early learning strategy

7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy

1/24

InvestIng In ChIldren

An eArly leArnIng strAtegy

or WAshIngton stAte


2/24

ACknoWledgments

It is impossible to thak eeryoe who

cotributed to our research ad thikig

i early learig. We appreciate all the

great work by academics, researchers,

fiacial ad policy aalysts, early

learig serice proiders, oprofit

orgaizatios, parets, ad others who

hae cotributed to our collectie uder-

stadig of early learig. We hae draw

upo iteratioal, U.S., ad Washigto

state research fidigs from the public

ad priate sectors. I particular, we

wat to ackowledge Garriso Kurtz of

the Foudatio for Early Learig, Joh

Bacroft of the Puget Soud Educatioal

Serice District, Rick Brado of the

Uiersity of Washigto Huma Serices

Policy Ceter, ad Joa Lombardi. Their

expertise ad wisdom hae helped us

shape this strategy. I additio, we would

like to thak Harriet Meyer of the Ouce

of Preetio Fud ad Geoff Caada

of the Harlem Childres Zoe for their

commitmet to helpig us lear from

their experieces. Lastly, we are grateful

to those who will cotiue to help us

lear as we moe forward.

nOvEMBER 2005

PACIIC northWest ProgrAm teAm

William H. Gates, Co-Chair

Greg Shaw, Director

Katie Hog, Deputy Director

Ae Xua Clark, Associate Program Officer

Paul Facchii, Grats Admiistrator

Kara Palmer, Adocacy Officer

Ke Thompso, Program Officer

Jeifer Samick, Admiistratie Assistat

Susa Schlatter, Seior Admiistratie Assistat

valisa Smith, Program Officer

Sarah Weber, Grats Admiistrator


3/24

InvestIng In ChIldren

An eArly leArnIng strAtegy

or WAshIngton stAte

4 eci sa

6 Pa 1: t Pb

9 Pa 2: t si

12 Pa 3: o sa

16 Pa 4: t Ipac:

A a Ip

17 Pa 5: Ipi o

ea lai sa

18 Appic


4/24

In Washington state, the Bill & Melinda

Gates Foundation has two primary grant-

making priorities to help ensure that every

young person in the state has the opportunity

to be successul in school and lie.

Trough our U.S. Education program, the

oundation has invested in Washington state

to prepare all students or college, work, and

citizenship through grants to individual high

schools, school districts, and intermediaries.

Trough our Pacic Northwest program, the

oundation works to improve the lives o

at-risk amilies and children. In addition

to investing in supportive housing to help

homeless amilies become sel-sucient and

in community grants to augment humanservices or low-income amilies, the ounda-

tion is embarking on a new early learning

strategy or the state o Washington. Our goal

is to ensure that all children have the oppor-

tunity to become successul young adults.

Tis paper describes the oundations new

early learning strategy, which was approved

in 005. It begins with identiying the

problems aced by many youth in Washington

state and summarizes a strategy or public

and private unders to make a signicant,

measurable improvement in school-readinesand long-term outcomes or all children.

exeCutIve summAry

onCe BIll And I hAd our oWn

ChIldren, We reAlIzed there AreoPPortunItIes thAt All ChIldren In

the northWest should hAveAnd reAlly

thAt All ChIldren ACross the gloBe

should hAve. melIndA renCh gAtes


5/24

t Pb

Research shows what concerned parents,

educators, and social workers know rom

daily rsthand experience: Many children

begin lie with measurable indicators o

socio-economic disadvantage, or risk

actors, that are oen overwhelming. In

Washington state, percent o all children

age 05more than 109,000 statewideare

born with two or more o these risk actors,

poverty being the most prevalent. Without

successul interventions involving parents

and caregivers, many o these children, by

kindergarten, are in danger o alling behind

other children in their social, emotional,physical, and cognitive development. Te

arther behind children are when entering

kindergarten, the more dicult it will be or

them to catch up, and the lower the likelihood

that they will grow up to be successul young

adults.1 Te result is an enormous loss o

human potential and a high cost to taxpayers.

(See Appendix A or how we dene risk

actors and successul young adulthood.)

t si

oday we know more than ever about howmuch the rst ve years shape a childs lie.

Economic, education, public health, and

neuroscience research clearly point to the

need or increased public investment in

quality early learning or children as an

eective approach to prevent serious negative

outcomes such as homelessness, poverty, and

incarceration. Likewise early learning leads

to positive benets earlier in lie, including

higher education levels and academic achieve-

ment. As a state, however, Washington has

ailed to invest adequately in our childrens

earliest years. Supporting the critical compo-nents o quality early learning, including

high standards and support or parents and

childcare and pre-kindergarten programs,

oers the greatest potential to ensure that

all Washingtons children have the oppor-

tunity to be successul throughout their

school years and beyond.

o sa

Our mission is to work with others to ensure

that every child in Washington state has the

opportunity, rom birth, to be successul in

school and in lie. While high-quality early

learning is critical to all children, our invest-

ment strategy is to ocus on children who

have multiple risk actors that can jeopardize

school-readiness and to reach them where

they spend the majority o their dayeither

at home with a parent or guardian or in a

licensed childcare acility. Using this existing

inrastructure, we will help create a variety

o high-quality early learning environments

by providing support to parents and bytransorming childcare rom the current

average low-quality custodial care to eective

centers that will help parents prepare children

socially, emotionally, and cognitively by age

5 to succeed in school and lie. Over the next

10 years, through our statewide grantmaking,

demonstration communities, and promising

models, we will work in partnership with

other public and private entities to help all

amilies in Washington state gain access to

aordable, quality early learning or their

children. We will begin by concentrating

investments and demonstrating the eec-tiveness o quality early learning in two

geographically and demographically diverse

communities. We also will work to leverage

these investments statewide by working with

public and private partners across Washington.

t Ipac

We have designed our early learning

strategy to make a real dierence in the

lives o children, their amilies, and

Washington communities over the next

decade. We will evaluate our eort by

measuring results on two ronts:

Signicantly increase the school-readiness

rate among all children entering

kindergarten in the two demonstration

communities.

Statewide, reduce the gap between low-

income and high-income childrens rate

o school-readiness.


6/24

Neither our present educational system norour current public unding in Washington

state is designed to support the act that

childrens success in school and lie is

signicantly determined beore they ever

enter kindergarten. By the time most

unding and programs kick in to help

children, many children are already behind

socially, emotionally, and cognitively, and

likely will never catch up.

PArt 1: the ProBlem

Washington state has long been among the

nations bellwether education states, oen

leading the way on policies that advance all

o its citizens. However, Washington state isnot among the nations leaders in providing

early learning that prepares children or

successul young adulthood.

In analyzing why Washington state has

allen behind in outcomes or children,

we looked across a number o key actors

that indicate how children are aring. Sadly,

Washington children trail the nation in

many critical actors. As the chart below

shows, we have allen even urther behind

other perennial bellwether states such as

Minnesota, with its similar population size,

racial mix, and demographics. In Washington,

the inant-mortality rate continues to rise.

More than one in our children (8 percent)

live in amilies in which no parent has ull-

time, year-round work. More than one third

o children rom birth to age 5 live in or near

poverty. Te percentage o teens not attending

school or working is on the rise. Te juvenile-arrest rate is more than 50 percent higher

than the national average. Just 7 percent

o our children graduate rom high school,

and only 5 percent are ready to succeed in

college.2 (See Appendix B or a demographic

snapshot o Washington states children and

youth population.)

W a ia w.

Although navigating a certain amount

o adversity is part o growing up, many

children live with serious multiple riskactors, or measurable indicators o socio-

economic disadvantage, that aect their

ability to succeed in school. A wealth o

research shows a direct correlation between

a childs odds or early success and whether

or not they have such risk actors in their

lives. In our study o Washington state, we

used the ollowing risk actors: poverty (the

most prevalent); single or no parent; no

parent employed ull time/ull year; all

parents with disability; mother does not

have high school degree; no parent fuent

in English. Tere are certainly many other

actors, but these are the most widely cited

and statistically valid.

Research tells us that children with only

one o these risk actors typically have the

resiliency to succeed. wo or more risk

actors, on the other hand, markedly impede

a childs chances or success, and can lead

to negative outcomes such as homelessness,

poverty, and incarceration later in lie.

According to researchers, children with

two or more o these risk actors have a ar

greater chance o ailure throughout their

school years and beyond.3

Pa cii i aii wiw i ac.

Children in amilies with two or more risk

actors are more likely to experience the

ollowing problems:

Family-related conditions, including:

Abusive or neglectul (stressul) amily

environment

Poor or no parent-child bonding (rom

05 years, a childs low attachment to the

primary caregiver can be linked to later

problems, including teen pregnancy,

criminal behavior, and drug abuse)

FIGURE 1

Youth problems in washington state

h w C m*, u.s.

WA MN US

Children in amilies with no parent with ull-time, year-round work 8% 1% %

Children 05 in poverty 1% 9% 19%

Families with children headed by a single parent 0% 1% 8%

eens not working and not attending high school (disengaged) 8% % 8%

High school graduation rate 7% 8% 71%

College readiness rate 5% % %

Juvenile arrest rate 1.9% 1.8% 1.%

eens (117) who requently binge drink 11% 1% 11%

Young adults who requently binge drink 1% 50% 1%

eens (117) whove recently used il licit drugs 1% 1% 11%

Young adults suering rom serious mental illness 15% 1% 1%

Birth rate or 1517 year olds 1.9% 1.8% .%

* WechoseMinnesotaorcomparisonbecauseithasapopulationsizeandracialandgeographicdemographicssimilartoWashington.Source:Child Facts: Washingtons Children; Greene,PublicHighSchoolGraduations;Indicator Website; Kids Count; Minnesota Kids; SchoolMatters;State o Washingtons Children; USDHHS,StateEstimates;WashingtonDSHS,Economic Costs.


7/24

Low caregiver knowledge o child cogni-

tive, emotional, and social development

Poor mental health o parent or

caregiver

Delayed language development

Societal conditions, including:

Low-quality, out-o-home childcare

Stressul neighborhood living conditions

Bad schools

Poverty and under- or unemployed

parents

Socially isolated parents

Health and nutritional decits and

disabilities

hw a ci a a i i

Wai a?

Overall, percent o all children age 05

have two or more risk actorsa total o109,75 children statewide. Te percentages

dier dramatically with race and ethnicity.

While 1 percent o white children are at

risk, the percentages rise to percent o

Arican-American children, 5 percent o

Hispanic children, and 9 percent o Native

Americans. Obviously, this population is

dynamic, as new children both enter and

move beyond this 05 age group each year.

Tat is, as new children become part o this

at risk population each year, others enter

the school system without the preparation

they deserve. See Figure .4

hw ci ai b a.

It is troubling that nearly one in our children

begin lie with these disadvantages. But even

more disturbing is the long-term impact:

Children who are behind when they start

school will likely never catch up academically.5

Fully 75 percent o the children inWashingtons lowest-income classroomsare not school-ready, according to an

assessment o kindergarten-readiness rates

conducted by the Washington State Oce

o Superintendent o Public Instruction and

Washington State University.

One survey shows that, across the state, all

classrooms are not created equal when it

comes to school-readiness: High-income

classrooms are rated more than twice as

school-ready as low-income classrooms.

(Students were assessed by their own

teachers based on a composite measure

o ve school-readiness actors: cognitive;

language and vocabulary; social-emotional;

health and motor skills; and approach tolearning.) See Figure .6

Te ability o children to be successul at

school and lie begins earlybeore they ever

enter the school system. Many enter school

with sizable delays in cognitive, social,

physical, or emotional development and

may be years behind their classmates when

they enter kindergarten. Even i they make

considerable gains throughout their school

years, some will remain well below grade

level every step o the way. In this sense,these children are alling behind and ailing

beore they ever enter school.

FIGURE 2

how manY Children are at-risk in washington state?

C a 05 2+ r Fc

otal number

in group

Children with +

risk actors

Percentage o

group with+ risk actors

All races/ethnicities 7,8 109,75 %

White ,99 5,95 1%

Hispanic 70,05 1,59 5%

Native American 7,0 ,59 9%

Arican-American 17,181 7,88 %

Asian 5,5 5,10 0%

Other/multiracial ,1 9,19 8%

Source:UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.

Correlation between household inComeand sChool-readiness

Kindergarten Readiness 2005

39%

25%

36%

58%

45%

Percentag

eo

fkin

dergarten-rea

dy

80100% 080% 00% 00% 00%

Percentage o students in classroom receiving ree or reduced cost lunch*

*Freeandreducedlunchisameasurementopovertyequalto185percentotheederalpovertylevel.Aneighborhoodwhere80to100percentothechildrenreceivereeorreducedlunchesisanextremelypoorneighborhood.

Source:WashingtonStateUniversity,WashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.

FIGURE 3FIGURE 3


8/248

Wa cib ac c-ai?

Over the last ew decades, a confuence o

socio-economic changes has dramatically

changed how we care or children and

increased the need or quality early learning

in Washington state. Due to the changing

role o women, welare reorm, and increases

in single-parent amilies, young children are

increasingly cared or outside o the home.

In 1975, percent o mothers with

children age 0 were in the workorce.

In 199, welare reorm began to bring

many mothers into the workorce and, by

000, 1 percent o mothers with children

0 were working.7

Te number o low-income children in

subsidized childcare in Washington has

more than doubled rom 15 percent in

1990 to percent in 00.8

Working parents want the best environment

or their children. Yet as the need or quality

early learning grows, the unding to pay or it

is unavailable; parents cant aord it, and state

subsidies dont cover the cost o quality. At a

time when young children are increasingly

receiving little more than custodial care, neuro-

science is shedding new light on how critical

the rst three years o lie are to success in

learning. While 85 percent o a childs core

brain is ormed by age , less than percent

o public investments in education have

occurred by that time. See Figure below.9

With more children in the care o others, the

need or quality early learning environments

is crucial. Research consistently shows that

poor cognitive, social, and emotional develop-

ment in early childhood has a long-term

impact and is tied to problems later in lie:

Brain development is most intense rom

birth to years o age. Te number o

synaptic connections in the brain peaks

at age . Synapses that get used stay in the

brain; i synapses are unused, they begin

to be eliminated by late childhood.10

Poverty in early childhood is correlated

with lower cognitive scores and lower

school achievement.11

Children learn social and emotional skills

early in lie. Tese skills dramatically

infuence academic achievement later

in liemore so than cognitive ability.12

Children who grow up in abusive,neglectul, and dysunctional amilies

experience our to 10 times more

alcoholism, substance abuse, depression,

and suicide as adults. Tere is a dose-

response relationship; that is, the more

adverse early experiences, the more

negative later outcomes.13

Approximately one-third o abused

and neglected children will eventually

victimize their own children.14

At a time when growing numbers o youngchildren are receiving little more than

custodial care, neuroscience is shedding

new light on how critical the rst three years

o lie are to success in learning and lie.

t cqca c.

As young adults, many at-risk youth experi-

ence one or more o the ollowing problems:

substance and alcohol abuse, criminal

activity, educational ailure, no workorce

involvement, poor mental health, antisocial

behavior, homelessness, and early pregnancy.

Te costto these young people, and to

societyis enormous:

88,000 youth (age 18) in Washington

state are not employed and not in school.15

1,000 young adults in Washington

(age 18) receive welare, representing

$0 million per year in support.16

Nationwide, multiproblem youth (those

involved in more than one sel-destructive

behavior) represent less than 0 percent o

the population, but they account or 88 per-

cent o arrests associated with violence,

7 percent o total arrests, 87 percent o

health problems associated with drug use,

and 79 percent o problems associated

with alcohol.17

Nationwide, multiproblem youth cost

society an estimated $5 billion to

$50 billion annually, and ,000 to 5,000

lives are lost each year as a result o multi-

problem behaviors.18

lai wa w a 10 a Pacifc nw ii.

As we have studied these problems and

examined solutions and strategies or

addressing them, the oundation has drawn

on our decade o working with public and

private partners to help amilies and children

succeed in the Pacic Northwest. We have

documented the approaches that have made

the most measurable dierence. Going

orward, our early learning strategy will be

inormed by what weve learned.

highest potential For impaCt

Washington Brain Growth and Public Investments by Child Age

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 8 10 1 1 1 18 0

Child age

Brain growth Cumulative public investment

Source:Bruneretal.,Early Learning Let Out.

FIGURE 4FIGURE 4

Percentageofbraingrowth


9/24

One o the most requently needed

services or amilies transitioning out

o homelessness is quality childcare

(Sound Families evaluation).

Children rom low-income amilies

may benet more rom high-quality

care and be more negatively aected by

poor-quality care than are higher-income

children (UW Human Services Policy

Center, Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Home Center).

Children who are exposed at a young

age to reading and language development

vastly increase their social and mental

development, have higher sel-esteem,

perorm better in schools, have decreased

incidence o early pregnancy, and use

less alcohol and ewer drugs (Page Ahead

Childrens Literacy Program, Hearing

Speech and Deaness Center).

Many low-income children enter ado-lescence with ew developmental assets.

Te programs that are most successul

at helping adolescents to recover assets are

much more intensive and expensive than

prevention programs (YMCA o Greater

Seattle, Campre USA o Portland, Boys &

Girls Clubs, Catholic Community Services,

Friends o Youth, Friends o the Children).

Family support centers can be very

eective in preventing child abuse and

ostering positive parent-child rela-

tionships by oering parenting classesand respite care (Childrens Services o

So-Valley, Sae Harbor Crisis Nursery).

Physical space or social services is oen

poor, which aects both the program

quality and the clients sel-esteem.

Providing appropriate space can greatly

improve outcomes (Martin Luther King

Jr. Day Home Center, First Place, and

Hopelink).

A well-trained and highly committed

sta that is adequately compensated andretained over time is integral to program

success across a wide variety o youth

and amily service providers (Community

Access to echnology program evaluation).

PArt 2: the solutIon

During the oundations study o at-risk

children, we did not immediately arrive at

quality early learning as a long-term giving

strategy. We began by examining a wide

range o approaches to improving outcomes

or Washington youth.

We considered a number o major preventive

approaches: quality early learning; out-o-

school activities or adolescents; quality

health care; economic development; and

amily support services. We also assessed

ways to intervene later in lie to solve prob-

lems that oen result rom lack o school-

readiness. Tese intervention approaches

included workorce training; oster care;

and interventions to reduce juvenile crime,

homelessness, and substance abuse.

We then assessed how well each approach

measured in light o several oundation and

Pacic Northwest program criteria.

Ciia a p i cii i i a ai.

On ve critical tests, quality early learning

was the right t or us.

1. Ai wi ai picip. Te

oundation believes that philanthropy plays

an important but limited role. We are unders

and shapers; we rely on others to act and

implement. Our ocus clearly prioritizes

some o the most neglected issues, where

programmatic ocus and vigorous advocacy

can promote greater equity. We identiy a

specic point o intervention and apply

our eorts against a theory o change. In

addition, we believe in preventing problems,

rather than intervening later when theyve

become more dicult and expensive to solve.

Quality early learning works early in the prob-

lem cycle to deter the need or later, more

intensive intervention. It uses a targeted

approach, ocusing on a single solution with

the greatest potential to benet the greatest

number o children. Quality early learning

also supports and builds the base or the

oundations existing investments in K1

education by preparing children beore they

enter the system or success in school and lie.

2. scc ac-ba i.

A growing body o evidence demonstrates

that the cumulative developmental toll

experienced by high-risk children can

be prevented or signicantly reduced by

providing high-quality early learning rom

birth to the start o kindergarten.19

Numerous landmark research eorts

demonstrate the longitudinal impact o

high-quality early learning, including three

o the most important and long-term studies:

1) High Scope/Perry Preschool in Michigan;

) Abecedarian Project in North Carolina;

and ) Chicago Parent-Child Centers in

Illinois. (Our statistics are based on the

longitudinal studies in early learning rom

Perry Preschool and Abecedarian.) Proven

home-based, parent-support models such as

the David Olds Nurse-Family Partnership

and other models rooted in attachment

theory demonstrate that working directly

with parents can dramatically improve out-

comes or children. ogether, these and other

studies have helped mobilize a nationwide

movement in early learning. See Figure 5 on

next page.20

Te results: clear, consistent, and long-term

benets. Te High/Scope Perry Preschool is

a 0-year study o 1 low-income Arican-

American children who were assessed to be

at high risk o school ailure. Fiy-eight o

the children were assigned to a group that

received a high-quality preschool program at

ages and ; the other 5 children received

no preschool program. Forty years later, the

dierences in education, crime, and income

levels clearly demonstrate the positive impact

o early intervention. (See Appendix C.)Te group that received high-quality early

learning had higher IQs at age 5, higher

high-school graduation rates, ewer arrests,

and higher median annual incomes than

those who received no preschool.

In the 0-year Abecedarian study, 57 inants

rom low-income amilies received high-

quality childcare rom birth to age 5. Tese

participants were twice as likely to still be in

school at age 1 as the control group. Tey

were also, on average, two years older when

their rst child was born, and nearly threetimes as likely to attend a our-year college.

A signicant return on each dollar invested.

Te economic benets o early learning are

clear and compelling. Cost-benet analyses

perormed on the long-term returns o

quality early childhood programs show

returns o $ to $8 or every $1 invested.

Te return on investment is signicant or

the individual (in increased earnings), the

government (in decreased special education,

remediation, and welare costs), and society


10/2410

(in decreased crime and its related costs).

Most o the costs are incurred by age 5; the

majority o the benets occur between the

ages o 18 and 7. Cost benets are calculated

by adding all o the proven cost savings gen-

erated rom such programs (plus the other

related costs incurred, such as increased public

expenditures as more youth attend public

colleges), and then subtracting the cost o

the original implementation.

A number o states across the country have

leveraged this body o research and used it

as a model or bringing quality early learning

to scale.

Over the past 20 years, Illinois has made

quality early learning a priority. Te state

has been an innovator in expanding early

learning to include home-based and birth-

to- programs. It has done so through a

state-unded early childhood block grant

with a set-aside or birth-to- programs.

In Oklahoma, ree, high-quality pre-kinder-

garten is available to all 4-year-olds. Districts

that choose to provide pre-kindergarten are

reimbursed or each child enrolled. In 00,

the program was unded at $7 million

and served more than 0,000 children

5 percent o the children eligible.

In North Carolina, Smart Start is a public

initiative that provides early education

unding to all the states 100 counties.

State unding or Smart Start is currently

$19 million. Te unds are used to improve

the quality o childcare, make it more

aordable and accessible, provide access to

health services, and oer amily support.

New Jersey provides the highest level o

unding or pre-kindergarten programs o

any state in the country. Te New Jersey

Supreme Court has mandated that all

children in districts where at least 0

percent o children qualiy or ree or

reduced-cost school lunches have access

to quality pre-kindergarten programs.

Currently, the Abbott Preschool Programs

receive $5 million annually rom the

state, and non-Abbott children benet

rom a separate preschool program that

receives $0 million annually.

Te early learning movement is also global.

At the 1990 World Conerences on Education

or All in Tailand, 155 countries including

the United States signed a declaration that

Learning begins at birth. In 000, the World

Education Forum in Dakar established

expand and improve comprehensive early

childhood care and education, especially

or the most vulnerable and disadvantaged

children as one o six international goals.

In the European Union, 5 states have agreed

to the Barcelona arget, which states that

90 percent o all children ages and 5 should

have access to early childhood development,

and that percent o children rom birth-

to- should have access to early learning.

Europe has led the way with promising

models, including Reggio Emilia in Italy,

Les Ecoles Maternelles in France, and Sure

Start in the United Kingdom.

Te economic benets o early learning are

signicant. Cost-benet analyses perormed

on the long-term returns o quality early

childhood programs show returns o $4 to

$8 or every $1 invested.

3. hi pia ipac. Te oundation

aims to und eorts that will bring the

greatest benet to the greatest number o

children in Washington state. Signicant

research, including that o Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, shows

that the greatest return on investment is

achieved by investing in children at the

earliest age possible. See Figure .21

Heckmans research is based on evidence o

the way skills are ormed, and it expresses his

undamental belie that investments made

early in childhood create a skill multiplier

eect. Tat is, skill begets skill, and learning

begets more learning. Early advantages

accumulate, just as early disadvantages do.

Much o the cost-efectiveness o early learning

has been demonstrated repeatedly across a wide

range o positive outcomes: reduced crime

and delinquency; increased educational

achievement; reduced grade repetition and

special education; increased employment,

productivity, and earnings; and less welare

dependency.22

Te real internal rate o return or high-

quality early learning programs is estimated

at 1 percent, with 80 percent o those returns

beneting the general public, primarily inthe orm o crime reduction. (Te internal

rate o return is an alternate measure or deter

mining the benets o early learning. It

calculates the interest rate received or an

investment that consists o payments and

revenue occurring at regular annual periods,

much in the way one would assess the rate

o return on an investment such as stocks

or bonds.)23

suCCessFul researCh-based models exist

Benet Costs Table for Three Early Childhood Programs

dollars returned for each dollar invested

$2.91

$0.92

$3.27

$2.51

$4.66

$1.58

$2.28

$0.16

$1.57

Chicago Parent-Child Centers

$7.10 total

Perry Preschool

$8.74 total

Abecedarian Project

$4.01 total

n Returns to participants: such as increased earnings.n Returns to government: such as decreased special education/remediation costs,

decreases in welfare payments.

n Saving to society: for decreases in crime-related costs for crimes not committed.Source:Bruneretal.,Early Learning Let Out.

FIGURE 5FIGURE 5


11/24


12/241

PArt 3: our strAtegy

Te oundation is taking a strategic approach

to early learning based on our theory o

change (how everyone working together can

leverage signicant change) and our theory

o action (the part we will play in making

it happen).

o ca. I public and private

entities in our state join orces to create an

aligned network o prevention and treatment

eorts or children and youthspanning

rom prenatal to 18we can create oppor-

tunities or all Washingtons children

to become successul young adults. (See

Appendix D.)

o aci. I our oundation makes

a ocused, 10-year investment in early learning

in Washington state, we can help create the

public and political will to develop a sustain-

able system o aordable, high-quality early

learning across the state. Ultimately, our

actions and those o our partners will lead

to higher levels o school-readiness, greater

success in school, ewer negative adolescent

behaviors, and a greater likelihood o success-

ul young adulthood. See Figure 8.

A iw i a.

Working closely with other public and private

unders, we will take a threeold approach,

investing in 1) targeted demonstration com-

munities; ) promising models; and )statewide eorts to build and support the

inrastructure or early learning. Our theory

o action is based on rst demonstrating a

Washington state quality early learning

model in select communities as proo

o a concept that can inorm and create

demand or expanding that model to every

community in the state. (See Appendix E.)

Appac #1:

ta dai Cii

argeted demonstration communities are akey component o our long-term investment

strategy. We will work with two communities

to develop a comprehensive initiative to

ensure that all children and amilies within

these selected communities have access to

high-quality early learning. Tese two com-

munities will exempliy the eectiveness o

early learning in improving outcomes or

young children, and will inorm our statewide

grants. (See Appendix F.) Tese demon-

stration communities will have:

High concentrations o children with

two or more risk actors.

Strong local capacity.

Demonstrative evidence o broad support.

Appropriate size (,000,000 children

age 05).

Demographic, political, and geographic

diversity.

Using these criteria, we will select one

demonstration community in Eastern

Washington and one in Western Washington.

We will identiy and invite a short list o

potential communities to submit a letter oinquiry, and we anticipate making the nal

community selections by summer o 00.

Our aim is to reach a majority o children

age 05 in the demonstration communities,

including at least 70 percent o children

in poverty. We expect this comprehensive

community approach to:

Reach children where they are spending

the majority o their day, whether in

childcare or with a parent or caregiver,

through a variety o interventions.

Demonstrate the value o a mixed-incomemodel.

Demonstrate the eectiveness o strength-

ening the existing inrastructure.

Involve school districts in early learning.

Involve other public and private partners.

Provide a platorm to educate statewide

constituents on the eectiveness o high-

quality early learning.

Wa a w i ipac?

Parent support and education. Trough a

variety o programs inside and outside o

the home, parents and caregivers will receive

inormation, training, and support to be their

childrens rst and most important teachers.

Comprehensive early learning centers that

serve the whole community. Our unding

approach is to create a coordinated network

o quality early learning in the demonstration

communities, building new resources and

strengthening existing eorts. Tis will

include tailoring services to meet the unique

needs o each amily. Central to this approach

is building one model childcare center, or

hub, per community, that serves the entire

community.

Licensed childcare. Using a variety o

approaches, we will transorm existing

licensed childcare in the two demonstration

communities rom todays low and moderate

quality to high-quality, aordable early

learning environments. Tese communities,

which will include new high-quality hub

centers, will demonstrate quality and act as a

catalyst in transorming the more than ,100

existing centers and nearly ,00 existing

home-based centers statewide.

CritiCal need exists in washington

Availability of Accredited Care in Washington

26144

2,107

Number ochildcare centers

Number oaccredited centers

Number oaccredited centers in

low-income communities

Source:AccreditationSearchResults;MappingConcentrations;Schrager.

FIGURE 7FIGURE 7


13/24 1

Wa a ciica aci a caac i ca?

Quality improvements:

Expand support and education or parents.

Create and implement standards o quality

or early learning.

Create opportunities and incentives

or teachers to increase training and

proessional development.

Create incentives or existing childcare

to improve.

Access:

Make quality early learning aordable

and accessible to allchildren and amilies

within the demonstration communities.

Pa ii: Wa w wi i ai cii.

In the two demonstration communities, the

oundation will support the development

o community plans to implement compre-

hensive early learning strategies. Aer the

approval o a communitywide business plan

or early learning, our unding will support

a wide range o programs, classes, and

development, including proessional

development, curriculum development,

physical improvements, pre- and post-natal

support programs, home-based literacy

programs, parent support programs, child

development classes, inormation and

reerral resources, case management,

and community education classes.

Appac #2: Pii m

Trough promising model grants, the

oundation will support innovative eorts

on a smaller scale to improve early learning

or children throughout Washington state.

Specically, the oundation is interested in

supporting community-based eorts that

replicate proven eective models or hold the

promise o adding to the knowledge base

about what works well or young children.

Wa a w i ipac?

Build knowledge about what works. Although

we know a lot about what high-quality early

learning looks like, there is more to learn,

particularly about how to eectively bring

proven practices to scale.

FIGURE 8

our theorY oF aCtion

1 i 2 cc

3 c

4 y c

, .

C

ommunityapproche

d

C

Create high-quality,

comprehensive early

learning opportunities

or all children in select

high-risk communities

p m

Promote innovative orpromising community-

based approaches

Prove eectiveness

Replicate in new

communities Demonstrate

near- and long-term

outcomes

sc

c

cc

rc

c

scc

y

c

pc/p

p

A coordinated approach

between government,

businesses, foundations,

and other stakeholders

Inormed market

Enabling policies

Adequate unding

Washington state

model

ey c

w

,

,

cc

y

Mobilize support

Increase demand or

access to high-quality

early learning

Build political will

among voters and

elected leaders

Encourage

participation in the

eort

sttewideapproche

s sy

Encourage

improvements o key

components o

early learning at a

statewide level

accy

Promote outreach,

education, and advocacy

across the state


14/241


Program replication:

Fund collaborative eorts to coordinate

community-based early learning eorts.

Create replicable programs based on

proven research models.

New models: Demonstrate the eectiveness o

promising new approaches.

Work in diverse communities to expand

approaches to providing amilies and

children with access to quality early

learning.

Pa ii: Wa w wi

i cii ac a.

Te oundation will be proactive in working

with communities, institutions, public

agencies, and nonprots that are ocused

on the ollowing:

Community. Implement community-based

collaborative eorts ocused on creating

high-quality early learning.

Replication. Expand, or take to scale,

proven models that are known to improve

outcomes or amilies and young children.

Innovative approaches. Design, test, or

research early learning models that will

inorm and advance early learning inWashington.

Recipients o our promising models grants

will be aligned with Washington states

benchmarks or early learning and develop-

ment, which are being designed to ensure

that children are prepared or school.

Currently under study by the Washington

Learns Early Learning Council, these

benchmarks include physical well-being,

health, and motor development; social and

emotional development; approaches toward

learning; cognition and general knowledge;and language, communication, and literacy.

Eligible programs may be ocused on

children in licensed care or children at

home with a caregiver.

In addition to being aligned with state

benchmarks, programs must be committed

to meeting our ve standards o quality: 1)

highly trained and adequately compensated

teachers; ) strong, research-driven curricu-

lum emphasizing emotional, social, cognitive,

and physical development; ) research-based

education and programs or parents, along

with parental involvement in care; ) low

child:teacher ratios; and 5) appropriate

physical space.

Appac #3: sawi e

In close partnership with other public and

private stakeholders, the oundation will

support, promote, and encourage statewideeorts to improve early learning across the

state. Tese eorts include programmatic

initiatives, education, and advocacy eorts

as well as other strategic opportunities or

statewide early learning improvements.

In developing our statewide approach, we

studied a number o other states that have

succeeded in elevating the importance o

quality early childhood learning and in

galvanizing public and private support. In

Caliornia, Illinois, and North Carolina, the

keys to success are remarkably similar. Allthree states have strong champions, eective

organizations, public education, political will

and capital, robust private support, demon-

stration projects, and research and evaluation.

(See Appendix G.) In Washington state, many

o these key elements are in their nascent

stagesbeing discussed or proposed, with

an ongoing need to build political will

and capital.

Wa a w i ipac?

Our statewide early learning eorts are builtupon the ollowing main objectives:

Encourage appropriate public investment

and the creation o policies and inra-

structure to support quality early learning.

Increase public understanding o, and

support or, quality early learning.

Broaden the participation o partners to

invest, act as advocates or quality early

learning, and bring new voices to the eld.

Promote necessary inrastructure improve-ments, such as quality standards, teacher

training, and birth-to- programs.

Te rst three objectives provide a ramework

or three interrelated strategies targeted at

three primary audiences: government; the

public, including parents, guardians, and

communities; and partners such as providers,

businesses, oundations, and nonprot

organizations. See Figure 9.


Creating a system that rates and rewards

quality and inorms parents. A system to

measure the quality o early learning must

be developed in Washington that will inorm

parents and reward quality improvements.

Such a system will include incentives or

early learning programs to achieve levels o

quality above basic licensing and accept more

children on state subsidy.

Inorming and educating on the importance o

early learning. Along with our partners, we

have a plan to inorm, educate, and advocate

or quality early learning statewide. We will

use the two demonstration communities and

our investments in promising models as plat-

orms to advocate about the need or statewide

policy change and increased public nancing

or all Washington children. We also will work

to build and provide evidence, knowledge,

and tools or those working in the eld.

Building a strong inrastructure to support

access to quality early learning or all children.

Ensuring that all children have access to

quality early learning requires strengthening,

expanding, and aligning many o our state

systems or supporting children and amilies.

As quality standards are created, additional

training and monitoring will be needed.

Pa ii: Wa w wi

a awi .

We will make grants in the areas o system

improvements, policy research, awareness

and education, and community outreach.

System improvements. We will und eorts

that have potential to improve, streamline, or

coordinate the children and amily support

systems in Washington state. Examples

include public-private, quality-improvement

initiatives, the creation o needed inra-

structure, and other statewide approaches

to improve early learning across the state.

Policy research. Our unding will support

eorts to build the evidence base or

quality early learning and to inorm policy

development, such as researching possible

nance models to increase the quality and

availability o early learning or all Washington

children, and modeling a statewide early

learning system.


15/24 1

Awareness and education. We will und

activities to increase public understanding

o the importance o quality early learning

and school-readiness. Tese may include the

development o communication materials to

promote quality early learning; education o

policymakers, key leaders and constituencies,

parents and caregivers, and the general public

about the need or quality early learning and

core requirements; and the development omedia strategies to raise the visibility about

the need and promote positive examples.

Community outreach. We will und eorts

to mobilize support or quality early learning

and to increase collaboration among the

various groups involved. We need to cultivate

strong champions, oster bipartisan support,

and bring together a diversity o advocates

or quality early learning to ensure all

Washington children have access and the

opportunity or success in school and lie.

t c bii

a ai ca.

Over the next 10 years, the oundation will

invest up to $90 million in early learning,

which is dependent upon other public and

private investment in the near term to match

our contribution. Ultimately, the dollars we

invest through this strategy are intended to

leverage signicant new public investments

in early learning in order to sustain and

expand the demonstration communities

and promising models statewide. Our strategy

is aimed at creating the public and political

will needed to achieve this goal within

10 years. With increased state commitment,

the improved quality o early learning in

demonstration communities will become

sustainable, and high-quality early learning

will become a reality or all children in

Washington state.

It wont be easy or inexpensive. We believe

the cost o closing the school-readiness gap

by setting high standards or quality early

learning may necessitate more than doubling

current expenditures (including ederal and

state unds).

W a w piiic abc a bi b?

A growing number o states have

signicantly increased investment in earlylearning. In addition to Caliornia, Illinois,

Georgia, and Oklahomas signicant

increases, other states have proposed

major increases: Hawaii (1 percent);

Iowa (177 percent); New Mexico (

percent); and ennessee (50 percent).31

Washington has the beginnings o

community and state-level bipartisan

support. In its 005 session, the Washington

state Legislature passed a $ million

increase in subsidies or childcare, with

bipartisan support. In the summer o 005

Gov. Christine Gregoire launched the

Washington Learns study, which includes

a new public-private commission to make

recommendations or the uture o the

states early learning system.

Washington has business and private

oundation leadership and support behind

early learning. Te new Seattle BusinessPartnership or Early Learning has strong

nancial and leadership support rom

Boeing, Saeco, the Chamber o Commerce

and the Seattle Foundation.

Washington state has a legacy o the public

supporting substantial new dollars or new

policy priorities. In 005, we have seen the

passage o an $8.5 billion transportation

package (Washington), a $10 million

Family and Education Levy (Seattle), and

a new hospital levy (King County).

Washington state government is reassessing

how it manages childrens issues due to past

ailures. Gov. Gregoire has made reorming

early learning a top priority.

Cost-efective prevention approaches are

gaining momentum in Olympia, and

quality early learning is an approach that

more than pays or itsel. Te Legislature

recently had the Washington State Institute

or Public Policy rate a variety o preven-

tion measures on their cost-eectiveness.

FIGURE 9

approaCh #3: statewide advoCaCY

Three Interrelated Strategies Targeted at Three Primary Audiences

what who how

Encourage increased

public investment and

creation o enablingpolicies or quality

early learning

g

State

Local

Federal

Engage government

Public-private partnership

Advocacy organization capacity-building

Research and evaluation

Increase public

understanding o, and

support or, quality

early learning

pc

Parents/caregivers

Community

Public education campaign



Media

Broaden participation o

partners to invest, act as

advocates or quality

early learning, and bring

new voices to the eld

p

Businesses

Foundations

Nonprots

Engage new partners

Public-private partnership




16/241

Additionally, in its 005 session, the state

Legislature passed a bill, which elects

to reinvest projected cost savings rom

reducing youth incarceration into proven

eective amily-based therapies that will

divert youth out o the juvenile justice

system and create better outcomes or

children and amilies.

Wa a aj i aai a?

We developed our strategy or quality early

learning with an understanding o the risks

involved. No statewide undertaking o this

magnitude is without challenges, but by

being aware o them rom the beginning,

we have shaped our program to address

and minimize risks:

Sustainability. Te long-term success o quality

early learning will require an increase in

public understanding and nancial support.Te states current economy and budget crisis

make it challenging to increase public invest-

ment in early learning with existing revenues.

Tere is limited public will to increase public

revenues to und any new social program,

and limited understanding o the value o

early learning among key stakeholders.

Our strategy includes components to educate

parents and the community on the value o

quality early learning. As the oundations

unding decreases over time, we will have

increased the capacity o education andadvocacy organizations that can educate,

inorm, and mobilize key stakeholders on

this issue.

Nascent early learning advocacy. Currently

there are a limited number o organizations

ocused on early learning advocacy.Our

strategy requires partnerships with, and active

participation by, early learning providers and

advocates. As much as possible, we intend to

work within the existing inrastructure to

expand capacity, coordination, and expertise

in the eld. Our strategy includes investmentsin increasing the capacity o advocacy and

early learning organizations.

Managing expectations. While there is much

discussion about early learning in the state,

change has been slow. Many may look to the

oundation as the unding solution to the

problems o early learning.

We base our strategy on a public-private

partnership, and we will not invest unding

until partners agree to join the eort. Te

oundation will likely play a critical role in

mobilizing and coordinating eorts, but as

a convener and catalyst undernot a sole

unding entity.

Opposing views. Critiques o preschool

programs have been published. Some believe

that birth-to- is a time or children to be with

their parents, and that government should

not interere. Some parents do not want their

children in a government program.

We will support parents and stakeholders on

the components o quality early learning and

how it benets children. Our strategy reaches

parents and children where they already

areat home or in childcarebut does not

advocate moving children rom one arena

to another. Lastly, the program will be volun-

tary, never mandatory.

Increasing costs or some parents. Increasing

the quality o existing childcare will increase

the per-child cost o operating. While encour-aging state subsidies or low-income children

is part o our advocacy strategy, moderate-

income amilies may see the costs o

childcare rise.

Creating innovative, thoughtul public-

private partnerships will oset the costs o

increased teacher salaries or all children,

not just low-income children. Our advocacy

strategy includes encouraging increase o the

subsidy eligibility to include amilies whose

earnings exceed the current cuto or subsidy

(185 percent o the ederal poverty level).We will seek to create models o aordable

quality at existing centers in order to keep

costs as moderate as possible.

PArt 4:

the ImPACt: Assessment

And ImProvement

We believe that by investing in early learningwe will improve outcomes or children over

both the short and long term.

s

In the two demonstration communities,

an increase in rates o kindergarten-

readiness, and in the rates o children

age 05 meeting appropriate develop-

mental benchmarks.

Statewide, narrowing o the school-

readiness gap between low-income

and high-income children.

Increased public and private investment

or early learning.

l

Greater success o children and youth

throughout school years.

Reduced rates o negative behaviorssuch

as teen pregnancy and criminal activity

and increased positive behaviors among

adolescents.

Greater likelihood o success in young

adulthood.

Sustained commitment o public

investment to early learning.

Research shows that intensive early child-hood programs reduce problem adolescent

behavior by at least 0 percentage points.

Tey also increase positive behavior. In

selected results rom the Abecedarian, Perry

Preschool, and Chicago Parent-Child Center

studies, the eect o participation in early

childhood programs is evident across a

number o positive indicators at age 0 and

later in lie. Compared to the control group

that had no early childhood learning pro-

grams, more o these children went on to

complete high school, attend college, and

gain skilled employment. Fewer o themhad to repeat a grade, became binge drinkers

became teen parents, used marijuana, or had

a juvenile arrest record. See Figure 10.32

Wa i aciab?

Based on existing studies, we have set a goal

to achieve the ollowing results by 01:

Signicantly increase the school-readiness

rate among all children entering kinder-

garten in the targeted demonstration

communities. A survey by the WashingtonState Oce o Superintendent o Public

Instruction estimates that currently only

5 percent o all Washington state children

in low-income kindergarten classrooms

are school-ready (vs. 58 percent in high-

income classrooms).33

Statewide, reduce the gap between low-

income and high-income childrens rate

o school-readiness.


17/24 1

hw wi w ac c ?

We will monitor and evaluate a series o

measurable outcomes among children,

parents, teachers, childcare, and the system

statewide. We are currently working with

independent evaluators to design the

program evaluation.

Wa wi w wi wa wa?

Improve the program by asking ourselves key

questions. Are our interventions working as

intended? How do we improve them? What

models are best or specic populations?

Are we reaching the children and parents we

most want to reach? Based on what we learn,

we will modiy the program as we go orward.

Educate and inorm. We also will use what

we learn to educate and inorm others in

the early learning eld, acilitate program-

matic and organizational improvements, and

drive change.

PArt 5: ImPlementIng our

eArly leArnIng strAtegy

We envision working with both a public-

private partnership and community-level

intermediaries to implement our strategy.Our operational plan emphasizes a partner-

ship that coordinates and manages statewide

and community operations.

Ideally, a statewide public-private partnership

will administer pooled unds, make recom-

mendations through aligned unding,

oversee community eorts, provide technical

assistance and monitor quality, coordinate

advocacy eorts, work with the evaluation

team, and raise money.

Community-level intermediary organizations,which may or may not be the service provi-

ders in a given locale, will lead in coordinating

services, manage subcontractors, develop

and implement a business plan or the

community, and raise local matching unds.

what does long-term suCCess look like?

Projected Effect Size of Early Childhood Learning Programs at Age 20

More complete high school

More attended college

More gained skilled employment

Fewer have juvenilearrest records

Fewer were currentmarijuana users

Fewer becameteen parents

Fewerwerebinge drinkers

Fewer hadto repeata grade

15%

15%

19%

21%

18%

20%

21%

20%

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 5% 10% 5% 20% 25%

Percentage point dierence vs. child not in early childhood learning program

Source:Campell;Schweinhart.

FIGURE 10FIGURE 10

what is aChievable?

Current Estimates and Projected School-Readiness Rates*

66%

2014

54%

2014

40%

2005

25%

2005

arget communities Statewide

*School-readinessisdefnedbyassessingchildreninfvechildhooddomains:social-emotional,language/

literacy,approachestolearning,cognition,andmotor/physicalabilities.ThesemetricsarecurrentlyunderstudybytheEarlyLearningCouncil.

Source:WashingtonStateUniversity,WashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.

FIGURE 11FIGURE 11


18/2418

APPendICes APPendIx A

hw w f a-i?

Children with any two o the ollowing risk

actors (poverty being the most prevalent)

are considered at-risk o ailure throughout

their school years and beyond. A wealth o

research supports this denition. Te risk

actors that we chose to include are (this listis not comprehensive):

Poverty

Single or no parent

No parent employed ull time/ull year

All parents with disability

Mother does not have high school degree

No parent fuent in English

Source:UniversityoWashingtonHumanServices

PolicyCenter.

Wa w a b cc

a?

Te oundation asked two leading researchers

in youth development to help us dene what

successul young adulthood looks like. Peter

Benson, a leader o the asset development

school o youth development, and Dr. David

Hawkins, the leading researcher in risk and

protective actors or children, dened

successul young adulthood to include the

ollowing measurable outcomes:

Physical health

Psychological and emotional well-being

Lie skills

Healthy amily and social relationships,

Educational attainment and civic

engagement

Visit http://www.gatesoundation.org/

nr/downloads/PNWG/EarlyLearning/

SuccessulDevelopment.pd

or executive summary o this report.

APPendIx B

sap Wai appai.

Snapshot o Washington states population

otal population (00): ,11,5

1,0,000 children 017 years o age

80,000 children in each birth cohort

80,000 children 05 years o age

90,000 youth 17 years o age

50,000 young adults 18 years o age

Racial/ethnic distribution

White: 81.%

Asian/Pacic Islander: .8%

Arican-American: .%

Native American: 1.%

Multiracial/other: .8%

Other: .%

Hispanic or Latino o any race: 8.0%

Poverty*

otal population: 10.%

Children 05: 1.%

Children 17: 1.%

*The2005ederalpovertyguidelineasdefnedbytheU.S.DepartmentoHealthandHumanServicesis$19,350oraamilyoour.

Source:U.S.Census.


19/24 1

APPendIx C

suCCessFul researCh-based models exist

High/Scope Perry Preschool in Michigan and the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina are two landmark research eorts that demonstrate the

longitudinal impact o high-quality early learning.

h/sc py pc: 40-year study o 123 low-income Arican-American children who were assessed to be at high-risk o school ailure

(58 were assigned to program group that received high-quality preschool at ages 3 and 4, while 65 were assigned to another group that received nopreschool program).

Arrested 5+ times by age 0

Earned $0K+ at 0

Graduated regular high school

Basic achievement at 1

Homework at 15

IQ 90+ at 5

T ac pjc: Controlled study in which 57 inants rom low-income amilies were randomly assigned to receive high-quality childcare

rom birth to age 5 and 54 children were in a non-treated control group.

Special education

Grade repeater

High school graduation

Four-year college

n Program group (received high-quality early learning) nNon-program/control group (did not receive high-quality early learning)

Source:HeckmanandMasterov,The Productivity Argument.

36%

55%

60%

40%

65%

45%

49%

15%

61%

38%

67%

28%

25%

48%

31%

55%

67%

51%

36%

13%


20/240

APPendIx d

our theorY oF Change

i c j c c f c y

18 c c w c c cc y .

A Continuum of Youth-Development Investments

p

s

Age

P 0 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 15 1 17 18

Earlylearning

Pre/post natal

amily supportscc

Y

a

oc*

Physicalhealth

Psychological

and

emotional

well-being

Lie skills

Healthy

amily and

socialrelationships

Educational

attainment

Civic

engagement

Dept. o Health, Dept. o Social and Health Services, local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses

Early literacy

programsParents, Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP), Head Start,

local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses

Preschool Parents, ECEAP, Head Start, local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses

Quality

childcare State, local jurisdictions, parents, private unders including Gates, businesses

Parent

support Private unders including Gates, businesses, state and local jurisdictions

Middle/highscho

olprograms

Quality K-1

education Gates Education program, ederal, state and local governments

Out-o-schoolactivities Gates Community Grants, private unders, business, parents, state and local jurisdictions

High-risk

behavior programs Gates Community Grants, state and local jurisdictions, private unders

Economic

development State and local governments, business

Health

care State and local governments, business, parents

Gates Foundation investments Investments by others

*SeeAppendixA.


21/24

APPendIx e

strategY overview

o y cy c :

t d C

ac

p m

ac s ac

Overview Comprehensive network o high-qualityearly learning in two demonstrationcommunities. Includes the creation o

new early learning centers, but with the

primary emphasis on improving existing

early learning care.

Community-based eorts thatinvolve multiple community

partners

Interesting/promising models

that have potential to be replicated

and/or taken to scale

Important initiatives involving multiplepartners that will impact early learning

statewide

Invest in components o early learning

support systems

Promote outreach, education, and

advocacy across the state

Components Within each demonstration community,we will und:

One high-quality early learning center

Improvements to existing licensed

childcare

Home-based programs

Parent/community education

Projects involving multiple

community-level partners in a

coordinated approach to increase

quality early learning

Promote innovative or promising

approaches to early learning

Pilot projects or programreplication

Capacity building

Statewide impact

Multiple unding partners

Strong ability to pool unding

May be managed by an intermediary

Examples argeted high-risk, high-needcommunitiesone in Eastern

Washington and one in Western

Washington

Funding may support:

Community-based approaches

Replication or development o

best practice models

Promising new approaches

Advocacy and community education

raining programs

Higher education programs

Parent education programs

Grants Fund communities over the long term asa major under as well as contribute to

undraising and advocacy. Expect other

public and private co-unders.

Fund partially, but require high level

o local undraising and partner

match. Funding would be provided

or 15 years.

Funding would nearly always involve other

public and private unding.

Rationale Demonstrate the eectiveness o creatinghigh-quality early learning opportunities

or all kids in high-risk communities

on outcomes or school-readiness and

lielong success. Use the knowledge to

inorm and educate with the goal o

bringing these elements to scale or all

kids in Washington and improve

statewide outcomes.

Support innovative approaches to

bringing quality early learning to

children and amilies in diverse

communities across the state.

Expand the knowledge base about

how to bring early learning to scale

across the state.

Invest in large scale, statewide initiatives

that build the support systems and capacity

to ensure that all amilies and children in

the state have access to high-quality early

learning opportunities.


22/24

APPendIx

targeted demonstration Communities

o c c c qy y c, c

f. T c f c q c y. C

cc c, , cy.

pc

C a t ? r

Create early

learning hubs

(1 per

community)

Highly trained and appropriately compensated teachers

Proven eective curriculum

Family support programs

Physically appropriate space

Provides technical assistance to existing centers

Serves primarily high-risk children

Blends state and ederal unds

Integrates community support programs

Impact o high-quality care

Improved outcomes or high-risk

children

Improved outcomes or amilies

Impact o blended unding

Focal point or early learning in

community

Demonstration o high quality

Create a state model

o early learning

Mobilize community

around early learning

Improve

existing centers

eacher training connected to compensation training

with appropriate compensation

Improved acilities

Eective curriculum

Mixed income

Impact o modest investments in

early care

Impact o public/private partnerships

Platorm or advocacy strategy

Improve quality or

allchildren within

select communities

Expand home-

based support

programs

Home visits or new births

Promote early literacy and strong attachments at home

Family support programs

Importance o 0

Cost-eectiveness o early intervention

Improved outcomes

Support parents

Reach children where

they are

Expand parent/

community

education

Awareness o childs development

Importance o quality early learning

Positive parenting

Behavior change

Increase demand or quality early

learning

Build public support

Educate parents and

stakeholders

APPendIx g

advoCaCY suCCess FaCtors

w cc c qy y z c

c c.

C

($723m y)

i ($30m

y 10 y)

n C

($220m y)

Strong champions Rob ReinerU.S. Rep. Michael HungtonU.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer

Irving Harris Gov. Jim Hunt

Phil Kirk

Eective organization Caliornia Commission on Children andFamilies, Preschool Caliornia

Ounce o Prevention, Day Care Action

Council, Voices or Children

Smart Start

Public education Yes Yes Yes

Robust private support Yes Yes Yes

Demonstration projects Varies by county Educare Yes

Research and evaluation Yes; beginning to develop county-by-county Some Yes


23/24

1 Benson,PeterL.andJ.DavidHawkins.ExecutiveSummary: Successul Young Adult Development. AreportsubmittedtotheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.10December2004.

2 Child Facts: Washingtons Children. 2005.ChildrensAlliance.14April2005..

Greene,Ph.D.,JayP.andMarcusA.Winters.PublicHighSchoolGraduationandCollege-ReadinessRates:19912002.EducationWorkingPaper.No.8.CenterorCivicInnovationattheManhattanInstitute.February2005.

Indicator Website. 2005.NorthwestAreaFoundation.14April2005..

Kids Count. 2005.TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.14April2005..

Minnesota Kids: A Closer Look, 2004 Databook. 2004.ChildrensDeenseFundMinnesota.14April2005..

SchoolMatters. 2005.Standard&Poors,TheMcGraw-HillCompanies,Inc.14April2005..

The State o Washingtons Children: Winter 2003.December2003.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.14April2005..

UnitedStates.SAMHSA.U.S.DepartmentoHealthandHumanServices.State Estimates o Substance Use romthe 20022003 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.11February2005.14April2005..

WashingtonState.DepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.The Economic Costs o Substance Abuse.2March2005.14April2005..

3 Schorr,LisbethB.withDanielSchorr.Within Our Reach:

Breaking the Cycle o Disadvantage. NewYork:Doubleday,1989.

4 Profle o Children and Youth in Washington State.PresentationpreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.May2004.

5 Shonko,JackP.,andDeborahPhillips,eds.FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: The Science o Early ChildhoodDevelopment.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,2000.

6 Pavelchek,Dave.First-Ever Statewide KindergartenTeacher Survey on School Readiness. WashingtonStateUniversitySocialandEconomicSciencesResearchCenter.PresentationorWashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.January2005.

7 Oser,CindyandJulieCohen.Americas Babies: The ZEROTO THREE Policy Center Data Book. ZEROTOTHREE.2003.

8

WashingtonStateDepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.EconomicServicesAdministration.DivisionoChildCareandEarlyLearning.Licensed Child Carein Washington State: 2002. June2004

9 Bruner,Charles,etal.Early Learning Let Out:An Examination o Public Investments in Educationand Development by Child Age. February2004.VoicesorAmericasChildrenandtheChildandFamilyPolicyCenter.14April2005..

10ZEROTOTHREE.BrainWonders: Helping BabiesGrow and Develop. 14April2005.19April2005..

11Mandell,Dorothy,etal.Impact o Substance Use andViolence/Delinquency on Academic Achievement orGroups o Middle and High S chool Students in Washington.14May2002.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.14April

2005..

12A New Framework or Assessing the Benefts o EarlyEducation. September2004.AWorkingPaperbytheCommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..

13Felitti,VincentJ.,etal.RelationshipoChildhoodAbuseandHouseholdDysunctiontoManyotheLeadingCausesoDeathinAdults:TheAdverseChildhoodExperiences(ACE)Study.American Journalo Preventative Medicine (1998)14:245-258.

14Long-Term Consequences o Child Abuse and Neglect.March2004.NationalClearinghouseonChildAbuseandNeglectInormation.19April2005..

15Profle o Children and Youth in Washington State.

PresentationpreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.May2004.

16Porter,Laura.Dataandeedbackonyourpresentation.E-mailtoKenThompson.16February2005.

17Biglan,Anthony,etal.Helping Adolescents at Risk:Prevention o Multiple Problem Behaviors. NewYork:TheGuilordPress,2004.

18Ibid.

19Ramey,Ph.D.,CraigT.TheCriticalNatureoEarlyLearning.InvitedtalktoUnitedWayoAmericaBoardoTrustees.15March2005.

20Bruner,Charles,etal.Early Learning Let Out: AnExamination o Public Investments in Education andDevelopment by Child Age. February2004.VoicesorAmericasChildrenandtheChildandFamilyPolicyCenter.14April2005..

21Heckman,JamesandDimitriyMasterov.The ProductivityArgument or Investing in Young Children.WorkingPaperNo.5.InvestinKidsWorkingGroup.4October2004.CommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..

22Barnett,W.Steven,KirstyBrown,andRimaShore.Policy Brie - The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Shouldthe United States Have Preschool or All?April2004.NationalInstituteorEarlyEducationPolicyBrie,Issue6.14April2005..

23Rolnick,ArtandRobGrunewald.Early ChildhoodDevelopment: Economic Development with a HighPublic Return.March2003.FederalReserveBankoMinneapolis.14April2005..

24

Shonko,JackP.,andDeborahPhillips,eds.FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: The Science o Early ChildhoodDevelopment.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,2000.

25A New Framework or Assessing the Benefts o EarlyEducation. September2004.AWorkingPaperbytheCommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..

26Kagan,Ed.D.SharonL.Advancing Child Abuse andNeglect Protective Factors: The Role o the Early Care andEducation Inrastructure. TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.September2003.CenterortheStudyoSocialPolicy.15April2005..

27Barnett,W.Steven,KirstyBrown,andRimaShore.Policy Brie - The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Shouldthe United States Have Preschool or All?April2004.NationalInstituteorEarlyEducationPolicyBrie,Issue

14April2005..28Child Facts: Child Care in Washington. 2005.ChildrensAlliance.14April2005..

29Head Start, Early Head Start and Early Childhood Educationand Assistance Programs in Washington State: State Profle2001-2002. 2002.WashingtonStateDepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.15April2005..

30Accreditation Search Results.NationalAssociationortheEducationoYoungChildren.March2005.11March2005..

Mapping Concentrations o At-Risk Youth in Washington.DataDictionarypreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.November2004.

Schrager,Laura.FW:Assignment#2205:RequestromValisaSmithotheGatesFoundation:InoonSunnyside.E-mailtoValisaSmith.31March2005.

31Scott,Ph.D.,L.Carol.Leadership Matters: GovernorsPre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2006. April2005.Pre-KNow.5May2005..

32Campbell,F.A.,C.T.Ramey,E.P.Pungello,J.Sparling,andSMiller-Johnson.2002.EarlyChildhoodEducation:YoungAdultOutcomesromtheAbecedarianProject.Applied Developmental Science6:42-57.

Reynolds,ArthurJ. The Chicago Child-Parent Centers: ALongitudinal Study o Extended Early Childhood InterventionInstituteorResearchonPovertyDiscussionPaperno.1126-97.1997.14April2005..

Schweinhart,Ph.D.,LawrenceJ.The High/Scope PerryPreschool Study Through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions,and Frequently Asked Questions. 2005.14April2005..

33Pavelchek,Dave.First-Ever Statewide KindergartenTeacher Survey on School Readiness. WashingtonStateUniversitySocialandEconomicSciencesResearchCenter.PresentationorWashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.January2005.

endnotes


24/24

Bi & mia ga ai

Po B 23350

sa, Wai 98102-0650

usA

v 206.709.3100

early learning strategy

Documents