There is one thing Moira Kenney and I agree on -- she is most definitely a preschool advocate.  Not a "preschooler" advocate, mind you.  That, my friends, would require putting children's welfare before that of adults.  I do not believe that Ms. Kenney is malicious, but rather that she and fellow travellers are so full of good intentions they are blind to this distinction.  And it seems that Ms. Kenney is good company here in the Bay State.  Just look at the items folks at the Early Education for All (EEA) campaign found worthy of state funding:

- $12.5M for the subsidized child care provider salary rate reserve

- $10.9M for the Department of Early Education and Care's administrative account

- $1.3M increase for Resource and Referral Agencies

- $1M increase for Head Start

- $1.5M for Professional Development

For those of you counting, that's $24.9M for administration, salaries, and professional development compared with $2.3M that may actually flow to the families who need it.  In FY2004, Massachusetts spent about $107M in federal funds serving more than 14,000 children through the Head Start program, but according to the Massachusetts Child Care Resource and Referral Network (MACC&R) there are over 14,000 children on a waiting list.  And in 2005, the Children's Defense Fund reported that almost 30% of people under the age of 19 were living below 200% of the federal poverty level. 

With these statistics, it would seem that our top priorties should be to ensure the neediest families are receiving services, that our voucher system is truly based on need, and that we get as many of those who qualify off the waiting list.  Indeed, in June the Early Education and Care Department (EEC) reported that 3,600 vouchers had been added, and in the process consolidated over 400 separate waitlists into one centralized system.  It is now in the process of reviewing and aligning various eligibility requirements and developing a 5-year plan to provide equitable access to vouchers.

Given the success of the newly-formed EEC and the volume of work that still remains, I am extremely disappointed that HB4755, an act relative to early education and care, moves us away from a targeted welfare-type program to a bloated educratic behemoth replete with a 40-member advisory panel, state reporting requirements, and standardized assessments.  These are examples of the triad of troubles with this bill -- purpose, people, and process.

PURPOSE

Well, that would be a good place to start, right?  The stated purpose is "the orderly establishment of an early education and care system".   I would argue that system already exists, although there are some technical details included in this bill that are needed.  For example, the EEC needs authority to conduct CORI checks.  Governor Romney stated in his veto that he supported these changes.  But that's not all...

We get a fuller sense of the purpose of the legislation from the goals listed on the EEA website:

Let's look at the three of these in more detail.  First, HB4755 makes several references to "high quality" early education programs, but nowhere is "high quality" defined.  Rather, the standard is to be set by the department.  Or wait, is it the board?  Oh, that's right -- it's both!  See Section 11 beginning on line 257 of page 26.   After all that effort, I wonder if the standards will improve upon the time-tested practice of visiting the child care, talking with the provider, and checking references.   I question whether it's even a good idea to have the state making this sort of determination for us.

Second, technically HB4755 doesn't address this.  These concerns with ensuring practioners were well taken care of is already a part of Chapter 15D.  See Section 5.  I especially like that the state is mandated with to come up with a plan relative to "suitable compensation".  This smacks of socialism.  But the biggest waste of ink has to be item 14:  ways to recognize and honor advancements in educational attainment among early education and care professionals.  Seriously, this should not be a concern of the state, but I have to wonder -- what is it about educators and their affintiy for honoring one another?  I always thought the feedback from my students and parents was as much praise as I ever needed.

Third, while the press coverage of HB4755 would make one think that all it encompassed was preschool, that is not the case.  Under Section 16A-3, on page 8, the department would also license or approve all school-aged child care programs.  Such a program is one that:

While I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't the intent of the legislation to have such a wide scope, I nonetheless conclude that organized youth recreational leagues, arts programs, and other such private enterprises would find themselves within the EEC's oversight.  Thankfully, programs affiliated with the public schools are exempted. 

In closing of the discussion of purpose, I should mention that there is a statement of purpose existing in Chapter 15D.  Like a poorly constructed mission statement, or a horoscope, it is simultaneously all encompassing and meaningless:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the commonwealth to assure every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential by providing and encouraging services which maximize a child’s capacity and opportunity to learn, which strengthen family life, and which support families in their essential function of nurture for a child’s physical, social, educational, moral, and spiritual development.

Is it just me, or does this just scream "sue me"?

Coming in future posts, PEOPLE, PROCESS and why this bill is bad for the Commonwealth.

For further reading, I recommend:

http://www.strategiesforchildren.org

http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps345_universalpreschool.pdf