low-income working parents lack access, can’t afford services, or don’t have enough 

good choices. The future of our nation depends on turning this 

around and providing high-quality early learning for all children. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, senior Democratic member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

I want to start by thanking Chairman Kline for holding today’s hearing. 

Quality early learning is a critical issue that President Obama and members of 

our committee have been highlighting for years. 

Last fall, Congressman Hanna of New York and I introduced the Strong Start for 

America’s Children Act, a bold, innovative 10-year federal-state partnership that 

would expand and improve early learning opportunities for children nationwide. 

And just last month, we got a down payment on these efforts from the omnibus 

appropriations bill, which provided 250 million in preschool development and expansion grants and 500 million for Early Head Start, including the same child care 

partnerships proposed in our bill. 

Indeed, this is an exciting time for the early childhood education. 

Ask any parent in America how important access to pre-K is for their family, or 

whether the quality of their child’s program matters. They will tell you how important it is that their children are in a safe, high-quality learning environment. 

Or maybe ask elementary school teachers, law enforcement, the military, and 

business leaders why they are fighting to expand and strengthen early childhood 

education around the country. 

They are all likely to engage you in the same discussion that we need to have 

today: how, through quality early learning and child care, the federal government 

can improve our nation’s educational outcomes, strengthen our economy, reduce 

crime and delinquency, and improve the lives of multiple generations of children 

and families. 

We know from years of empirical, longitudinal research that high-quality preschool leads to good short- and long-term educational and economic outcomes for 

children, particularly for those from low-income families. 

Despite what you may hear from critics, early childhood education has been proven over and over again to generate a substantial return on investment—one that 

far exceeds the ratio we use to determine whether most public projects can be considered successful economic development. 

This has been proven by not just one study, but by decades of research across the 

country. 

The near-term effects include reading and math gains; fewer special education 

placements; and better health outcomes. 

The long-term benefits include better high school graduation rates, higher earnings, and reduced crime and fewer teen pregnancies. 

That’s why states are once again increasing resources for early childhood programs, with at least 30 states bolstering early education investments in the last 

year. The federal government needs to support that action and partner with states, 

counties, school districts, and cities to give our youngest Americans a good start in 

life. 

You’ll also hear today that GAO has documented that the federal government has 

45 programs for early care and education and already spends money on early education. 

What the GAO report actually points out is that there are just two programs that 

provide for the bulk of the federal role in, and funding for, early education. 

There are a handful of other programs dedicated solely to support services in 

early education, such as services for students with disabilities and literacy support. 

The vast majority of those programs, 75 percent, merely have mention of early 

education in them. This means that the funds in those programs may not even be 

spent on early education. 

And in fact, GAO does not document if funds for those programs are actually 

going to early education—just that the law says they could. 

Moreover, GAO could not find any duplication of services, despite there being 

some overlap in the purposes of some programs. 

Today, we will hear from Delaware’s early learning director. She has found that 

federal funds for early education, along with innovative state and local efforts, can 

help transform children’s lives. 

The American people understand how important properly funded, quality early 

education programs are for our future. A recent national bipartisan poll found that 

70 percent of Americans—including 60 percent of Republicans—support more federal funding for better early education for children from low-income families. 

This is what the president proposed in his FY 2014 budget and in his State of 

the Union address for the second year in a row. He’s seen the research and knows 

that federal action can generate state and local initiatives in support of young children and their families. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

He recognizes that even though we know quality early learning works on so many 

levels, too many disadvantaged children don’t have access to any services, much less 

quality services. 

For example, only one in six children eligible for federal child care assistance receives it, and less than 45 percent of eligible children have access to Head Start. 

Even when low-income families do have access to quality early learning programs, 

they are often unaffordable. This is not only a threat to children and family stability, but to jobs, our economy, and the success of the next generation. 

That’s why we are doing something about it. We have more than 60 organizations 

supporting my bipartisan Strong Start bill, ranging from business leaders to law enforcement to military leaders to elementary school principals. On top of that, 500 

state legislators from both parties sent a letter in support of the bill. 

I urge the committee to consider this bill and move it to the House floor for passage. 

In addition, I’ll be working with the administration to ensure that the funds received through the omnibus bill are spent wisely. 

But let me be clear, until this Committee and this Congress decide to act on this 

issue in a responsible way, we are ceding control of legislating and of managing this 

funding to the administration. 

Greater child care and early education investments at the federal, state, and local 

levels are needed because low-income, working parents lack access, can’t afford services, and don’t have enough good choices. The future of our nation depends on turning this around and providing high-quality early learning for all children. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses, which—no. We got a little—just a little flurry back there. 

I will introduce the three of you here and when Ms. Dichter arrives we will get her wherever she comes in, wherever the trains 

allow. 

Ms. Kay Brown is the Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security issues at the Government Accountability Office, the 

GAO. She is currently responsible for leading GAO’s work related 

to child welfare, child care, domestic nutrition assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and services for older adults. 

And we do keep her busy. 

Dr. Grover J. ‘‘Russ’’ Whitehurst is the Director of the Brown 

Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. Previously 

he was the first Director of the Institute of Education Sciences. 

Dr. Elanna Yalow is the Chief Executive Officer for Knowledge 

Universe Early Learning Programs. She has over 20 years of experience with Knowledge Universe, where she is responsible for the 

development of educational programs in the United States and for 

the use of best practices in education, professional development, 

and quality assurance across the company’s education programs in 

the U.S., Europe, and Asia. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have 5 minutes 

to present your testimony. 

When you begin the light in front of you will turn green; when 

1 minute is left the light will turn yellow; and when your time is 

expired the light will turn red. At that point I ask you to wrap up 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

your remarks as best you are able, and after everyone has testified 

members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. 

I now recognize Ms. Brown for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO), WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss our 

work on early learning and child care programs. 

Today I will cover the number and range of these programs and 

the extent to which they are fragmented, overlap, or duplicate each 

other. My remarks are based on GAO’s 2012 review in which we 

looked for federally funded programs that focused on preparing 

young children for school or provided subsidized child care to help 

low-income parents work or attend school or training. 

Overall we identified 45 programs, and these can be grouped into 

three categories. First, 12 of the programs have an explicit purpose 

of providing early learning or child care services. That is, these 

services are part of their main mission. In fiscal year 2012 these programs received more than $14 billion 

in federal spending. Some are very large, such as Head Start, 

which obligated $8 billion that year, while most others are smaller, 

obligating less than 500 million each. They all target specific 

groups, such as low-income children or children with disabilities. 

Of the remaining 33 programs, the second group contains multipurpose block grants or other programs that have a different main 

purpose but whose funds may be used for early learning or child 

care. For example, the TANF program aims to promote work and 

help end dependence on government benefits, and 2.6 billion in 

TANF funds were used for child care in 2012. 

The third group includes programs that provide services that facilitate or support early learning or child care programs. For example, the Child and Adult Care Food Program provides nutrition assistance to young children in different settings. In addition to these 

programs we identified five tax provisions that subsidize private 

expenditures in this area. 

Now, moving on to the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, the federal investment is fragmented. By this I mean 

that these programs are administered by multiple agencies. They 

are concentrated within the Departments of Education and HHS, 

but six other federal agencies and one federal state commission are 

also involved. 

Further, these programs overlap each other, meaning multiple 

programs have similar goals and target similar groups of children. 

For example, several programs provide school readiness services to 

low-income children, and programs in both Education and Interior 

provide funding for early learning services for Indian children. 

Now, it is harder to tell whether these programs are duplicative—that is, whether they provide the same services to the same 

beneficiaries. This is because many of the different—because of the 

many different ways the programs are structured, the wide range 

of allowable uses for the funds, and the lack of data in some cases 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

on services provided. Also, the eligibility requirements differ among 

programs even for similar subgroups of children, such as those 

from low-income families. 

So what does all this mean? The federal support for these programs has developed over time in response to emerging needs. 

However, administering similar programs through different agencies can lead to situations where the programs may not serve children and their families as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

This can also lead to added administrative costs for things like eligibility determination and reporting requirements. 

I should also note, though, that even with this overlap it is likely 

that there are gaps in service. For example, HHS estimated that 

between fiscal years 2004 and 2007 about one-third or fewer of potentially eligible children from low-income working families received child care subsidies from the three main programs. Further, 

there are likely cases where the programs complement each other, 

such as when a child in daycare also receives meals funded through 

a separate nutrition program. 

Now, one way to help mitigate the effects of fragmentation and 

overlap is through enhanced coordination. Education and HHS 

have an interdepartmental work group, and in our 2012 report we 

noted the need to deepen and extend their ongoing coordination efforts by including all of the relevant federal agencies. At this time, 

the work group is still considering what action to take. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Brown follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 86488.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 86488.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 86488.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 86488.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 86488.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 86488.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 86488.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 86488.008
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 86488.009
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 86488.010
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 86488.011
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 86488.012
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 86488.013
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 86488.014
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 86488.015
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 86488.016
26 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Dr. Whitehurst, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GROVER J. ‘‘RUSS’’ WHITEHURST, SENIOR 

FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF THE BROWN CENTER ON 

EDCUATION POLICY, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Kline, Mr. Miller, members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here. 

Mr. Kline, you mentioned my current job and my previous one, 

but I want to spend most of my time here reflecting on the work 

that I did as an applied developmental psychologist. I spent a lot 

of time in child care facilities during that period that were under 

the sway of federal legislation. 

I remember vividly a young mother I met at a parents’ meeting 

at a Head Start center. On leaving the center that evening I saw 

her walking down the road with a 4-year-old in hand, pushing her 

2-year-old in a stroller, and carrying a large bag of materials that 

had been passed out at the meeting. She was struggling. 

I asked her if she wanted a ride home. She accepted. I thought 

I would be taking her a couple of blocks but it was a couple of 

miles before I dropped her off in front of the dilapidated home 

where she lived. 

I asked her if she had walked all the way to the meeting with 

her young kids. She said that she had. I said, ‘‘That is a long way 

to walk with two kids. Why did you do it?’’ 

Her answer was, ‘‘I just wanted to do what was best for my babies.’’ 

We all should want a system of federal funding that would allow 

her and millions of parents like her to do just that—what is best 

for their babies. The question for me is not whether the federal 

government should support the learning and care of young children, but how it should do so. 

The current system is simply broken. If we are going to reform 

it we must acknowledge some facts. I will give you five; there is 

a longer list in my written testimony. 

Number one: The federal government spends a lot on early childhood programs, particularly relative to its expenditures at other 

levels of learning. You have heard Kay Brown say it is about $14 

billion. If you take into account expenditures from these other programs that are not directly focused by legislation on early childhood it comes to over $22 billion. 

By way of comparison, the federal government’s entire expenditure on the education of the disadvantaged in grades K–12 is 

roughly $15 billion. It is a lot of money. 

Number two: We are not getting our money’s worth from present 

federal expenditures on early childhood services. You have heard 

Chairman Kline speak about the evaluation of Head Start. It is a 

very strong federal evaluation from Health and Human Services— 

demonstrates that Head Start produces no lasting educational 

gains for participants. In fact, the impacts of Head Start don’t even 

last until the end of kindergarten. 

Expenditures for child care under the Child Care Development 

Block Grant Program may actually do harm to some children beCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

cause states administer this program in ways that encourage families to place their children in low-quality care or to not get any help 

at all, and this is true of TANF as well. 

Number three: State programs may be no more effective than 

Head Start. A recent high-quality evaluation of Tennessee’s Voluntary Pre-K Program found that the group that experienced preK actually performed less well on cognitive tasks at the end of first 

grade than the control group. 

Number four: The results from early model programs cannot be 

generalized to present-day investments. Who among us has not 

heard the claim that a dollar invested in quality preschool returns 

seven dollars in public benefits—or perhaps $13 or 18, depending 

on who you are reading? 

These estimates are derived from studies of two small pre-K programs from 40 to 50 years ago serving about 100 kids in all. They 

are different in almost every way from anything that is being seriously considered presently, so when you hear that every dollar invested in quality pre-K today will return seven dollars or more tomorrow, I would swallow with a grain of salt. 

Number five: Only some children need pre-K services to be ready 

for school and life. Most young children do not need to experience 

organized, center-based care in order to develop normally, profit 

from later educational opportunities, and live happy and productive 

lives. My staff leads me to believe that no President of the United 

States attended pre-K or nursery school. 

Every credible evaluation of early childhood education shows 

that the impacts, when they are found at all, are concentrated at 

the lower end of the distribution of family socioeconomic status. 

What do these facts suggest for federal policy? First, federal expenditures should be targeted on families that cannot otherwise afford child care. The federal funding stream should be reformed so 

that it is a reliable and predictable source of support for those families. 

States have a critical role to play as partners of the federal government in its support of child care, but not, I believe, as intermediaries in dispensing federal funds to child care providers. Federal policies should support child care systems that can evolve and 

learn based on feedback from their customers rather than top-down 

systems in which details of curriculum and staffing are decided by 

government. 

And finally, current levels of federal expenditure, I believe, are 

adequate as a starting point for an effective system of support for 

child care if only it were redesigned. 

One way that my policy recommendations could be translated 

into legislation would be through the creation of a federal grant 

program for early child care—that is, that would work along the 

lines of the federal Pell Grant system. Like Pell Grants go to students, early learning grants would go to parents to be carried with 

them to a licensed state child care provider of their choice. These 

early learning grants would replace most present forms of federal 

financial aid for early learning, including Head Start and the Child 

Care Development Block Grant. 

Congress, I believe, has a choice. It can continue to tinker with 

current programs and create new programs for which states have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

to jump through hoops that are designed in Washington, or it can 

trust families and place the financial resources to purchase early 

learning and child care directly in their hands— 

Chairman KLINE. Excuse me, Dr. Whitehurst, if you can wrap up 

quick— 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I hope it is clear which of these I prefer. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Whitehurst follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 86488.059
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 86488.060
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 86488.061
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 86488.062
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 86488.063
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 86488.064
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 86488.065
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 86488.066
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 86488.067
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 86488.068
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 86488.069
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 86488.070
41 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Timing is everything. 

Dr. Yalow, you are recognized? 

STATEMENT OF DR. ELANNA S. YALOW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS, PORTLAND, OR 

Ms. YALOW. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

importance of high-quality early childhood education and the role 

that federal programs such as the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant play in ensuring working parents have access to a 

quality educational provider of their choice. 

I am Dr. Elanna Yalow, Chief Executive Officer of Knowledge 

Universe Early Learning Programs. Serving children and families 

for over 40 years, Knowledge Universe is the nation’s largest provider of early childhood education, best known for its communitybased KinderCare Learning Centers. We also provide education 

and care at employer-sponsored centers through Children’s Creative Learning Centers and before-, after-school, and summer 

learning in partnership with school districts through our Champions brand. 

We are honored each day to provide a high-quality education to 

over 150,000 children ranging in age from 6 weeks to 12 years at 

over 1,600 centers and 300 school sites. We are committed to serving all children regardless of background. 

Approximately one-third of our children are from low-income 

working families who receive assistance under CCDBG. In addition, we serve more than 2,500 children with special needs. We are 

also the largest partner with the Department of Defense in providing high-quality community-based child care for America’s military, serving some 2,700 active duty families. 

The core focus of Knowledge Universe is the quality of each 

child’s educational experience. To ensure our children have this 

strong foundation, our teachers deliver our proprietary developmental curriculum that covers the essential domains of child development. 

And to assure a seamless transition from our educational program to elementary school we have aligned our curriculum with 

state standards in English language arts and mathematics and 

with early learning standards in the 39 states in which we operate. 

In developing our curriculum, we have worked with outside subject 

matter and developmental experts to ensure that our curriculum is 

consistent with the latest research and best practices and that it 

will meet the diverse needs of the children that we serve. 

To ensure quality and continuous improvement, we embrace the 

opportunity to subject our centers and our programs to external review and validation. We have already achieved national accreditation at 763 of our centers—more than any other provider in the 

United States—with the balance of our centers already in process 

or initiating accreditation within the next 12 to 18 months. We also 

actively participate in state quality rating and improvement systems. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

Further, we are committed to working with states to follow the 

performance of our children as they enter kindergarten. We recently partnered with Maryland to evaluate the school readiness of 

children who attended KinderCare. Data from the Maryland statewide kindergarten assessment showed that a higher percentage of 

Maryland children who attended KinderCare were fully ready on 

key school readiness indicators, including language and literacy, 

mathematical thinking, and scientific thinking, than their peers 

who did not attend KinderCare. 

Additionally, children who had participated in KinderCare full 

time for more than 1 year showed even higher percentages of 

school readiness, indicating more positive outcomes with a more 

concentrated dose of KinderCare. 

Without the dedication of our over 24,000 teachers we would not 

be able to deliver the high-quality education and care that we do 

each day, and we are partnering with research scientists at the 

Gallup Organization to develop a selection tool to help us identify, 

hire, and retain the best teachers, and also to measure employee 

and family engagement—critical components of quality. 

Given the importance of a child’s earliest years, investments 

should focus on the children who will benefit the most; promote 

continuous program improvement and quality; not displace the 

many qualified, experienced, and dedicated teachers already serving our youngest citizens; and continue to support and respect parental choice in meeting the needs of individual children and families. 

When parents entrust their children to the care of others they 

must feel confident about their options. The current CCDBG program serves as an important model for mixed delivery, providing 

vital support and choice for America’s working families. 

Unlike some programs that target only certain ages or that provide only half-day or school-year programs, under CCDBG low-income working families can choose a provider of their choice for 

their children from birth through age 12 that meets their work 

schedules, providing for greater consistency and better child outcomes. 

Lower-income families also have access to the same schools and 

the same classrooms available to children from more affluent backgrounds, typically at a significantly lower cost with the benefit of 

a more diverse and balanced learning environment for all children. 

There are a few areas you may wish to consider for improvement 

to CCDBG, given that it has been almost two decades since its last 

reauthorization. Efforts to provide reimbursement rates that cover 

the full cost of quality care should be made to ensure that all children receiving services do so in a safe, secure, and enriched learning environment and, in turn, yield improved child and societal 

outcomes. Continuous improvement should also be incentivized 

through state quality rating and improvement systems and national accreditation. 

I also ask that you consider changes that would allow for greater 

continuity of care for children. Currently, children can lose access 

to care at any time due to an unexpected job loss or change in income. While maintaining program integrity, it is possible to allow 

for less disruptive redeterminations and for parents to seek inCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

creased wages without fear of immediate loss of their child care 

subsidy. 

An additional benefit of the mixed delivery model is the current 

system has excess capacity that could easily be leveraged to serve 

more children without incremental investments in facilities, program management, and professional development and training. A 

number of states already do so in implementing their state preschool programs, but this opportunity should be expanded. 

For instance, Knowledge Universe participates in the state voluntary pre-K programs in Florida and Georgia, among others, and 

we participate in a number of Head Start partnerships in Ohio. All 

these varieties of public-private partnerships could be better utilized to provide more children and families access to a high-quality 

early learning experience that best meets their family’s needs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to questions and discussion. 

[The statement of Dr. Yalow follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 86488.017
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 86488.018
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 86488.019
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 86488.020
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 86488.021
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 86488.022
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 86488.023
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 208 here 86488.208
52 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

I am going to make an administrative announcement here. We 

are still waiting for the—I think it is probably taxi now. We have 

moved from train to taxi. And with the weather, not sure of the arrival. 

So we are going to go a little bit out of sequence here. I will start 

asking questions and then we move to Dr. Roe and we hope that 

the cab has arrived so that we can get members from both sides 

a chance to ask questions. 

I know a number of you are waiting to ask questions of Ms. 

Dichter, so we are going to try this. 

Go for it. All right. 

Okay, so let me start, and I will start with you, Ms. Brown, and 

let me start by saying thank you to the good work you have done 

personally and the work that GAO does. We, both sides, are 

tasking you pretty heavily and do pretty fine work for us. 

In your testimony you report that we have got an overlapping 

and fragmented system, and there are also gaps in the system. So 

I have sort of two questions. 

One, this overlapping and fragmented program, how does that 

impact the ability of parents to get accurate information about 

what might be available? And then two, what might be a recommendation for what Congress can do to address that situation? 

Ms. BROWN. As far as the effect on parents, I think the kinds of 

things that we talk about here as far as what is the appropriate 

eligibility criteria, and what are the expectations for the services 

that are provided, and how they vary from program to program 

translate into some very practical challenges and potential for confusion on the front line when parents are trying to arrange child 

care for their children, in that maybe some like—‘‘I have a half-day 

Head Start program but now I have a job and I have to figure out 

how I can also apply for child care for wrap-around services,’’ and 

it just—it can get confusing and challenging. 

As far as what Congress could do, in our report we made a recommendation to an interagency working group that they should 

better coordinate, and I just want to clarify what we mean by that. 

We don’t mean getting together and sharing information; we mean 

actually sitting down and taking a hard look at the programs that 

cut across these different agencies: Do they still work? What do we 

know about who they are serving? What are the results? Are they 

unique or did they—you know, are the needs still exist? 

And so we are asking them to take a look at that because we 

think that can be a really useful starting place, but the outcome 

of that, we would hope, would be some recommendations for agencies—federal agencies—to take and some recommendations that 

would have to come to Congress, because I am sure that they 

would be identifying some changes that would need to be legislated, as well. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay. Thank you. 

On Head Start, you have done a lot of work on Head Start—GAO 

has over the years, and we have talked about it here and we are 

going to look towards reauthorizing the Head Start Act. Can you 

talk a little bit about what you have done in the way of reporting 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

and what your recommendations have been as we look at Head 

Start? 

I said in my remarks that I have personally seen Head Start programs which are doing marvelously well, and yet we have reports 

from you and others they have some that aren’t. So could you address that—Head Start specifically, please? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. We have made some recommendations through 

the years that are primarily related to oversight of the program, 

both in areas like financial management and we had a report that 

was related to accurately determining eligibility for applicants, and 

we have also talked about program quality. 

Now, HHS, I believe, is taking some action in some of these 

areas, so a future look might be to make sure that those actions 

are actually achieving the goals that they are hoping. And the 

other thing that—as far as what is going on right now with Head 

Start is the re-competition for grantees and whether that process 

is working as intended. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay. Thank you. 

And then, Dr. Whitehurst, a lot of discussion—I said, again, in 

my remarks and others have said that a lot of these federal programs were aimed at economically disadvantaged homes. Can you 

take the 40 seconds or so I have got here and address that issue 

of what the importance of targeting early childhood to those 

homes? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes. I mean, the research, I think, is very clear 

that these investments have a disproportionate impact on the families that are in greatest need, where the parents have low education levels, where there is a single parent, where English may 

not be the language spoken in the home, and that the impacts certainly trail off as you move into serving families that are well-situated—they have money, they have resources, they invest time in 

their kids. 

So if you are thinking of this in terms of a cost-benefit analysis 

you certainly want to tailor the investment and target the investment on the families that are going to most profit from it. 

Chairman KLINE. Okay. Thank you. 

My time is down to 4 seconds so I will yield back and recognize 

Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank the chairman for yielding. 

And just a moment, I want to thank all the time Congressman 

Andrews has spent on the committee. I know he is not going to be 

with us in the near future, and I know I have certainly enjoyed 

working with Rob during my time here on the committee. 

The problem we are trying to solve is the achievement gap, and 

we know that the achievement gap begins really almost at birth. 

And that is what we are trying to make up. 

And, Dr. Whitehurst, I couldn’t agree more with you that it 

would make no difference whatsoever in my family to have a national program for pre-K. It isn’t going to affect the outcomes. 

And I have a reading assignment for everybody here in—that is 

on this committee, and I would encourage each and every one of 

you to read the book ‘‘I Got Schooled’’ by M. Night Shyamalan. I 

have read it, now I am reading it for the second time. A famous 

movie producer, and did ‘‘The Sixth Sense’’ and some other very 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

good movies, and he makes that point over and over again: It is 

basically income inequality that creates this gap. 

And all you do at let’s say Head Start—some places Head Start 

works great; in some places it is a waste of time, the kids don’t get 

anything. But if every child—the data proves this beyond a shadow 

of a doubt—if every child shows up at the starting line in kindergarten at the same place, that low-income child is going to fall behind because every summer—you take a middle-class family like 

myself that are going to read to my kids and my grandkids, they 

actually gain during the summer. And the average low-income 

child loses 3 months, so by the eighth or ninth grade they are hopelessly behind. 

And I just—before I got here, Dr. Whitehurst, I called my local 

school director, and we have 50 percent free and reduced lunch in 

Johnson City, Tennessee—not exactly a high-income area. But they 

have been able to narrow that gap by expanding the school day and 

also expanding summer. We used lottery money there to use and 

have reading programs during the summer. 

And I think you are right, and I want you to expound on it 

some—and Ms. Brown or Ms. Yalow, either one, Dr. Whitehurst 

first—about how we can better use our limited resources. There is 

no reason in the world to waste money on my family, but there is 

a great reason to spend the money on low-income families. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, thank you for the excellent question and 

comments. I mean, one of my concerns about the way that pre-K 

has been sold recently as the magic bullet is the sense that, you 

know, if we invest there we are going to solve all these problems. 

We are not. 

The problems are multiply determined and they take multiple solutions, and so I would like to see the policy discussion go to the 

issues of how can we best spend this money? Would it be better 

spent on after-school programs? We know that there are a lot of 

school-based interventions that have—and past the pre-K years 

that have a strong impact on children. 

Chairman Kline mentioned the Harlem Children’s Zone. We have 

other charter schools that are hitting the ball out of the park in 

terms of catching kids up. So there are all these choices involved. 

I think investment in pre-K for the most disadvantaged kids is a 

wise investment, but we have to balance that with a consideration 

for needs throughout the lifespan and where we can get the greatest impact. 

Mr. ROE. Well, let me make one statement that really caught my 

attention in this book. If you take away—if you take schools in 

this—we are always told about how we are behind Lichtenstein 

and Poland and every other place in the world, but if you takes 

schools that only have a 10 percent poverty rate level, and that is 

defined by 75 percent and above free and reduced lunch—America 

has the highest scores in the world, period. Nobody is even close. 

The problem are the bottom quartile—the 20 percent of low-income—and there are—the Harlem—I have done extensive reading 

about that. Why don’t we pool these resources that we have got, 

this $20 billion or $22 billion you mentioned, and those resources, 

instead of starting a new program that goes to my kids and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

grandkids who don’t need it and really target where that money 

needs to be? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, you know, that is what I have recommended. And in some sense a lot of it is targeted now, but as 

Ms. Brown has indicated, it is so—such a mish-mash that many 

parents who qualify for it don’t get it, they drop in, they drop out. 

It is not designed in a way to achieve impact from the point of either the taxpayer or certainly for most families. 

So I, you know, I would encourage the committee and Congress 

to think about not just tinkering around the edges, but what can 

we do to make sure these resources get to the families who really 

need it in a way that they can spend it coherently to produce a better life for themselves? 

Mr. ROE. Would year-round school be one of the ways you could 

close this gap? Because we did that at home and our director clearly pointed out that we got 10 more days in the classroom and 

added 30 minutes more to each day. I think that has a lot to do 

with it. 

I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Miller, you are recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses. 

Ms. Brown, I would like to talk a little bit about your report 

here, because I want to make sure that we are looking at this 

through the proper lenses, if you might. And I have a series of 

questions, if you could be as brief, but I want you to answer, you 

know, but be as brief as you possibly can. 

As I looked at your report, you differentiate between types of programs: those with explicit learning purposes and those programs 

where funds could, may, or may not be spent on early learning. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. BROWN. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER. So roughly about 75 percent of the programs are in 

that latter category, the funds could or could not be spent. 

Ms. BROWN. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Then there is the question of the funds that provide 

particular slots for programs. It would seem logical to me that 

TANF would carry some child care allocations because there is a 

waiting list at most child care centers so you are going to have to 

figure out how to expand in that region, that neighborhood, that 

city additional opportunities for child care—the goal is to get parents to be able to take up training and hopefully jobs. 

So that would be a specific purpose. There is a reason that is 

connected to TANF. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. That is fair to say. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. And children with special needs—we are finding more and more research telling us that intensive early learning 

opportunities for children along a—children with different—disabilities allows many of those children one, to stay out of special education, to go into the mainstream classrooms, whether they are 

sight-impaired or have other difficulties. Is that fair to say? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

Mr. MILLER. So there would be a reason why you would connect 

that expenditure of early learning to children with special needs 

and IDEA? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. I think the question there is how many programs do we need to do that, but fair point. 

Mr. MILLER. No, I understand that, but you are also, I think, in 

those programs—at least I see it in my area, the San Francisco 

Bay area—a lot of that is very specialized work and training with 

those children because of their disability to try to keep them out 

of, you know, the next 12 years of special education. So just to say, 

‘‘Well, you could just do that in Head Start or you could just do 

that across the street,’’ not necessarily so. 

Ms. BROWN. I can buy that, yes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I have got something else to sell you. 

[Laughter.] 

I think it is important that we pull this apart. I mean, the Republican ESEA bill, I think, mentions early childhood learning 12 

times but doesn’t carry any money, no expenditures for it. I don’t 

know what category that fits in or doesn’t fit in, but the idea that 

there is this massive duplication and nothing—and it is not working I think is a little bit misleading. 

That may not be your characterization; that may be the political 

spin that is being put on your report. But it is very clear. 

You know, there was a huge argument when TANF was created 

about that this is about getting people to work. And one of the 

things you have to do to get people to work is to make sure that 

their children have a safe setting, and hopefully a setting where 

they are learning, while the parent is engaging in seeking employment. 

And so I think that when we talk about the duplication, yes or 

no, we don’t—you don’t tell us in the report whether, in fact, any 

of that money is being spent or not being spent, correct? 

Ms. BROWN. What we say about duplication is it is very, very 

hard to say because we don’t have the data, and some of the actual 

programs that are funding these don’t have the data at the federal 

level, as well. 

Mr. MILLER. You don’t know or they are not providing the data 

yet. Because it would be important for us to know if, in fact, they 

are actually spending part of that appropriations on the provision 

of child care early learning services—and sometimes child care and 

early learning, tragically, are still separated today. 

You do not list any of the military programs. 

Ms. BROWN. No, we don’t. 

Mr. MILLER. And again, I would assume that the military might 

believe, certainly in bases where repeated deployments and extended deployments and all that take place, they might want to 

know very well the credentials of those child care providers, those 

early learning providers dealing with that population of families 

that live under a lot of stress. You may not just want those kids 

to throw them anywhere off base because there is a slot available, 

so there would be the rationale for some segmentation for that population. 

Ms. BROWN. I think there are many rationales along that very 

line. You know, the question is, that is why we made that recCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

ommendation to the interdepartmental work group to look at these 

programs together— 

Mr. MILLER. I agree with that. 

Ms. BROWN.—as a whole. Maybe we should have included DOD 

in that list. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, that would be important for us to know, because I don’t think you can just say, ‘‘Well, you know, all this separate segmentation is bad,’’ but when you look at DOD, doing a lot 

of work with military families that I have over the year on the 

questions of early learning, they think they have a model that 

works. They think they have a K–12 model that works. They are 

very proud of that. 

We would love to have them included in this full debate. And obviously many military leaders are included in this question of the 

early learning debate. 

Finally, just quickly, I would just ask your issue—your remarks 

on the question of whether or not the re-competing of Head Start, 

whether it is working as it—I would like to talk to you about that. 

I was the author of that amendment to force Head Start to re-compete. I got all the arrows in my back to prove it, but I think it is 

very important. 

And one of the considerations, obviously, is the quality of that 

program and whether or not the mission of that program is being 

delivered or not. And that has got to be a basis for that re-competition. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Dichter, welcome. 

Mr. MILLER. We have been waiting and waiting. 

Chairman KLINE. So you have really earned your spurs or something here. You have got rain and trains and cabs and all those 

things. We are very happy that you are here. Let me introduce you 

to the committee. 

Ms. Harriet Dichter is the Executive Director of the Delaware Office of Early Learning. She led the national policy team for the 

Ounce of Prevention Fund and established the Washington, D.C. 

office for the Ounce’s federal policy and advocacy affiliate, the First 

Five Years Fund. I think I got that all together here. 

So we are going to pause in our questioning and I would like to 

yield the floor to you, Ms. Dichter, for your 5 minutes. I would just 

ask that—the little lights that are in front of you, it is going to 

start green and it will work its way through to red in a sequence 

which you will easily be able to figure out. If it turns red, please 

try to wrap up your remarks. 

You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MS. HARRIET DICHTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE OFFICE OF EARLY LEARNING, WILMINGTON, DE 

Ms. DICHTER. Thank you so much. I appreciate everyone’s forbearance. It did take me quite a long time to get here this morning. 

Good morning, everyone. I am Harriet Dichter, Executive Director of the Delaware Office of Early Learning. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, I would like to begin 

by saying thank you. Congress recognized the economic and educational payoff of early education and care in the omnibus appropriations bill for 2014. 

You restored sequester cuts to Head Start and to child care and 

added more than $900 million to serve additional children and establish another opportunity for states to expand preschool. I thank 

you for these advances as well as for dedicating a hearing today to 

early childhood development as you plan for the next phase of federal leadership and investment. 

Research and science confirms what parents, grandparents have 

always known instinctively: The first years of life set the stage for 

all aspects of development and learning. This makes the quality of 

our early childhood programs essential to good lifelong outcomes. 

Now, in Delaware our young children and their families are fortunate to be supported by the commitment of our Governor Markell 

and our state legislators. Governor Markell created the Office of 

Early Learning to assure a strong, integrated federal-state-community effort for young children and their families. 

To support this work, we have over 100 types of partners in the 

state. This includes our school superintendents, our principals, and 

our teachers, our child care and our Head Start programs, foundations, universities, business leaders, health and behavioral health 

providers, museums and libraries, and of course, our families. That 

is a lot of partnership in such a small state. 

Delaware’s state investment in early learning increased by onethird of state general funds in the 2011 legislative session and it 

has been further improved through our participation in the federal 

Early Learning Challenge. We improved payment rates for our 

child care providers and we funded a statewide framework for early 

learning, known as Delaware Stars, that allows us to work with all 

of our early learning programs—child care, Head Start, schools, 

early intervention—to focus on quality improvement. 

Now across the country both Republican and Democratic governors recognize the value of early education. In 2013, of the 40 

states that provide state resources for preschool, 30 increased their 

budgets by a total of nearly $370 million. 

States are committed to this work but I have to stress, we cannot 

do it alone. Partnership with the federal government is essential to 

help us improve outcomes for young children. So I would like to use 

my remaining time to make two main points. 

First, there is no one silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all answer. 

What does matter for outcomes for every child and every family is 

quality. 

In other words, states want the flexibility to structure programs 

to best meet our needs, but establishing and growing a high-quality 

foundation is critical to success. To meet the needs of children and 

families we must provide a range of options: full-time care, parttime care, night and weekend hours, speech and language development, special needs care. We can and should expect to make investments in programs such as child care, pre-kindergarten, and Head 

Start, and we should be expecting to invest in infants, toddlers, 

and preschoolers. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

But what do I mean when I emphasize quality early learning? A 

quality program works in partnership with our families to develop 

our children’s skills and abilities not just in key areas of language, 

literacy, and general cognition, but also social and emotional skills. 

This is the fuel for our children’s lifelong success—initiative, grit, 

persistence, resilience—that, together with traditional academic 

areas, help pay the way to productive adulthood. 

Quality early learning is part of our equation for our children’s 

school and life success. That is why we have so many partners and 

stakeholders in our efforts in Delaware. 

Now, despite scattered criticism of individual program evaluations and programs, we know quality early learning programs 

work. We have decades of scientific studies conducted by well-respected institutions and researchers. They show that our children 

and our communities benefit in many ways—better education, 

higher earnings, lower crime—resulting in greater public savings 

in the short and long term. 

The question is not whether we know enough to proceed, but instead, how to expand upon the proven successes of high-quality 

programs and, of course, very importantly, we must continue to 

look for ways to improve our work and outcomes. 

Second—and this will be my closing—the federal government has 

not been sufficiently proactive in this area, leaving much too much 

for the states to do, notably on funding and financing. As I mentioned earlier, Delaware and other states across the country have 

been making new investments in early learning, but the gap between unmet need and available resources remains vast. 

We can’t do it by ourselves. Our two major funding streams—the 

Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head Start—are not 

sufficient. 

Head Start serves 40 percent of eligible 4-year-olds and only 3 

percent of eligible infants and toddlers. Only one in six children eligible for child care assistance can get it because of scarce resources. 

We have children at risk in every county, city, and state in the 

United States. We need new funding to help close the gap between 

those children without access to quality and those who do have it. 

We need a sustained public funding base for education to improve 

access and to improve quality in our settings. 

The bipartisan Strong Start for America’s Children Act would 

commit new federal resources, along with an umbrella of quality 

standards, to ensure federal money is accountable and targeted to 

proven programs and outcomes. This will help those of us in the 

states to fill gaps, strengthen our efforts towards building a highquality early childhood system with a strong framework and new 

resources. 

I thank you for providing me with the time today. I am honored 

and humbled when I go to work every day to play a role in trying 

to make our office’s tagline, which is ‘‘great tomorrows begin 

today,’’ a reality for Delaware’s children, families, and communities. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Dichter follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 86488.024
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 86488.025
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 86488.026
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 86488.027
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 86488.028
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 86488.029
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 86488.030
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 86488.031
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 86488.032
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 86488.033
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 86488.034
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 86488.035
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 86488.036
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 86488.037
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 86488.038
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 86488.039
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 86488.040
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 86488.041
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 86488.042
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 86488.043
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 86488.044
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 86488.045
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 86488.046
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 86488.047
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 86488.048
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 86488.049
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 86488.050
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 86488.051
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 86488.052
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 86488.053
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 86488.054
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 86488.055
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 86488.056
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 86488.057
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 86488.058
95 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Ms. Dichter. 

Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 minutes as we resume 

questioning. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panel for being here today talking about 

this important subject and trying to come to grips with how we 

best can use resources, programs, and encourage this education to 

take place with a good foundation for early childhood students to 

grow upon. 

Dr. Yalow, I am impressed that you have 30 schools in my state 

of Michigan, and it sounds as though you are doing great things 

in working in this important field. Can you talk about some of the 

examples of states or cities where you have partnered in this educational opportunity where you have seen positive impacts on our 

youngest students? 

Ms. YALOW. Thank you, and we are proud to be in Michigan as 

well as 38 other states and serve children there. 

Our interest in partnering with states actually began a couple of 

years ago and certainly aligned with the focus that states had on 

having systems that allowed us to track how children perform once 

they entered school. We have reached out to about 10 other states 

in order to do such a partnership where we simply provide them 

information about how our children—about who our children are 

and they link it to the state data systems. 

Unfortunately, we have not been able to partner with many other 

states either because they don’t have the state data systems in 

place or they have not made the information available to us. Currently we are working with Pennsylvania, with Georgia, with Florida, with Ohio, and hope to be able to have the data that will allow 

us to better evaluate the impact of our programs. 

We are also conducting our own internal research, where we are 

testing our pre-K children using a normative assessment to see 

how our children are performing on a pre-post assessment and that 

we can understand better how our programs improve our children’s 

lives. 

Mr. WALBERG. Where you have that data, what are the key impact points that cause the success with the children you serve? 

Ms. YALOW. The focus of all of our programs is that we are 

aligned with learning objectives, the standards across all domains 

of learning important for young children, so we believe that because we have a comprehensive curriculum the focuses not just on 

traditional school readiness but also, as was cited earlier, social, 

emotional development, physical development, executive function, 

some of the key skills that children will need in the long run in 

order to be successful in school and later life. 

Mr. WALBERG. Dr. Whitehurst, so appreciated your story of the 

young mother who was willing to walk miles both ways, probably 

through snow if necessary, because she wanted the best for her babies. You know, I choose to believe, and from experience as well, 

that the overwhelming majority of parents want the best for their 

babies and will do what it takes, if the opportunity and incentive 

is there and they are aware of that fact. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

96 

Some just simply have more opportunity; some have more resources; and certainly, some have more life examples for them to 

pattern themselves after, which makes the difference. 

How do we best support a state’s ability to increase that role of 

parental involvement in early childhood education? And let me also 

add to that question, how do we preserve the role of parent as the 

ultimate decision-maker in the child’s life, especially in the area of 

early childhood education? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Those are very, I think, critical issues and— 

issues and challenges. I think it is extremely important that we not 

slip into a mode of zip code-based, one-size-fits-all education for 3- 

year-olds, where you live determines which pre-K you are going to 

be assigned to by the state, which determines what curriculum you 

are going to get. 

So I think certainly for young children, parents need to be in the 

driver’s seat. They need to retain the fundamental ability to decide 

who is going to provide out-of-care service and under what conditions. 

I think states have a critical role in helping parents shop, because it is a complicated decision. It is not like buying a cell phone 

plan, which is itself complicated, because you often don’t know 

what is going on in the center or what the outcomes are or how— 

what the staff turnover is or how satisfied other parents have been. 

So I think states could play a critical role in collecting that type 

of information and making it publicly available so— 

Mr. WALBERG. If they make that publicly available well, how do 

we get the parents, then, to be able to have what you say, a nonzip code opportunity? How do they take control of that? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, if you give them the resources I think 

they will shop and they will get good care for their child when it 

is available. I mean, states need to have—to create a portfolio so 

that there are choices available, so that there are areas that are 

well served. But I think if you provide the information and provide 

the resources— 

Mr. WALBERG. Are you talking vouchers or something like that? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Tierney, you are recognized. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Sir, I just want to follow up on—I want to avoid all the battles 

about methodology on specific programs and get—you appreciate, 

from—I gather from your written testimony, the federal support for 

child care for poor families, if designed and implemented properly, 

and say that it enables parents to work, live productive lives, and 

raise their children adequately. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And you say they can’t—we can’t reasonably require parents to work if they do not have the resources to purchase 

quality child care. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So you also say the most vulnerable children raised 

in the most pathogenic family circumstances should have access to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

97 

programs that help their parents and improve their circumstances 

beginning prior to their birth. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I agree. Yes, I said that. I— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Will you define ‘‘pathogenic’’ for us? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, it is a term taken from medicine. It is 

a situation that creates illness. And so there are some situations 

that are so bad, either in the family or occasionally in the child 

care settings or the child care to which kids are sent, that they create lifelong problems, and we need to help kids not be in those situations and we need to help parents so they are not creating those 

situations. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And apparently you think that some of the existing 

child care facilities themselves are pathogenic. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I do. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. So in your testimony you state that the 

states have a role to play, and one of those roles is establishing licensing and oversight processes. If there are already pathogenic facilities out there that states are supposed to be licensing and regulating, that aren’t working so well, so we have a problem there apparently. 

So who would set the standards? If we were to have a program 

where federal government put money in and people could then use 

that to go to a facility that was overseeing just state-to-state, presumably a different standard in every state or something like that, 

who is going to establish the standards and the quality? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I do think it has to be a state responsibility. I can’t see how this can be done from Washington. I think 

Washington can certainly incentivize states to do a better job of it, 

and if they are accepting the federal money to report back on how 

well they are doing it, I think GAO and other organizations could 

evaluate the degree to which individual states are well carrying out 

that— 

Mr. TIERNEY. The fact is do we really think that this Congress, 

as currently constructed anyway, is going to allow the federal government to go in and tell states whether or not they are doing a 

good job in licensing and setting standards on this particular item 

of anything. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I think this Congress is interested in accountability, and— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Right. But if they are interested in accountability 

that means that we have to take charge of the federal dollars. We 

don’t want to go into pathogenic facilities in states, and some states 

may set a level that we think is pathogenic, but are—we really 

think in this Congress we are going to allow the federal government to go in then and say to a state, ‘‘We are closing those down.’’ 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I—it is not my job to speculate, I guess, 

on what this Congress will do. I think it is— 

Mr. TIERNEY. And I am really just going with your proposal and 

trying— 

Mr. WHITEHURST. No, I think the best Congress can do is set up 

incentives and accountability provisions so that when states get 

money and they are supposed to license daycare centers and make 

sure that they are not pathogenic, that they are well doing so. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

98 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. So if we were going to give vouchers to people to go and choose in a state which are not pathogenic, which are 

good and which are bad, and we have pathogenic parents and families, are they equipped to make that decision? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well look, there are going to be bad choices. 

There are bad choices in middle-class families; there are going to 

be bad choices in low-income families. 

I think first, the state’s responsibility, incentivized by the federal 

government, is to carry out its licensing and oversight responsibilities seriously so that the worst performers— 

Mr. TIERNEY. That is a mixed bag already, because those responsibilities already exist, and yet you and I agree there are some 

pathogenic facilities out there, so some states aren’t doing as well 

as they ought, or maybe some—all states are failing on some of 

those. So if a parent under your theory is, ‘‘Hey, if you are a pathogenic family and you get the voucher, you know, good luck; there 

are going to be some failures out there’’? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I am interested in the counterfactual or, 

you know, what are the choices that are better than beefing up licensing and oversight and letting parents choose. I am not suggesting this is a perfect solution; I am suggesting that it is the best 

available solution, in my view, to a serious issue. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Would you define for me ‘‘middle class,’’ as you 

were saying that the middle-class people are getting disproportionately benefited from this because they are substituting money from 

the federal government for cash they would pay anyway? What is 

your middle class definition? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, it varies. It is certainly, you know, above 

200 percent above the poverty line. And so it is any parent who 

was previously able to—managed to purchase pre-K who, under a 

free system, no longer has to do that, immediately has in their 

pocket whatever they would otherwise have paid, which is typically 

$5,000 to $6,000. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Only because most people I know that classify 

themselves as middle class, even if they are two parents earning, 

will tell me they can’t afford child care—quality child care. And 

that means either one of them has to leave the workplace and just 

goes back and forth, so they are not being able to work on that 

basis, so I don’t know. 

My last question for you is you broke down the numbers on this 

and determined that it is somewhere between $5,000 to $10,000 

per early childhood person in federal dollars being spent every day. 

Are you advocating that would be the amount of the federal voucher per child? 

Chairman KLINE. This has got to be a really short answer. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, a yes or no will do. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I think depending on the age of the child and 

the region, a voucher on the order of $7,000 to $8,000 a year would 

allow families to purchase good care in their locale. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

99 

Thank you, Ms. Dichter, for braving the elements to make it 

down here. 

Certainly K–12 education in and of itself is very—there is passionate supporters, and when you get into the early childhood education I think they become even more passionate on the discussion. 

I am a pretty empirical data-driven guy. In the ranking member’s 

opening statement he listed a long list of presumed benefits associated with early childhood education, and everybody always tends 

to cite the Perry Preschool and the Abecedarian Project as the gold 

standard in empirical data in support of early childhood education. 

But I would ask, are there any more recent randomized and replicated studies that control for outside variables across the lifespan 

of the child that demonstrate the purported long-term benefits of 

early childhood education for either the general population or targeted populations when we look at where we are going to best 

apply limited resources? And I will open that up to anybody who 

wants to take a stab at it. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. I will take a stab at it. 

The best study we have is the Head Start Impact Study, which 

follows kids through grade three. The other studies are interesting. 

I think we have to look at them, but they have serious challenges 

in terms of interpretation. 

So for example, we have studies that compare siblings. Parents 

decide to send one of their kids to Head Start and another child 

not. 

Researchers have examined the outcomes of those kids into 

adulthood. It looks like the kids who went to Head Start are doing 

better. But you know, if you have two kids, they are different. And 

so why the parent decided to send one child to Head Start and not 

the other is the crux of the issue of whether these two kids or two 

types of kids were the same to begin with. 

So actually, I think there is not a lot of evidence, despite claims 

to the contrary, that we have these lifelong benefits, except from 

the two early studies that you mention, that involved all together 

less than 100 kids and that were very different from the programs 

we are talking about today. 

That is why I think they perhaps set an upper bound on what 

we can expect. We need, I think, to be realistic and cautious in interpreting that rather than swallowing the notion that we are getting the same impact today that these programs for black families 

in Chapel Hill or Ypsilanti, Michigan were able to achieve with 

multiyear, $90,000-a-child investments 50 years ago. 

Ms. DICHTER. So I did bring with me a recent summary of all the 

studies that was produced by the Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for Child Development of October 

2013, and it is a rather extensive review of about 40 years of literature, including the contemporary studies, and discusses in 

depth, actually, the findings that give people like me a good feeling 

as I go to work every day about the opportunities to make a difference and to really get good outcomes with a reasonable approach, so I am happy to share that with you. 

But this is a really excellent summary by a number of leading 

researchers affiliated with really high-quality institutions who have 

taken the time to look at really the decades of research, and again, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

100 

both studies at scale—the bigger programs as well as these smaller 

programs that were just referenced—to help us to understand the 

positive benefits of these programs in the short term for our children and their ongoing contributions. 

Mr. HECK. Yes. If you could please make that available, that 

would be great. 

Ms. DICHTER. Yes. 

Mr. HECK. I am just curious, is that a meta-analysis of all the 

previous studies or is there actual— 

Ms. DICHTER. Yes. 

Mr. HECK. Okay. 

Ms. DICHTER. It is not a new study. It is a document that was 

put together to be able to help people who are not researchers have 

a good understanding of what the scientific community has to say 

to us about our work. 

Mr. HECK. That would be great. Thanks. 

And, Dr. Whitehurst, you mentioned, I think, with the Tennessee 

Voluntary Pre-K Program, which showed there were—basically had 

no better outcomes than the controls, but I would have to ask, 

would that be a valid analysis? I mean, was it prospective versus 

retrospective? I mean, if it is voluntary those kids that are enrolled 

are self-selected, so in your opinion, was that study a valid study 

to say that there was no benefit for— 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir. It was a very strong study. It involved 

centers that were oversubscribed. A lottery was used to select those 

who got in and those who didn’t. All of those children were followed 

to the end of first grade. So it is a gold standard randomized trial, 

which is the best evidence we have for drawing these types of conclusions. 

Mr. HECK. Great. 

Again, thank you all very much for taking the time to be here 

and making your presentations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, given the conversation Mr. Heck 

had, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit some documents for the record of this hearing, which include the study—I 

mean the summaries that Ms. Dichter, along with other research? 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 86488.083
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 86488.084
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 86488.085
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 86488.086
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 86488.087
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 86488.088
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 86488.089
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 86488.090
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 86488.091
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 86488.092
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 86488.093
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 86488.094
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 86488.095
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 86488.096
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 86488.097
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 86488.098
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 86488.099
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 86488.100
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 86488.101
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 86488.102
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 86488.103
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 86488.104
123 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 86488.105
124 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 86488.106
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 86488.107
126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 86488.108
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 86488.109
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 86488.110
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 86488.111
130 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 86488.112
131 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 86488.113
132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 86488.114
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 115 here 86488.115
134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 116 here 86488.116
135 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 117 here 86488.117
136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 86488.118
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 86488.119
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 120 here 86488.120
139 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 121 here 86488.121
140 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 122 here 86488.122
141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 123 here 86488.123
142 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 124 here 86488.124
143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 125 here 86488.125
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 126 here 86488.126
145 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 127 here 86488.127
146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 128 here 86488.128
147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 129 here 86488.129
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 130 here 86488.130
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 131 here 86488.131
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 132 here 86488.132
151 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 133 here 86488.133
152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 134 here 86488.134
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 135 here 86488.135
154 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 136 here 86488.136
155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 137 here 86488.137
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 138 here 86488.138
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 139 here 86488.139
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 140 here 86488.140
159 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 141 here 86488.141
160 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 142 here 86488.142
161 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 143 here 86488.143
162 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 144 here 86488.144
163 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Hearing none, so ordered. Okay. 

Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of you for being here. 

Regarding the summaries that you just mentioned, Ms. Dichter, 

is there anything in there that would suggest that actually we are 

throwing too much money at this subject? 

Ms. DICHTER. No. And actually, in my own experience working 

in the field, there is a lot at my end to suggest that we actually 

aren’t yet investing the level of resources. I mentioned this in my 

opening remarks, that if we look around the country we see many 

gaps of children who aren’t able to get services, and we have a 

great deal of need, still, to continue to invest to help people improve quality. 

People who do the work on the ground with our children—the 

teachers—are very serious about wanting to have great impacts for 

the children that we are serving, and our ability to support them 

in developing the skills that they need to work effectively with the 

kids and with their families requires greater investment, not lesser 

investment in the infrastructure and in the service programs. 

Mrs. DAVIS. In looking at those gaps, then—and I know there are 

different opinions of whether or not dollars should be focused and 

resources should be focused more on children who ordinarily would 

not get that help versus—depending anywhere where we define 

‘‘middle-class families,’’ and we might disagree about that, as 

well—in the summary, to your knowledge, is there anything that 

really looks at having populations of students more diverse, in 

terms of economic levels, than less so? Because I think and there 

are programs where we tend to divide children in that way, and we 

know that parents will do just about anything to get them into the 

preschool that they perceive to be at the highest level when they 

can. 

And I am just wondering, within those summaries do you see 

anything that really jumps out in terms of the programs that 

would speak to the need to really have I guess more stimulation 

and more diversity among those young children that are there 

playing together, that are learning together? 

Ms. DICHTER. Sure. So I think that we know that we have a 

great benefit to our at-risk, low-income children from being able to 

participate in early childhood programs, and we certainly know 

from our dialogue and discussion with their families how much 

they want for their children’s future to have the benefit of a good, 

quality program. 

We also know that our middle-class children also derive a benefit 

from these programs, and if we look more broadly, I think, in society, we see that families of means basically tend to enroll their 

children in early childhood programs. They understand what the 

benefits are for the kids not only, again, on language and literacy 

and cognitive development, the things Dr. Yalow was talking 

about, but also in terms of social skills and preparation, basically, 

for school. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

164 

So I think that we know that there are benefits across the board, 

and that there are also benefits for the children to be able to be 

in classrooms together. If we want to have a diverse and productive 

society with that focus on our own economic competitiveness, some 

of that is starting in our early childhood programs, and being able 

to meet the needs of these many diverse families that we have, and 

to assure good quality and good access for them is critical. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I mean, part of it, I think, is this return on investment that I 

suspect you can find studies, and I think our witnesses have certainly spoken to that, where you don’t—where they don’t see the 

gains that perhaps they would like to see, but trying to make an 

argument that therefore we shouldn’t provide these programs as a 

result of that seems—and, Dr. Whitehurst, I don’t think you were 

making the case, necessarily, that we shouldn’t have any programs 

whatsoever. I didn’t hear that. But I think that sometimes we really do need to focus on that return on investment, and you seem to 

suggest that you don’t think that in many cases it is there. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. No. I am certainly not arguing for less investment. I am just arguing that we should target that investment to 

families that need it and we should do it in a way that has a system that evolves rather than as a top-down decision about what is 

best for all parents on Tuesday in November— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Right. 

Among OECD countries—and many of them, of course, have 

strong programs—in the summaries, Ms. Dichter, is there anything 

that, again, jumps out in terms of how other countries are structuring their pre-K programs versus our programs, and—where you 

get that kind of high quality, where you are paying teachers more, 

where you are valuing the fact that the teachers are really recognized for their talent in being able to teach young children and not 

necessarily sort at the low end of the spectrum in terms of teaching? 

Dr. Yalow, do you want to speak to that? 

Ms. YALOW. I would be happy to just address that briefly, because I have worked fairly extensively in Singapore and the United 

Kingdom as well as some other countries in Southeast Asia, and 

I have had the opportunity to observe some outstanding early 

childhood education programs. What we tend to see there is a 

stronger commitment, both on the policy side as well as a stronger 

realization on families of the importance of early childhood education. 

So, for example, in programs in Singapore, when they went 

through not as dramatic an economic turndown as we did, but we 

saw our enrollments being very stable because parents appreciated 

that the difference they could make in their children’s lives in the 

youngest years was going to have long-term beneficial impacts. 

They would make many other sacrifices before they would sacrifice 

high-quality early learning programs. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. 

And good morning to the witnesses. I thank you each for your 

testimony. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

165 

Let me start my time by acknowledging the ESEA reauthorization bill that not only passed out of this committee but is waiting 

over at the Senate for a hearing. As the subcommittee chairman for 

early childhood, elementary, and secondary education, we put a lot 

of time and effort into that bill, and a lot of that time and effort 

was spent with some of our colleagues on the Republican side of 

the aisle. 

See, we are 10 years into what we have termed No Child Left 

Behind, and in that decade of experience we realized what worked 

with No Child Left Behind, what is working, and more importantly, 

what is not working. We realize that accountability is a good thing, 

and that has been discussed here. 

But we also realize that the best people to determine what success is lies with our parents, our teachers, taxpayers at the local 

level. The reauthorization that I am talking about trusts those people more than bureaucrats in Washington. No offense. Present company excepted, and we will get to you in a minute. 

And that is the key difference here. And the architect of No Child 

Left Behind, the speaker of this House, even voted for our reauthorization, coming to the same conclusion. 

What we really need in this town, and it should be no surprise 

to any of the witnesses, is leadership. Let the bill be heard in the 

Senate. What could it hurt? What is the problem? 

In the research that I did in preparing that language, I went to 

a place called EduCare that was built in the—right on what would 

have been the shadows of the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, and 

what I saw there was no less than amazing. And I will just bring 

up for the record a couple of those observations. 

First of all, they were trying, in an early childhood education environment, to teach kids whose parents were never parented. So 

now we are in second and third generations here, and so part of 

their contractual relationship that they have is that the parents 

come in to learn how to be parents. And I found that amazing. 

The second thing I found was that they were mature enough— 

the leaders of this institution or organization were mature enough 

and responsible enough that when they started the first time they 

found some things that weren’t working. They actually suspended 

the program. They stopped taking people’s money and worked out 

what was going wrong and then started again. 

And you can correct me or tell me if that happens throughout 

these programs and throughout these different schools. I am happy 

to be educated further. But I found that really amazing and appreciate it. 

There has been some comment made that the ESEA doesn’t authorize or spend any money in this area, and that is wrong. For 

the record I want to say that in Title I for fiscal year 2014 we are 

allocating $14.385 billion. Two percent of $14.385 billion is about 

$288 million, and that is the amount that the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, says that is used to support preschool 

services. 

So I understand the point that might have been made, that dedicated funds may not be siloed, but again, when you look at the approach of ESEA reauthorization you see that we want that flexibility in there because why? We trust parents, teachers, local taxCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

166 

payers more than any other bureaucrat—than a bureaucrat in 

Washington. We believe they know what is best for our kids than 

anyone in this town. 

Ms. Brown, I am running out of time. How long have you studied 

the federal government? 

Ms. BROWN. How long have— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. More than 25 years. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. Do you know of any bureaucrat that you have 

ever met that knows the children of Indiana better than Indiana’s 

parents, teachers, and taxpayers? 

Ms. BROWN. I can say no to that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

What is your definition of ‘‘duplication,’’ a duplicative program? 

Do you have an official definition at your agency? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. The official definition for ‘‘duplication’’ is programs that serve the same children at the—with the same purpose 

and serve the same children. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. Have you ever met a—have you ever seen a 

duplicative program under that definition? 

Ms. BROWN. In the food assistance area, we have done some work 

in that and have seen a number of cases where there might be programs that could or do serve the same population. Sometimes that 

is okay because there might be a need for different entry points for 

families, and sometimes that can be a problem. 

Mr. ROKITA. I am yielding back the microphone. I would say that 

maybe we should consider in that definition overlap and fragmentation as better ways to determine what duplication really is. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I am sorry. 

Ms. DICHTER. I just wanted to say how delighted I was to hear 

that you had been to visit an EduCare program. And that is, of 

course, such a powerful example of the kinds of things we are talking about—coordinating the different funding streams we have to 

try to, in an intensive, very reflective way, establish high standards, lots of assessment of the children—I think Dr. Yalow talked 

about that to inform practice—good partnerships to the families. 

These are the kinds of things that we work on at the state level 

with local partners in this coordinated way, but they are also exactly the kinds of things—because it is hard. It is very hard work. 

You saw that. To be able to do that, why these issues around needing more resources, basically, and being able to deliver more support to the states to be able to help pull this together, really set 

a strong foundation, are important. 

Mr. ROKITA. I appreciate that. 

Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? 

Mr. SCOTT. I actually wanted to follow through on the question 

you had asked. Go ahead. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

I would just say, I appreciate that, and I just don’t understand 

when we can’t determine, based on—for a lack of data, where the 

duplication is, where the overlap is, where the waste, fraud, and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

167 

abuse is, how we can then conclude that automatically we need to 

spend more money. I believe in targeting the money, but just to say 

we need to throw more money at something when we can’t even 

show that the money currently being used is being used efficiently 

is the wrong approach. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I wanted to follow up on the difference between overlap and 

duplication. You are not suggesting that the same child is in actually two different programs, are you? 

Ms. BROWN. Okay, there are two answers to that. One is that it 

is possible that the same child could be in two different programs, 

and it might be something like Head Start in the morning and 

daycare in the afternoon. 

Mr. SCOTT. But basically by duplication you mean the child had 

two programs serving the same area, but not that the same child 

is in two programs. 

Ms. BROWN. Right. The only— 

Mr. SCOTT. And so there is a difference between overlapping 

services and duplicated services. 

Ms. BROWN. We tried to think about instances in these types of 

programs where there would be true duplication, and most of the 

examples we came up with were cases where there might be inappropriate or improper use of funds, like, you know, someone was, 

you know, had—claimed that they had a child enrolled in a program or something like that. And unfortunately, when you have 

this many programs that are operating similar services that kind 

of opens the door for— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, sometimes the overlap is helpful because, as we 

have heard, some programs are more appropriate for some students 

than others, and if you have overlapping programs they would be 

able to choose, but the same child isn’t going to be in kindergarten 

and Head Start at the same time. 

Ms. BROWN. Right. I mean, it is very possible that a child might 

be in a family daycare home and be receiving Child and Adult Care 

Food Program, and that may be appropriate. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is not the normal case of duplication. 

Let me just move on to another question. There have been a lot 

of studies that have been referenced, and I think the consensus is 

that the early childhood education is extremely valuable. 

Ms. Brown, can you say how valuable it is in reducing the 

achievement gap? 

Ms. BROWN. That is not my area of expertise. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Dichter? 

Ms. DICHTER. Yes. I am happy to talk to that. 

So, from where I sit, we have lots of evidence of the important 

role that early childhood education does play in reducing the 

achievement gap. I think you are probably aware just of recent 

studies revalidating work from a couple of decades ago around vocabulary gaps for children basically with less economic resources, 

and those vocabulary gaps start pretty early and they have a big 

influence in terms of something I think we all know is very important. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

168 

We want our kids to be good readers, right? We want the great 

command of language and vocabulary for them, you know, particularly by the time they are in third grade. And I think that we know 

when we have a high-quality program that is very well focused it 

can do a lot to help us with closing those kinds of vocabulary gaps 

and setting up our children very well for their participation in 

school and to get a really great benefit from the school years. 

Mr. SCOTT. And also, does it have an effect on future dropouts? 

Ms. DICHTER. And we can see, if we carry this trajectory out 

what we are able to see is that we have better persistence for kids 

who are less advantaged who have been in high-quality programs 

at high school graduation. We see that in terms of crime reduction. 

We see this in terms of earnings and productivity— 

Mr. SCOTT. Teen pregnancy? 

Ms. DICHTER.—the ability to participate in college and post-secondary education. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what about teen pregnancy? 

Ms. DICHTER. And also teen pregnancy. There are also health effects. I think Dr. Heckman, Nobel laureate, who has taken a big 

interest in our area, has been doing some really important work in 

this area to be able to show us the range of effects. 

And I think I mentioned before that we want our children to be 

on a pathway to productive adulthood and to be helping, actually, 

with the maintenance of a competitive economy in this country. 

Early childhood is not the only solution, but it is certainly part of 

the solution that we have in terms of the future that we are trying 

to build for ourselves and our children. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thanks to the panelists, the witnesses for speaking on this 

very important issue when it comes to education. 

You know, all the information that has been presented, it seems 

like there is a lot of variance in terms of the outcomes here. And 

most importantly, it seems they are really questionable of the sustainability, which is probably the most important thing, that the 

outcomes that are achieved have—are sustainable, as they hit the, 

you know, the primary school years and continue on to secondary. 

And certainly there are many different paths to assuring our 

kids a great start in life, and so, Dr. Whitehurst, just real simply, 

from your perspective, what should we be doing? What would work 

and what would be effective? What would be sustainable, that 

these kids keep those outcomes and they grow with as the kids 

grow? 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, there are a lot of things that I think are 

important. I think the first thing that may be important is to stop 

thinking about an investment in a 4-year-old as somehow more important than an investment in a 5-year-old. Kindergarten is as important as pre-K, and first grade is as important as kindergarten. 

So I think one of the things we need to be thinking about is the 

larger impact of these programs on the lives of the people involved—their ability to work, their ability to get additional education and training. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

169 

Within that, I think we want programs that provide what children are not getting at home. So with regard to the vocabulary gap, 

it certainly does exist so we want programs that provide rich stimulation that enable children to learn words and learn things about 

the world that they would be learning in a middle-class family that 

might not be learning in their family of birth. 

And as we are able to collect information, which is really hard 

to get now, on which programs and which teachers are doing that 

well, I would hope that we would have incentives in place that 

would encourage centers to do better and teachers to do better and 

would enable parents to know what they are getting into when 

they choose to let their child off at the door and let that child have 

6 or 7 hours a day in the care of other people. 

Mr. THOMPSON. In terms of, you know, as—parents dropping 

those kids off, putting them in the hands of what you hope are 

qualified and obviously caring professionals, which I think many 

are, but does input data like a preschool teacher’s credentials 

have—if that has little impact on a child’s learning, what factors 

are important to determining the, you know, the effectiveness? Because I think when it comes to education, you know, the number 

one factor is obviously the teacher. Most important asset that we 

have, in terms of education and learning. 

Mr. WHITEHURST. Right. That is, I think, extremely important. 

I think we have learned that lesson in K–12. The evidence is there 

that the most important influence is not the school the child attends but the classroom and teacher that the child experiences, and 

we seem to have lost that lesson in pre-K, where we are focusing 

mostly on centers and not on classrooms. 

Unfortunately, the other lesson we have learned in K–12 is it is 

very hard to tell what makes a good teacher except observing 

teachers and finding out who is good and who is not. And I think 

that is surely the case in pre-K, as well. 

The evidence is pretty strong that credentials are not predictive 

of the quality of adult-child interactions in pre-K, and I think we 

need to focus on professional development that will help. Some will, 

some not. And I think we have—need systems in place that carefully evaluate teacher performance in the pre-K arena and do what 

we ought to be doing, and that is encouraging the good ones to stay 

in the profession by paying them a living wage and getting the bad 

ones to do something else. 

Ms. DICHTER. Yes. I just wanted to mention, in the area of supporting our teachers in the early childhood education setting, that 

one of the things early childhood has been doing for quite some 

time is actually creating good instruments to be able to go in and 

conduct classroom observations—observations of teachers interacting with children, observations of learning environments for the 

kids. 

And so, certainly in our programs we incorporate these kinds of 

instruments and tools into our overall statewide programming that 

we are doing, and it is part of our accountability measurement. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that speaks to an important part of education, and that is making sure that the supervisors—whether they 

call them head teachers, or principals, or whatever the title is— 

that they are prepared to perform those supervisory duties to inCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

170 

crease the individual’s performance whom they are supervising. I 

think that first and foremost is a responsibility. 

Mr. Chairman, in the event of changing colors, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Perfect timing, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Holt, you are recognized. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses. 

Ms. Dichter, you present a strong case about the successes in 

your state. I think we could equally well have a witness from New 

Jersey because we have had, through court order, tens of thousands of children in many parts of the state now, under the Abbott 

v. Burke order, tens of thousands of students receiving high-quality 

early childhood education. 

It is worth pointing out, and I will summarize quickly, before 

these programs were mandated and put in place, fewer than 15 

percent of pre-K classrooms were good to excellent; a quarter of 

them were worse than minimal quality. That is all turned around. 

There are essentially none that are in the ‘‘poor quality’’ and very 

many in the ‘‘good to excellent quality’’ in classrooms. 

But more important, the estimated effects on the kids—or the 

demonstrated effects on the kids, I should say, are substantial and 

persistent. And they go a long way toward closing the achievement 

gap between low-income children and more advanced children. 

The Abbott program in New Jersey has shown positive effects on 

children’s cognitive and social development—immediate and lasting—on school progress and educational attainment, on social behavior. So, you know, it is important to look at that. 

And yet, today’s hearing begins—and I would like to address this 

to you, Ms. Dichter—begins with the chairman talking about all of 

these federal programs. Mr. Miller, I think, in his colloquy with 

Ms. Brown, established that there really is a need for some of these 

diverse programs. 

But really what I wanted to ask you, as somebody who is running statewide programs, having to coordinate these many different 

programs, as we have had to do in New Jersey, is that really the 

problem? Is the fragmentation of different programs the problem 

here, or the principal problem that we—the starting problem for us 

to look at here today? 

Ms. DICHTER. Thank you so much, and I am glad you brought up 

Abbott, of course. It is really a fantastic program and a great benefit for the children of New Jersey and their families. 

In terms of the principal issues, I don’t—I at least spend time coordinating our programs. We have good partnerships, basically, 

with the various programs. I don’t see the issue as being one of duplication or an issue of fragmentation, you know, or overlap. 

I actually see that our biggest issues are resources so that we 

can meet needs appropriately, and appropriate partnership between the states and the federal government so that we can both 

do the work that is contextual within the state about our frameworks for quality, but with good support and good linkage with the 

federal government. 

So from where I sit—and I think I said this in my remarks—you 

know, a big issue is resource development for us, and making sure 

that we are able to be clear about meeting the needs of the various 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

171 

targeted populations. We have a lot of diverse families, a lot of diverse children whose needs that we are trying to meet. 

So for me, yes, we need more resources in our big programs, like 

Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and 

we would also have a very good benefit from establishing some additional federal funding, you know, as suggested in certainly one of 

the bills here to be able to assist and to make sure that we can 

do a great job. Our families do expect, when they are enrolling 

their children in our programs, that we wouldn’t allow them to be 

open unless they were high-quality offerings for them. 

And of course, as we have been discussing, there is a lot of ongoing need to do quality improvement. So the resources are really 

necessary, from where I sit, to be able to make sure that as parents 

enter the door with their kids they get what they are expecting 

from our programs. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

My time is almost up, so I will ask the witnesses to supplement 

their testimony if they choose to in writing to address the fact that 

economist James Heckman says that the highest return on investment is in the first 3 years and the highest return in that comes 

from attention to instruction—the instructors, the caregivers, the 

educators. So if you would care to supplement your remarks about 

9-month to 24-month programs and contributions, I think that 

would be helpful to us. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am from the great state of Oregon, and last week our Oregon 

Department of Education released the results of its statewide kindergarten assessment, and this test asked incoming kindergartners 

to name capital and lowercase letters, and they found that the average 5-year-old, when looking at a page containing 100 combinations, could name just 18.5 on average. When asked to pronounce 

letter sounds the study found that the average student could pronounce only 6.7 on a page of 110. 

So our governor has called these results sobering. He said that 

Oregon has had a scattershot approach to early childhood education, and I know that the state is looking at making some 

changes. 

And indeed, too many qualifying Oregon students are left out of 

public preschool programs. Only about 7 percent of all 3-and 4- 

year-olds are able to take part. 

So Oregon is taking steps to remedy the problem at a state level, 

creating early learning hubs to focus the efforts and strategies of 

educators and social services, school districts, and health care providers. 

So, Ms. Dichter, would you please discuss how effectiveness can 

be increased if there is a coordinated effort across all sectors that 

involve early childhood education? And also, please compare the expected results of coordinating these programs versus consolidating 

or eliminating them, as has been suggested. 

Ms. DICHTER. Sure. I am happy to do that. 

So I think that as we approach this work in Delaware, what we 

do across the programs—I mentioned our Delaware Stars effort— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

172 

is to have an approach that integrates research-based standards, 

improvement supports for our providers, and of course, financial incentives for them so that we are able to work within our unique 

context, as you would be doing in Oregon, to be able to meet local 

needs and to take advantage, actually, of the network of existing 

programs, whether they are offered by schools, through child care 

or Head Start, to be able to bring things together. 

We also work, then, to take advantage of social media and other 

opportunities to really work with our families so that they become 

aware of our Stars framework and are able to use that to guide 

their own program selection, and we are able to be very transparent with people about where the programs are and where things 

are going. 

So it does take a lot of energy. It is dynamic work that we are 

able to do. 

But it is actually work that excites everyone in the community. 

Not only do we hear this from our families who are excited about 

this and how we are working with them, but the network of providers actually welcomes this approach because it is unifying for 

them. 

One of the issues—and I think you raised this as you were talking about the experience in Oregon—is needing to make sure that 

we have really good connections between our early childhood programs and our K–12 system. And you can get some of that when 

districts choose to offer early childhood, but not all districts want 

to, and there are well-established players—you know, we are sitting with a good example of that here—who are in the game and 

have been offering a lot to our children and families. 

And so this kind of approach actually can be very unifying because it allows us to do more building of that continuity for children and families and, actually, across the teachers, as well, as 

they are moving from the early childhood setting into the kindergarten and above setting. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I want to follow up with another 

question. 

Thank you for continuing to mention families. Early childhood 

education is a pillar of the Women’s Economic Agenda, and the 

premise is when women succeed America succeeds. The President 

mentioned that the other evening in the State of the Union. 

One statistic in Oregon’s recent study struck me as particularly 

telling but not surprising. The two school districts with the highest 

performance—one happens to be in my district and one just outside 

of it—also had the lowest incidence of child poverty in the state. 

And conversely, the two districts with the lowest scores had the 

highest rates of child poverty. And I don’t think that is surprising, 

but it is quite troubling. 

Would you please discuss whether these results are generally 

consistent with what we know about the role that poverty plays in 

a child’s ability to start kindergarten prepared to learn and discuss 

what we know about the importance of continuing to address poverty as a barrier throughout a child’s educational career? And my 

time is about to expire, so— 

Ms. DICHTER. Okay. I will briefly say yes, basically those results, 

I think, are not surprising to us. There is a disadvantage, basically, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

173 

that we need to work to be able to provide appropriate support, 

classroom-based partnerships with families. 

They are critical regardless of family income, okay? Parents are 

first and foremost responsible. Early childhood working successfully in partnership with families across all economic strata, is a 

critical part of my definition of a good program that will yield better results for children. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And my time is expired, but I would appreciate hearing from the 

others in writing after the hearing because I am out of time. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

We have reached the end of our questioning period. Before I 

thank the witnesses I would like to yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he might have. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Just, Ms. Yalow, you wanted to quickly respond to something Ms. 

Bonamici asked, if you want to take a minute? 

Ms. YALOW. I just wanted to second Ms. Dichter’s comments 

about the importance of—and really emphasize the importance of 

informing families about the choices that are available to them. 

There are multiple options that families have, and we do not do as 

good a job as we can do of letting parents know what different options they have so that they can make the choice that is best for 

their child and for their family. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you to all the witnesses for this morning. 

Ms. Dichter, thank you for making the extra effort to get here. 

You could have called in and everyone would have said she is 

snowed in or iced in, I guess was the trick. 

But thank you. And I think your testimony was very important 

because what you are doing in your state is exactly what we would 

like to see the states do, is to take the responsibility, knit the programs together, have a continuum of care and learning for these 

children, recognizing the sociological differences and economic differences. But the goal is the same for all of the children in Rhode 

Island or California. 

I happen to have much more confidence in your state, in my governor and others, who are trying to knit this together from kindergarten to transitional kindergarten to early learning and all of 

those opportunities. And why are we doing it? Because we know it 

makes a difference. 

Every family that takes the time to read to their children, to describe colors to their children, that sits—even families where they 

don’t know English or they can’t read to their children, if they 

show that the action is important the children are different, okay? 

And the largest pay raise that most middle-income families will get 

is the day their child leaves child care and goes to the public 

schools, okay? It is a big payday. 

But it is important they make the sacrifice to make it. Other 

families don’t have the wherewithal to do that, so we are trying to 

provide that. 

But I almost think like we are—because President Obama has 

suggested this program we are developing a class of sort of like, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

174 

you know, child care deniers, early learning deniers. The evidence 

is compelling. It is validated by families who will do anything to 

get their child into the best early learning atmosphere in all of 

Manhattan. They will cheat, they will lie, they will do whatever it 

takes to get their kids to understand the principles of life. 

But yet we are going to have a denial here. I don’t know quite 

why we are denying it. When we shut down the federal government 

they immediately ran to the floor and said, ‘‘Open up the Head 

Start centers. We are hearing from Head Start parents. It is important that we not miss a lot of days of Head Start for these children.’’ 

Title I—sequestration cut it across the board. They immediately 

restored it now in the first chance they had with the appropriation—and they put in the new money for Head Start and for the 

expansion programs. 

They want the states to control it but they don’t want the states 

to have the resources to do it. It is a little schizophrenic here. They 

understand—America has come to understand, families have come 

to understand—the importance, and the brain science is compelling, whether you want to get this. 

We are all aware of the very toxic trauma that children can live 

in, and we know the impact. We also know the impact of the opposite of that: an enriched environment, a sustained environment. 

Even in low-income families, even in the poorest families, even 

in homeless families, that can be transmitted, and we have to meet 

these children and these families in these various settings, whether 

they are homeless—I remember the struggle we went when Ed 

Meese decided that, you know, they were homeless because they 

wanted to be, and then we had to find out what school they could 

go to, what their address is, and all of that. 

Well we try to provide services because we don’t want to lose 

those children. We don’t want to lose those children. 

And the fact is, we can keep denying, you can say the Perry 

study is 50 years old—it has been updated all of the time, all 

through these generations, and it has been supplemented by others, and just the evidence of parents, the evidence of school teachers. And the fact is, if you take kids out of a really good early 

learning situation and you dump them, as you do in my congressional district, into some of the worst-performing schools in the 

state—yes, they are going to start losing ground. 

So you have got to build that tradition, and we are in the effort 

of trying to do that with the rewrite of ESEA. And we are giving 

that to the governors with more authority. 

So I think we are on a track here that is supported by both parties, but one part just can’t quite step up to provide the resources 

to do it. And yet every day the validity of the impact and the importance to students is—and here we are sitting here with the public and the private effort—many cases a public and private partnership in a number of states, as you point out, Ms. Yalow—and that 

is true in my state, California. Obviously, you know that very well. 

And so what is that last kernel of evidence that is going to make 

you understand that this is important, that government should be 

doing it? You can keep fooling around with there is duplication or 

what have you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

175 

Yes, we have programs for homeless kids and programs for kids 

with disabilities and programs with kids with autism and, you 

know, with special populations, and we have to sometimes feed 

kids at the summer playground as opposed to the school, so we 

have a summer recreational feeding program and we have an early 

morning program, we have an afternoon program because that attracts mentors to work with the kids after school. Yes, these are 

special settings where people find themselves, their children, where 

they can take advantage of the best of what this country has to 

offer with respect to its educational systems and its child development systems. 

But I guess the debate will continue to rage. It is a tragedy because every moment we fail to empower you with the resources in 

Rhode Island or California or anywhere else to form these partnerships, to develop this data which is so critical—so critical in this 

day and age in terms of real-time information about children—we 

just postpone the future for these children day in and day out. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

And I thank the witnesses for being here today, for your testimony. 

Just a couple of comments. Listening to the word ‘‘deniers,’’ I 

don’t think there is anybody at this table and the witnesses’ dais 

that is denying the importance of early childhood education. 

Some of us who may be in the denying thing by inference, we put 

together this hearing that calls this ‘‘The Foundation of Success,’’ 

so there is not any denial here that I have been able to see that 

early childhood care and education are important. 

We sadly do not have unlimited resources. I know some don’t 

agree with that, but we don’t have unlimited resources so we are 

trying to answer the questions, what is working here, what is not? 

One of the questions that came up was: All these programs— 

some 45 programs identified by the GAO—are they fragmented? 

Well, seems to be they are. Is there duplication? 

There is no suggestion in your report, Ms. Brown, that there is 

duplication. 

We are not claiming that. 

But there is fragmentation, and is there a better way to bring 

them together? And the GAO report said yes, there ought to be an 

interagency working group here that tries to work through this 

stuff so we get better return on those limited resources. 

And Dr. Whitehurst said look, we ought to be focusing our efforts 

here on the children that need this the most—on lower income. Because I think that, at least certainly in many cases that I know of, 

there are children who are doing very, very well without any formal pre-K education. They typically come from family with their 

own resources—perhaps a stay-at-home mom or dad or somebody 

is there with them who is addressing that vocabulary growth, reading with the children. But that is not available everywhere, and we 

all know cases—we have talked about the impact of poverty, for example—where there clearly you don’t have that. 

And so it seems to some of us that we probably ought to be looking at where we are going to focus those limited resources so that 

we get the most back. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

176 

States have been claiming how good they are. I am from Minnesota. We actually have very excellent pre-K education, so I would 

put that in. I can’t let New Jersey and Delaware and so forth get 

by with it. 

We would like to see that this foundation for success is developed 

properly. You have been very, very helpful today as witnesses. I 

thank you for being here. 

And, Ms. Dichter, as Mr. Miller said, you get sort of extra double 

gold stars or something—however how many stars we can award— 

because when you weather the weather and the trains and I 

don’t—were there any planes involved? I guess not. Just trains and 

taxis. 

Ms. DICHTER. Just trains. 

Chairman KLINE. Anyway, thank you all very much for being 

here. 

We are adjourned. 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Holt follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

177 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 86488.075
178 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 86488.071
179 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 86488.072
180 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 86488.073
181 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 86488.074
182 

[Additional Submissions by Ms. McCarthy follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

183 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 86488.076
184 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 86488.077
185 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 86488.078
186 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 86488.079
187 

[Additional Submissions by Mr. Miller follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

188 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 145 here 86488.145
189 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 146 here 86488.146
190 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 147 here 86488.147
191 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 148 here 86488.148
192 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 149 here 86488.149
193 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 150 here 86488.150
194 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 151 here 86488.151
195 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 152 here 86488.152
196 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 153 here 86488.153
197 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 154 here 86488.154
198 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 155 here 86488.155
199 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 156 here 86488.156
200 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 157 here 86488.157
201 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 158 here 86488.158
202 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 86488.080
203 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 86488.081
204 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 86488.082
205 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 159 here 86488.159
206 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 160 here 86488.160
207 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 161 here 86488.161
208 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 162 here 86488.162
209 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 163 here 86488.163
210 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 164 here 86488.164
211 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

212 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 166 here 86488.165
213 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 167 here 86488.166
214 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 168 here 86488.167
215 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 169 here 86488.168
216 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 170 here 86488.169
217 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 171 here 86488.170
218 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 172 here 86488.171
219 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 173 here 86488.172
220 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 174 here 86488.173
221 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 175 here 86488.174
222 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 176 here 86488.175
223 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 177 here 86488.176
224 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 178 here 86488.177
225 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 179 here 86488.178
226 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 180 here 86488.179
227 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 181 here 86488.180
228 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 182 here 86488.181
229 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 183 here 86488.182
230 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 184 here 86488.183
231 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 185 here 86488.184
232 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 186 here 86488.185
233 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 187 here 86488.186
234 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 188 here 86488.187
235 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 189 here 86488.188
236 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 190 here 86488.189
237 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 191 here 86488.190
238 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 192 here 86488.191
239 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 193 here 86488.192
240 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 194 here 86488.193
241 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 195 here 86488.194
242 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 196 here 86488.195
243 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 197 here 86488.196
244 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 198 here 86488.197
245 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 199 here 86488.198
246 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 200 here 86488.199
247 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 201 here 86488.200
248 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 202 here 86488.201
249 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 203 here 86488.202
250 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 204 here 86488.203
251 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 205 here 86488.204
252 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 206 here 86488.205
253 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 207 here 86488.206
254 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 208 here 86488.207
255 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER