When new legislation passes, PSBA is seen as the leader in analyzing it and helping members make sense of it.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Chapters 4, 11 and 12

Timothy Allwein
PSBA Assistant Executive Director of Governmental and Member Relations

Good afternoon. I am Timothy Allwein, assistant executive director for governmental and member relations for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to present comments concerning the latest draft (January 2006) of the proposed regulatory package for early childhood education programs in public schools.

PSBA has been closely following the process taken by the Department of Education and the State Board of Education to establish and improve pre-kindergarten programs. From the onset, we have been supportive of these efforts as more school districts begin to plan, develop and implement high-quality early childhood education programs. PSBA believes that it is appropriate for the state to provide guidance for school districts with the goal of creating a framework for schools to develop high-quality early childhood education. 

As schools step into this area, it is important that the state provide clear guidance, without becoming too restrictive, through this set of rules. The language that becomes the final regulation has the power to either be the key to inspiring districts to move forward with pre-kindergarten programs, or serve as a disincentive to implement or continue programs.

For this reason, we commend the State Board for not rushing through this process. As this proposal continues to evolve with each new draft, you have allowed opportunity for the stakeholders to provide opinion, ask questions and offer recommendations. The impact of this proposal is significant, as is the other piece of the package concerning teacher certification. Because of this, it is important that each revision of the proposal be considered and offered up for public comment before any final decisions are made or votes are taken.

It is critical to remember that these regulations do not create a universal mandate for school districts – rather, they create the parameters from within districts may voluntarily establish their own pre-kindergarten programs. Because this is a voluntary program, it is imperative that these regulations not be too burdensome, while allowing for the creation of effective programs.

PSBA certainly does not want districts to abandon existing programs or turn away from implementing them.  Every school district that considers when, or whether, to begin a pre-kindergarten will have to weigh its desire to do so against that practical matter of how to do it. Establishing a high-quality program means developing a thoughtful and meaningful plan as part of its overall strategic plan that adequately addresses many instructional and practical components.  Aside from the educational considerations, the district must be able to provide and pay for the space, the materials and supplies, the teachers and aides, professional development, and other important considerations.

We offer the following comments specific to the latest draft of regulations that were discussed at the meeting of the Early Childhood Committee meeting last week:

Section 4.13 – Strategic Planning
PSBA supports the change made by the committee to delete language under a previous draft that called for school districts that operate pre-kindergarten programs to create a separate strategic plan. Instead, districts that operate these programs will develop and incorporate their pre-K plans in their overall strategic plan. Certainly, no district would begin a new program that involves instruction and assessment of children, personnel, materials and supplies, space, and other considerations without first having a comprehensive plan for implementation. Because districts already have the authority under Chapter 4 to amend their strategic plans as necessary, they can revise it at any time without having to wait through the six-year cycle that is required to develop and update their plans. The previous language created an unnecessary layer of administrative reporting. 

As PDE staff noted at the last meeting of the Early Childhood Committee, the department is moving to a more efficient system of online reporting that will include the submission of strategic plans.  This will include districts’ plans for implementing pre-kindergarten.

Subsections 4.13 (12) (iii); 4.13 (17); and 4.13 (d)
For clarity, PSBA suggests that the language in these subsections be revised to clarify that certain requirements related to pre-kindergarten are necessary only for districts that offer pre-kindergarten, with phrasing such as that in 4.13 (18).  While these requirements may be appropriate for a district that provides pre-K programs, one that does not yet offer pre-kindergarten should not be required, for example, to include pre-K teachers on its strategic planning committee.

Section 4.20 – Pre-kindergarten Education.
PSBA supports the committee’s decision to include the first sentence that clearly states the districts are not required to offer pre-K and that if offered, parents are not required to enroll their children in the program. We agree with PDE’s rationale that the inclusion of this sentence should help avoid what the department suggests would be a “heated political debate” of whether the state is attempting to mandate pre-kindergarten in all school districts.

In the same spirit of helping to avoid unnecessary debate, we recommend that the committee amend the first sentence as follows: “School districts are not required to offer a pre-kindergarten program or provide transportation for such programs if offered, and parents are not required to enroll their children in such programs as offered.”  The addition of such language will diffuse any misconception that may appear as districts decide how they will structure, and pay for, their programs and services for pre-kindergarten children. 

Finally in this section, we recommend one other change for the sake of clarity.   In testimony we gave to you in November, we questioned language contained in an earlier draft that could be interpreted to require individualized educational programs for all pre-kindergarten students. PDE’s response was to not recommend a change in the language because that there is no intention embedded within the regulations for pre-K children to have formally adopted IEPs. Rather, the intent here was to emphasize that there are varied levels of development in young children of the same age.
While we understand and support the department’s response, we suggest that the language be amended so that this intent is very clear.  We recommend deleting the words “and individual needs of each child” and replace with this or similar revision: “The program, when offered, shall provide a comprehensive program appropriate for the age and varying developmental levels of the students, based on how young children develop and learn…”  This will maintain the intent of the proposal to recognize the varied levels of development of young children, with no misinterpretation of the language.

Section 4.20 (f) – Class size & adult-to-student ratio. 
The proposal establishes a maximum class size of 20 students, which seems reasonable compared with caps set by other states.  However, we suggest that language be added that allows a school district to request approval of a class size that varies from these requirements for a specific period of time. Such exceptions would be appropriate if they provide for effective and efficient administration of the program within a particular building for a specific school year. Such exceptions would be similar to those allowed for caseload requirements under the state regulations for special education.  For example, in one particular term, a school building may have 23 pre-kindergarten students enrolled, which exceeds the cap but not by an amount that would make adding another class a practical consideration.

The proposal also takes a new step by requiring a teacher aide in each classroom. PSBA understands the educational benefits of small class sizes in the early grades, and also understands the benefits of having two adults for 20 three- and four-year-olds.  Because these new requirements for a class size maximum with two adults in each classroom will be a new cost consideration for districts, we would again ask for some flexibility by suggesting that adequate time be provided between the final and effective date of the new regulations and the time that the requirements in this section must be implemented. Districts that currently operate programs or are in the midst of planning and budgeting a new pre-K program may need additional time, depending on the time of year that the rules are made effective. 

Our final comment regarding this section is concerning the language that recommends a student-teacher ratio of two adults for every 17 children. Historically, state regulations do not contain recommendations, and PSBA believes that this language would be better placed in a guideline or other type of communication from the department. 

Section 4.20 (g) Qualification of aides –
While PSBA does not question the rationale for having a teacher’s assistant to be in the pre-K classroom, we do not agree that these aides should be required to meet the same qualifications as aides in other Title I classrooms. The Title I requirements for aides were created under the No Child Left Behind Act, and we believe they are not intended to apply as a mandate for pre-kindergarten programs. These requirements are intended to provide a higher bar for those aides whose job it is to provide instruction to students, an activity that is much more clearly delineated in elementary, middle and high schools than in pre-K programs.

What is the job description of aides in a pre-K classroom?  What percentage of their time will be spent on providing instruction in reading, math or writing?  How much time will be spent assisting with the many important non-instructional duties that will be necessary with three and four-year-old children?  Clearly, this age group of children has different needs and behaviors from older elementary age students. PDE notes that there is not enough research or data, either national or statewide, to know about the qualifications of teacher aides in pre-K classes. Yet, the department also states “if the aides are not held to the ‘highly qualified’ standard, PDE would be compelled to consider recommending two teachers for classrooms of 17 to 20 students.”  This type of threat to mandate such requirements certainly could cause many school districts to respond by simply choosing not to offer pre-kindergarten.

Section 4.20 (h)   -- Provision for flexibility (alternative programs). 
PSBA strongly supports the language in the proposal that allows the secretary of education to approve alternative programs and methods of delivering them. We applaud the department’s acknowledgement that “There are a variety of pre-K programming models that can be effective and are already being successfully used in Pennsylvania school districts… This provision acknowledges the value of local decision making in establishing programs and gives school districts the leeway… in providing programs for pre-K age children using a different framework than the one established by these regulations.”  For example, PDE notes, some districts use high school students as teacher aides, who obviously would not meet the requirements under NCLB for being “highly qualified.” 

The school districts that already have established pre-kindergarten programs have done so because these classes meet the needs of their local communities and the children they serve. They have done so because they currently have the ability to establish the programs in a way that matches their available funds, facilities, staff and other considerations.  Most importantly, these districts have done so in good faith because they want to, not because they have to. The same will be true of those districts that decide to begin these programs.

Diversity in these programs must be expected and must be allowed. There is no one definition of what constitutes a high-quality program. What programming or staffing model works well in one area of the state may be inappropriate or ineffective for another. While there should be a general framework for schools to follow, the regulations also should encourage schools to be creative and innovative in the development of their programs. This should not be a cookie-cutter approach. 
Because of the need to ensure that this provision in the proposal be maintained and clearly interpreted, PSBA suggests that the State Board may want consider whether there is a need for more specific guidance or procedures to be created regarding the requests and consideration for approval of alternative programs.  For example, for what reasons would a request be rejected?  Would there be any right for a district to appeal the secretary’s decision?

Finally, we would conclude as we did in November by noting that this package is being considered in two parts – the amendments to Chapters 4, 11 and 12 as one proposal through the Early Childhood Committee, and the changes regarding teacher certification through the Chapter 49 Committee. As this process continues, it is important that you remember that school districts must carefully examine the total package as they consider how, and if, they will choose to implement a pre-kindergarten program.  PSBA will be active in both discussions and will be sharing our thoughts with both panels as this process continues.

: