![[Table of Contents]](/pubs/SER/EarlyChild/up.gif){kind=small}
[Implications for Policy and Practice] Early Childhood Reform in Seven Communities - October 1996
This chapter reviews findings from our case studies and cross-case analysis regarding the resources that are required to implement and sustain reform in the early childhood sector. We discuss three forms of resources: financial, managerial, and staff capacity. The chapter concludes with observations about the interactions among these elements and the supports which are necessary to bring about these different forms of investment.
An underlying theme in our analysis of these seven programs, and previous research is that our "reform" in serving young children and families can be described as an interlocking set of quantitative challenges:
Each of these key components of early childhood reform has direct implications for the operational costs of local programs and for public finance. The elements of adequate staff compensation, appropriate staff:client ratios, and inclusion of comprehensive services contribute to higher unit costs for serving each child and family. The continuity variable stresses the benefits of providing ongoing support to children and parents throughout the period from birth through school entry, adding the multiple of years of service to the equation. And the challenge of equalizing access to early childhood programs would require additional resources in order to serve more children and families.
To illustrate this contention in another way, consider the contrast between this conception of reform and challenges of reform in public education. The focus of reform strategies for elementary and secondary education is on improving/innovating professional practice at the classroom, school, and district level. The core challenge is one of motivating, guiding, shaking up and modernizing patterns of practice in an established, universal system of public services. Admittedly, equity and adequacy of school finance mechanisms is an eternal issue for litigation and legislation and there are fiscal costs involved in implementing reforms in assessment, instruction, and school organization.
By comparison, the challenge of early childhood reform is to implement a higher standard of "vitamin-enriched" forms of service to a greater segment of young children, at least for those families earning below median income levels. Clearly, funding increases are no guarantee that the quality of program services will be uniformly high. However, resources are an absolutely crucial enabling condition for assuring the opportunity for children and families to participate in a program and for staff to engage productively with their students and parents.
It is difficult to quantify the costs of the reform components outlined above. Several analytic efforts, notably the NAEYC Full Cost of Quality and the Government Accounting Office's research effort have created some estimates of costs per child as benchmarks for the field. Our case study sites illustrate the potential of some local agencies to work creatively to progress towards many of these aims, creating islands of excellence for children, families, and staff members. Evidence from these seven programs offer a few suggestions regarding the costs of reform:
Unfortunately, data about the costs of different forms and levels of quality in early care and education is hard to come by. The multiplicity and separateness of policy, funding, and delivery systems complicate efforts to describe and compare spending patterns across systems. Local agencies also differ in their direct costs and sources of in-kind or subsidized contributions. For example, independent non-profit entities generally pay for their own accounting, insurance, and facility costs, while early childhood programs under the auspices of the public schools receive these services from their local district at no cost. Some agencies invest heavily in purchasing, renting, or renovating facilities, while other programs are able to negotiate for free space for classrooms.
All of the components of early childhood reform could be fully funded and universally mandated through public policy. However, local managers bridge the gap between the components of early childhood reform and out present policy system for early childhood programs. As discussed in Chapter V, local administrators shape the design of their programs, and exert day- to-day leadership to encourage staff quality and innovation in their work. They take the initiative to obtain multiple sources of public funds, and local/private contributions to bridge the gap between what parents can afford to pay and the costs of "reformed version" rates. They make key decisions, and take actions which address each component of the reform agenda at the local level:
Local managers frequently compete for public resources which have been dedicated to early childhood services. However, they also add to the total pool of resources over time in a variety of ways. As entrepreneurs, they can persuade local foundations and businesses to shift funds towards the early childhood sector. As advocates, they can influence local boards of education to expand investment in programs to serve young children and families.
These different functions call for managers to possess a wide range of talents and attributes. They pay a personal price when they aspire to leadership in an innovative local strategy. Again, as we argued previously, it is more demanding to obtain and manage multiple sources of funding than to serve as an executive in an agency with a single form of sponsorship. A more passive stance of implementing the directives of a single governmental agency is an easier, safer job description. There are undeniable rewards for managers who achieve innovation and excellence -- however they also must be more talented and be willing to work harder and take more risks.
Thus, at present, extra effort by skillful managers can mediate some of the flaws of our public policy and funding system. By raising more money and choosing to create higher quality and more comprehensive programs, managers can enact reform for their children, families, staff members, and communities. Our success in locating a range of exemplary local leaders in this study is heartening. It suggests that investment in leadership development and support could pay impressive dividends in improving program quality and supply. However, it may be unrealistic to assume that unusual levels of talent, dedication, and entrepreneurial ability can be created sufficient to lead every local early childhood center and agency. If we assume that exceptional managers are the exception, rather than the rule, we need to solve much of the early childhood reform problem through governmental action.
While funds are vital to allow "reformed" versions of early childhood services to take place, and local administrators are the crucial entrepreneurs to attract and assemble resources, front- line staff are another mandatory resource in quality early childhood strategies. Quality is enacted and embodied in the skill, motivation, creative energy of those closest to children and parents.
Early childhood professionals are guided in their work by position statements, curriculum materials and the content of training programs. However, the diversity of today's young children and the dynamics of classroom life and work with parents are so complex that staff members are called on to make hundreds of autonomous judgments and decisions in their daily work. We aspire to professional practice which is responsive to the unique needs and context of a particular group of children and families; to teaching which is creative rather than routine. It takes extra effort and talent to make personal connections with individual children; to be alert to observing and interpreting their behavior, language, and work; to plan projects and develop materials. Perhaps most of all, excellence in teaching is executed in action, in performance, in fluid and unpredictable interactions with children. Work at high levels of awareness and analysis is stimulating and gratifying. However, it also makes more demands on the personal resources of staff, when compared with practice which is limited to executing routine strategies. It is difficult to quantify the costs of support for this level of quality in practice. Elements of commitment and concern for the client, awareness of a range of alternative courses for activities and alternative teaching or parent support strategies.
Two particular aspects of this conception of reform expand the scope of responsibilities for classroom teachers and are observed in the seven case study sites. First, a commitment to comprehensiveness presumes that teachers will work with parents as well as children. Second, the continuity dimension implies that teachers will take the extra step of learning about and working with public schools to improve the transition process for children and maximize their opportunities for success in kindergarten and the primary grades.
We see again a set of interconnections among staff capacity, local management, external funding, and infra-structure supports as resources. Achieving reform is possible under a variety of conditions. However, the evidence of these case studies suggests that reform is more rather than less local to occur under the following scenarios:
One interpretation of the contribution of fiscal and managerial resources is to create the conditions for staff to implement quality practices, to respond to the changing needs of their clients, and to assess and invent new strategies over time. Instability in staff makes it extremely difficult to implement a consistent approach to curriculum or to garner a well-trained workforce. More serious are the costs to the quality of relationships with children and families. When a center lacks staff continuity it is extremely difficult for children to feel secure or for staff members to get to know their clients well. The agencies profiled in this study have found ways to reverse this cycle. By dint of extra fundraising efforts and a strong commitment to program quality, they create the conditions to allow staff to enact and invent quality practices, rather than struggling in impossible circumstances.
We also offer the speculation that the pattern of successful fundraising from multiple sources characteristic of these flagship agencies serves as to bolster staff morale and motivation among front-line staff. Beyond the tangible benefits of successful fundraising, we believe that agency staff members garner a feeling that they are part of something special rather than merely employees of an ordinary service agency. Participants in an organization which is expanding and diversifying operate in a climate which encourages them to stretch and expand themselves in their daily work and in their vision for the future. New programs also offer a wider range of job opportunities for staff members. Staff members also take note of other forms of recognition for the organization that they work for, such as recognition in professional networks, media coverage, doing presentations, and receiving awards. They carry these agency achievements with them when they meet with colleagues from other programs in forums at the community, state, and national levels.
At a more general level, support for excellence and innovation in early childhood programs depends on issues of status and recognition. If, through low pay, lack of public recognition, and media images, early childhood professionals are continually defined as "less than" the status accorded teachers of older children or other occupational roles, talented individuals may well be less likely to enter and stay in this field of endeavor -- or practitioners may be more likely to simply view their work as "only a job". While the intrinsic rewards of facilitating progress for children and families may be high, long-term inequities are bound to have an impact on career decisions as well.
-###-
[Assessment of the Outcomes of Reforms]
[Implications for Policy and Practice]