2005 Early Learning Testimony

January 27, 2005
Delivered by Greg Shaw, director, Education*

Madame Chair, thank you for inviting the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to appear today to discuss the vital importance of early learning and early childhood development in the State of Washington. I would like to commend you, Rep. Kagi, and your colleagues today for your leadership on this important issue.

Although private foundations are not generally allowed to express their views to legislative officials on specific pending legislation, the written invitation we received from you, Madame Chair, requesting that we speak on issues surrounding early learning and House Bill 1152 allows us to participate at this public hearing. Additionally, a primary objective of our participating in these discussions is to continue our work with the State of Washington and other local governments through jointly funded programs that provide support to children and families.

Since 2002, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded a total of $5.2 million to 31 organizations that provide early learning for children and families in this state. Our grants have gone to organizations in Washington that serve young children through parenting support, Head Start, childcare and early childhood education. Among our grantees are Building Better Futures, St. Anne's Children and Family Center, PEPS en Espanol, Denise Louie Education Center, and Providence SoundHomeCare and Hospice.

Today, we have one primary goal for being here. As a private funder, we wish to add our voice to that of those in the field to reinforce the firm belief that an investment in a child from birth to 6 years of age is one of the most important investments we can make as a state and as a society. The Gates Foundation began a little over one year ago a rigorous investigation into how our private investments could best improve outcomes for at-risk youth in our state. How can we improve outcomes for kids in this state who are at-risk of dropping out of school, becoming disconnected, engaging in risky and even illegal behaviors? That investigation led us to many important programs that span all ages of youth and parenting. But we have come especially to recognize the vital and crucial importance of improving early learning and early childhood development.

We know from the research that children in high quality early learning programs are more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, and have higher incomes later in life. In addition, children in high quality early learning programs are less likely to require special education, go on welfare, or be involved in the criminal justice system. We know that high-quality early childhood programs offer the most cost effective model to ensure that our state’s children grow up to be as successful as possible. However, public investment is lowest during this period when a child’s development potential is the highest.

At the foundation, our study has led us to focus especially on how our private investments might complement those investments being made in the public sector to improve the quality of early childhood development in this state, especially for those citizens most in need and least able to access quality early learning. The real challenge is how we come to define quality and how we ensure that everyone can access it.

We believe that your proposed legislation is an important step in beginning a statewide dialogue about the present status of early learning and child care in this state. The path this conversation will lead us down cannot be known today but we do hope that it will foster greater understanding and greater acceptance of the need for the following:

•Acceptance that education begins at birth and the early years are a critical time to focus on children and families;
•Understanding that quality early learning is integrally linked with quality elementary, secondary and higher education;
•The need for greater educational levels and professional development opportunities for those working in child care;
•The importance of ongoing training and technical assistance to child care centers to help them achieve quality improvements;
•Knowledge that high quality early childhood care includes the emotional and social nurturing of children, not only their cognitive nurturing. For example, we’ve learned about the critical importance for young children to have a strong attachment with a primary caregiver. This attachment will build assets, lower risks and help a child to be more resilient in weathering life’s storms;

In addition, we believe that providing support for young children and their families outside of traditional childcare and home-based centers is critical for the success of our children. We know that:

•Greater access to nurse’s home visitation, such as the David Olds model can have a dramatic impact on developing positive outcomes for our state’s most vulnerable children;
•Supportive communities that collaborate to create high quality early learning environments promote stronger families;

Ultimately, the knowledge of these factors lead us to understand that our present system is perilously under-funded and under-valued. We are failing many of our children and families at a time when supports are most critical, and have the greatest impact.

Regarding this specific legislation, our foundation is generally supportive of quality rating and tiered reimbursement systems. On December 20th of last year, at the request of Rep. Kagi, the Foundation submitted a letter providing specific comment on the legislation, which I understand has been made available to the members of the committee,[as required by private foundation regulations]. Thank you Rep. Kagi for your reply. This legislation appropriately foresees the importance of statewide cooperation to garner the substantial public and private commitments necessary to improve Washington’s early learning system. Both tiered reimbursements and rating systems appear to be an effective way to incentivize quality improvements in the childcare system, particularly for childcare facilities that serve low-income children. We do have some specific observations about these types of systems that should be addressed as a statewide rating system and tiered reimbursement system are being considered.

While rating systems and tiered reimbursements are important tools for quality improvements, the base structure for supporting childcare needs to provide a strong platform upon which to build these systems. Neither of these systems appears to have great potential to improve the quality of childcare for low-income children until the base subsidy level is raised to cover the cost of care. According to the 2004 rate survey, the subsidy covers only cost of care at the lowest priced 25% of the state's childcare centers. This base level subsidy will need to be increased to provide the base of support for these other systems to rest upon.

Tiered reimbursement systems can be a great market incentive for quality improvements, but in order to be effective they must reflect the actual cost of providing the high quality services, and not just provide a small incremental increase in the subsidy rate.

If a rating system is implemented, funding and technical assistance will need to be available to assist childcare centers to improve quality and increase their rating.

Working families need to be protected from potential rate increases as quality improvements increase the cost of care. There are many working families that earn above 175% of the federal poverty level and are not currently eligible for the childcare subsidy that are struggling to afford quality care for their children. I know that you share our concern about ensuring that the needs of working families are taken into consideration and consider the possibility of increasing the income eligibility for the childcare subsidy.

We would encourage the committee to look at how to best maximize the available resources to ensure that children are receiving the highest quality care as well as a continuity of services regardless of the working status of their parents. The current system that continually provides then discontinues services to children as the working status of their parents change does not best meet the needs of children and families.

It appears that the state is at an opportune time to advance these issues forward in a timely manner. During the past year, we have talked with service providers, city, county and state leaders, businesses and other private funders. We believe a real movement in this state is ready to be launched around early childhood learning. We’ve also studied such states as Illinois, West Virginia, Oklahoma and California that have put real muscle behind the rhetoric so often found in early childhood. Washington State is in catch-up mode with these states but there remains an opportunity to lead.

Thank you.

*Greg Shaw is the former director of the foundation's Pacific Northwest program