:1... t. I.
.. . .13!

 

.1 :52.- .1
1:32.13
1. f. .

2

3; 1:53
«.31)....

 

n: o. .' .
{as ,..
z; 4311;:
.. is _

»

 

 

  

"m“? damn!!!
. Haiti
. L . ~ .

v.....V

 

.§ 334.132?

 

é. era. ‘ Egg.

    

THESIS

205]

 

.UBRARY
Mo. “3:... State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PROVIDING QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN'S LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

presented by

John Brett Deiter

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Educational Administration

 

 

Q ’ 14M“

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature ‘

7/10/07

Date

MSU is an afﬁrmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

-.—--.—-—n-u-o-u—u—-—u-n-o-o-—-—-—.—-—-—u—-—o—

v—-—.—-—-—.-o-o—o-o—¢-o-o-—-—-—-—-.—.—-_-_-_.--o—-—---—o-I--

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DAIEDUE

DATEDUE

DATEDUE

 

We] .3 2122012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

PROVIDING QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN’S LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

By

John Brett Deiter

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Education

2007

ABSTRACT

PROVIDING QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
IN MICHIGAN ’8 LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

By

John Brett Deiter

The purpose of this study was threefold as it attempted to: 1) determine to what extent
local school districts in Michigan vary in their provision of early childhood education
(ECE) services and what factors account for these differences; 2) determine local school
district superintendents’ perceptions of ECE and explore whether or not these perceptions
are related to their knowledge, familiarity with programs and research, and to what extent
they view ECE as being important to their students obtaining their achievement goals;
and 3) determine the efﬁcacy of the current delivery system for ECE services between the
state, ISDs, and local districts by ascertaining the vision that the leaders at these levels
have for the provision and coordination of ECE services.

The results of the study were obtained from a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods. They show that there is large variance in the ECE services that
local districts provide that is related to the needs of the children in a given district and
with the knowledge of the superintendents.

Though most Michigan superintendents are not familiar with speciﬁc studies on
ECE, most believe that an investment in ECE can have a positive impact on student
achievement. Programs and training offered by ISDs can be very inﬂuential to the
attitudes of local superintendents. The experience that superintendents bring to the

position, such as experience exclusively at the 9-12 level versus pre-K or K-S experience

also impacts the knowledge and perception of superintendents

The study also indicates that leaders at the state, ISD, and local level have a
similar vision for the provision of ECE that varies slightly from the current alignment and
dissemination of services. Leaders at the three levels would like to see an increased role
for local districts in the provision of ECE services. These leaders feel that ISDs are in a

central position and seem the best equipped to coordinate and enhance ECE services.

Copyright by
JOHN BRETT DEITER

2007

DEDICATION

To my wife, Amy, and my daughters, Madison and Gwenyth

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to recognize my advisor and dissertation chairperson, Dr. David
Arsen, whose help and support has been invaluable to me. His patience during some
difﬁcult times and his helpful insights into the writing and research process has kept me
moving forward at all times. I deﬁnitely ﬂoundered at times, but Dr. Arsen was always
positive, but he pushed me when he needed to. He was always quick to review the work
that I sent him and he kept me on the right track until I was done. Thank you Dr. Arsen!

Thank you to my employers who understood and supported my commitment to
the doctoral program. Tom, Pat, and Chuck helped make this achievement possible and I
thank them for that.

Lastly, I need to say thank you to my family for their love and support. I thank
my parents Peggy and Jerry (1949-1998) for the work ethic and value of education that
they instilled in me. I thank my children, Madison and Gwenyth, who have endured my
long hours at the computer for the past ﬁve years. Finally, I thank my wife, Amy, for her
support. She has always believed in me and encouraged me to pursue my goals even

when it meant a sacriﬁce on her part. I could not have done this without her.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Deﬁning Early Childhood Education (ECE) ................................................ 3
Early Childhood Education in Michigan ...................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 14
The Foundations of Early Childhood Education Research:
The Big Three ................................................................... 14
Educational Impact of ECE ........................................................................... 19
High Quality Early Childhood Education ...................................................... 25
Challenges to Early Childhood Education Programs ..................................... 32
Experience with Four Public Programs ......................................................... 37
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 3
METHODS ..................................................................................... 41
Research Questions .................................................................. 42
Methods of Data Collection ........................................................................... 44
Survey of Local School District Superintendents .................................... 44
Interviews with State, ISD, and Local School Leaders ........................... 49
Obtaining Financial and Demographic Information ................................ 53
The Pilot Study ........................................................................................ 55
Methods of Data Analysis .............................................................................. 56
Dependent Variable 1 .............................................................................. 57
Dependent Variable 2 ............................................................................. 57
Dependent Variable 3 ............................................................................. 5 7
Explanatory Variables ............................................................................. 61
Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 66
School District Sample .................................................................................. 66
Variables and Index Score ............................................................................. 73
Explanatory Variables .................................................................................... 76
Alignment of Services .................................................................................... 87
Financial Concerns ......................................................................................... 93

vii

Supporting ECE Without Spending ............................................................... 95

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 109
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 1 1 1
Implications .................................................................................................... 117
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 1 1 8
Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................... 119
Implications for Professional Practice ........................................................... 120
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 122
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 123
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 126
Appendix C .................................................................................................... 128
Appendix D .................................................................................................... 130
Appendix E .................................................................................................... 132
Appendix F ..................................................................................................... 134
Appendix G .................................................................................................... 140
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 141

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ....................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2 ....................................................................................................................... 54
Table 3 ....................................................................................................................... 60
Table 4 ....................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5 ....................................................................................................................... 70
Table 6 ....................................................................................................................... 72
Table 7 ....................................................................................................................... 74
Table 8 ....................................................................................................................... 79
Table 9 ....................................................................................................................... 91
Table 10 ..................................................................................................................... 103

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 2 ...................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 3 ...................................................................................................................... 86

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Under the sweeping federal education reform, No Child Left Behind (aka NCLB),
all schools in the United States have until 2014 to achieve a 100% proﬁciency rate for
students taking their respective state proﬁciency exams. NCLB, and the potential
sanctions that schools face if they fail to reach the necessary levels of proﬁciency, have
the attention of educators at all levels from teachers to superintendents. Most school
systems are diligently trying to prepare their students to do well on the exams (Laosa,
2003). Some schools have seen improvements in their test scores, but many others,
especially those with high levels of poor and minority students, are in danger of not
meeting NCLB’s rigorous yearly progress standards for proﬁciency. Add to this dynamic
the budget deﬁcits that many districts are facing, and educational leaders are forced to
make very difﬁcult decisions about which of their educational programs to fund.
Districts with high levels of at-n'sk students often face the most difficult decisions
because they are not only dealing with low levels of achievement, but are also working
with shrinking budgets and decreasing enrollments. Superintendents and other school
leaders are looking for effective strategies for increasing student achievement, and one
potential strategy that is receiving signiﬁcant consideration is an investment in early
childhood education programs (Laosa, 2003; Schweinhart & Fulcher-Dawson, 2006).

Early childhood education programs received their ﬁrst major push in 1965
during President Johnson’s war on poverty, because it was recognized that at-risk

students were entering school academically and socially behind their peers (Hauser-

Cram, 1991; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Poor children were entering kindergarten at a
disadvantage, and they typically fell ﬁirther behind each year. Although many studies
have found that most children from lower-income families will make comparable gains to
their middle- and upper-class peers during a school year, those children who typically fall
behind do so during their preschool ages and over the extended summer vacations
(Brooks-Gunn et. a1, 2003; Rothstein, 2004).

Early childhood education programs hold promise for disadvantaged children
because they are designed to bolster children’s capacity to learn and achieve in a school
setting before they even cross the threshold of a school. The Head Start Program for
preschool children was one of the federal govemment’s main educational strategies
during the Johnson era’s war on poverty, because the importance of preschool education
was recognized as being critical thus making Head Start grant funds available to local
community agencies. Thousands of community and school programs across the country
took advantage of Head Start funding and programming, and the program continues
today. Head Start and Early Head Start currently serve over 900,000 children in centers
or in their homes each year (NHSA, 2005; Mitchell, 2003). Head Start has been shown
to be effective in preparing children for school, but many feel it still does not reach
enough children. Even though Early Head Start has been developed to work with
younger children, it too has often been criticized for not reaching children soon enough
(Barnett & Masse, 2002).

It has been well-documented that poor and disadvantaged children are the least
likely to succeed on standardized tests (Wilen, 2003). In order for children living in

poverty to succeed in school and on high-stake tests, many things must happen before

they begin their education. Children reared in low-income, impoverished conditions
often start at a disadvantage to their peers, even before they are born, because of poor
prenatal care (Rothstein, 2004). Once they are born, they are more likely to be faced with
poor nutrition and poor health care. These factors can put children at a disadvantage
when it comes to brain development and school readiness. These early risk factors are
then more likely to give way to health risks such as asthma or lead poisoning that will
negatively affect school attendance and/or performance (Barnett & Masse, 2002). Low-
income children also tend to receive less cognitive nourishment during their earliest
formative years than do their middle-class peers. For example, middle-class children
hear more sophisticated language at home, are read to more frequently, and are asked to
process what they read in ways that are more advanced than what is typically the case in
a low-income home (Farkus & Beron, 2001). Rothstein (2004) feels that, “Because the
gap [between poor and middle class children] is already huge at three years of age, the
most important focus of this investment should probably be early childhood programs”

(p.142).

Deﬁning Early Childhood Education (ECE)

ECE is ofﬁcially deﬁned at the national level as encompassing birth through age
eight. In Michigan, and in this study, ECE typically refers to birth through age ﬁve,
unless otherwise stated. There are three main types of childcare in the United States: (1)
parental care, (2) informal day care (typically provided in a home setting by someone
other than the child’s parent), and (3) center care or preschool (Magnuson & Waldfogel,

2005).

In 2001, 64.3% of mothers, whose youngest children were under six years of age,
were in the work force (Kamerman & Gatenio, 2003). This is compared to 53.5% in
1985, and 20.2% in 1960. This translates to over 60% of children being placed in
daycare settings (Kamerman & Gatenio, 2003). Most homecare settings focus on basic
care and do not emphasize learning. Center-based programs, on the other hand, place
learning on an equal level with basic needs such as meals, rest, and play. W. Steven
Barnett of the National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers
University is one of the nation’s leading researchers in ECE. He found that 70% of
children in daycare were in center-based programs by age four and that 45% were in
center-based programs by age three (Barnett et al., 2004). Though the Early Head Start
program for three-year-olds is gaining popularity, most Head Start programs focus on
four- and ﬁve-year-olds. While ECE is important for four-year-olds, it is also very
important for children ages birth to three (National Head Start Association, 2005).

Despite the high demand for quality childcare and preschool, as of 2006 only
three states, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Florida, have fully implemented programs that
make universal preschool available to all four-year-olds. And only Illinois, which passed
the legislation in 2006, seeks to provide universal preschool for all three- and four-year-
olds. Even when universal care is offered, many families do not participate in the
programs. For example, it is estimated that 60% of children take advantage of the
programs offered in Georgia and Oklahoma (GOA, 2004; Rand, 2005).

With many well—documented beneﬁts of quality ECE, it is surprising that there
are not more publicly funded ECE programs throughout the United States. Perhaps even

more intriguing, when considering the demands of NCLB and the impact of ECE on

school readiness and school performance, is that public schools are not more involved in
early childhood education. The state of Michigan is a case in point. While local school
districts in Michigan have great access to prekindergarten children, most local school
districts in the state make their ﬁrst contact with families at kindergarten round-ups.

This research project focused speciﬁcally on the state of Michigan and the efforts
of local school districts in Michigan to provide quality ECE to their children. A study of
ECE in Michigan makes sense because it has a rich ECE history being the home state of
the Perry Preschool Project and the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Also,
Michigan, like most states, has not moved towards universal preschool, but has promoted
partnerships with local school districts, intermediate school districts, and other agencies.
A pamership in ECE typically means two or more entities working together to fund,
provide, or oversee programs. Partemship are often comprosed of private sources that

provide funding for a public program or two public programs that combine resources.

Early Childhood Education in Michigan
Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm and the Michigan Department of
Education would like Michigan to be a progressive state in the area of ECE; however,
there is considerable room for improvement in programs and services that are offered in
the state. In 2004-2005, the National Institute for Early Childhood Education Research
(NIEER) ranked Michigan 14th out of 50 states in its ability to provide access to ECE.
NIEER ranks Michigan 18th in its ECE resources. Michigan meets ﬁve out of ten

benchmarks in quality that NIEER has established.

In her ﬁrst 2003 State of the State address, Governor Granhohn introduced her
new educational plan with the following commitment to early childhood education:

Perhaps the single most important key to economic development is the one

that opens the doors to learning in the minds of our young ones today. In

the knowledge economy, business and education are linked; you cannot

succeed at the former if you do not excel at the latter. I assure you,

educational excellence will be my number one priority. We will begin

with Project Great Start (PGS) a broad movement to increase learning in

the critical years from birth to age ﬁve because education must begin at

birth. (2003)

While the goal of PGS is to prepare all of Michigan’s children for kindergarten,
the state’s intermediate and local school districts vary greatly in the ECE programs and
services they currently provide. There is little, if any, debate that children beneﬁt greatly
from high-quality early childhood education, and this is especially true for children from
low-socioeconomic (SES) homes. This section will brieﬂy describe the publicly
supported ECE services that are available in the state of Michigan.

The state program that reaches the most children in Michigan is the Michigan
School Readiness Program (MSRP), which started in 1985. It is designed to provide
childcare to four-year-olds who meet two or more of twenty-ﬁve state-identiﬁed risk
factors. MSRP is generally provided by local school districts that apply for and receive
funding based on the needs of their constituents. It is mandated that 50% of the children
receiving MSRP services must meet the federal guidelines for poverty. The majority of

school districts in Michigan participate in an MSRP program. According to High/Scope,

470 of the state’s 536 MRSP programs are run by local school districts. The state of
Michigan has budgeted $78.8 million for MSRP in 2006-07.

Some districts choose to get involved in Head Start, and some will sponsor or
provide prekindergarten special education programs, such as Early Childhood
Developmental Disability (ECDD) and other state or federal programs, but MSRP is the
most common ECE program sponsored by local districts in Michigan.

Other state programs include Even Start, EarlyOn, and a 0-3 prevention
collaborative through the Children’s Trust Fund. Even Start is a federal program
designed for children ages 0 — 7 years, who have a parent who is functionally illiterate or
eligible for basic adult education. Services under Early Start are generally provided at
the local district level. EarlyOn is a program that is generally provided by intermediate
school districts in Michigan. This program is designed to meet the needs of a child 0 - 36
months who has a developmental delay, or has a condition that is likely to cause a
developmental delay. The 0-3 prevention program is a grant for community-based
collaborative secondary prevention programs for families of children ages 0-3. The grants
are designed to develop services that improve parenting skills, strengthen families, and
help prepare children for school. The grants will help families gain access to community
services and help local communities build capacity so the can better serve at risk families.
The grants will also be used to develop programs that discourage alcohol, tobacco, and
other drugs. The state has set aside $1.75 million for this program in 2006-07. A 25%
local match is required to receive the funds.

With the exception of MSRP, most ECE programs in Michigan are operated

without direct input from local school districts. Some local districts have made a

commitment to ECE by providing welcoming school coordinators who reach out to
young families by visiting homes or hospitals. Some get involved with other grant-
funded programs such as the federal program, Parents as Teachers. Few districts,
however, devote extensive funding to ECE services.

The goal of Michigan’s latest initiative, Project Great Start (PGS), is for Michigan
children to enter kindergarten safe, healthy, and eager to succeed in school and life. The
underlying intent of PGS is to provide universal ECE across the state of Michigan. In the
same year that PGS was launched, however, Michigan’s budget showed a deﬁcit of $285
million. In order to balance the budget, $127 million was cut from school aid. These
cuts were driven by a struggling economy and a state law that requires a balanced budget,
and implicitly by a belief that expenditures on ECE were not as valuable as other
priorities.

The most signiﬁcant ECE program to be affected by budget cuts was an elaborate
program known as All Students Achieve Program — Parent Involvement and Education
(ASAP-PIE). In 2001, 23 of the 57 Intermediate School Districts (ISDs) in Michigan
received funding through this competitive grant program which was designed to service
children birth to ﬁve years of age. The total award of ASAP-PIE was $45 million dollars
spread out in various amounts across the 23 districts. The original legislation called for
three years of funding, but “ﬁnancial crises” led to the end of funding for the program
after only two years (Reed, et al., 2004). Districts were allowed to use their remaining
money to continue funding programs that were started in the ﬁrst two years.

The ﬁrst program launched under PGS was Great Parents, Great Start (GPGS)

which was designed to replace ASAP-PIE at a greatly reduced cost to the state. Like

ASAP-PIE, the responsibility for implementing this program was given to ISDs. While
ASAP-PIE was a grant-based program dispersed to only 23 ISDs, it was very generous to
those ISD in awarding upwards of $4.5 million to individual ISDs. Many ISDs used
their ASAP-PIE money to develop programs above and beyond what the state’s basic
mandates for ECE programs. ASAP-PIE was designed to last three years, but its frmding
was discontinued in 2002. Some ISDs tried to stretch the remaining dollars of ASAP-PIE
and raise funds of their own to support their programs. That has proven to be very
difﬁcult because GPGS has been supported by only $3.2 million for the entire project.
The state has increased the $3.2 million to $5 million for 2006-07 but that total is still
dispersed over all 57 ISDs, and it comes with speciﬁc and rigorous expectations for how
that money is to be spent.

The latest component of Project Great Start is the development of Michigan Early
Childhood Investment Corporation (ECIC). This initiative is modeled after similar
programs such as North Carolina’s Smart Start program. It is designed to bring in a mix
of private funds to help with the costs of Project Great Start, of which GPGS is the ﬁrst
initiative. In a highly competitive process, the state granted seven counties funds ranging
from $90,000- $150,000.00 to build partnerships with local business and community
organizations. The total appropriation for the program was originally $1.24 million and it
was approved for $1 million in 2006-07. There were also capacity-building grants
awarded to seven different counties. The plan is to pilot a model of building community
relationships in these seven counties and eventually grow the program across the state to

help fund ECE programs with private money, as well as public.

Table 1 shows the most common early childhood education programs that are

available in Michigan.

Table 1.

Early Childhood Education Programs in Michigan

 

 

 

 

Program Target Funding Source Primary Availability/
Year Population & Amount Sponsor/Provid Number Served
Started er
Early Head Birth to 3- *Federally *Various private *National
Start (1994) year-olds Funded and public program
$1,:er Total 6.8 Billion sources 399,076 nation-
$7,062 per child ““16
Head Start 4-year-olds *Federally *Various private *Nation wide
(1965) poverty Funded and public 507 916
level . . sources ’
Isl/i132); 1ng 668 00 35’069 MiChigan
’ ’ ' total Early Head
Start and Head
Start
Michigan At risk 4- State Grants Local districts or “23,818
School year-olds $3,300 per child ISDs children 1n 478
Readmess distrlcts
(based on half .
Program da enrollment) statewrde (536
(MSRP) y programs total)
(1935) **$78,599,400.0
0
Early On Birth — State of ISDs Statewide
(2004) Three with Michigan Program
develol" $3,900,000.00
mental
delay,
disability, or
special
needs

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even Start Children Federal Program ISDs *32 programs in
(1965) Birth told7 / “7,127,300 Mlchrgan
year 3-0 w allocated to *1,378 families
illiterate Michi an
parent g *2,035 children
(Federal budget (1,678 under 5-
was cut 56% in years-old)
2006)
Great Universal State Grant ISDs All 57 ISDs in
Parents/ serv1ce to $5,000,000 the state
Great Start parents of , .
. av allable state
(2003) children wide
birth to ﬁve
0-3 High Risk State Funded - Mixed *2,756 families
Prevention Famrhes MDE, Human -ISDs *2, 695 children
Grants including SerV1ces .
(1996) pregnant Community -PUDIIC Health 36 programs
Health agencies serving 44/83
*$4,774,000 total -Other non conﬁnes
budget proﬁts
Early Children Federally Funded Local Districts Every county
Childhood with Though IDEA with ISD
geevl'letiolp- daelvgépfynsren $500 Million involvement
Disability Federally (2002)
(ECCD)
ASAP-PIE High risk State program ISDs 23 Counties
(2001-2002) parents Funded at $45
million
* Data from 2004-05
** Data from 2006-07
Purpose of the Study

This project examined the role that K-l2 school districts play in providing ECE

services. The Michigan Association of Intermediate School Districts (MASID)

ll

committee on early childhood education made promoting ECE to local districts and their
leaders as their ﬁrst and foremost strategic goal. The MAISD feels that K-12 schools
need to be more active and involved in the ECE effort. With the research so
overwhelmingly supportive of ECE, this study explored the level of priority given to ECE
services by local school districts.

An obvious roadblock to local district involvement in ECE is that district ﬁnances
are too limited to provide these services, especially since local districts’ primary
responsibility is to provide education services for grades K-12 while ISDs and the state
have traditionally assumed greater responsibilities for providing Pre-K services.
Finances certainly matter, and they were considered. This project sought to discover
what other factors, along with funding, inﬂuence the commitment of local district
leadership to the provision of ECE services.

Local school district superintendents were the focus of the study because they are
the policy leaders in local districts. Most superintendents rely on their administrative
teams, policy committees, and school boards, but they remain the single most important
person in a district’s policymaking. Given the prevailing research on the ECE’s beneﬁts,
one might anticipate that local districts would be willing to incur some of the cost of
providing these services. However, in most cases throughout the state, the investment of
ﬁnances and resources that K-12s make in ECE remains minimal at best.

This study also sought to determine how familiar local leaders are with research
regarding the beneﬁts of ECE and assessed whether or not this was correlated with their
districts’ commitment to providing these services. Three dependent variables were

developed that demonstrate a district’s level of support for ECE. These were then

12

compared with a series of explanatory variables that sought to determine local district
leaders’ knowledge of ECE services and its beneﬁts.

Finally, the study established a clearer picture of what state and ISD leaders have
in mind for ECE programs and how their vision of these services can be delivered within
the current policy framework. In particular, it established the role they envision for local
school districts in the provision of ECE services. The ﬁnal chapter comments on the

efﬁcacy of the current ECE picture in Michigan.

13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The research on ECE has generally been one of three types. The ﬁrst type is cost-
beneﬁt analysis that examines the monetary return that society as a whole may or may
not get from an investment in ECE. The second type has focused on the educational
beneﬁts and effects that ECE can have on school readiness and school success. The third
area of research has examined the qualities of effective ECE programs. This includes
elements such as the curriculum of the program, teacher preparation, and hours per day
and week that children are in ECE programs. This section will examine the existing
literature in these three areas and discuss the challenges that face states when
implementing ECE programs. It will also discuss strategies that states might use to

overcome these challenges as they strive to implement high-quality ECE programs.

The Foundations of Early Childhood Education Research: The Big Three
Three studies stand in the forefront of early childhood education research. A
plethora of reports and articles that tout the beneﬁts and advantages of ECE reference one
or more of these projects. They are: The Perry Preschool Project (Ypsilanti, Michigan),
the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention (North Carolina), and the Chicago Child-
Parent Center Program (Chicago, Illinois). They will be referenced in this chapter as “the
big three.” Each of these programs compared children participating in the respective ECE

program with a control group of children that did not participate in the program.

14

Socioeconomic status, IQ, mother’s education, and family composition were just a few of
the factors for which the researchers controlled.

A good example of a report that relied on the big three is Robert Lynch’s report
for the San Francisco based non-proﬁt organization WestEd. In his 2005 report entitled,
“Early Childhood Investment Yields Big Payoff,” Lynch argues that investing in ECE
could be a savior to the nation’s Social Security system. He argues that Social Security
will face ﬁnancial difﬁculties by 2018 when most of the baby boom generation will be
drawing from the system. He notes that 2018 is when current preschoolers will enter the
workforce. Using data drawn from the three studies, Lynch proposes that an investment
of $12,000 per child in 1.6 million of the most poverty-stricken children in the United
States would pay off by turning the children into contributing citizens by the time they
enter the workforce. Lynch claims that this investment would turn a Social Security
shortage into a surplus by 2021.

Of the big three, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, which ran from 1962-
1967 is the seminal work in ECE and is a logical starting place when examining the
beneﬁts of early childhood education programs. Many subsequent studies on the effects
and impact of ECE begin with the Perry Project as the basis for the new study. The
participants in the Perry project were 123 three- and four-year-old African-American
children from low-income homes with IQs below 90. The children were randomly put
into two groups with 58 receiving services and the remaining 65 being designated to the
control group. The students receiving services participated in a two-and-half hour

preschool program ﬁve days per week using the High/Scope cognitive developmental

15

curriculum, which is based on Piagetian “child-centered” principles. Some of the
children received two years of services and others received one year.

The earliest results of the Perry study found that the participants’ IQ scores were
increased, but that the impact on IQ faded by age eight. They also found many positive
effects that lasted for years. For example, the participants obtained a higher grade point
average and scored higher on standardized tests than did their peers; they also completed
more years of school. By age 27, the participants in the Perry study reported higher
income levels than the control group and they were less likely to be on welfare or
involved in crime than was the control group. This is equated to a savings of $105,324
per participant at age 27 in 2001 dollars, which is a cost-beneﬁt ratio of $7.16 to one
dollar (Schweinhart, 2003). An age 40 follow-up study reports a return of $12.90 for
every dollar spent in 2000 dollars (Schweinhart, 2005). The study also concluded that the
children who received two years of services were better achievers than those who were
only in the program for one year. One feature of the Perry High/Scope Project that has
made the study so reliable is that it has only a 6% missing data rate across all of its
measures. An astonishing 97 % of the original participants still living were interviewed
for the most recent age 40 study (Schweinhart, 2005).

The 1972 Carolina Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention Project also has a
high retention rate through age 21 for its participants. Researchers were able to gather
data from 104 of the 111 original participants. Perhaps the biggest difference in the
Abecedarian Project from the Perry Project is that the Abecedarian children began the
program when they were between 4 and 18 months old and most participated until they

were 5-years-old. Similar to Perry, all of the children in the study were low-income and

16

the majority of the children were minorities. The program consisted of an intensive,
high-quality preschool program that was individualized for each child. The
individualization was mostly in the form of “games” or activities that addressed social,
emotional, and cognitive development with a very strong emphasis on language.

W. S. Barnett and Masse (2002) used the same essential methods that Barnett
used to conduct the Age 27 cost-beneﬁt analysis of the Perry High/Scope Project to study
the Abecedarian Project. The Abecedarian Project was considerably more costly than the
Perry Project was with an initial cost of about $13,000 per child (2002 dollars). That is
about twice the average Head Start program and twice what the Perry Program was in
2002 dollars. However, the researchers found that even at the cost of $13,000 per child
“the beneﬁts outweighed the costs by a factor of four dollars for every dollar spent”
(Masse & Barnett, 2002, p. 34).

The Chicago Child-Parent Center Program also focused on low-income children,
but with a large sampling of over 1,539 children, 93% of whom were African-American.
The longitudinal study followed children who were enrolled in government-funded
kindergarten programs in the Chicago Public Schools in 1985-1986. The children
attended the Child-Parent Centers beginning at age 3 and continued in some capacity
through age 9. Children typically attended half-day preschool in the centers and later
attended kindergarten in the centers as well. The program offered small class size and a
structured curriculum that was designed by Chicago Public Schools. As the name of the
program indicates, the centers also featured a parent room that stressed parent learning
and involvement. Parents were required to attend the centers for at least a half-day per

week.

17

A cost-beneﬁt analysis was conducted on the Chicago study using 1,286 of the
original sample of 1,5 39. The factors considered were: (1) savings in the costs
associated with retaining or placing a child in special education, (2) savings that resulted
from fewer juvenile and adult arrests and incarcerations, (3) savings from fewer incidents
reported to the child welfare system regarding child abuse and neglect, (4) fewer costs
associated with victims of potential crimes, and (5) increases in adult earnings and tax
revenues as a result of higher educational attainment.

“The present value of program beneﬁts was estimated based on a 3% annual
discount rate evaluated at the beginning of preschool participation. The distribution of
beneﬁts were calculated separately for society at large (program participants and the
general public), the general public, and government savings” (Reynolds et al., 2001, p.
301). Overall, $7.10 was returned to society for every dollar invested in preschool.
Excluding beneﬁts to participants, the ratio of program beneﬁts to costs for the general
public was $3.83 for every dollar invested. The ratio of beneﬁts to costs for government
savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested (Reynolds et al., 2001).

The cost-beneﬁt analyses conducted on these three programs are particularly
helpful for states such as California that are considering whether or not to pursue a
universal preschool program. The Rand Corporation (Karoly & Bigelow, 2005), for
example, was able to use the Chicago and Perry data, as well as data collected ﬁom the
universal programs in Georgia and Oklahoma, to determine a potential cost beneﬁt ratio
of $2.62 saved for every dollar spent if the state of California were to adopt a universal
program for its 4-year-olds. This is a modest ﬁgure that was based largely upon the

returns in Georgia and Oklahoma where only 60% of eligible children participated in the

18

universal programs. The beneﬁt in California would increase if the participation level
increased. Additionally, one simple change of factoring in a savings from a potential
crime victim’s loss, as was done in the Chicago study, would raise the potential savings

in California to $3.93 per dollar spent.

Educational Impact of ECE

While the cost beneﬁt analyses are helpful to state governments and other
researchers concerned with long-term impact, a recent study by C. R. Belﬁeld (2004) at
Columbia’s Teacher College may prove more useful to intermediate and local school
districts that are trying to decide whether or not to fund or expand an ECE program.
Belﬁeld focused on the medium-term cost savings that districts might see if they invest in
ECE. He used the big three as his basis, but he focused on: (1) reductions in special
education referrals, (2) reductions in grade retention, and (3) improvements in student
learning productivity and school engagement. Reductions in special education and grade
retention are rather concrete numbers and relatively easy to gauge in terms of cost.
Improvements in student learning productivity and school engagement are more of a gray
area, but Belﬁeld explained how districts with more productive and engaged students can
save money based on less teacher stress and sick time due to more job satisfaction.
Fewer student discipline referrals and better treatment of school materials and facilities
are also expected when students are engaged in learning. He explained that this would
lead to less maintenance and supervisory expenses for the district.

Another educational outcome that is increasingly important under the No Child

Left Behind (N CLB) policy is the need to decrease high school dropouts. Historically,

l9

the dropout rate for minority and low SES students has been much higher than that of
middle- and upper-class students. This puts schools in a conundrum because rigorous
high-stake testing policies, such as those instituted under NCLB, have been found to
increase the dropout rate for at-risk students (Stiggins, 2004). ECE programs hold
promise in this area because studies have shown that they can increase test scores and
lower dropout rates for students that participate in them.

In order to obtain valid results from a study, the results must be derived by
comparing two equivalent groups (control and study group) following the intervention of
the ECE program. In the cases of the big three studies, the two groups in each study
were quite equivalent. Perry (age 27) and Chicago (age 22) found that 71% and 65%,
respectively, of those in their program groups graduated from high school or received
their graduation equivalent degree (GED). This is compared to 54%, respectively, in
both of their control groups. The completion rate was much lower in the Abecedarian
study where the program group had a 35% graduation rate, although that is compared to
14% rate for the control group. ECE programs may prove to be the solution to the NCLB
conundrum as school administrators look to raise test scores while decreasing dropout
rates.

Other areas that are certain to interest school leaders are special education
referrals and grade retention. The Perry study combined the two ﬁgures and determined
that 17% of the program group were either retained or referred to special education as
opposed to 38% in the control group (Barnett, 2002). The Chicago study found that 12%
of the students in the program group were referred to special education compared to 22%

of the control group (Reynolds et al., 2001). The Abecedarian Project studied grade

20

retention through age eight and found that children who were in their program for ﬁve
years were retained at a rate of 38%. Children in the Abecedarian program for three
years were retained at a rate of 52% while 57% of the children in the control group were
retained for at least one grade (CAP, 2005).

With the emphasis that NCLB puts on standardized testing, it is logical that
school ofﬁcials will be interested in the impact that ECE has, or may have, on test scores.
One study, commissioned by the State of Michigan and conducted by the High/Scope
Institute, examined the Michigan School Readiness Program (MRSP). The MRSP is
designed to provide preschool to at-risk 4-year-olds. Xiang and Schweinhart of
High/Scope (2002) found that children who participated in the MRSP program tested
higher on the state’s standardized test than their peers from similar socioeconomic
backgrounds. More speciﬁcally, 24% more of the MSRP participants passed the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) English language arts test for grade
four and 16% more passed the mathematics test. Additionally, 35% fewer participants of
the MRSP program repeated a grade. Xiang and Schweinhart used these numbers to
estimate that this program prevents an estimated 1,700 Michigan children from having to
repeat a grade each year. Not only is there a large impact on test scores, but it also saves
the state (but not local districts) an estimated $11 million each year.

Validating the Research

W. Steven Barnett (1998) designed an elaborate meta-analysis that examined the
long-term effects of ECE on cognitive development and school success. His motivation
in this meta-analysis was to address the weak points in many other studies and to address

the claim that many of the gains made by children in ECE programs tend to fade away as

21

children age. He selected studies for his meta-analysis if they met the following four
criteria: (1) children entered the program before age ﬁve; (2) the program served
economically disadvantaged children; (3) at least one measure of school success,
socialization, or cognitive development was collected after age eight; and (4) the research
design provided a comparable control group or no-treatment group.

In all, Barnett found 38 studies that met these criteria. Of the 38 studies, 15 had
developed their own ECE program for the purpose of their study and 23 used either Head
Start or a public school model as the basis of the program. Barnett referred to the 15 that
developed their own program as “model programs” and considered them to be of higher
quality than others because they tended to feature more highly-trained staff and smaller
class sizes. Perry, Chicago, and Abecedarian were among the 15 identiﬁed as model
programs. All but one model program study focused on African-American children and
that study focused on Hispanic children.

Barnett found methodological concerns in the other 23 studies. In most cases,
there were high attrition rates, and when comparing standardized test scores, there were
often no pretests. Some studies had both of those problems. He proceeded, nonetheless,
to sift through the studies to make the conclusion that ECE programs can have a
tremendous impact on children’s long-term social and emotional development. This
impact can lead to a diverse range of social beneﬁts such as reduced crime rates and
lower rates of divorce. It can also lead to better achievement in school and higher levels
of education.

The studies cited by Barnett are most criticized for their inability to show long-

terrn or lasting results. Even in the case of Perry, the effect on IQ disappeared by age

22

eight. Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute, which is a
conservative think-tank in Arizona, is highly critical of the Perry Project and the
Abecedarian Project. Olsen’s report, “Early Childhood Education: A Caveat” (2005),
was written in response to Arizona governor Janet Napolitano’s claim that a universal all-
day kindergarten program in Arizona would return $7 for every dollar spent and raise
achievement levels while reducing the state’s drop-out rate. Olsen ﬁnds fault in Perry
and Abecedarian and other studies, claiming that ECE is not as beneﬁcial as many
researchers would lead the public to believe. She feels that the Perry study, especially,
has too selective a sample and that no one has been able to replicate the results. She also
feels that while the study participants had much lower unemployment rates than the
control group, those rates and other factors were quite underwhelming when they were
compared to the general public.

The Abecedarian Project comes under ﬁre by Olsen for failing to discern which of
the many interventions used in the project actually yielded results. She also found fault
in the Abecedarian study for grouping the IQ results together as one instead of reporting
that two of the four test groups saw no increase in IQ, and for being difﬁcult to replicate
based on cost and parent comfort level of releasing their child to such an intensive study.

W. S. Barnett who has conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on both the Perry
and the Abecedarian studies frequently cites these studies, and many more, as a staunch
supporter of ECE programs. He is aware of the perceived limitations of the model
studies and he addresses them thus:

A naive interpretation of the results of these studies would be to say that

most ECE programs have failed to produce long-lasting gains in

23

achievement for disadvantaged children. . . . However, this conclusion is
incorrect and the subsequent search for sources of fade-out in achievement
appears to result largely from ﬂaws in research designs and varying
attrition rates for achievement-test data, which reduced sample size
(thereby decreasing the statistical power to detect effects) and biased
estimated effects toward zero. Studies that found no effects or fade-out
were vulnerable to selective attrition because they obtained their
achievement test data from schools’ routine testing programs or they
suffered from another design ﬂaw that produced a similar problem even
though they administered their own achievement tests. (Barnett and

Boocock 1998, p. 128)

Barnett acknowledges that the manner and procedures used to administer
mass standardized tests can lead to problems in interpreting the data gathered
from them. Tests are not always uniformly administered across each testing
location and there is often substantial change in state tests from year-to-year. He
also claims that too many low-achieving children are excluded from testing and
that children who are retained are not tested with their original grade cohort.

Despite recognizing the shortfalls in some of the studies and in the testing
procedures, Barnett, however, remains an avid supporter of ECE. Olsen does identify
some legitimate concerns and shortcomings of the studies, yet the model studies that
Barnett relies on are quite valid and heavily cited by the research community. Upon

reviewing the literature there does appear to be room for further research on the

24

educational outcomes of ECE, especially in the area of the impact on standardized test
scores.
High Quality Early Childhood Education

It is important to emphasize that Barnett and other early childhood experts stress
that ECE programs must be high quality in order for the participants to reap signiﬁcant
long-term beneﬁts. (Barnett et a1, 2004; Brooks-Gunn et a1, 2003; Walker and Barratt,
2000). Barnett and The National Institute for Early Education Research (N IEER)
published its 2004 yearbook that rated the efforts of all 50 states in providing early
childhood education programs. They developed a 10-item Quality Standards Checklist to
compare the quality of prekindergarten programs across the country. The checklist
consists of the following benchmarks:
I Curriculum standards — states must have a curriculum that covers the four core

areas of math, science, language arts, and social studies, as well as cognitive

development and social/emotional skills.

I Teacher degree requirements — lead teachers are expected to have at least a BA
degree.
I Specialized training requirement for teachers — lead teachers are expected to have

specialized credentials or endorsements that are speciﬁc to prekindergarten such
as a Child Development Associate (CDA) degree.

I Assistant teacher degree requirement — assistant teachers are expected to hold at
least a CDA or have equivalent training.

I Teacher in-service requirement — teachers are expected to attend at least 15 hours

of professional development or course work each year.

25

I Maximum class size — class size must be limited to 20 students for 3- and 4-year

olds.

I Staff-child ratio — there must be at least one staff member per 10 children.

I Screening/referral requirements — programs must screen for at least health, vision,
and hearing.

I Requiring support services — at least one other type of support service must be

made to participants or families. This could include parent conferences, home
visits, parenting training, or referrals to social services.

I Meal requirements - all participants must have at least one meal provided per day.

Most of the standards identiﬁed by NIEER, are similar to those used by Head
Start and other programs and they do not cause much controversy or debate. For
example, one is not likely to debate the usefulness or necessity of health screening and
providing children with nutritious meals. Curriculum standards and teacher training
requirements, however, are two highly debated topics within the realm of ECE that
warrant closer examination when creating or even deﬁning a high-quality program.
Curriculum Standards and Instructional Models

Selecting an instructional model can be a contentious decision when developing
an ECE program. Many studies have set out to determine if one approach is better than
another, but this is a difﬁcult task because not only do different programs have different
approaches, they also have different educational goals and outcomes (Frede, 1998). For
example, home care and parental childcare can be high quality in terms of the outcomes

parents may wish for, but without a speciﬁc program or curriculum, most home-based

26

centers do not ﬁt NIEER’s deﬁnition of a high-quality program (Brooks-Gunn et al.,
2003). This deﬁnition is generally reserved for center-based or preschool programs.
Three different instructional models have been used and studied most frequently in the
ﬁeld. They are: (1) didactic or Direct Instruction, (2) traditional nursery school, and (3)
cognitive developmental curriculum (Frede, 1998; Marcon, 2002).

Direct Instruction is a model for teaching that utilizes a highly structured,
behavioral approach that is most commonly associated with drill-and-practice techniques
(Frede, 1998; Mills et. al., 2002). Traditional nursery schools rely on children learning
through play at their own pace. The teacher’s role in the nursery school setting is to
provide stimulating materials and to get involved in the learning when the child seems to
be at a stop in learning (Highscope, 2005; F rede, 1998; Mills et al., 2002). The cognitive
developmental approach relies on the teacher to initiate learning activities that are
designed to develop a child’s reasoning and problem-solving abilities (Frede, 1998, Mills
et. al., 2002). An example of this approach is the High/Scope curriculum, which was
used in the Perry Project.

In a heavily cited study, Schweinhart et a1. (1986) compared the three models and
concluded that students in a Direct Instruction program had much higher delinquency
rates and were more likely to be identiﬁed as emotionally impaired (Mills et. al., 2002).
Sixty-eight students were selected for the Schweinhart study (1986) and randomly
assigned to one of the three groups. The initial results showed that over 90% of the
students in the Direct Instruction group had IQs of 90 or higher at the time they entered
kindergarten. This is compared to 68% in the High/Scope group and 70% in the nursery

school group having IQs at 90 or higher. Schweinhart et a1. (1986) found, however, that

27

these results in favor of Direct Instruction did not last long beyond kindergarten. F orty-
seven percent of the Direct Instruction group was identiﬁed as emotionally impaired by
age 15 compared to only 6% in both the High/Scope and nursery school groups.
Schweinhart et a1. (1986) also found that by age 23, thirty-nine percent of the Direct
Instruction group had a felony arrest record compared to 17% of the nursery school group
and 10% of the High/Scope group.

R. Banks of the Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting (CEEP), at the
University of Illinois, supports Schweinhart et al.’s ﬁndings by citing studies conducted
by Louisville Head Start and the University of Illinois. The Louisville study and the
University of Illinois study found similar results when comparing the three models of
ECE programs. In all three of the studies, the Direct Instruction programs showed the
most positive results on IQ during, and up to a year after, the preschool program, but not
thereafter (Banks, 2004). In the Louisville Head Start study, the children in the nursery
program showed higher verbal-social participation and they increased more in their
ambition and aggressiveness than did the Direct Instruction children. In the University of
Illinois study, 78% of the nursery school group graduated from high school, compared
with only 48% of the Direct Instruction group (Banks, 2004).

Schweinhart and Weikart (1997) were able to examine the data from Schweinhart
et al. (1986), along with the Illinois and Louisville studies, to conclude that:

Preschool programs based on child-initiated learning activities contribute

to children's short- and long-term academic and social development, while

preschool programs based on teacher-directed lessons obtain a short-term

advantage in children's academic development by sacriﬁcing a long-term

28

contribution to their social and emotional development. On this basis,
research supports the use by preschool programs of a curriculum approach
based on child-initiated learning activities rather than on teacher-directed

lessons. (p. 63)

A thorough review of the literature related to instructional models shows that
many early childhood experts agree with Schweinhart and favor cognitive or
constructivist approaches over Direct Instruction. The main reasons cited when
designing curriculum are because these programs tend to cause less stress for children
and they demonstrate longer lasting effects (Brigman, 1989; Frede, 1998; Henry et al.,
2003; Banks, 2004).

Not everyone is convinced about the impact that a curriculum model can have on
childhood or adult delinquency. Banks also cites studies that “found no differences in
academic achievement related to the type of classroom the children attended” [child-
initiated or didactic programs] (2004, p. 3). A 2002 study by Mills et a1. provides a great
challenge to Schweinhart’s ﬁndings. They identiﬁed the limitations to Schweinhart’s
study, such as the small sample size and sought to replicate the study focusing on the
ﬁnding that children exposed to a Direct Instruction model were more prone to
delinquency. They divided a sample of 171 into a group using the Direct Instruction
model and a constructivist model based on constructivist principles of Votgotsky that was
similar to the High/ Scope model. They modeled their methods on Schweinhart et al.’s
1986 study and distributed a questionnaire to their participants when they turned 15-
years-old. Mills sought to avoid many shortcomings of the Schweinhart study. A simple

example of Mills’ effort is that while Schweinhart et a1. relied on a popular high school

29

coach who was familiar with the neighborhood where the children lived to help collect
their data, the Mills study gathered their data anonymously (Mills et al., 2002).

In the end, the Mills study found no program effect on any form of
delinquency. They found few, if any, differences between their constructivist model
and the DI model on any standard that they compared. They conclude that
Schweinhart et al.’s results were largely gender based, where there were 57% more
boys in the DI group than in the High/Scope group. Mills et a1. (2002) point out that
boys are four times more likely than girls to participate in delinquent behaviors.

While Mills et al. raise some legitimate concerns regarding the effect of the
instructional model on delinquency, it seems that there is enough evidence to support
the long-term educational gains of the cognitive approach.

Teacher Quality

Deciding on a curriculum model can be a contentious decision for ECE
programmers and so can establishing standards for teacher qualiﬁcations. One hundred
percent of public school kindergarten teachers in the United States now have at least a
four-year degree while less than 50% of preschool teachers hold such a degree (Barnett,
2003). ECE teachers have a long history of being held to lower educational standards
than their elementary peers. This is unfortunate because they will have as much, if not
more, impact on child development than will elementary teachers. Numerous studies
have found that teacher behavior associated with level of education greatly inﬂuences
student learning (Barnett, 2003; Whitebook, 2003; Bridgman, 1989). Teachers of
prekindergarten children must be in tune to each child’s social, emotional, physical, and

cognitive needs (Bridgman, 1989). Barnett (2003) and M. Whitebook of UC Berkeley

30

(2003) cite several studies that have determined that teachers with a four-year degree or
higher score higher on the early childhood rating scale and also tend to exhibit more
attentiveness and warmth towards the children in their care. Whitebook summarizes her
point well:

Throughout the United States, many children are failing to reach their full

potential in school. But driven in part by what we have learned about

early childhood development, the academic, business and policy

communities now recognize that high-quality preschool programs are an

important way to rectify this situation. And based on what the research

has shown thus far, it appears that teacher preparation at the four-year

college degree level is the best way to achieve such quality. (2003, p.8)

Whitebook realizes that it will take a while to arrive at the point of every
preschool teacher having a four-year college degree. She suggests that it might be best to
work on the goal of having at least one teacher per room in possession of a four-year
degree in the area of ECE. Under NIEER standards, this would mean that of at least two
teachers per twenty students, one of the two would be the lead teacher with a four-year
degree.

While the instructional approach and teacher qualiﬁcations are important
factors in implementing a high-quality program, there are other factors that have a
bearing on program success. It is clear from the big three studies that the earlier a
child enters a high-quality program, and the longer he or she participates in the
program, the more profound the program beneﬁts will be. For example, the grade

retention rate was much lower in the Abecedarian project for children who were in

31

the program for 5-year-olds or older. The returns were also consistently higher in the
Perry project for children that were in the preschool for two years rather than one

year (Reynolds, 2001; Walker and Barratt, 2000).

Challenges to Early Childhood Education Programs

In evaluating the 50 states, NIEER found that only Arkansas’ ECE initiative
meets all 10 of their quality standards. They found that 20 state initiatives meet ﬁve
or fewer of the 10 standards and 12 states do not even have a state-funded
prekindergarten program. Furthermore, they found that only 10% of the nation’s 3-
and 4-year-olds are served by state funded programs. Of this 10%, three-quarters of
the children are from only 10 different states. The good news for ECE is that the
number of children in programs is dramatically increasing each year and that many
states are in the process of improving their initiatives. It is the goal of most states to
provide a high-quality program that serves the highest percentage of children
possible. An obvious question then is: why do so many state programs fall short of
these standards? This is a difﬁcult question to answer and requires some historical
background along with a closer look at a few of the current programs.

Perhaps the discrepancy between states in educational programs can be traced
to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which leaves education
largely in the hands of the states. For 40 years, however, the federal government has
played a role in providing ECE with the Head Start program (GOA, 2004). The
federal government is also indirectly involved in ECE through Title I funding, which

is designed to improve schooling for children at-risk of failing and the Child Care

32

and Development Fund (CCDF) which also supports low-income families (Mitchell,
2003). NCLB is a federal initiative focused on K-12 education, but outside of Head
Start and the funding programs, ECE remains largely in the hands of the states.

The Big Debate

The Head Start program provides grants to local public and private agencies to
fund comprehensive child development services to children and families. In 2005, Head
Start provided childcare/preschool for approximately 906,993 children. The average
Head Start program provides partial-day services for eight or nine months out of the year
at an average cost of $ 7,287 per child (N HSA). Included in these costs are
comprehensive health services providing immunizations, physical and dental exams and
treatment, and nutritional services. An estimated 225,000 children, however, are being
served in full- day, full-year programs to help meet the childcare needs of parents who
are either working or in job training (GOA, 2004). In ﬁscal year 2005, Head Start was
funded at $6.8 billion. Head Start remains a vibrant and beneﬁcial program that has been
reaffnmed and supported by every president’s administration including George W.
Bush’s, but it is only designed to meet the needs of a small percentage of the children in
our society.

The most common criticism of Head Start is that it is a targeted program that is
only designed to meet the needs of preschoolers from families that fall below the strict
federal poverty line. To qualify for Head Start, a family unit of three people must earn
less than $17,170 annually or less than $20,650 for a unit of four in 2007-08 dollars. This
means that children from families that do not meet these requirements are often left

without quality childcare. One of the most heated debates in ECE is whether programs

33

should be targeted to children who are in the most need or if they should be offered
universally to all families who wish to take part in the programs.

There are three main arguments for targeted childcare programs. The ﬁrst is that
they are less expensive and more efﬁcient than widespread universal programs. Many
studies have shown that ECE has a larger impact on at-risk children than on middle-class
and upper-class children (Barnett, Brown, & Shore, 2004; Shulman & Barnett, 2005).
Proponents then argue that it would be more cost-effective to target children who need it
the most with publicly-funded programs while having parents, who can afford the
programs, pay for their own. The second argument is that targeted programs are
implemented on a smaller scale and are therefore of a higher quality than universal
programs. The rationale behind that argument is that targeted programs can do a better
job of channeling resources and attention towards the children that need it the most rather
than trying to spread resources too thin to meet the needs of more children. Finally,
there tends to be more public support when people know that tax revenue is going to
people who cannot otherwise afford high-quality childcare. There is also lingering
sentiment that children are better off at home in the care of their mothers and that daycare
should only be used for those who have no other options (GOA, 2003; Lascarides, 2000).
This belief makes some conservative lawmakers reluctant to advocate for programs that
would take children out of their own homes (Lascarides, 2000).

While targeted programs are less expensive and administered on a smaller scale,
they are not favored by most experts (Barnett et al., 2004). In a 2004 NIEER publication,
Barnett et a1. rebutted the three arguments in favor of targeted programs. First, targeted

programs can still leave a lot of children without care (Barnett et al., 2004; GOA, 2003).

34

Barnett et al. (2004) maintain that, “the need for preschool education does not cease when
family incomes exceed the income thresholds for targeted state and federal programs”
(p.6). Also, recent research indicates that children from all income level can beneﬁt from
high-quality programs (Schulman & Barnett, 2005). Using the cost-beneﬁt argument,
Barnett et al. (2004) argue that the cost of failing to serve children is much higher than
the savings incurred by targeting the program in the ﬁrst place. They ﬁnd fault in the
second argument by contending that programs for the poor “tend to be poor programs”
(p. 4) because many people take the stance that ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. Universal
programs also offer a better potential for a positive peer effect because children are more
likely to be grouped heterogeneously when programs are universal than when they are
targeted. Finally, Barnett et al. (2004) feel that public support will be greater for
universal programs once the public begins to reap the beneﬁts of children being served by
high-quality programs.
Addressing the Funding Elephant

Early childhood education is a hot button issue in the United States. One
would be hard pressed to ﬁnd a politician or public school educator who will speak
out against ECE. Yet, this begs the question: why is there such a small percentage of
high-quality programs in existence? The answer to that question may be largely
attributable to funding.

Prior to 1970, it was estimated that less that $25 million was spent annually
by a total of only seven states on ECE. By 1988, those numbers rose to $190 million
spent by 28 states. In 2002, the numbers jumped to $2 billion spent by 45 states

(Mitchell, 2003). The increase in spending corresponds well with the increase in

35

knowledge about the beneﬁts of ECE. Despite this dramatic rise in spending,

however, funding is still the biggest obstacle in reaching at-risk children with high-
quality ECE programs. Funding shortages affect vital ECE program variables such

as transportation, hours and days of services, and teacher salaries (AFT, 2002).

There is great disparity in how states fund their ECE programs. Some of the more
common funding sources include the lottery, sales tax, gambling proceeds, sin taxes, and
federal grants, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TAN F) (Mitchell,
2003)

More recently, however, states are turning to partnerships with business and
industry to fund their programs. The model state for this type of funding is North
Carolina and its North Carolina Partnership for Children, also known as Smart Start. The
program was launched in 1993 by Governor Jim Hunt as a means to provide high-quality
childcare to the children in North Carolina for children age birth to ﬁve. The main
purpose of Smart Start was to improve the quality and the availability of childcare for the
families of North Carolina. Each of the 100 counties in North Carolina offers different
Smart Start programs and services, depending on the needs of that county. Smart Start
resources are used to improve the quality of childcare, make childcare more affordable
and accessible, provide access to health services, and offer farme support. They began
with a $20 million investment in 1993 and they peaked with an investment of $235
million in 2001. The investment in 2003 was $200 million and included a mix of public
and private ﬁnancing.

In addition to funding, the partnerships provide technical assistance on program

development, administration, organizational development, communications, ﬁscal

36

management, technology, contracts management, and fundraising. They also set
statewide goals for the ECE programs and services (Fu, 2003). Eight states and large
cities including Michigan, Alabama, Colorado, Memphis, and Vermont have visited
North Carolina and have begun to build programs similar to Start Smart in their state.
Private sources may hold more promise than public funding for many ECE programs at

this time when public budgets are being cut.

Experience with F our Public Programs

The United States Government Accountability Office (GOA) conducted a study
of four state prekindergarten programs that was published in 2004. The programs in
Georgia, Oklahoma, New York, and New Jersey were a mix of universal and targeted
programs selected because of some important similarities and differences. A similarity
they shared was that each program offered services to families regardless of income.
Another similarity was that they all made use of community partnerships with Head Start
or other large childcare providers. The biggest difference was that Georgia and
Oklahoma had statewide programs made available to all 4-year-olds. The programs in
New York and New Jersey were targeted to certain communities with the highest
concentration of poverty. There were also some differences in all-day versus half-day
programs, teacher qualiﬁcations, and funding methods.

The study was conducted by interviewing state and local agency ofﬁcials;
providers of prekindergarten services; federal, state, and local Head Start staff. The GOA
also reviewed and analyzed selected data on childcare availability in the four states and

across the nation. Finally, they reviewed a study on a school district in Oklahoma and a

37

statewide study in Georgia and determined that the two studies would provide valid
information. The most important ﬁnding in the GOA (2003) study was the beneﬁt of
collaboration between school districts and community-based organizations when
providing childcare and preschool services. States are limited in their resources and
collaboration allows for the sharing of resources. It also helps to alleviate fears that state
programs would eliminate the existing community programs that pe0ple have come to
know and trust.

The study also found that there are many trade-offs in the decisions that policy
makers must make when implementing programs. For example, half-day programs can
service a larger number of children at a lower cost, but they are less effective in preparing
children for school. Half-day programs also present a problem to parents who work full-
time and will have trouble transporting children or ﬁnding care for the remainder of the
day.

Transportation was a large barrier that many families faced in the states with these
programs. It was not universally provided in any of the programs, even in New Jersey
where there was a court order to provide a program for the state’s neediest children. In
Oklahoma, one district with a 45% free and reduced lunch rate found that only 29% of
the children in its ECE program qualiﬁed it. Similarly, another Oklahoma district found
that 84% of its student population qualiﬁed for free and reduced lunch but only 60% of
the children participating in ECE qualiﬁed for it. This shows that while the programs are
universally available, they are still not universally accessible to the neediest families.

The GOA study did not set out to compare the virtues of a targeted versus

Luiiversal program, but it does echo some of the same ﬁndings as Barnett et al. (2004).

38

The GOA ﬁnd this to be the biggest “trade-off” issue for states to decide because targeted
programs can be more focused and provide more intensive remediation, but they can also
exclude children that need services. The GOA study concludes that the targeted versus
universal debate, much like the half-day or full-day argument, is one that will have to be

decided based on the individual needs of the states.

Conclusion

While there remain some areas within the ﬁeld of ECE, such as curriculum and
the debate between targeted or universal programs, there is little if any doubt that high
quality ECE helps tremendously to prepare children for school. There is strong evidence
that society, as a whole and not just educational systems, can and will beneﬁt by
providing ECE services. It is also clear that some populations, such as children in single
parent and low-income households, have much to gain from participation in ECE
programs. What is not very clear is why more state and local educational systems have
not put a stronger emphasis on ECE. In the state of Michigan, for example, the budget
for ECE programs has been tremendously reduced in the past ﬁve years while the state
legislature has increased the budget for K-12 institutions. The state has put such an
emphasis on raising high school graduation standards and the development of high stake
tests that any budget increases have been quickly allocated to K-12 programs. While
high standards for graduation and increased spending are important priorities, it seems
that one of the most obvious means for obtaining high standards has been almost entirely
overlooked in most strategic plans across the state. That vehicle is high quality ECE

which has been proven to help obtain the goals that local districts are striving to obtain.

39

It is not clear why these programs are not more greatly emphasized at the state, ISD, and

local levels.

40

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The educational beneﬁts and cost-effectiveness of high-quality ECE have been
well established. The state of Michigan and the Michigan Association of Intermediate
School Administrators (MAISA) has made the provision of quality ECE a high priority in
their respective strategic goals. At a time when the state is advocating collaboration and
partnerships between agencies and even private sources, an important partner seems to be
missing from the equation. That partner is local school districts and their absence is
conspicuous because they are the institutions with the best access to children and
arguably the most to gain by sponsoring or providing high-quality ECE programs. This
study has focused on the efforts of the state, ISDs, and local districts in Michigan to
provide early childhood education to children throughout the state.

It is easy to say that the reason local districts are not more involved in ECE is
that the funding does not exist for districts to provide these services. While the
availability of state funding is a large factor, it is certainly not the only one in
determining whether or not a district provides ECE services. Local districts can also
take a proactive role in raising funds for these services or they can seek partnerships
with other organizations to help provide these programs for their future students.

Many of the cooperative efforts would come with little or no cost to the district.
Every district in the state has to make decisions regarding budget and stafﬁng
priorities and the key person in this decision-making process is typically the school
superintendent. While a school superintendent is not the only relevant decision

maker in a local district, s/he is the single most important policy setter. School

41

superintendents bring unique backgrounds and experiences to their positions that
inﬂuence how they perceive early childhood education. A greater understanding is
needed regarding how superintendents perceive early childhood education and the
implications that their perceptions have on the programs that may or may not be
offered in their districts.

A key objective of this study has been to determine how K-12 leaders
perceive ECE and what impact, if any, these perceptions have on their willingness to
provide or help provide ECE for preschool-aged children in their districts. Factors
that inﬂuence these perceptions were assessed. The study analyzed what role state
and ISD leaders envision for local school districts in the provision of ECE services
and evaluate whether this is consistent with district leaders’ perceptions of their
organizations’ role. Finally, it sought to assess changes in state and ISD policy or
practices that local district leaders regard as most critical in order for their districts to
assume a larger or more effective role in the provision of ECE services. The research

questions are as follow:

Research Questions
Research Question I
To what extent do local school districts vary in their participation in the provision of ECE
services to local children, and what factors account for these inter-district variations?
a. To what extent does district involvement in ECE services correspond to
features of the local community (urbanicity, poverty level), school district

(enrollment size, per—pupil funding, staff, leadership), or ISD operations?

42

What relationship, if any, is there between the knowledge level of
superintendents’ about ECE programs and the level of service that their

districts provide for ECE?

Research Question 2

What are local school district superintendents’ perceptions of ECE programs?

a.

b.

How knowledgeable are they about ECE programs?

How familiar are they with past research on the educational beneﬁts of
ECE? How familiar are they with various state and federal ECE policies
How familiar are they with the ECE services available to families in their
local district?

What factors have most inﬂuenced local district superintendents’ views of
ECE?

To what extent do they view ECE programs as important in attaining their

districts' achievement goals for K-12 students?

Research Question 3

Are the roles for state, ISDs, and local districts in the provision of ECE services in

Michigan properly aligned?

a.

What role do state and ISD leaders envision for local school districts in the
provision of ECE services to Michigan children? How has this role
evolved over time?

Are the roles envisioned by state and ISD leaders for local districts
consistent with local district leaders’ perceptions of their role or

responsibilities?

43

c. What support do local school district administrators want and need from
the state and their ISD in order to provide ECE services in their district?

This research project utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to address
the research questions. A survey of approximately 30 local school district
superintendents gathered data that assessed perceptions and gauged knowledge. The
survey was the key instrument that addressed the three main research questions and many
of the sub-questions. Interviews with two state ofﬁcials, two ISD superintendents and
two ISD early childhood education coordinators provided an understanding of what these
agencies expect from local leaders and how they feel the various levels should work
together to provide services. Interviews with four local school district superintendents
provided in-depth information regarding superintendent knowledge and their perceptions
of ECE, and an online data review provided such information as district demographics,

funding, and spending.

Methods of Data Collection
Survey of Local School District Superintendents
Local school district superintendents were a crucial component of this study
because of the prominent role they play in setting policy for their school districts.
Speciﬁcally, the survey of local school superintendents helped address Research
Question 1, which focused on the knowledge and perceptions that local school district
superintendents have regarding ECE in a consistent and precise manner. The survey also

provided important insight into Research Question 2b regarding the level of knowledge

44

that superintendents have about ECE services offered by the district, and helped with
Research Question 3c that sought to determine what support local districts need in order
to offer ECE programs. The survey was an efﬁcient and accurate means of gathering
data because it was easily disseminated to a large number of participants and the form
remained consistent each time it was used.

ISD Survey Sampling

Superintendents are responsible for overseeing nearly every aspect of their
district’s operation from stafﬁng and budgeting to transportation and facilities
management. Superintendents in small districts without a large central ofﬁce staff will
often wear many hats and do the job of ﬁnance director, human resource director,
curriculum director, and discipline ofﬁcer, to name a few. In districts with large central
ofﬁce staffs, superintendents may not be as hands-on with the various roles, but they will
have the responsibility to oversee all of the aforementioned positions. The common
thread between all superintendents is the pressure they face for their students to perform
and achieve at the highest possible level.

With there being such a difference in the actual duties of superintendents, it is
important to gauge many of those duties in order to determine how ECE ﬁts into the
operation and vision of a school district. To get the most accurate measure of the
knowledge and perceptions of local superintendents a sample from districts of all sizes
was purposely selected for this study. Speciﬁcally, four ISDs that contain local districts
of various sizes were selected for the survey portion of the study. Within these four
ISDs, surveys were distributed to every local superintendent. Many factors, such as size

and location of a district, can inﬂuence a superintendent’s knowledge and perceptions.

45

An effort was made to gather a sample that included superintendents from urban
districts, rural districts, and suburban districts of various enrollment size and
demographic composition. To ensure this variety Michigan’s two most populated ISDs,
Wayne and Oakland, were selected along with two rural ISDs, Allegan and Ionia. Wayne
and Oakland are comprised of diverse large, medium, and small sized urban districts
while Allegan and Ionia are comprised of small and medium rural and small city districts.
Wayne and Oakland helped ensure that the sample would be large enough. Allegan
County, which refers to its ISD as an Educational Service Agency (BSA), was purposely
selected for its rural districts in part, but mostly because it is known throughout Michigan
for its ECE programs. Ionia ISD provides a comparable sample to Allegan County.

It is important to stay within the same ISDs because of the central and crucial role
that ISDs play. ISDs provide and coordinate important services to their constituent local
school districts that facilitate learning and teaching. They may operate their own
programs or they may contract with local districts to facilitate the formation of consortia
that provides career-technical education, special education, or other academic programs.
An ISD with a strong ECE program can have strong impact on the services provided by

the local districts.

Instrumentation

The survey was generated and disseminated with the SurveySelect ASP Advanced
program that disseminated the survey online and helped to collect, sort, and tally the data.
The survey was an efﬁcient means for collecting background information and gauging

the knowledge and perceptions of local superintendents. It complemented the more in-

46

depth interview process by providing data in a concise and uniform manner. It was a

self-designed tool with each survey item prepared with the research questions in mind

and incorporating data from the literature review and the interview responses of state and

ISD leaders. The survey included closed-form items, open-form items, and ordinal scale

form items.

Closed-form items direct participants to provide responses to questions
from predetermined answers. By responding to these items, the researcher
was able to determine such information as educational background, years
of experience, and the training of superintendents. The answers also
helped gather information on funding, spending priorities, and ISD policy.
Closed-form items gather data in a very clear, concise, and consistent
manner that also allows the researcher to make comparisons and
conclusions from the data.

Open-form items allowed participants to make any response they

desired. This method is similar to questions asked in an interview,

but with the survey the questions can be answered at the respondent’s
leisure with ample time to construct or even research a thoughtful
response. Open-form items on the survey provided insight to
superintendent’s perceptions on issues relating to ECE, their district

and state, and ISD policy.

Ordinal scale items were a critical component of the survey. Scale items
asked the respondents to rank or rate questions of opinion on a scale of l

to 10. The scale items provided data assessing knowledge and perceptions

47

regarding the role and impact that ECE can have in a K—12 school setting.
Scale items asked superintendents to rank such things as their satisfaction
with the state’s policy on ECE, as well as their own district’s policy on
ECE. Scale items were used to make comparisons and conclusions among
participants by asking the same question in the same manner to different
participants.
The closed-form items with the limited response options and the ordinal scale

items on the survey provided demographic and background information that could

not be obtained through archetypal responses. The closed-form items helped to paint

a picture of the educational background of superintendents in relation to ECE while

the scale items helped to determine the level of knowledge the superintendents have

as well as their feelings towards it and the role that it plays in their district. The scale

questions also helped gauge the level of satisfaction that the three levels of state,

ISD, and local school leadership have regarding their own role in providing ECE

services and the role that the other levels are currently playing in providing services.

Procedures

Surveys were e-mailed to approximately 75 local school superintendents ﬁ'om
within the four selected ISDs. A total of 30 surveys were completed and submitted
online. An e-mail (see appendix F) that introduced the study was sent to each
superintendent in the four selected ISDs. A link to the surveys was included so the
participants could respond at their leisure and in a comfortable setting. They were

allowed to access the survey as many times as they chose during the 30-day period that

48

the survey was available online. Data was collected and later reviewed using the
SelectSurvey ASP Advanced software package. A brief e-mail reminder was sent to

those superintendents who did not respond to the more elaborate initial e-mail request

Interviews with State, ISD, and Local School Leaders

The researcher personally contacted the ISD superintendents in the four selected
counties to ask for their support and help in encouraging the local superintendents to
participate in the survey. The interviews were important methods for collecting data in
this study. As Rubin & Rubin 1996 state, “qualitative interviewing is a way of ﬁnding
out what others feel and think about their worlds” (Rubin & Rubin, 1996 p. 10). A
qualitative approach was crucial to this study because it allowed the researcher to
determine and assess perceptions and attitudes. Qualitative methods, such as interviews,
can answer simple questions, but they also help elicit feelings and attitudes. The
interview approach can aid the researcher “in search of opinions, perceptions, and
attitudes toward some topic” (Glesne, 1999p. 67).

Research Question 1 was designed to determine the attitudes and perceptions of
local school superintendents towards ECE. The interviews allowed the researcher to
assess attitudes and perceptions on a deeper level than the survey because they were
conducted face-to-face which allowed for nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, hand
gestures, and tone of voice to be assessed. The interview responses, which were given
orally, were more detailed than the responses to the open questions on the survey. The
interviewer’s style was important when gathering data to answer Research Question 3

which dealt with the vision that state, ISD, and leaders have for the provision of ECE.

49

The participants had to feel at ease and not lead into answers that they thought the
interviewer wanted to hear. Surveys were conducted solely with local superintendents so
interviews were the tool used to asses the perceptions of ISD and state leaders.

Interview Sampling

While surveys were distributed to each local school district superintendent in four
ISDs, two of the ISDs were selected for a closer examination of the ISD leaders’ thoughts
and perceptions regarding ECE. Speciﬁcally, two local school superintendents from each
of the two ISDs were interviewed for a total of four interviews with local
superintendents. The ISD superintendents and the ECE coordinators from the two ISDs
selected for deeper study were also interviewed. To complete the picture, the director of
ECE for the Michigan Department of Education and her top coordinator were interviewed
as well. In all, 10 interviews with state, ISD, and local educational leaders were
conducted.

Two medium-sized ISDs and four medium-sized local school districts were
purposely selected for deeper study. The medium-sized districts were purposely selected
because they typically have budgets large enough to include some discretionary funds
that could conceivably go to ECE, but they are not big enough to have enough resources
to delegate funds without making it a high priority. The same logic extends to ISDs
where medium-sized districts are large enough to employ an ECE director, but small
enough where the ISD superintendent is more likely to be directly involved in decisions

regarding the ECE services that the district provides.

50

Interview Instrumentation

The face—to-face interviews with state leaders, ISD leaders, and local district
superintendents were semi-structured. This means that there was a list of predetermined
questions, but there was room to deviate from these questions as dictated by the
circumstance of each individual interview. This is one of the strengths of the interview
technique of research. “It provides the researcher with an opportunity to explore at a
depth and degree of detail aspects such as motivation governing the behaviors of the
interviewee that are far beyond the scope of the survey” (V errna and Mallik, 1999 p. 10.)
All of the questions were written out in advance; however, there were times when the
questions were revised and amended during the course of the interview. It followed the
format suggested by Verma and Mallik (1999):

The opening question will be followed by a number of supplementary

questions acting as a reminder to the researcher to ensure that all the

foreseen aspects of the issues are covered. Of course, and this is the beauty

of interviews, interviewees do not respond in foreseeable ways and the

researcher will have to be ready to invent further questions as the

interview process proceeds to explore in depth the issue of interest. (p.13)

The researcher deviated from the scripted interviews on the occasion that a
response to a question was essentially given in the course of answering an earlier
question. The researcher also asked deeper, more probing questions when he felt
that the respondent had more to say on the topic or was going in a direction that

was pertinent to the study, but not anticipated when the questions were scripted.

51

Procedure

Requests to arrange a 60-minute face-to-face interview with selected local and
ISD superintendents as well as state and ISD coordinators, were made via the telephone
or e-mail. The interviews took place at a time and location convenient to the participant.
Each interview took approximately 60 minutes to complete. Care was taken to ensure
that there would be no interruptions during the course of the interview. One participant
chose to be interviewed in a restaurant, another at his district’s ISD; the other interviews
were conducted in the participant’s own ofﬁce.

All interviews were audio digitally recorded and notes taken. Two tape recorders
were used for transcription purposes. The digital recordings were downloaded and saved
to a password-protected computer. Two recorders offered insurance that the interviews
were recorded. The notes served as a backup to the recordings, but more importantly
they were a means of denoting facial expressions, postures, hand gestures, and other
indicators that were telling of the participant’s feelings and opinions of the matters being
discussed.

Figure l on the proceeding page shows how the sample for the surveys and
interviews was broken down. It also shows a total of how many interviews and surveys

were distributed.

52

ISD 1 L28 local districts) ISD 2 (35 local districts)

 

 

0 Survey all Local Superintendents 0 Survey all Local Superintendents
ISD 3 (7 logl districts) ISD 4 (6 10ng districts)

0 Survey all Local Superintendents - Survey all Local Superintendents

0 Interview 2 Local Superintendents 0 Interview 2 Local Superintendents

0 Interview ISD Superintendent 0 Interview ISD Superintendent

- Interview ISD ECE Coordinator 0 Interview ISD ECE Coordinator

Michigan Department of Education:
0 Director of Early Childhood Education
0 Coordinator of Early Childhood Education

TOTALS
0 Local Superintendents Surveys Distributed: 76
0 Local Superintendent Interviews: 4
0 ISD Superintendent Interviews: 2
- ISD ECE Coordinator Interviews: 2
0 State Level ECE Director/Coordinator: 2

Figure 1. State, ISD, and Local Educational Leader Survey and Interview Sample

Obtaining Financial and Demographic Information
Financial and demographic information from ISDs and local school districts was
an important component needed to answer Research Question 1a regarding factors that
inﬂuence local superintendents’ view of ECE. It was also needed to answer Research
Question 2a regarding features of the local community. Information such as enrolhnent,
community demographics, per pupil funding, and spending was gathered on the districts

whose superintendents responded to the survey. This information was available online

53

from the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) and most easily
ascertained through their Schoolmatters.com web site.

Table 2 on the proceeding page shows how interview and survey items
corresponded to the research questions. The study centered on three research questions
which were broken down into several sub-questions. The Table shows which research
question is being addressed by which item on the participant interview questions in
Appendixes A-D. The number in the column labeled “research question” corresponds
directly with the item number on the interview and surveys which are listed in their
respective columns. The instruments were designed in a way to elicit information that
required a more thoughtful and prolonged response from the participant. The survey was

designed so that the participant could provide factual information in an easy and concise

 

manner.
Table 2.
Description 0 Research Survey Items
Research Interview Interview Interview Interview Survey Demo-
Questions Question Questions Questions Questions Item/ graphic
5 for for State for ISD for ISD Number Informa-
Superin- Leaders Superin- Coordinators tion
tendents tendents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) To what extent do local school districts vary in their participation in the provision of

ECE services to local children, and what factors account for these inter-district

 

 

variations?

la 4,6,9 9 4,8,10,1 l CEPI
Data

1b 9 13 19,20 CEPI
Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) What are local school district superintendents’ perceptions of ECE programs?

 

 

2a

 

7,10,11

 

9

 

 

 

5,6,10,12,
13,20

 

 

54

 

 

 

 

 

2b 7,10,11 11,12,20
2c 5,6,10 5,6,10,16,
19
2d 7,8 7,8,9 CEPI
Data
2e 17 13 20,21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Are the roles for state, ISDs, and local districts in the provision of ECE services in
Michigan properly aligned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3a 15 3,5,6,12 5,6,10, 5,6,7,10,11
12,14,15
3b 3,5,6,7, 5,6,10,13, 5,6,7,10,11 18,24,25,
10,11 15 26
30 5,7 12,14,15 5,11 18,24,25,
26
The Pilot Study

To help ensure the validity of the interview process, the interview questions were
administered in a pilot study in advance of the actual interviews. Pilot interviews were
conducted with three superintendents and one ISD coordinator. These pilot interviews
allowed the researcher to use and revise the questions as needed, checking for clarity,
ease of completion, and degree of information. As a result of the pilot study, the decision
was made to provide local superintendents with a copy of the interview questions and for
one of the questions, the local superintendents were asked to rank priorities using a pen
and paper. Some of the questions were modiﬁed as a result of the pilot study because
they were too leading or they did not elicit a response that helped to clarify the research
questions. The pilot interviews also helped the researcher become more familiar with the
qualitative interview process which helped the questions go beyond a surface level when

needed.

55

 

Methods of Data Analysis

As depicted in Table 1, data in this study were gathered from a combination of
surveys, interviews, and artifacts. These methods of data collection were used to answer
the three research questions and their sub-questions. Research Question 1, which was
addressed using the survey primarily and the interviews to a lesser extent, seeks to
determine the perception and knowledge of superintendents regarding ECE. This
information was useful in addressing Research Question 2, which seeks to determine to
what extent local districts vary in their participation in ECE and what factors inﬂuence
these variations. Research Question 2 also seeks to determine what ECE currently looks
like in local districts and why it looks the way it does. Data for this question was
gathered through surveys, interviews, and artifacts. Research Question 3 addresses the
vision that the three levels of local, ISD, and state education have for ECE and it was
addressed with the open-ended survey questions and with interviews of the leaders at the
three levels.

Research Questions 2 and 3 seek to determine perceptions and opinions of state,
ISD, and local leaders, while Research Question 1 seeks to determine local districts’
involvement and commitment to ECE. This involvement is measurable with dependent
and independent variables. The dependent variables in this study are measures that
indicate local involvement in ECE. There are many ways that a district can be involved
in ECE and there is more than one potential indicator of this involvement. The study
originally called for three indicators or dependent variables to be used. Once the data
was gathered however, it proved troublesome to discern how much money districts spent

on ECE because there is not a separate data entry line for ECE on the CEPI system.

56

C EPI does collect numbers for MSRP, but this too proved troublesome for districts that
are served through the ISD. MSRP participation and spending numbers were not

reﬂected on CEPI for many districts that participated in it through their ISD.

Dependent Variable 1
One way a local district’s involvement and commitment to ECE will be gauged is
by the amount of money they devote to these services, adjusted for district enrollment
numbers. The district’s overall income and expenditures, including ECE expenditures*,
can be readily found on schoolmatters.com or through CEPI data.

*The data available on ECE spending was not consistent or reliable.

Dependent Variable 2
A second measure of district involvement and commitment to ECE is the number
of children that received ECE services through district sponsored or supported programs
such as MSRP. This variable extends beyond ﬁnancial commitments and looks at other
ways districts can be involved in efforts to provide ECE to the children in the district.
CEPI reports the number of children receiving MSRP services and the superintendent
survey also asks superintendents to indicate which programs are available in their district

and how many students are collectively served by those services.

Dependent Variable 3

The ﬁnal variable is a measure of a district’s time spent on the deliberation over

the implementation of ECE. This variable is measured in two ways. One way it is

57

measured is by considering how often ECE has been on leadership agendas and school
board agendas. The other way is to consider the role that ECE directors/coordinators
play in the district. For example, some ECE directors are members of the district’s
administrative team which would give a voice for the program at strategic meetings.
Some districts have ECE directors that are also elementary principals or special education
directors. Others have ECE directors whose main responsibility is the oversight of ECE
programs which would be more likely to bring an element of expertise and attention to
the position. These data were collected from the superintendent surveys.

Once data were gathered on the independent and explanatory variables, an index
was created for this study that assessed each district’s level of commitment. The
determination of the level of commitment a local school district has towards ECE came
from the survey tool and from artifacts gathered from the districts’ web sites and CEPI
data. A district with a strong commitment to ECE will likely participate in, or provide,
numerous prekindergarten programs for the children in its district. In Michigan, most
ECE programs are grant ﬁrnded, but it takes commitment to obtain and sustain a grant.
Most districts take advantage of Michigan School Readiness (MSRP) grants, but there are
many other programs such as tuition-based programs like Even Start, Welcoming
Schools, and Parents as Teachers should the district receive a grant or choose to pay for
them. Superintendents were asked to indicate on the survey the programs in which their
districts participated. They were given several choices to select from a category. They
were also asked to tell how many children were served in the various programs. In cases
where the data provided by the superintendent is not comprehensive, the gaps were ﬁlled

in by determining which programs are listed on the district’s web sites.

58

Districts that have made a strong commitment to ECE will give the leadership
role for ECE positions important consideration. The survey inquired if the district’s ECE
coordinator was part of the district’s administrative team. It also asked if he or she is
certiﬁed in ECE, and if the oversight of ECE programs is his or her main job
responsibility. It is more difﬁcult for smaller districts to keep ECE supervision duties
separate from other positions. For example, some smaller districts may not be able to
afford a person whose only job is to supervise ECE. However, some small districts have
employed a person who is certiﬁed in ECE to oversee the programs and they have hired
him/her on a part-time basis or perhaps given him/her teaching duties as well. This
person may or may not be part of the district’s administrative team; that is typically a no-
cost decision. Additionally, districts with less commitment to providing quality programs
may simply appoint a person as supervisor who is not an expert in the area and ask him or
her to supervise the programs in addition to their other duties. Often this person is an
elementary principal or special education supervisor who has numerous other duties.
However, one beneﬁt to this is if the person in charge of ECE is the administrator for
another program, it is more likely that he/ she will attend administrative meetings.

Administrative team meetings are very important in most districts because they
keep the superintendent informed about issues in the various programs and schools in the
district. They also allow the superintendent and other key decision makers in the district
a chance to discuss important issues. Appointing the ECE supervisor to this team gives
him or her voice at that table. Board of education meetings are also important forums to
discuss issues in the district. Funding decisions, staffing issues, service provisions, and

many other items that may pertain to ECE programs can be discussed at administrative

59

team or board of education meetings. Superintendents were asked to indicate how many
times ECE items were a part of these agendas in the past two years. Discussing these
issues is an important step in the deciding whether or not to fund or support them.

A ﬁnal indicator of a district’s commitment to ECE comes directly from the
district’s superintendent via the survey. Item 19 asked superintendents to rate their
district’s effort to make ECE available to children in their districts. They were asked to
mark the effort as poor, fair, good, or excellent. The opinion of the superintendent in this
issue was very important. While this measure was more subjective than those that were
previously mentioned, it was important to consider the input of the superintendent. This
rating was used on the index in place of the districts ﬁnancial commitment to ECE.

Table 3 shows how the ECE Provision Index score was calculated. The point
values listed in the second column of Table 3 were added together to get an ECE
Provision Index score for districts in the sample that provided enough information.
Table 3.

Calculation of ECE Provision Index Scores

Question/F actor Index Point Value

 

Is the ECE coordinator a member of the 2 pts yes; 0 no

ad team?
Is the ECE coordinator certiﬁed in ECE? 2 pts yes; 0 no
Is the ECE oversight the coordinator’s 2 pts yes; 0 no

main responsibility?
How many times on the ad team agenda? 1-2 1 pt; 3-4 2pts; 5-6 3 pts

How many times has ECE been on the 1-2 1 pt; 3-4 2pts; 5-6 3 pts
board agenda?

Which programs are offered? 3 pts for each program offered

How do you rate your district’s efforts? Poor = 0 pts; Fair = 3 good = 6
excellent =9

 

60

Explanatory Variables

There are many potential factors or variables that can inﬂuence a district’s
commitment to ECE. The explanatory variables from this study fall into the following
categories:
Superintendent Knowledge and Perceptions

While they typically rely on their school board and administrative staff for
guidance in the decision making process, superintendents are the single most important
decision-makers in a local school district. The knowledge and perceptions of the
superintendent was determined through the surveys and interviews.
District Size

Another key variable in determining a local district’s commitment and
involvement in ECE is the size of the district. The larger a district’s population, the
greater their capacity to establish and fund ECE programs.
Enrollment Change

Tied into district enrollment is another important variable of enrollment change.
Districts that are facing declining enrollments are likely to be facing budget cuts. This
makes them a lot less likely to be creating new programs, especially if the programs are
not for grades K-l2.
Per Pupil Funding

School funding is no longer solely reliant on local property values and tax
revenue as it once was in Michigan. However, there is still consideration for local
revenues which does create a discrepancy in funding between districts in affluent areas

and districts receiving the minimum foundation allowance set by the state. Districts with

61

large numbers of low-income and at-risk students are eligible for additional funding
through federal entitlements, such as Title I and Title 31a.
Urban Location

The location of a district can also be an important variable in ECE programming.
Urban districts are typically characterized by high minority populations, higher poverty
levels than in most suburban and many rural locations, and higher enrollments. While
there are exceptions to these urban characteristics, there is typically a greater need for the
remediation that ECE can provide in urban settings than there is in other settings.
Areas of High Need

Deﬁcits in school readiness skills are more often found in areas with high levels
of poverty because quality childcare can be expensive and difficult to ﬁnd. Poverty
exists in all school districts in Michigan, but higher rates are usually found in urban or
rural settings. It would make sense that districts with a greater need would put more of a
premium on ECE than would districts with a less needy population
ISD Policy

A ﬁnal variable considered were ISD policies and initiatives. Selecting school
districts from within the same ISD to participate in the study was important because ISDs
play a crucial role in providing ECE services. The ISD policy was ascertained through
the interviews with ISD leaders and local superintendents from within the ISD. ISDs
with superintendents and directors that put a high premium on ECE were more likely to
have an impact on local districts because ISDs are a direct source of information and
professional development. There are also some ECE programs that are run by the ISD

within the local district boundaries.

62

Data Analysis

Data was collected via quantitative and qualitative methods, which means that the
data was analyzed differently based on the methods used to collect it. Survey, interview,
and demographic data were processed to address the research questions.

Analysis of Survey Data

The SelectSurveyASP Advanced software tallied all closed and scale items on the
survey. This program allows participants to respond electronically at their leisure and it
tallies results both individually and collectively. For example, each superintendent was
asked how long he/she has served in his/her current position. The SurveySelectASP
program allowed the researcher to see each individual response regarding how many
years of service each participant has, and it also calculated the average tenure of
participating superintendents. The tallied results identiﬁed trends in the responses and
allowed the researcher to determine relationships between the demographic and district
ﬁnancial data and the survey responses.

The data collected from the survey was tallied and each local school district was
evaluated according to the dependent variables. Once the dependent variables were
assessed, the explanatory variables were closely examined and cross-referenced with the
dependent variables. Trends or similarities that exist in the dependent variables from
districts with superintendents who are well informed about ECE programs and research
were examined and compared to trends and data from districts with superintendents that

are not well informed.

63

Analysis of Interview Data

Each interview was tape recorded and transcribed in its entirety. The
transcriptions were closely reviewed and coded. 7 The coding process consisted of sorting
the responses into the categories of the explanatory variables. Within these categories
themes and common trends were examined that related to the dependent variables.

Units of relevant meaning were separately identiﬁed, clustered along similar
lines, and then grouped into larger themes. This method has been advocated by many
qualitative researchers who use a phenomenological approach to interviewing (Seidman,
2006; Glesne 1999). A clear break from the phenomenological method is that most of the
categories used for coding were determined prior to the interviews. The categories were
based upon the explanatory variables, for example, because ISD policy, district
demographics and enrollment, and personal background of the superintendent are all
pertinent to the study, these categories were developed prior to the interviews. Other
categories were developed as the interviews were transcribed.

There was a difference in the interviews conducted with state and ISD leaders
and the interviews conducted with superintendents. The state and ISD leader interviews
were primarily designed to address Research Question 2 which has a more narrow focus
than Research Question 1, which is designed to determine superintendents’ perceptions
and Research Question 2 which is designed to assess the vision of the three levels of state
education.

The interpretation of the interview began during the interview as the researcher
noted interesting statements and made notes during the interview process. Any additional

probing questions asked during the course of the interview became a form of

64

interpretation (Sediman, 2006). Lastly, a qualitative data analysis tool assisted in the
coding process. All interview transcriptions were loaded into the program and notes and
were made in the margins of the documents that were created by the program. This
program made the data more manageable and the themes more readily identiﬁed.

The superintendent surveys were used in conjunction with the interviews and
CEPI data review to establish triangulation of the data. Once the themes and categories
were created, the researcher checked for consistency with the interviews and surveys.
For example, if during the course of an interview a participant mentioned that his/her
district has made a commitment to providing ECE to the children in their district, there
was expected to be evidence of this commitment reﬂected on the survey.
Analysis of Artifact Data

The demographic and budgetary data from each local district was gathered from
wwwschoolmatterscom and from the CEPI website. These data came in a
straightforward format that was broken down and put into a table (see appendix F) that
displayed such information as district size, per-pupil funding, constituent demographics,
and enrollment change. The table separated schools by county and then was further
broken down into categories of explanatory variables. Once this information was
organized into a table it was compared to the dependent variables to determine whether or

not relations could be found between dependent variables and the explanatory variables.

65

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The previous chapters presented three main questions that guided this study. The
ﬁrst question sought to determine the extent to which local school districts vary their
early childhood education services and what factors account for these inter-district
variations. The second question focused on the perceptions that local school
superintendents have regarding ECE. The third question sought to detemrine if the roles
of the state, ISD, and local districts are properly aligned. Chapter 4 discusses the study
sample and presents the ﬁndings and results of the study. The survey results were
tabulated and cross-referenced where applicable to the artifact data. The personal
interviews were transcribed in their entirety and coded. The interview results were also
cross-referenced where applicable to the survey and artifact data, but more importantly,
the results from all three instruments were collectively considered to generate answers to

the research questions in the clearest and most reliable manner possible.

School District Sample
The superintendents surveyed and interviewed for this study were purposefully
selected from four intermediate school districts (ISDs) in Michigan. There are a total of
553 local K-12 public school districts in Michigan and there are 57 ISDs. Some ISDs
are known as regional educational service agencies (RESA) or simply as educational
service agencies (ESAs). For the purpose of this study, the more common acronym ISD

was used in reference to intermediate school districts and educational service agencies

66

alike. Four ISDs, Wayne, Oakland, Ionia, and Allegan were selected for this study to
provide a manageable, yet diverse sample.

Two of the selected intermediate school districts are located in southeast
Michigan and they serve the state’s two most populated counties. Both of these large and
diverse intermediate districts are comprised of over 30 local districts that range in size
from 1200 students to 141,000 students. The districts within the ISDs also represent a
wide range in terms of their student racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic compositions. For
example, some districts in Wayne RESA have a total minority enrollment percentage
over 95% and others have a total minority enrollment under 3%. Wayne and Oakland are
comprised of urban and suburban districts. The suburban districts in these counties serve
some of Michigan’s most afﬂuent communities and some of the urban districts in these
counties serve some of the state’s poorest communities.

The other two counties in the sample, Ionia and Allegan, are located in western
Michigan and are comprised mostly of rural districts that draw from small cities or
villages. The enrollment of the public school districts in these counties ranges from 38
students to 3300. These counties are among the poorest in Michigan as measured by
average household income. There is a range, however, in ﬁee and reduced lunch count
from 19% to 72%. The local districts in these west Michigan counties are mostly racially
homogenous with only one district in the two counties having a combined minority
population over 10%.

Wayne and Oakland counties are similar to one another in terms of size and
composition; Ionia and Allegan counties are also similar to one another in terms of size

and composition. While Wayne and Oakland were selected because of their size and

67

diversity, Allegan was purposely selected for the study because it is widely recognized
throughout the state for its progressive approach to ECE. Ionia was selected as
Allegan’s counterpart because it is very similar to Allegan in the number and
composition of the local school districts and they both bring rural districts into the study.

Surveys were sent to a total of 74 local superintendents; 29 were completed and
returned. The percentage of return was much higher in Allegan and Ionia than it was in
Wayne and Oakland, but as indicated in Table 4, the sample represents the diversity in
terms of enrollment numbers and demographics that the researcher sought when selecting
the sample sites. When the averages in key demographic and ﬁnancial categories in the
participating districts were compared to the county averages in the same categories, it is
clear that the participating districts do provide a representative sample of their ISDs. The
county with the largest disparity is Wayne County, and much of that disparity could be
attributed to Detroit Public Schools with their large enrollment numbers, high minority
percentages, and free and reduced lunch percentages skewing the county averages.
Detroit Public Schools are not represented in this study.

Table 4 on the proceeding page shows the averages in each of the four selected
counties in enrollment, enrollment change percent, per pupil spending, Title I money

received, free and reduced lunch percentage, and minority enrolhnent percentage.

68

Table 4.

Demographic and Financial Averages of Participating Districts and ISDs

 

 

Enrollmen % Per Title I % Free %
t Enrollme Pupil Per and Minorit
nt Change Spendin Pupil Reduce y
2001- g d Enroll-
2005 Lunch ment *
Ionia Co. 2364 3.8 7735 196 34.2 6.7
Average
Ionia Co. 2346 3.1 7411 201 32.2 6.7
Participating
Allegan Co. 1895 4.7 7463 109 27.9 9.8
Average
Allegan Co. 1850 6 7390 121 33.4 11.26
Participating
Oakland Co. 6877 4.7 9754 105 18.7 24.3
Oakland Co. 6451 8.4 9871 53 16.4 15.9
Participating
Wayne Co. 9480 7.5 9818 480 48 54.3
Average
Wayne Co. 7454 9.4 8761 138 33 13.1
Participating

 

* Combined percentage of non-white students

Artifact collection for this study consisted of gathering ﬁnancial and demographic

information from the participating school districts. Schoolmatters.com, which presents

CEPI data, was the source for this information. This data was tabulated and is displayed

in Table 5, which shows the raw demographic and ﬁnancial data of the participating

districts along with county averages. This information was very helpful in responding to

Research Question 1 which seeks to explain differences in the provision of ECE by local

districts in the state.

69

Table 5.

District Financial and Demographic Information
2005 2001-05 2004 Per 2004 2005 2005

 

 

 

 

Enroll- Enroll- Pupil Title I Free & Combined
ment Size ment Spending Funds Reduced Minority
Change Per Lunch Enrollmen
Percent Student Percent t
District

Ionia Co. Ave 2364 $7735 $196 34.2% 6.7%
Ionia 3380 +4.2 9764 221 42% 9.3%
Portland 2112 +147 7031 93 15% 2.6%
Belding 2463 +1.6 7202 360 48% 8.5%
Lakewood 2504 -8.1 7447 133 30% 6.4%
Allegan Co. Ave 1895 7.5 9754 109 27% 9.8%
Hopkins 1495 +8 7463 105 25% 2.2%
Glenn 38 +3 7880 0 0% 0.0%
Allegan 2975 -1% 7530 160 34% 7.6%
Plainwell 2845 2.4% 7138 69 20% 3.3%
F ennville 1481 -12% 7750 162 61% 40.3%
Otsego 2269 -7% 7417 1 10 27% 2.9%
Oakland Co. 6877 +4.7 9754 105 18.7% 24.3%
Ave
Berkley 4604 +7.7 8709 90 12% 20.5%
Bloomﬁeld Hills 6075 +3.3 14414 14 4% 20%
Clarenceville 2000 +4.3 8871 89 51% 19.5%
Clawson 1463 +29% 9928 23 18% 6.3%
Holly 4322 +3 .4% 8145 106 23% 7.1%
Lake Orion 8117 +21% 8290 37 10% 8.2%
Lamphere 2518 +3 .6% 13708 102 27% 10.9%
South Lyon 6918 +14.4% 7256 35 11% 5.4%
Troy 12805 +5% 10295 19 4% 27%
Walled Lake 15162 +5.4 9505 34 10% 12.2%
West Bloomﬁeld 6977 +10.5% 9470 35 11% 30%

7O

Wayne Co. Ave 9480 +7.5 9818 480 48% 54.3%

 

Allen Park 3635 +92% 7466 6 14% 6.7%
Dearbom 17,659 +54% 9707 245 48% 7.3%
Huron 2255 +12.7% 8202 55 19% 5.1%
Lincoln Park 5197 +44% 9298 138 41% 14.8%
Plymouth 18608 +13.9% 7479 28 8% 18.8%
Canton

Redford Union 4635 +98% 9338 152 35% 27.2%
Westwood 2339 +6% 8748 373 73% 19.4%
Wyandotte 4944 +14% 9855 1 12 26% 6.1%

To help clarify and expand the information collected on the surveys, personal
interviews were conducted with two local school district superintendents in Allegan and
Ionia respectively and with the superintendents of both ISDs. Interviews were also
conducted with the director of early childhood education in each of the rural ISDs. The
sample included ISD superintendents and ECE supervisors because the study seeks to
clarify the role that ISDs play in the provision of ECE in Michigan. To complete the
picture for the delivery of services, the Director of the Office of Early Childhood
Education and Family Services and the Supervisor of Infant and Toddler and Family
Services in the Office of Early Childhood Education and Family Service for the Michigan
Department of Education (MDE) were interviewed as well.

Sample Local School District Superintendent Characteristics

The superintendents who responded to the survey were as diverse in their
backgrounds as the districts they supervise. The survey asked superintendents to indicate
how many years they have been in their current positions, what credentials they hold, and

what teaching experience and administrative experience they brought to their positions.

71

As indicated in Table 6, the superintendents who responded to the survey
provided a good mix in terms of years of experience, credentials, and previous
experiences. Many of the superintendents were new to their positions within the past two
years, but an equal number had been in their positions for over seven years. The
credentials the participating superintendents held varied greatly between the two rural
counties to the large districts in the southeast. The highest degree obtained by a
superintendent in the rural counties was an Educational Specialist (Ed.S.), while several
of the respondents in the larger counties held doctorate degrees. The previous
experiences and positions held were also diverse, but no obvious patterns appeared within
or across counties in this regard.

Table 6 shows the number of superintendents that apply to each category and the
percentage for that response. This provides an overview of the background of the
superintendents who responded to the survey.

Table 6.

Superintendent Characteristics

Years in Current Position

 

 

 

 

 

Response Total Response Percent
1-2 years 10 34%
3-4 years 3 10%
5-6 years (Median) 6 21%
7 years or more 10 34%
Highest Degree Held
Response Total Response Percent
Masters Degree 10 34%
Ed.S. 8 28%
Ph.D. or Ed.D. 11 38%

 

72

 

Grades Levels Taught/Administered

 

 

Response Total Response Percent
Pre-K 4 18%
K-5 14 50%
6-8 1 7 61 %
9-12 25 89%
College 3 1 1%

 

Variables and Index Score
As explained in Chapter 3, Research Question 1 seeks to determine to what

extent local districts vary in their participation in the provision of ECE services and what
factors account for these inter-district variations. Chapter 3 proposed three variables to
represent the extent of a local district’s involvement with and provision of ECE services.
We take these as dependent variables. Chapter 3 also proposed a series of independent
variables that may account for observed variations across districts in their provision of E
ECE services.

Dependent Variables

The ﬁrst measure of ECE service provision was the amount of money that a
district spends on ECE. Determining the exact amount that districts spend on ECE
proved to be very difﬁcult. Often the amounts were not available, and when they were
found, they were often misleading. This information was essentially substituted with the
superintendent’s own rating when the index score was calculated. The second measure of
ECE services is the number of programs that a district offers or supports. The third
measure indicates the amount of time spent on deliberation regarding ECE services and

the voice given to the district’s ECE directors in this deliberation.

73

These variables were used to create an ECE Provision Index Score. Table 7 below
lists the data that were collected to determine the ECE Provision Index score, along with
the ﬁnal Index score. The number of programs offered is reported in the ﬁrst column of
the table. The yes or no questions about the district’s ECE director are reported with a
“0” for a “no” response and a “l” for a “yes” response. The survey response for the
number of times ECE has been on a school board or administrative team meeting called
for a range. If ECE had not been on the agenda the column shows a zero. If ECE had
been on the agenda 1-2 times there is a one in the column; if it had been on 3-4 times
there is a 2; if had been on 5 or more times there is a three in the column. The self-rating
column shows the response to the survey question that asked superintendents to rate their
district’s efforts to provide EC E to the children that need it. The range for this response
was poor (0), fair (3), good (6), or excellent (9).

Table 7.

E C E Provision Index Score and Data

# of ECE ECE Dir ECE Occur. Occur. Spr’s Dist’s
Pgms Dir/Ad Cert/En Dir’s of Of Ratin Prov.
Offrd Team d in Main ECE ECE g of Index

Mbr ECE Duty on Ad on Bd Dist’s Score
Team Agnda ECE

 

 

 

Agnda
Scale 0-5+ Yes Yes (1) Yes 0; 1-2; 0; 1-2; 0,3,6,
(1) /No(0) (1) 3-4, 3-4, 9
/No(0) /No(0) 5+ 5+
Ionia Co.
Ionia 3 0 1 1 2 l 6 22
Portland 3 1 0 0 3 1 9 23
Belding 5 1 0 0 0 1 6 23
Lakewood 3 0 0 0 l 1 6 19
County 21.75

 

74

Ave.

 

 

 

 

 

Allegan Co.

Allegan 0 0 0 2 1 9 27
Glenn 4 1 1 0

Hopkins 16 0 1 0 3 2 6 31
Plainwell l 0 O 3 2 6 3 1
F ennville 7 l 0 0 1 2 9 33
Otsego 0 0 1 1 1 6 26
County Ave 29.6
Oakland Co.

Berkley 5 l 1 1 l 9 30
Blmﬂd Hills 2 1 0 O 2 l 9 20
Clarencvlle 3 1 0 O 1 1 6 30
Clawson 5 1 l 1 2 2 9 34
Holly 2 1 l 0 3 3 6 24
Lake Orion 5 l 0 0 3 2 6 28
Lamphere 4 0 1 1 3 3 9 3 1
South Lyon 3 1 0 1 3 2 3 23
Walled 3 1 0 0 1 3 6 21
Lake

W. Blmﬂd 2 l O 0 2 1 9 26
County 26.7
Ave.

Wayne Co.

Allen Park 2 l 0 0 2 1 3 15
Dearbom 5 l 1 0 2 1 6 28
Huron 3 1 l 0 2 0 6 21
Lincoln 5 1 1 l 2 1 6 30
Park

Plymth/Cant 2 1 1 1 26
Redford 4 1 1 0 27
Union

Westwood 8 1 0 2 1 3 34
Wyandotte 4 1 0 1 3 9 3 1

75

County 24.6
Ave.
Note: Data missing for Glenn and Troy Schools. Please see Table 3 for the Index scoring
rubric.

Explanatory Variables

Several explanatory variables were identiﬁed that helped to explain inter-district
variations in the Index scores. Some of these variables proved to be much more
signiﬁcant to a district’s score that others. Each of the variables from Chapter 3 will be
discussed.

Superintendent Characteristics and Perceptions

The ﬁrst explanatory variable identiﬁed in the study pertains to the knowledge
and perceptions that local superintendents have regarding ECE. This is an important
variable in the study because it is also the crux of Research Question 2. The ﬁndings for
Research Question 2 will be discussed as this variable is addressed.

As shown in Table 7, there is a difference in the services that local districts
provide. Likewise Table 8 reveals many differences in backgrounds and perceptions of
local superintendents. The knowledge and perception of local superintendents was
gathered from the survey tool and personal interviews. A second index was created to
help quantify the knowledge of superintendents. This index is the Combined Knowledge
Index for superintendents which considers the knowledge about the most common ECE
programs in Michigan, four of the most commonly cited research studies in ECE, and the
superintendent’s self rating of his/her knowledge of ECE.

Only four superintendents indicated that they have experience in teaching or

administrating early childhood programs. Perhaps not surprisingly, these superintendents

76

put a high priority on providing ECE services and have greater knowledge about ECE
than their peers do. Conversely, seven superintendents indicated that their previous
experience was isolated to the high school or college level. When asked to rate their
knowledge of ECE programs, the mean score on a scale of 1 through 10 for these seven
superintendents was a 5.5 out of 10. This is compared to an overall mean of 6.4 for all
superintendents and a mean of 9.6 for those with pre-k experience.

The local superintendents were also asked to rate their knowledge of ECE
research studies. The knowledge that superintendents had of programs varied based on
the programs, who sponsored them, and the efforts made by the ISD to educate the
superintendents. For example, all of the superintendents in Ionia and Allegan counties
were familiar with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library because their ISDs have
championed that program, a program which provides free books in the mail to children
ages 0-5-years-old. Conversely, only one superintendent in Wayne or Oakland County
was “somewhat familiar” with the Dolly Parton Imagination Library.

None of the superintendents in Allegan or Ionia claimed to be more than
“somewhat familiar” with the Early Childhood lnvestrnent Corporation (ECIC), and not
surprisingly that program is not currently offered in their counties. The ECIC is a state
grant that is offered at the county level; it has been awarded to both Wayne and Oakland
counties. Even though the ECIC grants are in these counties, only 30% of the responding
superintendents in those counties were familiar with the program.

All four of the counties have Parents as Teacher (PAT) programs and one of
PATs subsidiary programs, Early On, but only 35% of the superintendents in the study

were familiar with these ISD level programs. Conversely, 93% of the superintendents

77

were familiar with MSRP, which is granted directly to local districts. All but two of the
participating local districts offer MSRP. One of the districts that does not offer MSRP
has only a 4% free and reduced lunch rate which indicates little need for the program.
The other district that does not offer MSRP has a 73% free and reduced rate which likely
indicates that most of the families qualify for Head Start and would not need the services
of the MSRP program.

Only a small percentage of the superintendents were familiar with any of the big
three research projects that were discussed in Chapter 2. The Perry High Scope
Preschool Project that originated in southeast Michigan was most familiar to the
superintendents. Thirty-nine percent of the superintendents were familiar with the Perry
study; most of those came from nearby Wayne and Oakland counties. Only 11% and 7%
respectively of the superintendents were familiar with the Abecedarian or Chicago Parent
Center Program. The Meaningful Differences study was heavily cited by the former
ECE director in Allegan County when he was ﬁrst raising awareness of ECE in Allegan
and it was familiar to all but one of the local superintendents in Allegan County.

Table 8 shows the Combined Knowledge Index score for the superintendents in
the participating districts. This ﬁgure is derived by totaling the three previous columns of
knowledge of ECE programs, knowledge of ECE research, and the superintendents self-
rating of his or her knowledge. The scores reported for the knowledge of ECE programs
and knowledge of research studies comes from survey items 10 and 11 respectively
which asks superintendents if they are very familiar, familiar, a little familiar, or not at

all familiar with a program or study. There were 10 possible programs listed and 4

78

possible research studies. The self-rating asks superintendents to rank their own
knowledge level on a scale of 1-10.

Table 8.

Local Superintendent Background and Knowledg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yrs Highest Pre-K Supt. Know. Know. Self Combn
in. Degree Exp Priorit of of ECE rating d
Posrt y for ECE Researc of ECE Know.
ion ECE Prgms h Know. Index
Studies Score
Scale Yes/no 1-10 0- 10 0-4 + 1-10 = 1-24
+
Ionia Co.
Ionia 3-4 Ed.S Yes 10 7 0 6 13
Portland 7+ Ed.S No 2 5 0 3 8
Belding 3-4 MA No 5 3 6 14
Lakewood l -2 MA No 8 2 1 2 5
County Ave. 10
Allegan Cnty
Hopkins 3-4 MA No 10 7 1 16
Allegan 1 -2 MA No 1 0 4 0 7 1 1
Glenn 7+ - No - 9 4 - 13
Plainwell 1-2 MA No 10 7 2 8 1 5
Fennville 5-6 MA No 10 4 1 10 1 5
Otsego 5-6 MA No 9 8 1 8 l 7
County Ave 14.5
Oakland Co.
Berkley 7+ PH.D./E No 10 7 1 6 13
DD.
Blﬂd Hills 5-6 PH.D./E No 10 4 1 6 1 1
DD.

Clarenceville 5-6 MA No 8 8 2 8 1 8
Clawson - Ed. S No 10 8 2 9 19
Holly 7+ MA Yes 9 4 0 8 12

 

79

 

 

Lake Orion 1-2 MA No 10 11
Lamphere 1-2 PH.D./E No 10 13
DD.
South Lyon 7+ PH.D./E No 10 9
DD.
Troy 1-2 PH.D./E No - -
D.D.
Walled Lake 1-2 PH.D.fE No 8 9
DD.
W. Blmﬂd 5-6 PH.D./ No 10 1 1
ED.D.
County Ave. 12.6
Wayne Co.
Allen Park 1-2 PH.D./ No 2 9
ED.D.
Dearbom 5 -6 PH.D./ Yes 10 16
EDD.
Huron 7+ Ed.S No 5 13
Lincoln Park 7+ Ed.S No 17
Plymouth 5-6 PH.D./ No 9 14
Canton ED.D.
Redford 1-2 Ed. S No 10 16
Union
Westwood 7+ PH.D./ No 8 17
ED.D.
Wyandotte 7+ PH.D./ No 10 1 1
EDD.
County Ave. 14.1

 

 

Note: Data missing for Troy and Glenn Schools.

A commonality among most of the superintendents in the study was the level of

priority and importance they put on providing ECE. Figure 2 on the next page is a

scatterplot that shows the relationship between the Superintendents’ Knowledge Index

and their district’s ECE Provision Index score. The higher the Knowledge Index score,

the higher the ECE Provision Index Score is likely to be.

 

Superintendent Knowledge lnde

 

20 30
ECE Prov'sion Index Score

 

Figure 2. Superintendents’ Knowledge and ECE Provision Index Scores

ISD Policy

While Figure 2 shows a clear positive relationship between superintendents’ ECE
knowledge and their districts’ ECE Provision Index Scores, the direction of causation
between these variables is not entirely unambiguous. Both the quantitative and the

qualitative data in the study show that ISDs can play a large role in inﬂuencing ECE

81

programs and the emphasis that their local districts place on providing services. This role
may also inﬂuence a superintendent’s knowledge and perception of ECE services.

Most superintendents are not bringing a wealth of ECE knowledge into their
positions. Eight-six percent of the superintendents cited on-the-job training while serving
as a superintendent as one of their two main sources of knowledge about ECE and only
four have worked in a prekindergarten setting. Based on the survey and interview data, it
seems likely that districts’ existing programs, along with the ISDs policies, have a strong,
probably stronger, inﬂuence on ECE programs than the knowledge that the
superintendent brings into the district, despite the fact that superintendent knowledge and
ECE services are highly correlated.

Allegan County provides a good illustration of the role an ISD can play in getting
local districts on board with ECE. Allegan County Educational Service Agencies (ESA)
[what they call their ISD] former ECE director is recognized across the state of Michigan
as a strong proponent of ECE services. He is now semi-retired, but his inﬂuence remains
even though the ISD superintendent and many of the local superintendents in Allegan
started their positions since he retired. Allegan ESA superintendent cites the former
director’s knowledge and passion as being a crucial part of getting local superintendents
on board with ECE.

The superintendent whose district has the highest index score in Allegan County
is a prime example of one who was inﬂuenced heavily by polices of the ISD.

You know I didn’t know anything about it [ECE] before I came to Allegan

County . . . but when we came to Allegan County we had an extensive

amount of in-service on it as superintendents here in the county and the

82

value of it and you know lots of data for us on a regular basis. . . .It’s

becoming more and more of a subject of discussion at our state’s

superintendents meetings and it’s becoming more and more of a

discussion in national journals and that sort of thing so we have had an

extensive amount of training and I think we know more about it in Allegan

County than most superintendents throughout the state - that and literacy”

(Superintendent 4).

A fellow Allegan superintendent adds, “One of the things that we do every
summer is that the ISD provides us with a literacy retreat and that’s where I got my
indoctrination into the whole EES [Early Education Services] and then I inherited [ﬁom
the superintendent he replaced] a position on the board of the EES” (Superintendent 8).
The comments of these superintendents does raise a chicken versus the egg question
concerning the impact of the superintendent’s knowledge and perception of ECE on the
district’s ECE programs. These districts had strong ECE programs prior to the arrival of
these superintendents. Both of these superintendents are strong supporters of ECE, yet
they would not be nearly as knowledgeable on the subject if they had not come to
Allegan County. So “superintendent ECE knowledge” is not an exogenous attribute of
the sample superintendents, but rather is likely inﬂuenced by ISD policy. This points to
an important potential role for ISD in creating the conditions that could further the
provision of ECE services.

The ISD superintendent and the current ECE director in Allegan County ﬁnd it
very important to continue to educate the leaders in Allegan County. The ISD

superintendent puts ECE on the agenda of every monthly countywide superintendent

83

meeting and he has the director give the superintendents a monthly report. Allegan’s
ECE coordinator explains that they have also presented to local school boards and other
administrators in addition to district superintendents:

We have done presentations for school board members and we provide

them with information literature on what our programs are doing and the

results that we are seeing from our programs. It just helps them

understand that there are things that they can have an impact on. I think

the average person really doesn’t fully understand the importance of those

early years. And I think schools also see themselves as starting at

kindergarten - we’re kindergarten through 12th grade and that is what we

do, and they just don’t always see themselves as having had anything to do

with what happened before kids get to kindergarten. So I think that by

providing that kind of education we can start to say - yeah, we really do

have the potential to have an impact earlier and that impact can have long

term positive beneﬁts” (ISD ECE Coordinator 1).

Considering the focus that Allegan has put on educating the superintendents and
administrators in their county, it is not surprising that they have the highest average score
(29.6) on the Superintendent Knowledge Index of the four ISDs in the study. These
scores have then helped Allegan to have the highest ECE Provision Index average of the
four counties. Allegan is particularly high in these indexes compared to its closest
counterpart in the study, Ionia County.

The ECE coordinator for Ionia ISD is helping to raise awareness of the beneﬁts of

ECE with Ionia County’s local superintendents. She sees the superintendents in Ionia

84

County making strides in their learning and acceptance of ECE, but she still feels that
there is still a need to educate superintendents about the value of ECE to get them to buy
into it. Ionia has the lowest average ECE provision index score of the four counties at
21 .75.

They’re kind of being told something that is different than their

background and knowledge and they’re trying to digest it and they know

it’s the right thing to do because they see the research but they’re really

not grasping is that this is what I am going to make my decisions around.”

(ISD ECE Coordinator 2)
The experiences in Allegan and Ionia Counties show that the ISD can have a strong
impact on the knowledge and perception of the superintendent. If the ISD has a strong
program, it does tend to impact the perception and priorities for the local superintendents
in that county.
Areas of High Need

Another key explanatory variable is the need for high quality ECE. As indicated
in Chapter 2, children who grow up in poverty typically enter school less prepared to
learn than their middle- and upper-class peers. Districts that have high poverty rates, as
indicated by their free and reduced lunch count, stand to gain the most by having their
future students receive quality ECE. The district ECE Provision Index score is one way
to determine whether or not children are receiving services.

When the index scores were tabulated, the lowest score was 15 and the highest

score was 34. As indicated in Figure 3, there was a relationship between the index score

85

and the district’s free and reduced lunch percentage. This shows that districts with the

highest needs are typically the ones that are providing the most services.

Free and Reduced Lunch Percentage

85

75»

65

55»

45

35

25»

15

Figure 3. Free and Reduced Lunch Rate and ECE Provision Index Scores

District Size, Enrollment Change, Per Pupil Funding, and Urban Location

 

 

 

-w ..._ *_._.__..

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 30 35
ECE Provision Index Score

 

 

While the knowledge and perceptions of superintendents regarding ECE turned

out to be a key explanatory variable, some of the others were not nearly as signiﬁcant.

For example, there was no relationship found between a district’s ECE provision and

either its enrollment size or enrollment change. The thought behind the potential

relationship between enrollment numbers and the ECE index score was that the larger a

86

district is the more capacity it may have to offer programs. When these data were
plotted, however, there was no clear relationship.

When a district faces declining enrollments, they typically have to make
expenditure cuts. Since districts are not bound to provide ECE services, these services
may be among the ﬁrst programs cut when a district faces ﬁnancial difﬁculties.
However, the districts in Michigan that provide the most services are typically those with
the highest poverty rates. The sample in this study actually shows that many of the
districts with the highest index scores also have the highest negative enrollment change
from 2001-2005.

There was no relationship between a district’s foundation grant and their ECE
index score. Additionally these variables did not emerge as themes the way
superintendent knowledge and need did when the interview data when the interviews wee

transcribed and coded.

Alignment of Services

Research Question 3 focused on the alignment of ECE services between the
MDE, ISDs, and local school districts. With ECE services and funding emanating from
each of these levels, it seems logical to ﬁnd a way to coordinate these services and funds.
Many people see the ISD as being the ‘middleman’ between the state and local districts.
That is true with some special education, general education, and ECE programs, but not
all. The ISD does coordinate some programs such as Great Parents, Great Start, but
many other programs, including MSRP are typically funded directly by the state to the

local districts. The ﬁnal section of Chapter 4 will examine the current roles of the three

87

levels and discuss how the players at these levels feel about these roles and the level of
efﬁciency and efﬁcacy. Some of the data for this section was gathered from the survey,
but the most of it came from the personal interviews with local and ISD superintendents,
ISD coordinators, and MDE officials.
Local District Dilemmas

Given the emphasis on ECE by Michigan’s governor and the MDE in recent
years, it is not surprising that local superintendents have at least a general understanding
of the beneﬁts of early childhood education. In this study, 88% of the superintendents
indicated on the survey that they think local districts need to make ECE a priority. Even
if they cannot cite speciﬁc studies, local superintendents believe that quality ECE is
crucial to the success of children. This was clearly demonstrated on the survey and in the
interviews. Despite strong beliefs in the beneﬁts of ECE, tight budgets make it very
difﬁcult for local districts to put substantial amounts of money into ECE programs.
However, as indicated in the ECE Provision Index scores, there are many other factors
that go into a district’s level of service for their pre-kindergarten populations.
ECE Responsibilities

It is important to clarify the distinction between the “state” and the MDE when
referring to the “state level” in ECE. Educators often use the term “the state” which
includes the MDE but it also encompasses the legislature and govemor’s office which is
responsible for funding the ISDs, locals and the MDE. The MDE has some say in
allocating and directing funds, but they rely on the legislature to allocate money to go to

programs they supervise ad support such as MSRP and Great Parent, Great Start. When

88

describing the different levels that provide services “the state” is a broad term that
references the legislature, the govemor’s ofﬁce, and the MDE.

All but a few local school districts in Michigan are K-12 institutions. This means
that they are responsible for providing services K-l2; they are not bound to provide pre-
kindergarten services. The Coordinator of Early Childhood Services for the MDE helped
to frame the picture of ECE services in the state of Michigan. She states that though the
deﬁnition of ECE is geared towards children 0 — 8-years-old, the MDE has traditionally
focused on prekindergarten because local districts have emphasized K-12 education.
Many superintendents expressed concern about having the capacity to support ECE in
addition to their other responsibilities. Said one Oakland County superintendent:

With everything else that we are being asked to do, I would like to see the

responsibility shifted somewhere else. While it makes good sense and is

the logical solution to place pre-school programs under the organization of

the local school district I am not sure all districts are capable of delivering

the goods” (Response 3, Question 26).

Despite not being bound to provide services, most local superintendents expressed
a desire to become more involved in the provision of ECE. However, like the Oakland
County superintendent, many did express some concerns about being able to provide
ECE and still meet all of their other expectations. When asked if she thought she would
see a return on money spent on early childhood education, one Ionia County
superintendent indicated that she felt it would be wise to invest in ECE, but just could not
justify that investment to the community if it came at the expense of other programs that

are currently being funded.

89

While I would really like to and I really think that would be a beneﬁt to

our students and to our community. I think they [the community] would

have a problem with me taking money away from other programs of

students who are attending - that’s where the funding comes from are from

students in the classrooms and giving it to other groups of students that

may or may not ever generate funding for the school district.

(Superintendent 5)

The students “that may never generate funding” references a highly transient
population in her district and concern for whether or not the children whom her district
would serve with ECE would be in the district long enough for the district to reap the
beneﬁts of its investment. She feels that knowing that the child will most likely be
served by another district in Michigan is a compelling reason for the state to assume the
cost of providing ECE directly rather than channeling it through the local districts.

The issue of responsibility for ECE arose in many of the interviews and not just
with local superintendents. For example, one ISD superintendent feels that the local
districts in his ISD are doing a good job of providing ECE, but he does believe that there
is room for them to do more with ﬁnancial support.

Well, it’s always a matter of setting priorities, but one of the biggest

problems that we are faced in Michigan in right now is the ﬁnancial

situation. What are you going to take away from to make a higher priority

for preschool? Our focus in Michigan has always been K-12. So it’s hard

to take K-12 dollars and . . . reprioritize and say that now we are going to

add another four years of youth and use the same dollars - I don’t think

90

that is very responsible. I don’t think any of our districts have a lot of
ﬂuff in [Our] County - I don’t see a lot of programs that we could look at
and say, lets eliminate this program because it’s kind of ﬂuff - shift that

money to a four year old program for example. (ISD Superintendent 2)

Table 9 shows the responses to the open-ended survey question that asks
superintendents to describe the role they would like their district to play in providing
ECE to preschool children in their district. Twenty superintendents responded to this
survey question. Table 9 is designed to give a general overview of the superintendent’s
thoughts rather than linking the responses to a particular district.

Table 9.

Local Superintendent Responses to Survey Item 26

 

Random Response to Survey Question 26 Considering the role that you described
District for the state and ISDs in the two previous questions, what role would you
Number like your district to play in providing ECE to preschool children in your

 

district?

1. It is a given.

2. I would love to be able to have early childhood education available for
every child in our district.

3. With everything else that we being asked to do, I would like to see the

responsibility shifted somewhere else. While it makes good sense and is
the logical solution to place pre-school programs under the organization of
the local school district I am not sure all districts are capable of delivering

the goods.
4. Having a way to reach every preschooler with something to offer them
5. I would love for our district to be able to offer a wide variety of

programming that meets the needs of students 0-5 and the needs of their
families. This programming might be in the district, a district nearby or in
their homes. Funding should come from the state to the ISD or LSD.

91

10.

ll.

l2.

13.

14.

15.
16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

The district has programs for pre-school students. It also provides services

at no charge for our daycare programs. I would like the district to take on a
more active role in providing Direct Instruction to pre-school students and

assist families with how to serve as a teacher for their child.

Service provider.
To continue to support all efforts at every level to provide early education.

I would like to be able to offer free of charge preschool for all 3 and 4 year
olds.

Identiﬁcation of population, stafﬁng, buildings, and funding

I would like to see us step up to provide free preschool to all. We currently
provide all day every day kindergarten, but we should front load even
more.

Providing facilities and locating the children who need. the services the
most.

We should continue to be the people implementing the program and be the
contact for the student and his/her parent.

I would like to see districts across the state working with children 0-5 and
their families. In order for this to happen, programs have to be funded at
the state level.

Local districts should provide the service.

With appropriate and direct funding we would have the ability to service
more families. Staff development and parent awareness/training are two
essential components for local districts.

I feel our district does a great job of providing ECE to the children in our
district. We make an effort to seek out families and provide for all of them.
We have several options and make an effort to meet the needs of our
community.

Providing safe buildings and qualiﬁed staff.

Our district has provided and will continue to train other districts regarding
best practices in developmentally appropriate practices.

Expanding 2-5 year old programs

 

Financial Concerns

Most local superintendents seem comfortable with their district taking on the

responsibilities of ECE if there is funding from the state that will accompany these duties.

92

“The key is funding. We are large enough we can provide the rest of the needs,” says one
Oakland County Superintendent (Superintendent 2). Superintendents say there is
simply no room left in the budgets to fund the programs. In Allegan County, each local
district sends $5.00 per child to the ISD for ECE services. In Ionia County, each district
sends $1.00 per child. The ISDs in Allegan and Ionia use this money to provide the
required matching funds for Great Parents, Great Start and other services that offer
assistance to children and parents. Very few Michigan districts use their general fund or
their federal Title I money for ECE programs, so most of the ECE programs offered or
supported by local districts are grant funded. When asked in the personal interview how
much inﬂuence they have over the budgets in their districts, the local superintendents said
that they have plenty of inﬂuence; however, they quickly stated that the budgetary
constraints they face leave them with little money to use at their discretion.

Two of the local superintendents felt restricted from spending more on ECE
without a funding increase because so much of their current K-l2 operational budget
goes to employee beneﬁts and salary. One superintendent offers this response to the
question of how much inﬂuence he has in setting funding priorities: “1 can say that yeah,
I control the funding, [but] honestly we are under contract with our employees so 80-85
percent of our budget deals with salary” (Superintendent 1). Another superintendent also
referenced employee salaries when asked the same question, “That is an interesting
[question]. . .when you factor in that 83 to 85 percent of your budget is salaries and
beneﬁts. How much inﬂuence can you have over the other 15 percent?” (Superintendent
8) Considering that an increase in funding from the state that was spent on ECE services

would still result in 85% of that budget being spent on salary and beneﬁts, it is likely that

93

these superintendents are expressing frustration that they would have to eliminate current
positions to add ECE positions if there was not additional funding.

A local superintendent whose district had a very high index score, indicated that
he would like to see even more services offered. Like the other superintendents, he feels
that he has substantial inﬂuence over an insubstantial amount of money. He referenced
the particularly difﬁcult economic time that Michigan is having and the effect that it is
having on districts and their budgets. (During the course of conducting interviews for
this study, the state of Michigan was deliberating budget cuts as high as $200.00 dollars
per pupil).

I used to think that I was a lot more inﬂuential than what I am now with

the budget crisis. I think that I have a lot of input into directing resources

for early childhood. I mean adding all-day every day kindergarten was

something that I said from day one and you know putting a higher quality

teacher into the cooperative preschool, so it’s just that the budget has

made that such a difficult part in maintaining that unfortunately.

(Superintendent 4)

Superintendent 1 elaborated on the role that ﬁnances play in his district’s ability
to provide quality ECE and the importance that he places in it. He too references the
state’s economic troubles but he feels that the economic troubles are even more reason to
support ECE.

It comes down to dollars and cents. In terms of all things that have to be

done it would take a major shift of ﬁnances in order for us to do that [offer

more ECE programs]. When there are not ﬁnances to shift . . . that is why

94

we keep looking to the state to help us out. The governor talked about

throwing several million more into it. She loses track that we have a

socioeconomic disadvantaged population here as well and as I said we

have the highest unemployment rate . . . we have to have some help for

these kids. I think not everyone, but a lot of people, understand that those

are the formative years. (Superintendent 1).
These views on funding are certainly not limited to the superintendents from the Allegan
and Ionia ISDs. Budget constraints were mentioned on every survey response as an
inhibitor for providing services. One Oakland superintendent included this open-ended
response on the survey.

Although I ﬁrmly believe in the education of the 0-5 population I am also

well aware of the lack of ﬁmds in our district to provide that education

with K-12 ﬁmding. We struggle to meet the needs of the K-12 population

and provide as much as possible for the 0-5 group with grants and tuition

based programs. (Response 2, question 23)

Supporting E CE Without Spending

State and ISD ofﬁcials would like to see local districts become more involved in
providing ECE services. However, as stated above, these leaders also understand that
local districts have their hands full with their K-12 responsibilities. Throughout the
course of the interviews, several no-cost or low-cost means of supporting ECE were
discussed. For example, some suggested that the local districts could invite other ECE
providers in the community to use the resources that the locals already have such as

classroom space, in-service training, and even high school students or senior citizens as

95

volunteers. The ECE coordinator for MDE would be happy just to see local
superintendents champion the cause for ECE.

There is leadership at the local levels that has read the research and do

understand how important the early years are and even though funding

might not follow, they remember to talk about it when they are in public

settings and I think that is exempliﬁed here also. . . . Raising the

awareness of the superintendents - at least mention[ing] it periodically

leads to a greater awareness of the importance across the district and the

populous with the citizens of that district. And the more that they say it

aloud, the more likely their reﬂecting on well what does that mean to what

we do here and look for ways to lead to an increase in programming -

whether it be just making sure that they are aware of all of the early

childhood program that is going on in their community, that their

kindergarten teachers are aware of what is occurring. I guess for me the

bottom line is if you have a local district superintendent who understands

and appreciates and periodically says out loud how important it is, you

have come a long way. ( MDE ECE Coordinator)

The MDE director and the coordinator both pointed out that there are many ECE
providers and that local school districts are not the major provider in most areas. There is
Head Start, MSRP, for the children with risk factors, but there are also many other
daycare providers in homes, churches, or private centers. Head Start and MSRP
programs are well funded with their federal or state dollars, but the other programs are

usually tuition based or subsidized with funds from agencies such as the Family

96

Independence Agency (FIA) and its grant program, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF). These independent providers are servicing a large number of children
who will someday attend public schools, so the MDE Director would like to see the
children and their families invited into schools.

Sometimes I think that it isn’t a matter of providing the programs

themselves, but perhaps doing some outreach with the community of early

childhood providers that already exist to offer support and training and

things that the school can offer to bring people in. For instance, if you are

having something in a district that kindergarten teachers get to go to -

maybe you can bring in the preschool teachers in your community as well.

It wouldn’t cost you - if you had a speaker, it wouldn’t cost you that much

more to buy another package of cookies. You know - there’s things that

you can do to inﬂuence quality for the kids that are coming into your

school . . . I’m not sure if your schools have to provide the programs all of

the time, but sometimes they can provide some organizing, some

professional development, they can allow kindergarten teachers to talk to

parent nights at preschools. There are some things that they can do to

promote that that aren’t so expensive. (MDE ECE Director)

ISD Superintendent 2 agreed that there are resources in the local schools and in
the local communities that can be used to help promote ECE provision and awareness.
Local schools have a great deal of resources already at their disposal that they could

allocate to or share with ECE programs in their communities.

97

I drink more can be done through collaboration and partnerships with your
community and your school for that zero to ﬁve. For example, maybe our
libraries, our elementary libraries, maybe there could be one or two days a
week where that is set up that young mothers that have children from zero
to ﬁve bring their children to the school library and the old story library
concept. We have a lot of school buildings that have declining enrolhnent
that might have a room that is empty in a building and we can get
volunteers from the community of senior citizens or other parents to come
in for a few hours to help out with some of these younger families. So I
think there are more things that we could do that wouldn’t cost a lot of
money, but it takes a volunteer or organization or community leader to

step forward to do that. (ISD Superintendent 2)

An interesting point raised by the MDE coordinator was that he would like to see
the schools and agencies reach out to parents in settings other than schools because many
parents with at-risk children do not feel comfortable in the school setting. This lack of
comfort may very well keep a lot of parents from accessing services that are currently
available.

I am state coordinator and I go to state meetings across the nation and

those kinds of things and Even Start families are those who are low

income and low literacy, so they have two big strikes against them and

Even Start has this comprehensive look at improving children’s outcomes

by addressing the adult literacy and early childhood education parenting

98

education and then giving them opportunities to practice literacy activities

together. What made me think of that is so many of our parents in Even

Start are afraid to walk into a school because of the very, very negative

experiences that they had as learners. So, when a community - a school

district is looking at - oh yeah, lets open the doors and they all come in -

that might be the right thing for the upper-middle class parents who were

successful and they are taking some time off and being at home with their

children and things like that and it may be that the library or the local

churches or other venues are the place where these other folks that have

these feelings might gather. (ECE Coordinator)

ISD superintendent 2 shared a similar concern about parents feeling welcome in
schools, but he would rather make the schools more inviting than host events elsewhere.

I don’t know if we make people feel welcome into our schools anymore

and again, I guess that is a time of our society because we have lock

downs and we have to have the doors locked and you go to the large

intercity schools and you have to metal detectors to get in the front door

and you have police guards in the buildings and the middle schools even

and in some of the larger districts. Fortunately, we don’t have that in [our]

County, but we have some of those things. We have doors locked that

never used to be locked. Signs all over of what you have to do when you

come to your building just because of our society we don’t have quite the

same things we used to have. (ISD Superintendent 2)

99

Opening the doors of the schools to parents of young children could be a “win,
win” situation for both schools and families. Local school districts often do not know
who is coming through their doors until they host a kindergarten round up in the spring to
enroll children for the next fall.

We don’t even know who in our community right now is going to

kindergarten next year. We’re going to do kindergarten round up in May

and we don’t know whether we are going to have 200 or 250 kids show

up. . . . The community thinks that we know that they have children and

where they are located. We don’t. We, for the most part, don’t know

where our young children are. So there’s no real structure there which I

think the schools could get involved in that, but if you are going to get

involved in that then you have to have something for them.

(Superintendent 5)

Kindergarten round-up traditionally consisted of meeting and assessing children
from the district prior to placing them in a classroom for the next fall. With schools of
choice becoming increasingly popular, districts now use kindergarten round-up, and even
the kindergarten program, as a way to recruit families. Districts not only publicize the
dates and times of round-up, they advertise it along with advertising their district and
programs. Full-day, everyday kindergarten is much more costly for districts since they
are funded at the same level as half-day kindergarten, but it is a draw for many families

since it reduces they need for daycare.

100

The Changing Role

Research Question 3 seeks to determine how the role that local districts play in
the provision of ECE has changed in recent years. While there are many roles that the
local districts could play in providing ECE services, it does not seem that the role that
local districts play in the provision of ECE has changed a great deal in the past several
years beyond the addition of all day everyday kindergarten programs and more MSRP
programs. One ISD superintendent, along with the MDE director, mentioned that MSRP
has become more prevalent in recent years and there are more requirements and standards
in the program. Beyond these expectations the study participants could not identify
major changes to the role. When asked: “To the best of your knowledge, how have the
expectations for the role local districts in the provision of ECE changed over the last
several years?” the MDE ECE coordinator could point to few if any major changes, but
she does feel that districts are understanding better the importance of the MSRP program
and are accepting the role of ambassador of the program.

Our biggest program that we have in the ofﬁce is the Michigan School

Readiness program. Over the last several years, that program has gotten

good at providing more clear guidance about expectations, districts have

recognized the importance - I think the districts have recognized the

importance of the program to impact the children next steps - like will

those kids meet grade level content expectations in kindergarten, lSt and

2'”. The four-year-old years are really important. Some of the role has

not changed whatsoever - part of your job at the local district job -

whoever is coordinating the school readiness is always got to answer the

101

constituents to say how come I can’t get in, why is it that I have to put my

tax dollars into these other kids and my kid can’t get in the door that kind

of thing. So that role has been consistent - being the public liaison to the

importance of high quality education and care for kids at-risk and how

research shows that for them interventions are really important. (ECE

Coordinator)

ISD superintendent 1 also did not see a large change but he, too, mentioned the
pressure of the pending tests as a potential catalyst for change. “I don’t know if there is
an expectation for early childhood yet. I think that the pressure of testing started in 3rd
grade is weighting districts to the massive differential of students entering kindergarten.
So, I think they are awakening to it, but again, there is no funding for it.”

The Envisioned Roles

The roles that locals envision for themselves and the roles that ISD and state
leaders envision for the locals are fairly similar. Leaders at all levels feel that locals
could play a larger role in the provision of ECE services. The leaders also agree that it
would be best to build the locals’ capacity to do this with funding and direction from both
the state and the ISDs. Local superintendents were asked to rate the state’s effort to make
early childhood available to the children who most need it. They were told that effort
could encompass funding, training, or other resources. The superintendents had to
choose from excellent, good, fair, or poor. Table 10 shows that most superintendents did

not think that the state was making a good effort to provide ECE.

102

Table 10.

Local Superintendent’s Rating of Each Level ’s Effort to Provide ECE

 

 

 

Poor Fair Good Excellent
Level
State 29% 46% 25% 0%
I SD 1% 35% 35% 29%
Local 0 15% 58% 27%

 

Increasing funding was an obvious way cited by superintendents that the state

could increase support for local districts ECE efforts. Another type of support both local

and ISD superintendents would like to see from the state is the coordination of programs.

A common trend in the interviews, especially with ISD officials, was that there are many

agencies and levels providing ECE services that are not coordinated with one another.

People are responding to the research - people are saying yes we know

that early childhood development - we know brain development - all of

this kind of stuff - we are accepting all of that now and we don’t have to

convince people to believe that. So people are now trying to get on their

soapbox to say why it’s important, but it’s from their perspective instead

of really looking at it collaboratively and say we all believe this, but is the

message that the business and the schools and the health organizations and

everybody can get together and promote and to me that’s what’s kind of

missing because we keep sending messages out to the public. (ISD ECE

Coordinator 1)

The logical starting point for this coordination is at the state level. Local

superintendents were asked this open-ended survey question, “In the provision of ECE,

103

what role(s) is/are appropriate for the State? Please consider funding, capacity building,
staff training, and the provision of ECE.” Again the overwhelming response was
funding, but coordination of services, and better utilization of ISD, was frequently
mentioned in the surveys and interviews. Two superintendents referenced how the state
currently utilizes ISDs to help coordinate and provide special education services. When
asked the following question: “Please describe your vision of how these levels [state,
ISDs, locals] can work together to best provide these services. A vision of how they can
work together with funding and programming resources.” Allegan superintendent I
responded:

State funding followed by ISDs to provide the support necessary for the

locals to get it done. I don’t think the idea - the whole special ed model is

not a bad model. I mean we’re getting what we need with that model.

Because if I need services and I don’t have enough kids to provide those

for, I can send them to the other campus in Martin where they have 58

kids in the E1 program in the county. Alright - so if I’m providing - let’s

use the analogy - I have my own resource rooms in my district and I send

the really tough cases to Allegan then why couldn’t use that same model

for early childhood education from the standpoint that we’re offer the

regular mainstream special ed services, but some of these other things that

really need attention so these other needs of students - may be we could

center them up and get - you see what I mean we can service all kids that

way.

An Oakland County superintendent who supported ECE also stated on the survey,

104

Our state provides 0-5 education for all Special Education students so I

believe it would be appropriate to offer programs to all students 0-5.

Funding, capacity building and training could be done through the ISD's.

We already have MSRP in place for 4 year olds. This model would meet

the needs of many 3-5 year olds whether they meet the at-risk

requirements or not.

Putting the ISDs into the center of services was a common thought of many of the
interviewees. The ECE coordinator of Allegan County agrees that the role of ISD needs
to be expanded more into that of the middle level provider.

I really think that the ISDs have the potential to play a centralizing role in

the school system as a whole. I think it would be very challenging for

individual school districts to really develop the expertise and the

leadership to provide quality early education experience at the district

level. I’m not saying that it’s impossible. I think that ISDs have the

potential to get people on board that have that kind of expertise. Also

ISDs, I think, have a little more sense of connection to communities. So, I

think there is more collaborative role played by an ISD between the

schools and agencies. Where the schools themselves - I think they have

more challenges with making those kind of community connections. (ISD

ECE Director 1)

The director went on to say that she felt the Allegan ESA currently does play this

role, but it is mostly of his or her own accord, and it is not done that way everywhere.

105

Ionia ISD’s ECE coordinator anticipates a greater role for ISDs, but she also points out

that not all ISDs have made strides in that direction.

I think that the role of the ISD has deﬁnitely grown with the Granholm
administration because she is centering more responsibility there. The
Department of Education is now providing more responsibility there and a
perfect example is these outcomes with the early childhood special
education programs. Most of them are locally run, but it’s the ISD that is
responsible for assuring that all of that data is collected and things like
that. I think they [1 SDS] are embracing it [the increased role].

The local superintendents seem quick to volunteer the services of the ISDs, but

this is welcomed by the ISD leadership. When the ISD superintendents were asked what

role they envision for the state they both felt that the state needs to provide the direction,

but to give the ISDs and local the oversight responsibilities.

ECE:

[During the govemor’s] Last term here we’re going to see some
movement towards funding early childhood and then I think once they
start the funding, it’s up to the MDE to set the standards and get out of the
way, and the ISDs, the RESAs, and ESAs need to coordinate within the
locals and get to what the standards are. You cannot cop down how to do
it. (ISD Superintendent 1)

ISD Superintendent 2 explains the role that he sees for the state in the provision of

Well I wish the state didn’t have to mandate it or be the major player, but I

am afraid in order for it to happen it will have to be that way. I wish that it

106

didn’t have to be. Ideally, I would like to see parents, community and

schools step up, work together, and make those things happen. But sadly

it hasn’t happened. Statistics show that. So, as a result we probably need

more help or more support and some direction and guidance and guess that

could come from the state or from the intermediate school districts to the

schools. (ISD Superintendent 2)

The state director was also asked to deﬁne the role that the MDE currently plays
in the provision of ECE services. In the course of her response she mentioned that she
would like to see an increased role for ISDs. It seems that ISD ofﬁcials and local
superintendents alike would also like to see the role of ISDs expanded. ISDs are usually
seen as the liaison between the state and the local districts, but that in not really the case.
According to the MDE ofﬁcials, the 57 ISDs in the state operate independently from one
another and with very little oversight from the MDE. The state director for ECE explains
the current role of the MDE and ISDs in the provision of ECE and she explains the
arrangement she would like to see in the future.

The current role -- we put out the money. We are kind of a middle man

for both state and federal money, but we are also charged with developing

the standards assuring the accountability, and I think we’re also seeing a

somewhat of a think tank like we kind of ﬁgure out what a work - now we

never do that alone - we have all kinds of committees and people that help,

you know - it’s always collaborative, but we come out with what it should

be and we either give the money to the ISDs or locals. Originally, when I

ﬁrst started, we gave most of the money to locals and that school district’s

107

and individual childcare center’s and programs. And when you have just a
few things around the state that’s an okay way to do it. When you get big
and you starting to give it to everybody, it’s not good for us to be giving it
directly to local districts and dealing with 600 grantees for programs. It
would be better if we worked through the ISDs. So currently, we are just
starting to use the ISDs as local collaboratives and organizers. I see that
has a big future. Because there are too many different entities, too much
to check on, too much accountability. I think we should - the ISDs were
set up to provide some of that - that should be their natural reason to be.
Currently, we do deal with - we started to deal with ISDs on a number of
grants starting with the 2000 ASAP-PIE grant went to ISDs and the
mechanism of giving it out to the ISDs is pretty successful. So, I see more
of that.

ISDs do provide a lot of direct services in their counties. For example, the districts

in Allegan County have elected to have the ISD serve as the ﬁduciary for the MSRP

programs. This is the case for all Allegan County districts except for Fennville, which

with a 73% free and reduced count runs their own program. ISD coordinators and local

superintendents like this model in general. They see ISDs as being very helpful in areas

with smaller populations because there is more bang for buck by having a central

provider. For example, in Ionia County all of the MSRP programs were housed at the

ISD. This made sense because they were only enough kids in the county participating to

ﬁll one classroom. This way each district did not have to pay for a teacher and director

for the program. However, as the district saw the demand increase, they were able to

108

start their own programs which were closer to the families they served. Being closer kept
kids off the busses for long periods and made it more convenient for the parents they
serve.

Conclusion

The role that local districts play in providing ECE in the state of Michigan is
diverse and there are many factors that contribute to this diversity. As established by the
survey and reﬂected on the ECE Provision Index scores, the good news is that many of
the children in Michigan with the greatest need for ECE appear to be getting ECE
services. These services are most likely to be provided by Head Start or MSRP. MSRP
is most likely to be provided by the local school district, but Head Start is more likely to
be provided by an entity other than the local school district.

Another factor that seems to have the biggest inﬂuence on the provision of ECE is
the role of the ISD the knowledge of the superintendents. Since most superintendents
indicated on the survey that they have learned the most about ECE while serving as a
superintendent, it seems that the ISD has a large inﬂuence on the knowledge of
superintendents. As seen in Allegan County, if the ISD makes a point to educate
superintendents about ECE, the superintendents gain knowledge about ECE, and
knowledge also equates to better provision of services.

Another key ﬁnding is that locals, ISDs, and the MDE would like to see ISDs
play a larger role in the provision of services. Local superintendents are interested in
ECE services and they are receptive to the idea of providing these services with the

organizational support of ISDs and the ﬁnancial backing of the state on the MDE.

109

Funding issues were frequently cited by superintendents on the survey and in the
interviews as the main reason for not providing more ECE services in their district.
Funding issues are a large concern for all three levels, but there were several suggestions
made for ways that local districts can support ECE and other providers without spending
large amounts of money.

The message about the beneﬁts to ECE has perforated the various service levels
and the people in the supervisory positions at these levels are ready and willing to
provide ECE service. It appears that all levels are very willing to coordinate services and
that is seen in such programs as the ECIC and Great Parents, Great Start that are making

use of ISDs as the middle level provider that can help for the present time.

110

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was threefold as it attempted to: 1) determine to what
extent local school districts in Michigan vary in their provision of ECE services and what
factors, such as superintendent knowledge and community characteristics, account for
these differences; 2) determine local school district superintendents’ perceptions of ECE
and explore whether or not these perceptions are related to their knowledge, familiarity
with programs and research, and to what extent they view ECE as being important to
their students obtaining their achievement goals; and 3) determine the efﬁcacy of the
current delivery system for ECE services between the state, ISDs, and local districts by
ascertaining the vision that the leaders at these levels have for the provision of ECE
services.

The results of the study were obtained from a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods. Quantitatively, a 26-item survey that asked closed, open, and scale
questions was delivered to local school district superintendents in four Michigan
counties. Quantitative data was also gathered from databases and web sites that report
funding information, enrollment numbers and other pertinent information. The
qualitative method was personal interviews conducted with four local superintendents,
two ISD superintendents, two ISD ECE coordinators, and two MDE directors responsible
for ECE.

The results of this study show that there is large variance in the ECE services that

local districts provide that is related to the needs of the children in a given district.

111

Michigan districts that have a higher need for ECE services are more likely to provide
them than districts without a high need for services. There is a relationship between the
superintendent’s knowledge and their district’s ECE Provision Index score. Most of the
knowledge that local superintendents have about ECE was acquired on the job as a
superintendent. Some have brought ECE experience with them into superintendent
positions, but many more have been informed of ECE beneﬁts while in their position as
superintendent.

Though most Michigan superintendents are not familiar with speciﬁc studies on
ECE, most believe that an investment in ECE can have a positive impact on student
achievement. Programs and training offered by ISDs can be very inﬂuential to the
attitudes of local superintendents. The experience that superintendents bring to the
position, such as experience exclusively at the 9-12 level versus pre-K or K-S experience
also impacts the knowledge and perception of superintendents; those with pre-K and K-S
experience being more knowledgeable and supportive of ECE.

The study also indicates that leaders at the state, ISD, and local level have a
similar vision for the provision of ECE that varies slightly from the current alignment and
dissemination of services. Leaders at the three levels would like to see an increased role
for ISDs in the provision of services. As will be further discussed, ISDs are in a central
position and seem the best equipped to coordinate ECE services.

In the course of the study several themes became apparent that helped to explain
the ﬁndings.

Informing Superintendents

When analyzing the data collected from the survey and the interviews, it became

112

clear that superintendents are familiar, at least on a surface level, with the research that
indicates lasting beneﬁts for children who receive quality ECE. They know that children
would enter school better prepared which would translate to higher levels of achievement
on standardized tests. Many also feel there is the potential for an ECE investment to
have long-term ﬁnancial beneﬁts for their district as well.

There is a difference between superintendents with secondary experience and
those with primary experience. Superintendents that have worked with the younger
populations tend to put a greater priority on ECE than do those with only secondary
experience. However, as seen in Allegan County, superintendents that are informed and
in-serviced on the beneﬁts of ECE, tend to become strong supporters of it. Most
superintendents claim that much of their learning about ECE has come on the job. This
means that public school administrators, such as secondary principals and assistant
superintendents, are not as aware of the beneﬁts of ECE.

Raising awareness of the beneﬁts of ECE among other administrators, school
boards, and the general public is important. Local superintendents are in a good place to
help raise this awareness because they are the key policy setters and decision makers in a
school community. The ECE message need to reach legislators and superintendents can
certainly help in this cause.

Funding Issues

Local superintendents are very supportive of ECE, but many feel that their hands
are tied in terms of being able to offer more ECE programs in their districts. The issue of
funding came up repeatedly in the surveys and interviews with many superintendents

stating that they feel a lot pressure to spend money on programs that beneﬁt children in

113

grades K-12. Even superintendents that believe strongly in ECE have difﬁculty
justifying using their general funds to serve the Pre-K population. They feel that
providing ECE services is beyond their scope.

Though superintendents see themselves as the main policy makers in a district,
they feel that they do not have the ability to institute a program that steps outside the
realm of K-12. Many superintendents feel marginalized by policies such as Proposal A.
Proposal A passed in 1994 and it equalized school funding amongst local districts in
Michigan. While it equalized funding, it took away a great deal of local control by
shifting the schools’ main revenue source away from local property taxes to the state
through an increase in sale tax. Many superintendents expressed concerns that their
constituents would not support providing ECE programs if it meant cutting existing
programs that serve K-12 students.

ISD and state leaders are sympathetic to these concerns and do not expect
superintendents to use their general fund dollars to fund ECE. These leaders do,
however, have ideas about ways that the local districts can support ECE without spending
a large amount of money. In addition to raising awareness about ECE at public forums,
local districts could involve other providers in their in-services and they could do more
with families. Local districts have facilities and capacity to invite parents and other
providers into the school to teach or at least facilitate classes on parenting and care skills.
The Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA) made
educating superintendents a top priority for a reason. Educating superintendents can lead
them to advocate for programs. Allegan County provides a good example of what

educating superintendents and the kind of momentum that can be created by getting them

114

on board with ECE. Alone superintendents do not have the political inﬂuence to make
the type of change that would be needed to get more funding and state support for ECE.
Together, however, their professional associations and local inﬂuence with state
representatives has greater potential to initiate change.

Coordinating E ﬂorts

This study focused on the role that local school districts play in providing ECE
and how this role coordinates with the ISD and state level. In the course of interviewing
ISD and state ECE coordinators the need for collaboration and coordination of services
was frequently referenced. There are ECE programs administered at all levels ranging
from the federal Head Start program, through state and local programs down to small day
care centers and private homes with family care. There are also agencies such as
Children’s Trust Fund, the Department of Hinnan Services, and the Department of
Community Health and State School Aid that provide ECE programming or funding.
Additionally, there are non-proﬁt organizations, such as the United Way and private
endowments from the private sector, which are getting involved in ECE through
partnerships such as the Early Childhood Investment Corporation (ECIC).

There has been a push to get these organizations to work together. Recently a
guide for assisting in community collaborations was published by a joint effort of the
Ofﬁce of Governor Jennifer Granholm, The Michigan Department of Education, the
Michigan Family Independence Agency, The Michigan Business Leaders for Educational
Excellence, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and the AT& T Foundation. This
guide is designed to help coordinate many efforts including Project Great Start. Among

the key community stakeholders that the guide recommends that organizations work with

115

are ISDs and school principals. The guide is a great start, but knowledge of these
partnerships has yet to perforate the ECE community, let alone local districts. The ECIC
is a major effort, but only 25% of the superintendents who responded to the survey were
familiar with the program.

Provision of ECE is a disjointed effort, at best, in the state of Michigan. This was
particularly apparent in discussions with the ISD and MDE ECE coordinators. The state
and especially the coordinators have the most ﬁrst-hand knowledge and they have a good
understanding of how the various agencies work within the state and within their own
counties.

Role of the [SD

When asked on the survey what role they would like to see ISDs play in the
provision of ECE, many of the superintendents mentioned training, support, and
leadership. Some superintendents felt that ECE should originate from ISD since local
districts already so many responsibilities in K-12, but most wanted a support role from
the ISD.

As many of the interview participants pointed out, ISD can make efﬁcient use of
resources, especially in areas with many small local districts. One superintendent
pointed out that poverty “doesn’t have any district boundaries” (Superintendent l). The
superintendents and ISD coordinators interviewed felt that it would make sense to
provide and coordinate services for smaller districts where it makes sense to pool
resources. Many superintendents stated in their interviews or survey that they would like
to see money funneled through the ISDs from the state to the locals.

ISDs are beginning to play an increased role in the provision of ECE, but it could

116

still be greater. Great Parents, Great Start and the ECIC are programs that have been
recently placed in the hands of ISDs. Increasing the role of ISDs makes sense because
they are in a good position to coordinate programs. Special education programs are a
potential role model for ECE programs. Many ISDs offer center programs for special
education services and they employ experts such as those who specialize in autism
spectrum disorders. In many cases single local districts do not have the need or the
resources to hire autism spectrum experts, school psychologists, or speech pathologists.
ISDs can centralize these services and make sure that they reach the children who need
them. Many ISDs have passed special education millages to support services and they
could ask voters to approve them for ECE programming as well. Both the state director
and coordinator of ECE for the MDE mentioned an initiative called, Darkening the
Dotted Lines, where the MDE is working with ISDs to clarify the role of ISDs in teacher
education and certiﬁcation issues. Darkening the Dotted Lines helps formalize and ﬁrm-
up many of the roles that ISD currently play as a liaison between the state and local
districts. This partnership with the MDE and ISDs could help ISDs move into a more

centralized role in providing services to local districts.

Implications
As indicated in Chapter 2, there are numerous beneﬁts to providing quality ECE.
When children receive a quality early childhood education, they are more likely to
achieve higher and behave better in school. A solid performance in school is then more
likely to lead to greater success as an adult. As indicated in the Perry High Scope

Preschool Project, this beneﬁts society as a whole. Public schools have much to gain

117

from participating in ECE. However, their current role is much smaller than it could be
or should be. Public schools are interested in ECE, and they believe in ECE. Moreover,
they are ready to become more involved, but they are lacking in the capacity to provide
as many services as they would like.

Public schools are labeled as K-12 institutions. They do not receive state funding
for preschool children unless these children have risk factors. Even then, not all children
who need the services are receiving them. Public schools currently serve all children in
grades K-12. Every community is served by a local school district which means that an
infrastructure already exists in every community to serve children. Local districts are
good at providing services, but they need funding and support from the state and their
ISD to provide quality programs. ISDs are also in place and they too have the ability to
serve their local districts. A recent report entitled, Tough Choices, calls for restructuring
the American education system. One of the proposals in the report calls for reframing
public schools to serve children beginning at three-years-old until they complete the 10th
grade. While this study on ECE is not designed to comment on secondary education, it

will support adding 3-year-olds to public school’s range of service.

Limitations
This study was limited by the following conditions:
1. The sample locations were purposely selected. Though the participating sample
was shown to be representative of the other school districts in the sample
counties, the study was limited to four counties in two Michigan regions. This

made the study manageable, but it may not be representative of all local Michigan

118

school districts and intermediate school districts.

2. The analysis of data came from only those leaders who agreed to participate.
Some superintendents were clearly more informed about the ECE programs than
were some of their colleagues. For example, some superintendents misreported or
underreported their districts participation in ECE programs. The researcher
referenced each participating district’s web site to compare this information, and
did make a few adjustments the number of programs reported in the tables used to
calculate the ECE Provision Index score.

3. The subjective factors used in the index scores, such as superintendent’s
perception of their district’s efforts to provide ECE programs and the assessment
of the superintendents’ own knowledge. There were many other factors
considered in the index score to minimize the effect of superintendent
overestimating or underestimating his/her district’s efforts to provide ECE.

4. The inability to ascertain the amount that local districts spend on ECE. Many
superintendents, especially those in large districts, are not able to recite speciﬁc
ﬁnancial information. Ascertaining the amount spent on ECE would require a lot
of work from the districts’ ﬁnance directors. The design of this study would have
to have been changed to include ﬁnance directors as well as superintendents if

exact ﬁnancial ﬁgures were to be included.

Recommendations for Future Research

Efforts to enhance ECE in Michigan would beneﬁt from gaining a clearer understanding

of who, exactly, is receiving quality ECE and who is providing those services. This study

119

sought to gain a general understanding of the scope of ECE service and it did show that
local communities with the greatest need are most active in the provision of ECE
services. It did not address the growing need to provide for families that earn more than
the limits for Head Start or MSRP, but cannot afford quality private care. It is possible
that children from lower middle class families are not receiving the same level of ECE as
children from families below the poverty lines or in the upper middle class.

It may be beneﬁcial for future studies to examine the cost of universal ECE
programs in Michigan. While many local school districts and ISDs would be receptive to
providing ECE services, they would need help from the state legislature for funding and
the MDE for capacity building. There is growing number of states moving towards
universal preschool and they may help researchers determine the feasibility and cost of

using public schools as they main service provider.

Implications for Professional Practice

Nationally recognized research conducted in Michigan shows the return the state
would receive on an investment in ECE. The ECIC is a movement towards having
private sources help pay for this investment. The governor of Michigan has made ECE a
priority in her speeches and in many of her actions and initiatives. People are listening,
but the word is still not being spread far enough or wide enough. Many local school
district superintendents have received this message, but it has stopped there because local
districts do not have the funding or capacity to provide the services they know would

help. Local and intermediate districts do have a lot on their plates, but with increased

120

funding and support, they will be able to provide ECE for the children they will
eventually serve in grades K-12.

A start in this direction would be to coordinate the programs and funding that is
currently in place. The MDE has started in this direction with the Darkening the Dotted
Lines initiative and with the guide for assisting community collaboratives. These efforts
should be supported and completed to set the stage for an even more comprehensive ECE

provision plan that could ultimately culminate in a universal ECE plan for Michigan.

121

APPENDICES

122

Name

Appendix A

Local District Superintendent Interview Questions

District Date

 

 

Baseline/Background Questions

1) How long have you been in your current position?

2) What positions did you hold prior to becoming a superintendent?

3) Please describe the demographic and socioeconomic composition of your district?

4) What are some unique characteristics of your district and unique challenges that
you face?

5) How does your district stand in terms of AYP? Where do you think you will be
in 5-6 years in regard to AYP?

ECE Knowledge

6) What early childhood programs are available to children in your district?

Which of these services are offered by your district?

What other organizations provide ECE services?

How would you rate the quality of these different programs?

Are there additional programs that you would like to see your district
participate in?

7) What opportunities have you had in the past to learn about ECE?

Professional Conferences
Trade Journals

County Meetings
District In—services
College classes

Other

Please summarize what you were able to take away from these opportunities.

8) Please tell me about the person who is in charge of ECE programs in your district
by answering the following questions.

What is this person’s title?

How long has this person been in this position?

How long has the position been in place?

What credentials does this person hold that makes them qualiﬁed for this
position?

9) To the best of your knowledge, are the preschool children in your district who
most need ECE services receiving them?

123

Perception Questions:

10) Research on the Perry High Scope Preschool Program has found a $13.00 return
to society for every dollar spent on children in that program. Some studies have
suggested that children who participate in quality ECE programs are less likely to
need special education services, are less likely to be retained, will score higher on
standardized test, and are less likely to drop out. On a smaller scale, do you think
there would be long-term ﬁnancial beneﬁts for money that your district spends on
ECE? In other words, would you see the return on your investment?

11) How important do you think high-quality ECE is for a child’s success in school?

12) Do you think a higher percentage of children participating in ECE would
positively impact MEAP scores or adequate yearly progress in your district?
Please explain.

13) If the goal is to provide high quality ECE services to the children that need it the
most, how important is it to have K-12 districts involved in providing these ECE
services? Is this something that the ISD or the state could or should provide
without the local district being involved?

14) Overall, how satisﬁed are you with the ECE services that are offered in your
district? Please Explain.

Policy Implication Questions:
15) How inﬂuential is the superintendent in setting spending priorities in your
district?

16) How do you think your board would feel about spending additional money on
ECE?

17) Please rank in order the priority you would like to see given to the following
programs by the state and federal governments.

_Middle School Math (99c)

_High School Reform

_Reading Recovery

_Class size reduction (Title Ila)

_At-risk funding (3 la)

__ Early Childhood Education
_Before/After school programs for grades k-8
_Giﬁed and Talented

18) Currently the state, ISDs, and many local school districts all provide funding

124

and/or programming for ECE. The goal that the state and most ISDs strive for is
to provide quality ECE for every child who needs it. Please describe your vision
for how these levels can work together to best provide these services.

125

Appendix B

ISD Superintendent Interview Questions

Name District Date

 

 

 

1) How long have you been in your current position?

2) What positions did you hold prior to becoming the ISD superintendent?

3) Will you please describe the demographic and socioeconomic composition of the
communities in your county?

4) What are some unique characteristics of your district and unique challenges that your
intermediate district faces?

5) Please rank in order 1-8 the priority you would like to see given to the following
programs by the state and federal governments.

_Middle School Math (99c)

_High School Reform

_Reading Recovery

_Class size reduction (Title Ila)

_At-risk funding (31a)

_ Early Childhood Education
_Before/After school programs for grades k-8
____Gifted and Talented

6) How familiar are you with early education (ECE) programs such as Head Start,
Michigan School Readiness Program, and Parents as Teachers that are available for
preschool children? Do you feel as familiar as with these programs as you are with
programs available to children in grades K-12?

7) What are some of the early childhood programs available to children in your ISD?
How are these programs funded?

8) How important do you think high-quality ECE is for a child’s success in school?

9) Overall, how satisﬁed are you with the ECE services that are offered in your district?
Please Explain. (Are there new ECE programs you would like to see started in your
district? If so, what would they look like?)

10) Do you think a higher percentage of children participating in ECE would positively

impact MEAP scores or adequate yearly progress for the local districts in your county?
Please explain.

126

11) To the best of your knowledge, are the children in your ISD who most need ECE
services receiving them? Please Explain.

12) Research on the Perry High Scope Preschool Program has found a $13.00 return to
society for every dollar spent on children in that program. Some studies have suggested
that children who participate in quality ECE programs are less likely to need special
education services, are less likely to be retained, will score higher on standardized test,
and are less likely to drop out. On a smaller scale, do you think there would be long-term
ﬁnancial beneﬁts for money that your ISD spends on ECE? In other words, would you
see the return on your investment before the kids graduate?

13) Is early childhood education a priority for the local superintendents in your county?
Should it be?

14) A feeling among some is that local districts could do more to provide ECE if they
made it a larger priority. How do you react to these feelings?)

15) In the provision of ECE, what role(s) is/are appropriate for the state? Please
consider funding, capacity building, staff training, and the provision of ECE.

127

Name
1)
3)
4)
5)

6)

7)
8)

9)

Appendix C

ISD Coordinator Interview

District Date

 

 

What is your job title?

What are your job responsibilities as they relate to ECE? Is oversight of ECE
your major responsibility?

How did you become interested in ECE?

How important do you think high-quality ECE is for a child’s success in school?
(Can a child be successful in school without having been in a quality childcare
program or in a nurturing home?)

How do you interpret or deﬁne the role that ISDs play in providing ECE in the
state of Michigan?

The Early Childhood Committee of the Michigan Association of Intermediate
School Administrators (MAISA) set 4 goals for the 2005-06 school year. The
ﬁrst of these goals was to: quote “develop a compelling message for the public
education system that motivates them to understand and accept the importance of
ECEC.” This was to be done in part by promoting and making presentations at
(Michigan Association of School Administrators (MASA) and Michigan
Association of School Board (MASB) conferences. Why is it important to
educate the public education system and its administrators? What can be gained
by doing so?

In general, how supportive do you feel LEA or K-12 superintendents are in terms
of providing quality ECE to the children in their districts?

In your opinion, are K-128 doing enough to support and provide ECE? Are some
better than others? How do you account for these differences?

Should K-12 districts be responsible for funding ECE programs? Please explain
your thoughts on this. Do you feel that there is room in most current K-12
budgets to better provide services should the superintendents choose to allocate
the funds?

10) Should K-12 Districts provide their own programs or should ISDs be responsible

for providing most if not all ECE services.

128

11) What (more) would you like the following levels to do to support ECE?
State

ISDs
Local districts
12) There has been some talk of making public education span from age three to grade

twelve or even birth to grade twelve. How do feel about having local districts
having responsibility for providing services beginning at these early ages?

13) What are some research studies that you would recommend to local leaders to help
inform them understand and accept the importance of ECE?

129

Appendix D

Interview with State Directors

Name District Date

 

 

Background Questions
1) Will you please give me a brief description of your job responsibilities?
2) What training and past experiences led you into this position?
Current Picture

3) How does early childhood education (ECE) currently ﬁt into the K-12 public
education system?

4) How satisﬁed are you with the current ECE programs in Michigan? Please talk about
a few speciﬁc programs.

5) Please describe the role that the MDE has in providing ECE to children in
Michigan.

a. Please describe the role that you see ISDs currently play in providing ECE?
b. Please describe the role that you see local districts currently play in proving ECE?

6) The Early Childhood Committee of the Michigan Association of Intermediate
School Administrators (MAISA) set 4 goals for the 2005-06 school year. The ﬁrst of
these goals was to: quote “develop a compelling message for the public education
system that motivates them to understand and accept the importance of ECEC.” This
was to be done in part by promoting and making presentations at the Michigan
Association of School Administrators (MASA) and the Michigan Association of
School Board (MASB) conferences. Do you think educating local leaders will lead
to better programs? Will it lead to more programs?

7) Are some local districts within the same ISD more effective in providing high-
quality ECE than others? If so what accounts for these differences?

8) To the best of your knowledge, how have the expectations for the role local districts
in the provision of ECE changed over the last several years?

130

Future Picture
9) How much inﬂuence do you feel a local superintendent and ISD superintendent can
have in their respective districts to provide quality ECE programs that reach a large

number of children in need of the services? Please explain your answer.

10) Budget constraints are often cited by local leaders as the main obstacle in
providing quality ECE in their districts. How do you respond to this concern?

11) Will you please describe your vision of how the State, ISDs, and local districts
could best work together to provide ECE to the children who need it the most?
Please comment on the role you would like to see each level play.

12) What can be done to see this vision become reality?

131

Appendix E

Letter to District Superintendents for Interview

PROVIDING QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN’S
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

02-12-2007
Dear Interview Participant:

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate K-12 superintendents’ perceptions of
early childhood education programs and policy. I will be asking questions regarding your
knowledge of and experiences with early childhood education, and solicit your views on
alternative state and local initiatives to promote the deliver early childhood education
serv1ces

This study is non-invasive and participating in the study is not expected to cause
discomfort. The study will be of value to the Michigan Department of Education,
intermediate school districts, and K-12 leaders. The goal of the study is to help specify
an appropriate alignment of the roles for actors at each of these levels of Michigan’s
education system in the provision of early childhood education services.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes in a face-to-face setting. You may
decline to answer any of the interview questions or discontinue your participation at any
time.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Data collected
will be kept strictly conﬁdential and that the reports generated from this study will not
contain details that can be readily used to identify participants. The tapes and notes from
the interview, along with the data gathered from the corresponding questionnaire, will be
kept by the researcher and will only be used for the purpose of completing this study.
Participants may request to see a copy of the results and discussion section of the
dissertation before it is ofﬁcially submitted.

You are under no obligation to participate in this study and may discontinue your
participation if you so desire. You may contact John Deiter at (616) 794-1796 or his
academic advisor, David D. Arsen, Ph.D. for more information regarding this study.
David Arsen, Department of Educational Administration, 418 Erickson Hall, East
Lansing-48824. Phone: (517) 432-2276 email: arsen@msu.edu

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if
you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at

132

Michigan State University, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

 

 

Signature of Respondent Date

 

 

Signature of Investigator Date

133

Appendix F

Survey of Local School District Superintendents

Please provide your name and school district.

No names will be used in the ﬁnal report. District names are essential for data disaggregation. You may
contact John Deiter at (616) 794-1796 or his academic advisor, David D. Arsen for more information
regarding this study. David Arsen, Department of Educational Administration, 418 Erickson Hall, East
Lansing-48824. Phone: (517) 432-2276 email: arsen@msu.edu If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject
Protection Programs at Michigan State University, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503,
email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

How many years have you served in your current position?
1-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years 7 years or more

. Which credentials do you hold?
Check all that apply

BS/BA in Education

MA in Administration

MA in Teaching or Counselling
Ed.S.

Ph.D or Ed.D.

Other, please specify

What grade levels have you taught or administered in prior to becoming superintendent?
Pre-k

K-5

6-8

9-12

Other, please specify

What preschool programs are available to children in your district?
Michigan School Readiness Program (MSRP)

Head Start

Tuition based program
Other subsidized program at reduced or no cost to parents
None

134

10.

Other, please specify

What preschool programs are provided by your district?
Michigan School Readiness Program (MSRP)

HeadStart

Tuition based program

Other subsidized program at reduced or no cost to parents
None

Other, please specify

If your district provides ECE programs, is the person who oversees your district's
early childhood education program a member of your district’s administrative team?

Yes No

If your district provides ECE programs, is the person in charge of your district's
early childhood education program certiﬁed and/or endorsed in early childhood
education?

Yes

No

Not sure

If there is a person in charge of your district's early childhood education program,
what is his/her job title?

Early Childhood Program Coordinator
Elementary Principal

Special Education Director

Lead Teacher

Other, please specify

Please rate your level of knowledge about the following programs

Not at all Familiar = I do not know who receives or provides services for this
program. Somewhat Familiar = I know who receives and provides services for
this program. Fairly Familiar = I know who receives and provides services and I
have an idea of the costs and beneﬁts of the programs. I have solid working know-
ledge of the program. Very Familiar = I can discuss the intricacies of the program
or study in detail.

Not at all Somewhat Fairly- Very Familiar
F annlrar Fanuhar Familiar

No Child Left

Behind

Michigan School

135

11.

12.

Readiness Program
(MSRP)

Head Start

Early Head Start
Michigan's Project
Great Start

Parents as Teachers
Early On

Early Childhood
Developmental
Disability (ECDD)
Programs

Michigan Early
Childhood
Investment
Corporation (ECIC)

Please rate your knowledge of the following studies of early childhood education
Not at all Familiar = I do not know who receives or provides services for this
program. Somewhat Familiar = I know who receives and provides services for
this program. Fairly Familiar = I know who receives and provides services and

I have an idea of the costs and beneﬁts of the programs. I have solid working
knowledge of the program. Very Familiar = I can discuss the intricacies

of the program or study in detail.

Not at all Somewhat Fairly

Familiar Familiar Familiar Very Familiar

Abecedarian
Project - North
Carolina
Chicago Child-
Parent Center
Program

High/Scope Perry
Preschool Project

At what point in your schooling or career did you learn the most about early
childhood education?

Undergraduate studies

Graduate studies

On the Job -- As an administrator or teacher
On the Job -- As a superintendent

Other, please specify

136

13- What have been your two main sources of knowledge about early childhood

14.

15.

16.

education? Select at least 0 responses and no more than 2 responses.
College coursework

Trade journals

Workshops/in-services

Colleagues

On the job experience

Other, please specify

To the best of your knowledge, how many times has the provision of early child-
hood education been on the agenda of your administrative team meetings in the
last two years?

Never

1 or 2

3 or 4

5 or more

N/A Do not meet as an administrative team

To the best of your knowledge, how many times has the provision of early childhood
education been on the school board agenda in the two years?

Never
1 or 2

3 or 4
5 or more

To the best of your knowledge, how many preschool children in your district receive
one of the following services?

1-20 21-40 41-60 61+ Not Sure Not provided

Head Start (District
Sponsored)

MSRP Michigan
School Readiness

ECDD Early
Childhood
Developmental
Disability Program
Even Start

Parents as Teachers

Welcoming Families
(Home visits)

137

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Other Publicly
funded Program

Tuition Program
(District Provided)

How would you rate the State of Michigan's efforts to make early childhood
education available to children who need it?
Efforts can encompass funding, training, or other resources
Poor Fair Good Excellent

Rate the state's

effort to provide

ECE services to

the children who

need them the

most
How would you rate your ISD's efforts to make early childhood education available to
children in your county?

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Rate your ISDs

efforts to provide

ECE to the children

in your county

How would you rate your district's efforts to make early childhood education available
to children in your district?

Poor F air Good Excellent

Rate your district's

efforts to provide

ECE to the children

in your district

Using a scale of one to ten with one being the lowest and ten the highest, how well
informed do you feel about early childhood education in terms of the programs
available and research in the ﬁeld? One is little or no knowledge and 10 is extremely
knowledgeable?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Your level of
knowledge
regarding ECE

If your schools are to make AYP in the coming years, and given the characteristics
and demographics of your district, how important is it to have quality ECE
programs available in your district? One is not at all important and 10 is very
important.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

138

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

How important is
ECE for AYP (and
grade level
progress) for
schools with
grades K-5?
How important is
ECE for AYP for
schools with
grades 6-8?

How important is
ECE for AYP for
schools with
grades 9-12?

Using a scale of one to ten with one being the lowest level and ten the highest, how
much do you agree that educating the preschool population should be a priority for
K-12 districts?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Educating the 0-5
population should be
a priority for K-12
districts
Optional Comments on any of the scale questions in the previous questions

In the provision of ECE, what role(s) is/are appropriate for the State? Please consider
funding, capacity building, staff training, and the provision of ECE.

In the provision of ECE, what role(s) is/are appropriate for the ISD? Please consider
funding, capacity building, staff training, and the provision of ECE.

Considering the roles that you described for the state and ISDs in the two previous
questions, what role would you like your district to play in providing ECE to
preschool children in your district?

139

ASAP-PIE

Darkening the
Dotted Lines

EarlyOn

ECCD

ECE

Even Start

GPGS

Head Start

MSRP

NCLB

PGS

Appendix G

Glossary of Terms

A discontinued state program that granted $45 million to 23 ISDs in
unequal amounts. It was designed to provide parent education.

A partnership with the MDE and ISDs designed to improve teacher
education and the certiﬁcation process. ECE officials with the MDE
hope it will offer clarity to other relationships as well.

A state program designed to serve children with developmental delays
or special needs.

The Early Childhood Developmental Disability program is a federal
program designed to serve 4 & 5-year-olds.

Early childhood education typically refers to children in pre-
kindergarten programs. It can encompass birth through age 8.

A federal program designed to educate children with an illiterate
parent.

Great Parents Great Start is a state program that is run through ISDs
designed to provide universal programs for parent education. It is
funded at $5 million for all ISDs in the state in equal amounts and it
requires a local matching funds. It replaced ASAP-PIE.

The federal government's ECE program designed to provide quality
ECE for 4 & 5 year-olds living in poverty.

Michigan School Readiness Program is the state's largest ECE
program. It is designed to serve 4-year-olds with economic and
learning risk factors.

No Child Left Behind is a national initiative designed to increase
Student performance by requiring all students to be proﬁcient on their

state's standard assessment.

Project Great Start is Michigan governor Granholm's umbrella
program that is designed to improve and increase ECE services

140

REFERENCES

A Beneﬁt-Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention. (2005).
http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=57

Banks, R. (2004). The Early Childhood Education Curriculum Retrieved September 3,
from Http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/preschoolcurr.html

Barnett, W.S.; Hustedt, J .T.; Robin, K.B. & Schulman, KL. (2004). The State of
Preschool 2004.

State Preschool Yearbook. The National Institute for Early Childhood Education
Research (NIEER). New Jersey.

Barnett, W.S., & Masse, L.N. (2003). Funding issues for early childhood education and
care programs. In Cryer, D. & Clifford, R.M. Eds. (2003). Early Childood
Education and Care in the USA. Baltiore, MD: National Center for Early
Development & Learning.

Barnett, W. S. (2001). Developing Preschool Policy: An Economic Perspective. In Weis,
L. Altbach, P.G., Kelly, G. P., & Petrie, H. Eds. (1991). Critical Perspectives on
Early Childhood Education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Barnett, W. S. & Boocock, S. S. Eds. (1998). Early Care and Education for Children in
Poverty: Promises, Programs, and Long-term Results. New York: Albany State
University Press.

Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in the Balance: Age-27 Beneﬁt-Cost Analysis of
High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Press.

Belﬁeld, CR. (2004). Early childhood education: how important are the cost-savings to
the school system? Report prepared for: Center for Early Care and Education, a
collaboration of the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy and Child Care,
Inc. Retrieved September 4, 2005 from
http://nieer.org/resources/ﬁles/BelﬁeldReport.pdf

Bridgman A. (1989). Early Childhood Education and Childcare: Challenges and
Opportunities for America’s Public Schools. Arlington, VA: American
Association of School Administrators.

Brooks-Gunn, J ., Fuligni, A. S., & Berlin, L.J. Eds. (2003) Early Child Development in

the 21‘“ Century: Proﬁles of Current Research Initiatives. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.

141

Brunet, J. (1999). In Lagemann, E.C.; Shulman, L.S. Eds. (1999). Issues In Education
Research: Problems and Possibilities. San Francisco: CA, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Byrum D. & Elkins J. (2004). Early Childhood Education and Care: Moving Michigan
from Patchwork to Tapestry. Early Education Care and Task Force Report.
April 2004.

CAP The Carolina Abecedarian Project (2005). Early Learning, Later Success: The
Abecedarian Stuay Early Childhood Educational Intervention for Poor Children
Executive Summary. Retn'ved August 28, 2005 from
www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/summarchm.htm

Doherty, G. (2001). Targeting Early Childhood Care and Education: Myths and
Realities. Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre for Urban and
Community Studies, University of Toronto, 455 Spadia Avenue Room 305,
Toronto, Ontario, MSS 2G8.

Early Childhood Education: Building a Strong Foundation for the Future. Educational
Issues Policy Brief. (2002). American Federation of Teachers.

Farkas, G. and Beron, K. (2001) Family Linguistic Culture and Social Reproduction:
Verbal Skill from Parent to Child in the Preschool and School Years. Paper
prepare for the Population Association of America. Washington. DC.

Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 26, February 7, 2003, pp. 6456-6458 Retrieved August 28,
2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/povertv/O3povertv.htm

F rede, E. C. (1998). In Barnett & Boocock Eds. Early Care and Education for Children
in Poverty: Promises, Programs, and Long-term Results. New York: Albany
State University Press.

Fu, V. R. (2003). Innovations in early childhood education and care. In Cryer, D. &
Clifford, R.M. Eds. (2003). Early Childhood Education and Care in the USA.
Baltiore, MD: National Center for Early Development & Learning.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming Qualitative Researchers an Introduction. New York:
Longman Press.

Hauser-Cram, P., Et. al. (1991) Early Education in the Public Schools: Lessons from a
Comprehensive Birth-to-Kindergarten Program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kamerman, S. B. & Gatenio, S. (2003) In Cryer, D. & Clifford, R.M. Eds. (2003)._Early
Childood Education and Care in the USA. Baltiore, MD: National Center for
Early Development & Learning.

142

Kirk R., Bates L., & Tableman B. Eds. (2005) Early Childhood Education and Care as
an Economic Development Strategy for Michigan Brieﬁng Report. Michigan
State University. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from www.icvf.msu.edu

Lascarides, V. C., & Hinitz BR (2000) History of Early Childhood Education. New
York: F alrner Press.

Laosa, L. (2005). Effects on preschool on educational attainment. NIEER working
paper. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from
http://nieer.org/resources/research/EffectsPrerdf

Lynch, R. (2005). Early Childhood Investment Yields Big Payoﬁf Retrieved September
3, 2005, from http://www.wested.oranlineJubs/pp-OS-02.pdf

Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005 Early childhood care and education: effects on ethnic and
racial gaps in school readiness. In McLanaham, S. & Haskins, R. Eds. The Future
of Children, Vol. 15, No. 1. Brookings Institution Press.

Marcon, R. A. (2002). Moving up the grades: relationship between preschool model and
later school success. Retrieved September 3, 2005 from,
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/marcon.html.

Masse, L.N., & Barnett, W.S. (2002). A Benefit Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early
Childhood Interventions. National Institute for Early Childhood Education
Research. Nieer.org. Retrieved August 16, 2005 from
http://nieer.org/resources/research/AbecedarianStudy.pdf.

Mills, Paulette E., Kevin N. Cole, Joseph R. Jenkins, & Philip S. Dale, (2002). Early
Exposure to Direct Instruction and subsequent juvenile delinquency: a prospective
examination, Exceptional Children, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 85—96.

Mitchell, M. (2003, August). How States Finance Prekindergarten Programs and
Estimate Costs. Symposium Conducted Universal Prekindergarten Council at Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.

National Head Start Association. (NHSA) (2005). Head Start Basics. Retrieved August
18, 2005, from hug//ww.nhsa.org/download/advocacy/fact/HSBasicspdf.

Neuman, M. J. (2002). Equal form the start: promoting educational opportunity for all
preschool children — learning from the French experience. A welcome for every
child series. http://frenchamerican.org/pubs/equalfromthestart.pdf.

Olsen, D. (2005). Early childhood education: a caveat. American Experiment Quarterly.
Retrieved August 26, 2005, from
http://www.amexp.org/aequf/AEQ2OOS/AEQ2OOSSpring/AEQ2005SpringOlsen.
t_X_1

143

Reed, C.S, Tableman, B., Bates, L., Van Egeren, L., Fitzgerald, H. & Barratt, M. (2004).
All students achieve program — parent involvement and education (ASAP-PIE)
ﬁnal evaluation report. Highlights and implications for policy. University
Outreach and Engagement Michigan State University. Retrieved April 15, 2006,
from
http://www.michigan. gov/documents/ASAP_PIE_Final_Evaluation_Report_1 086
37_7.PDF

Reynolds, A.J; Temple, J. A.; Robinson, D. L.; Mann, E. A. (2001). 2] Cost-Beneﬁt
Analysis of T he Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Retreived August 25,
2005, from
http://www.chi1dcareresearch.org/ discover/viedefF ile. j sp?resourceId=604&type
=.pdf

Rothstein, R. (2004) Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational
Reform to Close the Black- White Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.

Rubin, H. J ., Rubin, L. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage Publications.

Schweinhart, L.J. & Fulcher-Dawson, R (2006). Investing in Michigan’s Future:
Meeting the early childhood challenge. The Education Policy Center at Michigan
State University. Retrieved April 2, 2007 from
http://www.epc.msu.edu/publications/EARLY%20CHILDHOOD%ZOOctO6/Earl
y%20Chi1dhood%20F inal%200ct06pdf.pdf

Schweinhart, L.J. (2005). The high/scope perry preschool study through age 40
summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 4,

2005, from
http://www.highscope.org/Research/PerryProj ect/PerryAge4OSumWeb.pdf

Schweinhart, L.J. (2003). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the high/scope perry
preschool program. Paper presented at the 2003 Biennial Meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development. Tampa, F L, April 24-27, 2003.

Schweinhart, L. J. & Weikart, DP. (1997). Lasting Diﬂerences: The High/Scope
Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study Through Age 23. Ypsilanti, Michigan:
High/Scope Press.

Seidman, I. (2006) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for researchers in
Education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, K. & Barnett, W.S. (2005) The beneﬁts of prekindergarten for middle-income
children. NIEER Policy Report retrieved September 3, from,
http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report3.pdf

144

Smith, S., F arichild, M, Groginosky, S. (1995) Early Childhood Care and Education: An
Investment that Works. Washington DC: National Conference of State
Legislators.

Stiggens, R. (2004). New Mission, New Beliefs: Assessment for Learning. Presentation
by Rick Stiggins. Assessment Training Institute. DVD.

United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce (GOA). (2004). Prekindergarten Four
Selected States Expended Access by Relying on School and Existing Providers of
Early Education and Care to Provide Services. Washington, DC. GOA.

Verma, G. & Mallick, K. (1999). Researching Education perspectives and techniques.
Philadelphia, Falrner Press.

Walker, N & Barratt, M. Eds. (2000) Child Care and Education Michigan Family Impact
Seminars Brieﬁng Report. Michigan State University. www.icvf.msu.edu

Whitebook, M. (2003). Early education quality higher teacher qualifications for better
living environments. Retrieved August 28, 2005 from, www.iir.berke1ev
.edu/cscce/pdf/teacher.pdf.

Wilen, J. R. (2003). Ready for school: the case for including babies and toddlers as we
expand preschool opportunities. Ounce of Prevention Fund.
http://www.ounceofpreention.org/downloads/publications/readv_for_school.pdf.

Wrigley, J. (2001). Different Care for Different Kids: Social Class and Child Care Policy.
In Weis, L. Altbach, P.G., Kelly, G. P., & Petrie, H. Eds. (1991). Critical
Perspectives on Early Childhood Education. New York: State University of New
York Press.

145

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

WWWWMWW