ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

Has anyone thought about what will happen to the lives of our youngest (infants/toddlers) children when quality programs have to close because of low Pre-Kindergarten enrollment? My school is a non-profit, faith-based program and rely on preschool and pre-kindergarten enrollment to subsidize our infant and toddler classes. Adding more infant and toddler classes won't help because of the small group size and low teacher/child ratios. If we lose our pre-kindergarten classes, we will probably have to close the school. I know that we aren't alone and I wonder what parents will do if they can't find quality infant/toddler care? Unfortunantly, in the state of Texas the minimum standard for teacher/child ratios for infants (2/10) and toddlers (range from 1/9 to 1/13) are not developmentally appropriate. If programs such as mine are forced to close down, then the major alternative for parents is to find a daycare center that operates with the minimum standard teacher/child ratios. What a sad shame this will be for the very age we proport is the most important time in a child's development. Isn't this a tad bit hypocritical? In some states there seems to be more of a collaborative effort among the public and private school sectors than in Texas, where there is a lot of "talk" but not much action.

We just moved to Texas from California and were thrilled that there was a public Pre-K program. The teachers are credentialed (as compared to some preschools where teachers are only required to have taken a few early childhood classes) and the curriculum has nicely prepared our daughter for public school Kindergarten. The children were introduced to letters, sounds and numbers and the majority of the 3-hour day was spent on hands-on, developmental activities. The children were not expected to have mastered any of the skills taught, it was just for exposure. Our daughter attended school 5 days a week for 3 hours which has been an excellent transition into full day Kindergarten. The tuition was extremely reasonable for the quality of education received and our state offers an income-based, all day Pre-K program as well. I have taught Kindergarten for the past 8 years and am taking a break to be home with my children. As an educator and parent, I was extremely pleased with our state's Pre-K program and am highly recommending it to anyone who asks.

I am horrified that the state is testing children on letter and sound recognition skills to determine if their Pre-K program prepared them for kindergarten. I have been in this field for 40 years. It took at least 35 of them to convince parents that those skills are not preparing children to think, create or problem solve. If children do not have these thinking skills, however, knowing the names of letters will not make them "ready" for kindergarten.
My 4 year old enrollment has steadily dropped since the state began offering Pre-K. Parents are encouraged to send their children to the public schools when they apply for eligibility.

3 hr. VPK program did not touch the socio-economic class that it was hoping to assist. These three hour only children are from households where mom stays home and never would have sent their 4 year old to school unless this credit was in place. The other children that attend (low income areas) drop out of the program due to lack of transportation or support leaving the schools with no income in those projected spaces. This program needs to increase to at least six hours per day, even yet, 8 hours per day before it will be effective. The test results for Florida from the 2005 classes is not very promising; with the lowest grades being earned by many "Pulbic school based programs". If you failed that year, the information was not given to you in time to avoid failure in your program for the second year, so technically you should not be allowed to run a third year program. I have had six VPK classrooms in the past two years; due to increase in schools providing this service, and less children looking for placements, I'm cutting back to four classrooms. I hope Tallahassee decides to interview people in my position to hear the real pros and cons of this program. I've been in the industry for 41 years and have seen it all.

In the state of Wisconsin the funding for 4 year old kindergarten comes through the public schools. The funding is for a 2 1/2 hour program. 62% of the school districts are offering 4K. Of those offering 4K, 19% are partnering with child care and head start agencies to provide 4K.

Our agency is partnering with 2 different school districts to provide a quality 4K for families. We can offer full day services for families who need more than a 2 1/2 hour program. Children are not bussed from one program to another. We receive reimbursement from the school districts that covers all of our costs. Sharing resources with the school districts has been great for our program, the school districts and the families we serve.

We also operate child care programs in school districts who are not partnering with head start and child care. We have seen a significant reduction in our enrollments and it has impacted us detrimentally.

I am becoming increasingly concerned that academia in the form of rote learning is over taking the need for more cognitive forms of learning. We need to teach children how to be independent thinkers. They need to feel confident in themselves and their ability to relate to those around them. Knowing how to find the answers they need is more important at this stage of development. They need to be opening their minds to all the possibilities. Fine tuning should come later. My fear is that in the interest of everyone assesing and testing intelligence,we've forgotten what really is essential to making our world go round. If we teach children how to retrieve information and how to make informed choices then their academic priorities will fall into place and they will have the opportunity to be more successful in life. The emphasis on the academics is indeed robbing them of what is critical to their development at this young age. Change is inevitable and I would suggest that we always keep in mind, what is ultimately good for the child. We should be in no rush to jump on any bandwagon for which there is no retutn. The stakes are to high!

Well, I could go on and on and on but: since we began our pre k partnership 2 1/2 years ago we have dramatically changed the landscape of our classrooms, program and staff which has made a huge difference for our children, our families and our staff. Changes are evident and have allowed us to now move forward with NAEYC accreditation and environmental rating scale application to our our classrooms, to just name a few of the many changes and improvements ongoing.

I feel like Pre-K is a good thing to have in all centers, I feel that there are enough childcare centers to accomodate our 4 year old children,therefore the Public schools will not house all of our children. For me as a Private center without Pre-K it really dampens my ratios, I provide a well-rounded program very structure,and I have been in the field for 17 years and I taught classes at CGTC for 5 years, training others how to take care of our precious little childrens. I would like to have it at my center,or several head start classes.

New York is moving forward with more dollars for Universal Prekindergarten. The concern is that this becomes a "push down" for kindergarten and we stress children. If UPKs are allowed to continue to provide DAP and continue to provide extended periods of uninterrupted playtime for children and lots of outdoor activities then it can be successful. Whether this will be the case is yet to be seen. The majority if UPKs look kie kindergatern to me.
Judy Metzger

I think there are a number of areas with which to be concerned on this topic. First, as noted, the lack of an overall system is an issue. If the system becomes solely based within the public school system, it may lose the parent responsiveness that many community-based programs have, particularly around cultural issues. Second, I have strong concerns that the focus on pre-k may divert attention away from the needs of our infant-toddler programs (which research has told us need support + attention). Finally, having worked for over 20 years in early care + education, I've known MANY phenomenal teachers who do not have a B.A. While I strongly support the need for better credentials (and PAY) for those working with young children, I am troubled that we may lose some wonderfully sensitive and effective teachers if the B.A. is the sole educational credential, especially if community staff without B.A.s are not given supports to continue their education.

I am the JumpStart Tulsa Coordinator. I work with the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa in which many of the initiatives cited in your article was born...and fanned across Oklahoma.

A couple of interesting things to note...and bears watching as the focus on early childhood continues.
1. The use of child care (and child care subsidy) did not decrease among 4 year olds statewide as predicted...which means parents are using public school K-4 and child care. A real issue is probably the impact of half day child care services financially on the child care centers....and more significantly...the impact of extended hours on children who are in public programs and child care the whole day.
2. Public education embraced pre-K to supplement their funding...as the number of children 6-18 years is deteriorating...which means their interest has been financial predominantly.
3. The public education envirnonment is less than appropriate in most cases for the developmental needs of 4 year olds. The curricula is push down from elementary rather than a quality early childhood program which is developmentally appropriate for the social and emotional needs of the child...rather than their cognitive development.
4. So what is Oklahoma doing to reconcile these issues....Tulsa is hosting investigative meetings in the development of universal early childhood guidelines (public education, child care and Head Start). They are examining the non-parental child care time...to determine...where the children are located and low long each day. They are bringing in leaders in the field to examine long term impact of school readiness programs (Meisels, Feletti, Brazelton). They have been successful 2 out of 3 years in increasing the child care subsidy funding through the legislature to better support quality early childhood programs. Tulsa and OKC are providing infant toddler specialists who can assist child care programs to enhance their infant toddler programs. The JumpStart Tulsa goal is to create a continuum of early care and learning programs that meet the needs of school readiness and workforce. Our work began in 1987...not in 2000....So we see pre-K a landmark in the continuum....not as an event. Every great program from the advent of public education in the 1850s forward has come with trepidation...and opportunities....We are in the process of separating the two. Jan Figart

I am from Oklahoma and would like to share some of my thoughts. I have a Masters degree in Early Childhood education, had a center in my home, and was the assistant director of a child care facility. I am currently the preschool teacher in a public school program. When we set up the program ten years ago, there were only 2 licensed family child care homes in our part of the state-so there were no duplication of services. Our school district covers almost 500 square miles, and every year, we serve about 40 preschool children at no cost to their families.

We are a very unique program. From the beginning, we chose to be DHS licensed. DHS is the agency that oversees all the child care facilities in our state. Our program is a public school/head start collaboration, and was also NAEYC accredited. Because of budget cuts, we are no longer accredited, but I am confident we still meet those high stands.

Even though Oklahoma is getting nation wide attention as a leader in early childhood education, I have some observations I would like to discuss.

First of all, I am sad for the preschoolers in our state that go to child care in the morning, are bused to a head start program, bused to the public school program in the afternoon, and then go back to the child care center until it is time to go home. Some children are over-whelmed by all the transitions.

Preschool teachers in our public schools are sometimes not adequately trained. As long as an elementary teacher passes the early childhood competency test, they are certified to teach preschool. They are not required to take early childhood training-just pass a test. This can result in unrealistic expectations of what preschool children can and can not do!

Since public school programs are not required to be licensed by DHS, they do not participate in the STARS program mentioned in the article. DHS sets very specifric guidelines for equipment, safety standards, etc. Public schools are not required to meet those same standards. Often the elementary playground is not safe for preschoolers, bathrooms are used by all ages of children, and there is sometimes a lack of hands-on supplies for the early childhood classroom.

There are many outstanding things going on in Oklahoma. But, I believe all groups that serve young children in our state need to work more closely to provide a "seamless" program. We need to cooperate rather than compete so everyone can win-especially the children in our state.

West Virginia included in its code a mandate that 50% of the pre-K programs must be located in community settings including Head Start, child care centers, private preschools, etc. Public school state funding is passed through the county school systems to the community pre-k programs who are required to meet certain standards and hire teachers with higher credentials. This was intended to prevent the state wide pre-k program from hurting the enrollments in private programs. Some directors have felt that the program is hurting their preschool numbers. At the same time, children in child care centers and Head Start centers are benefiting from teachers who are seeking higher credentials. There are benefits and challenges but in the end children will be the winners although we may need to reconceptualize the business of serving children.

There is a federally finded preschool program for three and four year olds, called Head Start. It has been around since the 1960's, so we do not need another program (stae pre-K) doing the same services. Head Start is due for reauthorization, just give us the money to do what we do best for children and families!

PA is entering into a state supported Pre-K initiative for "children at risk". As a private provider I experienced, the predicted, being cast by the wayside as the school district was ready to collaborate with Head Start and not the community provider . Unfortunately PA in its haste did not spell out directives for Pre-K collaborations. Of course it was implied and intended. Time will tell as the Governor's budget to include PreK has yet to be passed.

Our school district - 3800 students - is currently reviewing elementary programming and how our facilities impact this program. We are preparing to ask our community to support 2 new elementary facilities. Each of these facilities will have space for Pre-K programming. We are partnering with a community Pre-school (the BEST in our community) for the delivery of this programming. We view this as a win-win for all!

Vermont is one of 4 states creating early childhood school partnerships through the Dept of Education. Early childhood educators have worked with schools, communities, lobbyists, the media, families and legislators for 5 long years and this June 2007 Act 62 was finally passed. Now the rule making process begins. Half of the school districts already have early childhood programs (as part of the school program or in partnership with community child care). Unlike the fears expressed by Gwen Morgan, Vt has worked hard to ensure the legislation does create a duplicate system. The VT legislation requires school districts to collaborate and plan with thier community and not supplant community based quality child care. It requires child care programs that engage in these partnerships to meet certain standards on the Vt Quality Rating Scale (STARS) as well as have licensed teachers. Family child care does not have to have a licensed teacher, but do need to have the oversight of a licensed teacher. Families and others may request that school districts enter into partnerships with community child care and schools can have these partnerships with programs outside of their school district (providing the child in care resides in the school district). The legislation requires data to be collected and used. This is an exciting time for Vermont. The programs that already have these partnerships and are benefitting from them have seen significant results, especially over time. It is already contributing to raising the professional bar for teachers in the classroom, and at the same time providing programs access to funds for professional development .

I have been an owner/director of a large child care center for over 31 years. We are accredited and have educated our upper middle class students very well over the years. Preschool we all know is very valuable. Who will pay for it, is the issue. I believe all children whose parents wish should attend preschool and only those who meet a certain income level should get it for FREE from the government. Universal is a BAD word in my vocabulary. What makes America great is COMPETITION, and FREE CHOICE. Everything government does costs more and more is spent on the bureacracy. We have lost several of our full day kindergarten students to a lottery for a full day kindergarten program in a nearby district. These parents were willing to pay $8,000. a year for a 7 AM to 6 PM Private K program UNTIL they got it for FREE from their school district. It may not be as wonderful as our school, but who can beat the price? Of course we tax payers in America will pay for this well past the year or two or three an individual would have had to pay for a private preschool. In summary, whenever government gets involved, the quality goes down and the cost goes up. I do not want this for early childhood education. Why ruin a good thing?

I am operating a licensed Group Childcare with 18 children in Ga. Ga. has a lottery funded pre-K program and is offered to the large childcare programs and the public school system. I see no problem with the program except it excludes home childcare and group homes. It is only available for large numbers of children. The program is free and does take the 4's out of the home and group programs. The larger centers also use this as an incentive to pull 2's and 3's into their center claiming to give first priority to the children in there existing program when filling the K-4 program. Some children at these young ages need more one-on-one or smaller groups of children. Especially children with special needs. In the more rural areas this also hurts the smaller home businesses. They can not compete with free programs. I think that all business with quality programs should be eligible for funding without consideration to numbers. Ann

Bruce Fuller has written a book that has interesting things to say about this very topic. It is called Standardized Childhood.

For the past six months I have been traveling the state promoting partnerships between Head Starts and public schools as new dollars are given to the schools from the department of education to open preschools. It is definitely having a negative effect on Head Start by decreasing our enrollment, and in turn, decreasing the number of dollars available to our communities for early childhood education (as the Office of Head Start takes the funds away if you are underenrolled). Other concerns as public schools enter the preschool arena include lack of developmentally appropriate practices for four year olds and a total lack of monitoring by the state as these program operate without following the requirements of the grant.

Here in Massachusetts we have a Universal Preschool legislation that is driven primarily by an advocacy group. It all sounds great in press releases but here's what has happened so far:
local planning and decision making formerly done by local councils made up of providers and stake holders such as the public schools has been moved back up to the Dept. of Early Education and Care, the income guidelines for tuition assistance for families was dropped to the poverty level leaving working poor and low/middle income with no financial assistance which resulted in a drop of families served in our community from 55 to 15, established a reimbursement rate 25% BELOW the published market rate, made NAEYC accreditation mandatory to the exclusion of any other accreditation program and then cut the financial support to providers by 50%, proposes regulations that would require centers to brush children's teeth while allowing family child care homes to operate OUTSIDE of their residence such as converted garage or empty apartment in an apartment building, Removed local support for professional development formerly developed and offered by local councils to regional agencies who will most likely limit training to 2 teachers per center due to the large areas these agencies have to cover. These are just a few of the things that our legislators and Dept. of Early Education and Care have offered so far. The dept. has so little ECE experience that you can't ask them any questions and expect a prompt, and accurate answer. Questions are sent to "bulletin questions" where many times they are never heard from again. They issue conflicting rules and interpretations only to withdraw them later. Their is also no talk of increasing the reimbursement rates from year to year as our expenses(salaries, health insurance, etc) increase. All in all this is the classic READY, FIRE, AIM approach. I can only imagine what the future wil bring to what was once a national model for the delivery of early care and education services to children in Massachusetts.

The emphasis on Pre-K has great potential to assist the early childhood community, but also brings with it the possibility of tremendous disruption to the entire system. I represent the Maryland State Child Care Association on the Maryland Legislature's Task Force on Universal Pre-K. As a representative of private, community-based child care centers, we have long been concerned that public funding of Pre-K would lead to all children being served in public schools, which would prevent parents from choosing community-based child care, and result in the closing of many centers. The current programs in Maryland that are publicly-funded, for "at risk" four year olds, have already had that effect. The public schools are unwilling to contract with private centers to provide those services, in spite of the fact that the regulations allow this, and in spite of the fact that the State Board of Education has encouraged the local school boards to do so. Absent a mandate that private centers be included in a system of publicly-funded Pre-K, private centers will simply lose the majority of their four year olds to the public schools. This will cause the rise in tuition for the children birth through three child care, and result in the closing of many centers.

Thank you for your article on this important subject. As a Dutch High/Scoop Teacher-trainer I visited the US many times. In Michigan State, in Detroit City, in New York, I got inspired by the enthusiasm of your Pre-school teachers, of the Headstart groups. I have learned so much in many classes! But we as trainers were surprised to hear that the government is not paying for implementing Pre-K initiative.

In the Netherlands 1. we have no private schools and 2. all public schools are free for all children; parent fees (for fieldtrips etc.) are based on family income. We are implementing four different Preschool programs for children on the age of 2,5 up to 6 years (we have already grades before kindergarten to the public schools) with money form the Education Department. The most interesting thing about this for you - I think - is to hear that teacher training is mend and paid for all teachers in the centre and in the public primary school. They are all trained together as a group!
Of course we have our problems too, mostly on money, but I invite you to come over and visit 'our system'.
Larry Schweinhart of the High/Scope Institute (Ypsilanti) knows the Dutch situation good, he can tell you more about it!

I admire the efforts of legislators that support early childhood education by suggesting financial support for pre-k programs. I am worried about the political distribution of the funds that may become available. I realize that legislators have a long time relationship with the department of education, but I question their eagerness to turn these funds for pre-k over to the already over burdened school systems. There are so many quality programs that are not school district run that are offering excellent pre-k education, but the road to the proposed pre-k funding is not geared toward these programs. This is not always in the best interest of young children and does not assist those who are currently providing quality pre-k education.

The state of Pennsylvania has proposed $75 million to allow 11,000 additional children attend a quality pre-k program. I am not sure that the legislature will approve this funding, but it seems that the application process is department of education friendly. PA now has the Office of Child Development which houses the Department of Public Welfare, which oversees childcare, and the Department of Education. This partnership is too new to predict the eventual outcome. I, as a faculty member of a quality childcare and education facility, do hope that legislators acknowledge our expertice and allow the funding to go already existing quality pre-k programs.

As the former Preschool Director in a 350 year old private Pre-K through grade 12 school, I can assure you that no public school, no matter how outstanding, will keep families from choosing to send their children to private schools. However, with tuition rates that rival college tuition rates and teacher salaries that remain close to the poverty level, many are excluded from chosing this option. My vision would be for all children to have the option to have an education of private school quality, or better yet, Reggio Emilia preschool quality, at no cost to their families.

Three and four year old children in 30+ school districts in New Jersey have the opportunity to receive a free preschool education, and their teachers and administrators receive salaries comparable to upper grade teachers and administrators in the district, without putting private providers out of business. In my current job as liaison to three of these district early childhood programs, my goal is to make sure that these children receive the highest quality education and care possible. I also support efforts to make this opportunity available for every child, not only in New Jersey, but everywhere. We also need to focus our efforts on funding quality, affordable child care for those under three.

Our local news today featured a story about an abandoned baby with a note from his mother tucked into the baby's diaper that said she could no longer care for him because she had no job and no health care. She closed her note with "God have mercy on me." No. God have mercy on this wealthy nation of ours for turning its back on our most vulnerable citizens.

I am an oddity, being a licensed teacher but working in an early childhood daycare program. Because of my background and education, the 4 & 5 year olds that come thru my classroom get an INCREDIBLE experience, giving them a very enriched experiential foundation that more than readies them for kgarten and beyond. I (and another teacher) work closely with our local public school early childhood centers and the staff there recognize when one of "our" kids come into their classrooms! It is the vocation of a lifetime and what I was placed on this planet to do.
The DOWNSIDE is the lack of respect and financial incentive we get to do what we do. Sure, teachers are underpaid, but there is someone even lower! I have worked in this field for 8 years to now make what I made 8 years ago at part time! Fresh out of high school kids make a dollar less than I do--remind me again why I want to deal with whiney, snotty (literally), accident prone, nosepickers who may still bite and hit before using words...and that's sometimes the parents (hahaha!)
BECAUSE there is no greater gift in the world than to give these little people the armor and advantage needed to succeed at becoming themselves in this crazy world.
But I sure would like to make a real and competitive wage while doing the greatest job in the universe!

Thank you for allowing input into this high profile subject. I think it is about time that state policy makers realize the benefit of early education and commit to the investment.

While building this system here in MA policy makers must take into account that community based programs (CBO)offer more extended care opportunities for working families and are unencumbered by the rules of public schools. Everything does not have to happen under the umbrella of Public Schools in order for children to be successful. CBO's are open longer, not only daily but also yearly, affording families peace of mind while at work.

As MA continues to move forward with universal pre-kindergarten it must be understood that CBO's are struggling with getting or maintaining accreditiation, hiring "qualified" staff and providing time for staff to properly develop intentional learning for indiviudal students. Salaries for CBO teachers is not increasing fast enough to keep the few who are already degreed and to give increases to those who have reached next steps toward their degree.


MA also needs to decide, and farily soon, if accreditation is the measure of quality or if a process based on MA early childhood standards and curriculum guidelines is the measure of quality using the current system of licensors to make that assessment. This would mean more training for licensors and prehaps hiring more of them but the cost would be off set by not having to spend money for the current accreditation costs.

It seems to me, depending on the demographics, that public schools will not be able to handle the total population of early learners and will need quality CBO's to help and if the state reimburses those CBO's at a decent rate for up to 4 hrs of service daily, all children will benefit. Many of the providers spend lots of time and energy informing families of the benefit of early learning services and translating what their child does each day into academic language so theycan see that it really is an educational process.

Massachusetts has spent a lot of money training trainers to help teachers and directors use the standards and curriculum guidelines effectively and has made a significant investment in helping teachers return to school. These efforts need to continue so the children of the Commonwealth will have the best possible start on the road to life long learning.

I thank you for a great article.
Our state of Pennsylvania is in the process of possibly implementing the Pre-K Initiative. We are waiting for our Governor and state legislators to approve this initiative for funding. As a Director of an urban community child care center, I am excited about any opportunity to improve the quality of my center and to provide my staff with better wages. I agree that I do have some reservations about the Pre-K Initiative providing the majority of the funding to school districts. However, I am thankful that our state is realizing the important role that Early Childhood Educators' play in young children's development and are willing to provide funding and training. Community child care centers in urban areas have been around for years to assist parents with childcare needs. For a long time, the state did not realize the positive impact of early childhood education. These centers provided care and learning opportunities for the young children with their commitment to hard work and their financial sacrifices. They are the pioneers of quaility child care programs. Instead of rewarding the community centers for a job well done, some states are excluding them from the process. It is because of the community childcare centers that the states see that early childhood programs are essential to the success of our children in the school. So, let's make sure that the states do not forget the commmunity childcare centers that have made a difference in our young children's lives. It is essential that these centers are the primary recipients and planners of the Pre-K Initiative.

Since most direct providers do not have the time to give to state level policy discussions, and since the state level policy folk are likely to be state employees, it should not surprise anyone to see the preschool funds move from direct funding to families into the public sector providing no family choice. Private providers are certainly at risk, as is family individual choice which is a hue and cry I have not seen or heard in a long time.
My colleagues in the impoverished areas of Boston see direct competition. Out here in the semi rural areas of Massachusetts, we are seeing reduced voucher funding (20% per hour reduction in reimbursement funds) which allows me to see some interesting things. There are no reduced funds for the administrators providing the program oversight, only to direct services for the kids. Once again private providers and family choice is taking it on the chin while embedded administration lives on. I am sure that the policy not for profit Early Education for All is feeling as though they are making a plan, a comprehensive plan. But here in the field it just feels like deprivation to young children and their families' freedom of choice.
Thank you for raising the issue.......Marcia

Private centers are definitely being undermined in Fla. by the state supported pre-kindergarten program. Many of the centers participating in the Voluntary Pre-K program are poorly run and provide an inferior educational experience. Parents are looking for free care and don't seem to be able to discern quality. It will become harder and harder to attract 4 year old children to centers that charge tuition. Why pay, when the state provides care for free? (Even if it's not very good care; it doesn't cost parents; only the children pay a price.)

As an employee in an organization that serves just under 200 families, I feel that the Universal Pre-K system is a wonderful movement in a directions we all need to recognize as worthy for our children.

It is my understanding where I am from that there is such a high demand for high quality Early Childhood Education in the area. We are a fast growing community economically, but the child care available is not adequate. There are waiting lists to get in for every center in the area. As for the Public Pre-K system, they currently use a lottery system to decided who will get the Public Pre-K and who will not. There is a high demand for it. It is not putting Child Care businesses out of work at all. In fact, there needs to be more centers opening to provide the care needed.

Given that operating a child care center is not a "money making business" and there are many state regulations that you have to meet, opening centers is not exactly an easy or affordable process.

Aside from this, I believe we should all look to the future and see what will come of this movement...equal oppurtunity for all children to aquire a free early child education from the start. I think it is a powerful movement that will positively impact their future as well as ours.

We don't have money to spare in Michigan as we are the bottom of the economic chain these days and have huge budget deficits. With the changes to accreditation standards, it seems obvious to me that only publicly funded preschool programs will be able to stay accredited. As a Lutheran School, we have always competed against public schools but the addition of free preschool programs is an unfair advantage and will put may programs out of business. What will be next...free infant and toddler programs? That will really be the nail in the coffin to all for profit and faith based programs.

I'm glad that my greatest fear is not mine alone! Here in my city, pre-k in the public schools is for children from low-income families, deficient in English or special needs only. We survive by serving families who do not qualify for public pre-k, but who want a quality education/preparation for kindergareten for their child. But the governor of Texas and many state proponents are pushing for universal pre-k for all 4 year olds. That will be the demise of our school in this small community. You just can't compete with "free"!!

We are located in a western suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Pre-K program offered by this district has definitely effected our program in a negative way. It is another option for parents who are not totally understanding the early childhood industry. Parents are assuming because it is offered by the school district it must be a better program. Parents who have left our facility to attend such programs have told us that the district isn't able to offer as comprehensive of an early childhood program as we are able to do. It is unfortunate for us and has proven to lessen our enrollment when we know that our established program can provide excellent early childhood education for young children.

I belong to a Directors' group that meets once a month at our local RDC. A director from a neighboring town found out about a test pre-K program at the public school when a few of her children were being pulled from her nursery school just as they were about to open for the fall. She was notified by mail about a question and answer meeting one day before the event was to occur. Her school is relatively small and she was very concerned of the financial impact that would have as well as the added work of bringing new children into the program. I felt badly for her, but I also felt badly for the children who were being sent into a large school with higher ratios and a more overwhelming atmosphere. While I think 4 year old children are capable in many ways, I still feel they deserve a calm, homelike environment where they can learn through play and grow comfortable in their new found abilities. Children have many years to perform academically and too few to just enjoy.

As an impoverished, rural county, almost all of our part-day preschools are publicly funded and many of them are located in or near elementary schools. What we struggle with is providing transportation to and from part-day programs to full-day centers and family child care homes. Working parents who want a preschool program often can't choose it because they can't manage the logistics of getting children to and from wrap around care. California has no plans to provide funding for transportation for universal preschool, however.

When our local school system implemented the free Pre-K program for four-year-olds, it almost wiped out our program. Our local superintendent did not want to collaborate with existing programs in the town, she wanted complete control, so we were forced to change. In order to keep some of our four-year-olds we became inovative and began offering our parents choices of days and hours. In addition, instead of complementing our program, the free program started out very academic - the teachers assigned to the program were former elementary teachers, not preschool. It has since improved, but still has a way to go. This approach made our job, once again, harder, trying to explain to parents how this age should be learning.

In Florida the local Early Learning Coalitions are key to promoting private chid care as a strong alternative to the public school programs. In Florida the public school system cannot provide all the space needed for VPK for all, so the whole Voluntary Prekindergarten program is dependent on public/private cooperation. In some parts of the state this is going well. In rural Florida there is still a lack of programs of any sort for four year olds. Family child care homes are also part of the Florida system.

I wrote a book, _The Sun's Not Broken, A Clioud's Just in the Way:
On Child-Centered Teaching, which has stayed in print since its appearance in 1983. It was reviewed in Young Children as a developmentally appropriate warm and gentle book, and I hope you will want to mention it in the forthcoming discussion, since it was written out of experience in the inner city with children of color, and they ended the year feeling smart and good at school, and their parents felt good about their possibilities.

A note. The school system ate up my boys, mostly, but my girls survived well. One parent reported to me that half the girls in her daughter's class ended up at a city-wide celebration of the top one percent of seventh graders. While this doesn't qualify as research, it is an indicator that children from the hardest hit parts of my city can survive a poor school system if they are well launched in Pre-K.

New York had a small "experimental" Pre-K program for many years. It was well designed with clear standards and expectations that it would be an appropriate program. All that has changed under what is called Universal Pre-K. School districts are required to give 10% of the state money to community based agencies but there are no requirements that the districts provide much oversight or that the programs meet any kinds of quality standards.
This has led to situations such as the one in the district where I live. The money all goes to a program that uses dittos and workbooks and gives the children homework. When I suggested to a parent that she simply not have her child do the homework I was told that, "She has to or she'll get in trouble." We have a Reading First grant which means that our school age kids are using a very prescriptive and not very appropriate program. This Pre-K is using the kindergarten materials from that program.
When I expressed my concerns to the Superintendent of Schools I was told that the only monitoring they were required to do was a visit once a year. A complaint to the people at State Ed has gone unanswered.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence around that many of the programs, either in or out of the public schools, are equally problematic. New York is expanding its program and there is no movement towards improving quality.
Unless this situation changes, and that seems unlikely, children are going to enter kindergarten without all the valuable skills a good early childhood program provides and , for many of them, experience at failure.
In the meantime, excellent programs with a strong philosophy of developmentally appropriate practice are in danger of closing because they are not part of the system, There is very little effort made to help these programs apply for the funding. There seems to be a real bias against day care centers. It doesn't help that many school districts have no administrators with any knowledge of Early Childhood Education. This, coupled with Sate Ed's lack of guidance, is an open invitation to poor decision making.

Like many, our nursery school saw the pre-K program as a threat to our private preschool program. Our nursery school is a non-profit preschool and is a ministry of our church to the families of the church and surrounding communities. Our goals include providing a quality program for ages 2,3 & 4 while keeping the tuition costs low. I personally think that the pre-k program will help us to fulfilll our goals and help us to continue a wonderful program that was established in 1979. We are currently working toward signing a contract with our county school system to provide a Pre-K class this Fall. I am excited by the prospect because of the early screening for the children, quality training in the field of early education for our staff and extra funds to pay our staff better wages. Our state's policy is inclusive to private preschools, daycares, and faith based programs. Many of our public elementary schools just do not have the room to house a pre-k program and the private sector is stepping up to the plate and benefitting from it.

I have been in family child care in Somerville, MA for 12 years. In that time, the local public schools built a brand new pre-k building which now serves a large number of children. I have watched the effect of this program on family child care, community based child care, and head start programs. For now, the public school program runs only until 1:30, with very limited aftercare. I run a full day program and happen to live in a corner of Somerville that borders on three other cities and towns. I am careful each year to talk in my interviews with parents about our programs desire to work with children through the preschool years until kindergarten and my preference has been until this year to only take children whose parents agree to that. I am also careful to take a balance of children from the neighboring towns who don't provide public school pre-k as well as children from my own city. After twelve years of successfully convincing parents for the most part to keep their children with us, I am finding it increasingly hard to compete with a free, five day program which parents often now think of as the gold standard in our community. This year I lost one child to a Cambridge Public School program midyear. In his place I have taken three children (the first left after three months due to a move, and in order to fill that space in a timely fashion, I took two children). I have lost a considerable amount of tuition, as I was not able to fill one day due to scheduling. Next year will likely be the biggest turnover ever, when I have four kids who will likely leave for a school based preschool. This affects not only the balance of ages in our mixed age program and the amount of time and energy I must put into parent interviews and conferences, but also the sense of stability in the program for all our children and families.

I worry that while the school based program is generally decent quality, it's emphasis is clearly less play-based and more academic than most familly or community based programs. Because it is a one year program, it is one more transition and set of relationships in a young child's short life. Because it is located in one building on the far side of town with no buses, and we live in a city where many families don't have cars, we must be eliminating a large segment of eligible children. Because the program is half day, we must be eliminating many working families. My guess is that the program is serving a middle group of kids, and that rather than bringing our widely diverse city of families together, it is bringing one segment together, perhaps the segment who would have been most able to participate in community programs such as cooperatives. So, I wonder, where will it end up? Will I still serve preschool age children in another ten years or will I move on in my career like so many other Somerville providers? I really don't want to do an infant and toddler only program and neither do my co-teachers. The housing prices in Somerville are so high that it is very difficult to make a living already without charging very high rates. It is very difficult to start a new program. My hope had been to be able to take more low income children, but with the expanding divide between private and state subsidized rates, that feels like a huge challenge. In one meeting I attended recently in Somerville where I expressed my worry about an impending child care crisis in our city, one of our local leaders expressed her belief that keeping family providers was a lost cause. i get calls daily for infant and toddler care, but I rarely have openings. I wonder where these families find care and if they might even end up moving to another city where family child care is not struggling in the ways it is in Somerville with high housing prices and a strong public pre-k. Many, many questions ahead!! Thanks for asking. I hope I haven't written too much.