pageoneBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Boston EQUIPEarly Education Quality Improvement Project

Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

ExECutivE SummaryOphelia Navarro, Ed.M.Robert Kramer, Ph.D.

pageone Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

EQUIP Advisory Board

Katie Britton, Mayor’s OfficeMarty Cowden, Children’s Investment FundDean Elson, JumpstartDanielle Gantt, Community Partnerships for ChildrenLaurie Glassman, Child Care Choices of BostonKelly Graceffa, Child Care Choices of BostonBarbara Jacobs, ABCD Head StartJohn Kelly, East Boston Social CenterJohn Lippitt, Thrive in 5Zora Radosevich, Thrive in 5 Rod Southwick, MA Department of Early Education and CarePat Xavier, Boston Child Care Alliance Chris Weiland, Boston Public Schools, Department of Early Childhood

Special Thanks to the Barr Foundation and The Boston Community Partnerships for Children

June 1, 2010

Permission is granted for copying all or parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit Boston EQUIP (Early Education Quality Improvement Project), 2009 Community Profiles Surveys (2010).

pageone

Purpose and ApproachThe landscape of Early Care and Education in Boston, and throughout

the country, is changing rapidly. Since the previous Community Profiles

report published in 2005, Early Care and Education has risen to the

forefront of local, state and national priorities.

Here in Boston, the city’s Birth

to Five planning process led to

the development of the Thrive

in 5 city-wide school readiness

initiative and the release of

its Boston School Readiness

Roadmap in April 2008.

Here in Massachusetts, a new Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) was created in 2005 that consolidated the Office of Child Care Services with the Office of Early Learning Services at the Department of Education (now the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education under a new education secretariat and Executive Office of Education created in January 2008). Under a new legislative mandate, the Department is poised to accomplish the following: develop and implement a state-wide universal pre-kindergarten program and a workforce development system; develop and manage a kindergarten readiness assessment for preschool children; and establish a comprehensive system for measuring a set of structural and process quality indicators and to provide consumers with information about the quality of programs providing early care and education.1

Here in Boston, the city’s Birth to Five planning process led to the development of the Thrive in 5 city-wide school readiness initiative and the release of its Boston School Readiness Roadmap in April 2008. The Roadmap sets goals and strategies for strengthening, coordinating and improving the quality of child and family-serving systems in the City.

As the City and its neighborhoods set forth to determine how to navigate these and other changes, it is imperative that they have data on the capacity and quality of early care and education to inform strategic planning decisions. This 2009 Community Profiles report has been written to provide a one-stop data reference book on the supply, demand, and quality of early care and education for the neighborhoods of Boston and the City as a whole.

Data in this report are gathered from the 2009 Community Profiles Surveys (an EQUIP-Child Care Choices of Boston collaboration), Boston Public Health Commission Birth Data, and the American Community Survey (ACS). When possible, data have been provided at the neighborhood level. To the extent that resources are neighborhood specific, communities can use this data to evaluate the specific needs of the areas within the boundaries for which they are planning.

1 Massachusetts General Law c. 15D, § 3(g), 10 and 13(d), Available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/15d/gl-15d-toc.htm

Boston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

pagetwo Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

HighlightsEQUIP found that:

There is capacity for more than 90% of Boston preschoolers, but capacity for less than half of 1. Infants and Toddlers.

The proportion of accredited Center-based programs, Family Child Care providers, and 2. public schools increased since 2005.

The rate of primary classroom teachers with a BA or higher decreased from 2005. 3.

In addition to the need for early educator’s to earn bachelor’s degrees, there is also a high 4. number of early educators with only a high school diploma, or less.

Demand for Early Care and Education in Boston Young Child Population (ages 0-5.4):

According to Boston Birth Records f 2, an estimated 41,331 infant, toddler, and preschool children live in Boston (as compared to 42,822 in 2005):

21,398 • (51.8%) are infant/toddler age (0 to 32 months)

19,927• (48.2%) are preschool age (33 to 64 months)

By age group, the proportion of the young child population appears not to have changed • substantially since 2005.

Figure 1.Proportion of Children and Child Care Capacity by Age

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers0

1020304050607080

Proportion of Population 0-5.4

Proportion of Early Care and Education

Capacity

5248

26.9

73.1

PERC

ENT

2 Boston Public Health Commission (2002-2007), Boston Birth Records data from 2003-2007 and one-third of 2002

pagethreeBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Figure 2. Demographics of Boston's Children 0-5 Citywide (American Community Survey)

According to the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau), infants and toddlers fcomprise 51% and preschoolers comprise 49% of the young children in Boston3 Approximately 31.2% young children live below 25% of the state median income, fwhich is approximately 100% of the federal poverty level4 Young children in Boston reflect the diversity of the city: 36% are White, f28% African-American, 25% Latino, 6% Asian, and 5% other race/multi-racial5 English is not the native language for 47% of householders with children 0-5, which is higher fthan the city rate of 33% 6

While only 3% of Boston’s birth to five-year-olds are born outside the United States, 42% of fhouseholders raising young children in the city are foreign born7

Of foreign-born householders, (42%) indicated having limited or no proficiency in • English

Black - 28%

Asian - 6%Other - 5%

White - 36%

Latino - 25%

Early Care and Education SupplyTotal Capacity

There are f 1,069 active providers8 of early care and education across all settings in Boston (compared to 972 in 2005), providing an infant/toddler and preschool capacity of 19,235

Approximately 73.1% of the total infant/toddler and preschool capacity is for preschool-• age children and 26.9% is for infants and toddlers

Shifts in Provider Composition Since 2005The composition of center-based providers has stayed relatively stable; there are now • 234 Center-Based and Head Start programs in 2009 compared to 228 in 2005

There appears to be a substantially greater number of • active Family Child Care providers in 2009 compared with 2005 (764 versus 676, a 13% increase)

The number of Boston Public Schools with preschool programs almost doubled since 2005 • from 37 to 71

Key Findings Related to Capacity Shifts Since 2005, early care and education supply in Boston has increased across all settings by fapproximately 359 spaces largely due to increased enrollment in Boston Public Schools public preschool, as well as the change in proportion of children served in family child care

3 2007 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample. 4 Ibid. The 2009 federal poverty line for a family of four is $22,050 per year. 5,6,7 Ibid.8 Includes Community-Based Centers, Head Start Centers, Family Child Care, Boston Public Schools, and Other License-Exempt schools

pagefour Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Highlights of these shifts include: Estimated overall capacity has increased from 18,876 slots in 2005 to 19,235 in 2009•

Preschool capacity has shifted from 71% of slots in 2005 to 73% in 2009; infant/toddler • capacity has decreased from 29% to 27%

Family Child Care: Compared to the 2005 Community Profiles Survey, Family Child • Care9 provides an additional 67 infant/toddler slots (from 2,365 to 2,432) and 267 fewer preschool slots (from 2,013 to 1,746)

The proportion of school-aged children enrolled in Family Child Care appears to fhave increased (from 14.1% of enrollments in 2005 to 17% in 2009)

Boston Public Schools: The numbers of young children enrolled in Boston Public • Schools preschool have increased nearly threefold – from 1,098 in SY 2004-05 to 2,909 three- to five-year olds in SY 2008-2009. This reflects an increase in their share of Boston’s overall capacity from 6% in 2005 to 15% in 2009

Center-Based (including Head Start) programs, now serve proportionately fewer • children; infant/toddler and preschool capacity in these settings has shifted from 66% in 2005 to 58.6% in 2009

Current breakdown of capacity by program type: Center-Based and Head Start Centers • provide 58.6%; Family Child Care provides 21.7%; the Boston Public School system provides 15.1%; and Other License-Exempt programs provide 4.5% of the early care and education capacity for the city

A breakdown of the proportion of total capacity, infant/toddler capacity, and preschool capacity and where those slots exist is detailed below in Figure 3.

Boston Public Schools - 15%

Family Child Care - 12%

Other License Exempt - 0%Boston Public Schools - 0%

Other license Exempt - 5%

Boston Public Schools - 21%

Center/Head Start - 58%

Other License Exempt - 6%

Center/Head Start - 53%

Family Child Care - 22%

Center/Head Start - 61%

Family Child Care - 47%

Total Capacity Infant/Toddler Capacity

Preschool Capacity

Figure 3. Proportion of Care by Program Type

Supply and DemandOverall, Boston meets almost all of the need for preschool-aged children, but there is not fenough capacity for Infants and Toddlers across the city.

9 Based on estimates from the new proportions regarding enrollment derived from the 2009 Family Child Care Community Profiles survey.

pagefiveBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Based on total population demand from Boston Birth Records 2002-2007, there is fcurrently enough age-appropriate early care and education capacity to cover 24.2% of the entire population of (21,398) infants and toddlers, and 70.6% of the entire preschool age population (19,927). Current infant/toddler capacity meets f 48.4% of a universal demand estimate10 that assumes need by 50% of all infants and toddlers. For preschoolers, current preschool capacity meets 91.6% of the universal demand estimate fthat assumes need by 77% of all preschoolers.

Quality of Early Care and EducationResearch consistently finds that access to quality early care and education is important for children’s positive outcomes. Once the child has access, it is the quality of the early care and education that most strongly predicts children’s positive outcomes11. Since 1995, Boston EQUIP has tracked five indicators (mostly structural indicators) of quality in early care and education programs across Boston: accreditation, teacher education and training, salaries, parent engagement and facilities. See the full report for further analysis.

As shown in the previous section of this Executive Summary, Boston appears to be close to meeting demand in terms of preschool spaces (i.e. “capacity”). However, program quality across all settings and age groups varies, and there is need for improvement across the system. In the following section, we describe how these factors – accreditation, teacher education and training, salaries, parent engagement and facilities – contribute to quality early care and education programs. Along with key highlights from the 2009 Community Profiles surveys, we demonstrate changes in quality on the aggregate level since 2005 noting trends in the quality of Boston’s early care and education programs over time when possible. As some of the benchmarks established by the Boston early care and education community have changed since 2005, some of the metrics we have used to report them have changed as well.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Infant/Toddler

UniversalDemand

Preschool Age

Population

Current Slots

PreschoolUniversalDemand

CurrentPreschool

Slots

Figure 4. Current Child Care Capacity in Relation to Universal Estimates by Age Group

See the full report for more details related to capacity

10 Demand estimates suggest you need to match 77% of your preschool-aged population – and 50% of infant/toddler population – to be at “universal.” 11 “Child Outcomes When Child Care Center Classes Meet Recommended Standards for Quality,” NICHD Early Child Care Network, American Journal

of Public Health, 1999, Vol. 89, Issue 7, pages 1072-1077; Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O'Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children's development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(1), 52-86.; Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers: Key findings and recommendations. Young Children, 50(4), 40-44.

NUM

BER

OF

CHIL

DRE

N 21,398

10,699

5,174

19,927

15,344

14,061

pagesix Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Accreditation Accreditation12 is a comprehensive approach to documenting and improving the quality of early care and education programs through evidence-based standards of practice, improved programming and staff engagement in a continuous quality improvement process. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is the accrediting organization for classroom-based early childhood programs, and the National Association of Family Child Care (NAFCC) is the accrediting organization for family child care providers. Family child care providers may alternatively or additionally obtain a Child Development Associate credential. The Child Development Associate (CDA) is a skill-based education and assessment approach based on competency standards that enhance the quality of childcare by defining, evaluating, and recognizing the competence of childcare providers. The Council for Professional Recognition (CPR) is the CDA credentialing organization for center-based preschool and infant/toddler settings, and family childcare settings.

Research shows that NAEYC-accredited programs consistently provide higher quality care for children in the following areas:13 (1) a staff with more formal education and specialized early childhood training; 2) a more developmentally appropriate environment with age-appropriate and child-initiated activities; (3) a child-centered physical environment to promote learning; (4) teachers who interact more sensitively and less harshly with children; (5) strong staff communication; (6) better health and safety provisions, including nutrition and food services; and (7) better relations with parents.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 5. Boston Early Care and Education PROGRAMS Accredited by Program Type

Center/HeadStart

Family Child Care

Boston Public Schools Total

41.9

14.1

8.5

19.2

*Center/Head Start figure, (accredited by NAEYC) does not include Other License-Exempt (OLE) programs. **FCC figure includes NAFCC accreditation or a CDA credential. Data source: NAEYC, NAFCC, Council on Professional Recognition (CPR); Data analysis, Boston EQUIP. Historical Data, Boston EQUIP. Rates for 2007 were included on the Fifth Inventory Report, yet subsequent analysis suggests a differing methodology was used rendering those figures inappropriate for comparison.

table 1. accredited Programs in Boston Over time

accreditation rates 1995 1997 1999 2001 2004 2009Center/Head Start* 8% 12% 16% 29% 36% 42%Family Child Care** 2% 3% 10% 10% 9% 14%

Boston Public Schools 3% 8.5%

*Reflects programs and providers' accreditation rates (not capacity) by program type. Data source: NAEYC, NAFCC, Council on Professional Recognition (CPR); Data analysis, Boston EQUIP. As of October/November 2009.

PERC

ENT

pagesevenBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Figure 6. Boston Early Care and Education PROGRAM CAPACITY Accredited by Program Type

19.2% of all Early Care and Education programs and providers (36.3% of the total early care fand education capacity) across the city of Boston are NAEYC or NAFCC accredited or possess a Child Development Associate credential

41.9% of Center-Based and Head Start centers; 52.9% of Center-Based and Head Start • program capacity

14.1% of Family Child Care providers (accredited or possess CDA); 16.4% of Family Child • Care capacity

Eighty-one of 764 family child care providers across Boston have the CDA (10.6%) fand 31 are accredited by NAFCC (4.1%). Four providers (less than 1 percent) have both a CDA and are accredited by NAFCC

8.5% of Public School Preschool programs; 11.6% of Public School capacity•

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Center/HeadStart

Family Child Care

Boston Public Schools

Total

52.9

16.411.6

36.2

Teacher EducationEarly childhood research shows that teachers’ education, training and compensation levels are among the main structural determinants of early education program quality, which have a direct and positive effect on children’s healthy development.14 Increased teacher educational attainment, along with enhanced professional development, is critical to a program’s ability to achieve and maintain accreditation, and to progress along the pathway for workforce qualifications as outlined in EEC’s current pilot Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS).15

Key findings suggest that while accreditation in Boston has increased, teachers with degrees and those pursuing higher education may not be staying in the early care and education field or in community-based programs:

*Reflects accredited capacity rates(not program accreditation rates) by program type. Data source: NAEYC, NAFCC, Council on Professional Recognition (CPR); Data analysis, Boston EQUIP. As of October/November 2009.

PERC

ENT

12 Detailed guidelines include a range of factors that contribute to quality: curriculum, teaching, relationships with children and their families, cultural respon-siveness, assessment of children’s progress, levels of staff education, physical environment, instructional resources and business practices.

13 “Child Outcomes When Child Care Center Classes Meet Recommended Standards for Quality,” NICHD Early Child Care Network, American Journal of Public Health, 1999, Vol. 89, Issue 7, pages 1072-1077

14 Campbell, F., Ramey, C., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes From the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), p. 42-57. Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study Team. (1999). The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Go To School. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Bowman, B., Donovan, M.S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.) (2000). Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Washington: National Acad-emy Press. Barnett, W.S. (2003). Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications. NIEER Policy Briefs.

15 Powerpoint presentation at December 22, 2009 Board meeting of Early Education and Care (2009). Available at http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs1/prof_devel/20091222qrispres.ppt

pageeight Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Table 2. Lead Teachers And Providers With A Bachelor’s Degree Or Higher

Highest Educational attainment 1995 1997 1999 2001 2004 2009 * based on old * based on new benchmark new benchmark

* Center/Head Start 43% 47% 29% 29% 37% *23.6%

Family Child Care 13% 22% 12% 11% 14% 9.4%

**Boston Public Schools 99% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%

2009 estimate based on 2009 Community Profiles. Previous years based on historical EQUIP benchmark data.*2009 figure includes all center-based and Head Start Lead Teachers and Head Start Teachers (to align with Thrive in 5 goals). Prior years only included those specifically designated as “Lead Teachers”. With the inclusion of Head Start Teachers in addition to those specified as Lead Teachers (who hold additional supervisory responsibilities), the number of Lead Teachers increases by 187 from 410 to 597 and the percentage of Lead Teachers (plus Head Start Teachers) with a Bachelor’s Degree or higher decreases from 29.3% to 23.6%. Figures include a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in any field.**BPS does not include paraprofessionals, and does not specify the fields in which the Teachers’ hold a BA or higher. BPS is focused on meeting the “highly qualified teacher” requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which requires that all early childhood teachers have either early education or elementary education licensure.

Percentage of teachers in Boston who have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in any field:100% of Public School Preschool Teachers (not including paraprofessionals) f23.6% of Center-Based and Head Start Lead Teachers (includes both Head Start Teachers fand Lead Teachers)9.4% of Family Child Care providers f

Figure 7. Highest Educational Attainment of Lead Teachers/Head Start Teachers and Providers

Center/Head Start

Family Child Care

BPS

0

25

50

75

100

Less thanHigh School

(HS)

HS/GED

HS & CDA

Associates BA (Early Childhood Ed or RF)

BA(Unrelated

field)

Masters & Above

8.2 11.1

36.3

8.9

19.6 26.9

39.7

18.9 23

3.4 2.5 4.7 5

71

*Includes all Center-based and Head Start Lead Teachers and Head Start Teachers. ECE/RF= early education or related field, UNR=unrelated field. N=597 (does not include center-based non-Lead Teachers or Assistant Teachers). **Based on responses from 234 FCC providers. ***There are approximately 173 K1 or K0/K1 classes at BPS. Assuming 1 Teacher per classroom there are 173 Teachers. Missing data on the remaining 1% BPS (2 Teachers). Rates based on 2009 Community Profile Survey data.

Educational Attainment

PERC

ENT

16.2

2.2 1.3

pagenineBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Center/ Head Start Teachers (AA)

Center/ Head Start Lead Teachers (BA)

Boston Public Schools Teachers

(Lead Equivalent) (BA)

Salary and Benefits Teacher compensation is closely linked to the quality of services in early care and education as it is closely tied to turnover and stability of early educators.16,17 Low pay is the main cause of high turnover among the community-based early care and education workforce, which diminishes the consistency in quality of care that children receive.18

Survey findings show that aside from those working in the public schools, early educators in Boston continue to receive relatively low wages. EQUIP analyzed salary by educational attainment and found that teachers with lesser educational attainment generally are paid the most poorly. However, the pay in community-based settings is very low even for educators with degrees.

0

10

20

30

40

50

$14$16

$38.26

Figure 8. Median STARTING Hourly Rate of Lead Teachers at Center-Based Programs and Boston Public Schools

* Center-based figures are based on the 2009 Community Profile Center/Head Start Survey. Lead Teacher figures include only those designated as Lead Teacher from Center-based and Head Start Programs (Head Start Lead Teachers have additional responsibilities). Education is given by teacher rank specified on the survey. Head Start “teachers” are not included with Head Start “Lead teachers” in this section. Thrive in 5 seeks to increase the number of primary classroom teachers with a BA or higher in Early Care and Education or in a Related Field with Specialized Training in Early Childhood. ** BPS data is based on the Boston Teachers Union Biweekly Pay Schedule (09/01/09-01/31/10). BPS numbers do not include paraprofessionals. Starting median hourly rate was the same for center-based teachers with a Bachelors in early childhood education and related fields and for those in unrelated fields.

Salary and Benefits Key FindingsBoston Public School Teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree earn a starting hourly rate of f$38.26/hourCenter/Head Start Lead Teachers with a Bachelor's Degree earn a median starting hourly frate of $16/hourCenter/Head Start Lead Teachers with an Associate’s Degree earn a median starting fhourly rate of $14/hourHealth Insurance is reportedly available partly or fully paid to f

86% of Center/Head Start staff•

100% of Public School Preschool Teachers•

Family Child Care providers must acquire their own benefits.•

DO

LLAR

S PE

R H

OUR

16 Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study Team. (1999). The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Go To School. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/CCW.pdf

17 Smith, K. and Baughman, R. Low Wages Prevalent In Direct Care and Child Care Workforce (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, 2007), available at http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/PB_caregivers.pdf

18 Kristin Smith and Reagan Baughman, Low Wages Prevalent In Direct Care and Child Care Workforce (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, 2007), 2, available at http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/documents/PB_caregivers.pdf

pageten Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Turnover RateProgram quality is affected by the training, skill and experience of providers as well as the continuity of children’s early care and education. The turnover rate among Center-Based and Head Start program teachers is much higher than the turnover rate for public school teachers.

Key findings include: 16.5% average turnover rate of all Center-Based and Head Start teachers combined f(including Lead Teachers, Teachers and Assistant Teachers)2% average turnover rate of Public School Preschool Teachers f 19

This 16.5% turnover rate in Center-Based and Head Start programs is a notable drop from the 25% turnover rate reported previously in the 2005 Community Profiles report. The economy and overall high unemployment rate may have a role in the lower turnover.

CurriculaEarly care and education curriculum models vary widely. The field recommends that programs utilize what are known as “developmentally appropriate practices.” Experts recommend comprehensive curricula that focus on teaching the whole child across all domains related to school readiness20:children’s language; approaches to learning; and cognitive, social-emotional, and physical development.21

In Boston, community-based programs (both Center-Based and Family Child Care) tend to use Creative Curriculum most frequently; curricula at Boston Public Schools is uniform and standardized across the district with a few exceptions as described below:

Center-Based: Approximately 25% of programs report using the MA Guidelines for fPreschool Learning Experiences and the MA Early Childhood Education Program StandardsFamily Child Care: Approximately 12% report using the MA Guidelines for Preschool fLearning Experiences and the MA Early Childhood Education Program StandardsPublic Schools: BPS preschool curricula focuses on math and literacy, and is uniform and fstandardized with a few exceptions across the district. K1 uses the Opening the World of Learning (OWL) for reading/literacy and Building Blocks for math. Five-year-olds (K2) use TERC (Investigations in Number, Data, and Space) math and Reading Streets literacy curricula

In the 2009 Community Profiles sample, more than a quarter (27.2%) of family child • care respondents indicated that they had purchased health insurance themselves

27.6% indicated accessing health insurance through a spouse or partner •

9.1% indicated not accessing health insurance•

36.2% indicated accessing health insurance through public programs •

19 Turnover rate includes K0, K1 and K2 BPS classrooms. 20 Experts include: national organizations (e.g. NAEYC and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education) and expert

panels (e.g. National Goals Panel, Eager to Learn). 21 Berk, L. E. (2004) Infants, children and adolescents (5th edition). New York: Pearson; or Cole, M.,Cole, S. R., & Lightfoot, C. (2004). The Development of

Children, New York: WH Freeman.

pageelevenBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

AssessmentThere has been an increase in the use of child-level observational assessment tools to improve early care and education quality and demonstrate accountability.22 Program use of a child as-sessment tool provides a basis for individualizing curriculum, assessing children’s learning and developmental outcomes, providing information for program improvement and instructional practices, and informed communication with parents. These activities contribute to a high-quality experience for each child in the classroom or home. Best practices tell us that classroom curriculum should be aligned with the appropriate and ongoing use of child developmental as-sessment tools. Key findings include:

Center-Based Programs

In Boston, the majority of Center-Based programs reported using a child assessment tool. fThe most commonly used assessment tool is Creative Curriculum•

Only one of 130 programs indicated not doing written assessments of children •

Nine out of 10 programs indicated doing written assessments two or more times per • year, while the other 9% said they did it once a year

More than four out of five (81.9%) of 116 programs indicated that their curriculum was fconnected to their assessment tool

Figure 9. Assessment Tools used in Center-Based and Family Child Care Programs

Family Child Care

Center-Based Programs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ages and Stages

Creative Curriculm

High/Scope Observation

Record

WorkSampling

System

Other

27.6

62.4

26.4

9.5 6.4 7.1

18.7

3.5 2.8

22 In 2006, EEC’s School Readiness Indicators Project Assessment Workgroup developed the following definition of assessment in 2006: an assessment provides an ongoing record of children’s progress with respect to the domains of early development and learning. An assessment happens on a continual basis, is embed-ded in regular curriculum and schedule, and results in instructional changes that improve children’s outcomes.

PERC

ENT

Family Child Care

The two most commonly used assessment tools used were Ages and Stages and Creative fCurriculum Developmental ContinuumA little more than a third (36.1%) of family child care providers indicated that they did not do fwritten assessments of children in their program

20.6

pagetwelve Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Boston Public Schools (BPS) K1 and K2The BPS Department of Early Childhood has made much headway in terms of using uniform, standard curricula and assessment tools across the district. Currently, BPS Department of Early Childhood is primarily focused on literacy assessment.

Here is a brief summary of child-level assessment tools administered to BPS’ young children: K0 and K1 children (three- and four-year-olds) f : Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) and Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT) K2 children (five-year-olds) f : Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT), and BPS English Language Arts formative assessments: Reading and Writing DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills)/Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC), as well as an independent writing sample, personal narrative, and K2 BPS Elementary Math AssessmentEnglish Language Learners in K0, K1 and K2 classrooms f : BPS administers the PLAS (similar to EVT) to classrooms with at least one Limited English Proficient (LEP) child. This tool is recommended by DESE, and is included in EEC’s pilot quality rating improvement system (QRIS)Work Sampling System portfolio f : Only two schools are currently using this research-based tool, which was piloted at BPS in 2007 and included in the Roadmap as a key recommendation. This observational assessment tool enables teachers to assess the progress of young children on all domains of school readiness and use that information to tailor support to the learning and development needs of each child. While BPS would like to continue implementation of Work Sampling, there is currently no district mandate to do this workOther developmental domains f : BPS is working to implement regular measures beyond literacy, including socio-emotional and other domains considered important for successful learning experiences and school readiness23

Family Engagement Family engagement is essential for enhancing children’s learning and family well being. Family engagement occurs when there is an on-going, reciprocal, strengths-based partnership between families and their children’s early childhood education programs.24 This measure of quality is reflected in accreditation standards, as well as EEC Program Standards25 and licensing regulations.

Key findings include: 75% of FCC providers and 80% of Center-Based programs indicated communicating with fparents about their children in person daily95.4% of FCC providers and 92.3% of Center-Based programs indicated communicating fwith parents about their children in person at least once a week (including those who communicate daily)

23 National Education Goals Panel, 1995. Reconsidering Children’s Early Development and Learning: Toward Common Views and Vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/child-ea.htm. Children’s school readiness encompasses five dimensions: (1) physical well-being and motor development; (2) social and emotional development; (3) approaches to learning; (4) language development (including early literacy); and (5) cognition and general knowledge

24 Halgunseth, L.C. and Peterson, A. (2009). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Family Engagement, Diverse Families, and Early Childhood Education Programs.

pagethirteenBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

Center-Based/ Family Child Care *Boston Public Head Start School (K1) Daily at Least Daily at Least Daily at Least Once a Week Once a Week Once a Week

In Person 80% 92.3% 75% 95.4% 24% 72%

On the Phone 4.3% 29.1% 24.1% 68.1%

Personal note/email 35.9% 52.1% 19.7% 47.8%

Newsletter/other 12.8% 21.6% 23.2% 49%

*At least once a week includes both those who indicated daily and those who indicated at least once a week. Rates based on 2009 Community Profile Survey data.*Data Source: BPS K1 and K2 Programs Needs Assessment: Marshall, Roberts and Mills (2006), Wellesley Centers for Women. Data reflects

table 3. Family Engagement

FacilitiesFacility quality is essential to ensuring high-quality early care and education programs. Recent research shows the connection between facilities and program effectiveness. High-quality early care and education spaces encourage children’s growth and learning, support teacher effectiveness, and allow for improved adult-child interactions.26 Aside from capital investment into new facilities, existing programs must invest in their own facilities if they want to meet or to continue to meet high standards of quality, particularly as they relate to accreditation.

Here are the highlights related to facilities investment across Boston: Few programs appear to be making the capital investments necessary to maintain and fimprove the quality of their facilities

Center-Based Programs27 64.4% of the responding programs spent less than $10,000 on permanent capital fimprovements (building systems, plumbing, new roof, etc.) in the last three years, with more than half (53.4%) reporting to have spent nothingAbout 20% of the responding programs reported having spent between $25,000 and f$100,000

Family Child Care80.9% of responding family childcare providers spent less than $10,000 on home fimprovements related to their family child care business in the past year

25 Early Childhood Advisory Council to the Massachusetts Board of Education, Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds (Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education, 2003). Available at http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs1/research_planning/ta_earlychildprogstan.pdf.

26 Proscio, T., Sussman, C., Gillman, A. (2004). Child Care Facilities: Quality by Design Local Initiatives Support Corporation; Freddie Mac Foundation, Wash-ington, DC.

27 Community-based programs in the Profiles sample only; does not include public school preschool programs.

pagefourteen Early Care and Education in Boston Community Profiles

Conclusion and RecommendationsEQUIP stated in the 2005 Community Profiles report that more

rigorous quantitative data are necessary to inform future planning with

regard to the above quality indicators, particularly the need to support

the early care and education workforce to meet a rigorous timeline

and demand for higher level of degrees, as outlined by NAEYC, Head

Start and the pilot Massachusetts Quality Rating Improvement System

(QRIS) standards. EQUIP’s current in-depth analysis and reporting

on the state of Boston’s early educators’ educational attainment,

including supports and obstacles/challenges, provide rigorous

quantitative data to support such efforts.

Based on the findings of this report, EQUIP recommends that the following be considered:

Capacity. 1. Address lack of capacity for Infants and Toddlers. Currently, the greatest challenge for Boston, indeed every Boston neighborhood, in terms of early education and care supply is its lack of infant/toddler capacity in regulated settings.

Workforce Development. 2. Focus on timely strategies to attract and retain a qualified professional early care and education workforce, including:

a. Professional Development and Training. (i) Coordinate and expand coaching and mentoring services, including higher education counseling and career coaching for all early educators in Boston, through a more centralized and coordinated infrastructure. This would provide opportunities to assist early educators along a pathway toward degrees and credentials, as well as provide non-college level training based on core competencies. (ii) Utilize this infrastructure as a base from which to promote joint planning and alignment of curriculum and assessment, in addition to professional development and training.

b. Compensation. Improve the levels of early educator compensation so that professional development and training initiatives will produce long-term improvements in quality. Increased compensation must be tied to qualifications, core competencies and a career lattice. Benefits include: lower turnover, better outcomes for children, and maintenance of program quality, accreditation and QRIS standards in

pagefifteenBoston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

all settings. Major challenges include the funding of such an initiative. Explore various efforts including: increase of reimbursement rates to programs and the implementation of innovative programs such as T.E.A.C.H and WAGE$, as outlined in the Roadmap.

Accreditation. 3. Prioritize and accelerate plans to expand existing CDA/accreditation facilitation and support services through a coordinated city-wide approach. While Boston is currently maintaining a high rate of accreditation, better coordination and increased resources are needed in order to reach its ambitious goal of 100% of programs accredited or with a CDA by 2019-2023 (consistent with the benchmark of 90% of center-based and 75% of family child care homes and public schools accredited/with CDA by 2013-2018), as outlined in the Roadmap. The state QRIS pilot presents an opportunity to promote, encourage and demonstrate the role that accreditation plays in high-quality early care and education.

Curriculum and Child Assessment. 4. Enhance a coordinated city-wide commitment to using and providing high-quality training related to curricula and a comprehensive assessment system and/or set of tools, maintaining focus on young children’s healthy development and well being across all developmental domains. Build capacity of the field to better assess program quality and screen and assess young children in order to support better outcomes for children.

We urge practitioners and policymakers in the field of early

care and education to use these broad recommendations to

inform a wider conversation regarding concrete steps that can

be taken to improve the access to and quality of early care and

education in Boston. This work will require renewed focus and

innovation. EQUIP is honored to work with the community in

using data to drive community planning.

To view the Community Profiles fact sheet, full report and Neighborhood Profiles, please visit www.bostonequip.org

NOTES

pageone

In 1994, Associated Early Care and Education launched the Boston Early Education Quality Improvement Project (EQUIP) with the broad mission “to collaborate with members of the Boston early education community to systematically evaluate, set goals for, and improve upon the quality of early childhood programs.” In 1995, Boston EQUIP conducted its first inventory of the early care and education system in Boston, collecting data about young children, facilities and program quality. This original inventory, developed from existing validated and reliable survey tools used elsewhere in early childhood research, went on to become the template for the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Community Profiles surveys. Boston EQUIP has refined the Community Profiles surveys, surveying the field every three years.

Boston EQUIP

About EQUIP

Boston EQUIP/JUNE 2010

(Early Education Quality Improvement Project)

Department of Research and Policy

Associated Early Care and Education

95 Berkeley Street, Suite 306

Boston, MA 02116

617-695-0700

www.bostonequip.org

www.associatedearlycareandeducation.org

Boston EQUIP