7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
1/24
InvestIng In ChIldren
An eArly leArnIng strAtegy
or WAshIngton stAte
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
2/24
ACknoWledgments
It is impossible to thak eeryoe who
cotributed to our research ad thikig
i early learig. We appreciate all the
great work by academics, researchers,
fiacial ad policy aalysts, early
learig serice proiders, oprofit
orgaizatios, parets, ad others who
hae cotributed to our collectie uder-
stadig of early learig. We hae draw
upo iteratioal, U.S., ad Washigto
state research fidigs from the public
ad priate sectors. I particular, we
wat to ackowledge Garriso Kurtz of
the Foudatio for Early Learig, Joh
Bacroft of the Puget Soud Educatioal
Serice District, Rick Brado of the
Uiersity of Washigto Huma Serices
Policy Ceter, ad Joa Lombardi. Their
expertise ad wisdom hae helped us
shape this strategy. I additio, we would
like to thak Harriet Meyer of the Ouce
of Preetio Fud ad Geoff Caada
of the Harlem Childres Zoe for their
commitmet to helpig us lear from
their experieces. Lastly, we are grateful
to those who will cotiue to help us
lear as we moe forward.
nOvEMBER 2005
PACIIC northWest ProgrAm teAm
William H. Gates, Co-Chair
Greg Shaw, Director
Katie Hog, Deputy Director
Ae Xua Clark, Associate Program Officer
Paul Facchii, Grats Admiistrator
Kara Palmer, Adocacy Officer
Ke Thompso, Program Officer
Jeifer Samick, Admiistratie Assistat
Susa Schlatter, Seior Admiistratie Assistat
valisa Smith, Program Officer
Sarah Weber, Grats Admiistrator
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
3/24
InvestIng In ChIldren
An eArly leArnIng strAtegy
or WAshIngton stAte
4 eci sa
6 Pa 1: t Pb
9 Pa 2: t si
12 Pa 3: o sa
16 Pa 4: t Ipac:
A a Ip
17 Pa 5: Ipi o
ea lai sa
18 Appic
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
4/24
In Washington state, the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation has two primary grant-
making priorities to help ensure that every
young person in the state has the opportunity
to be successul in school and lie.
Trough our U.S. Education program, the
oundation has invested in Washington state
to prepare all students or college, work, and
citizenship through grants to individual high
schools, school districts, and intermediaries.
Trough our Pacic Northwest program, the
oundation works to improve the lives o
at-risk amilies and children. In addition
to investing in supportive housing to help
homeless amilies become sel-sucient and
in community grants to augment humanservices or low-income amilies, the ounda-
tion is embarking on a new early learning
strategy or the state o Washington. Our goal
is to ensure that all children have the oppor-
tunity to become successul young adults.
Tis paper describes the oundations new
early learning strategy, which was approved
in 005. It begins with identiying the
problems aced by many youth in Washington
state and summarizes a strategy or public
and private unders to make a signicant,
measurable improvement in school-readinesand long-term outcomes or all children.
exeCutIve summAry
onCe BIll And I hAd our oWn
ChIldren, We reAlIzed there AreoPPortunItIes thAt All ChIldren In
the northWest should hAveAnd reAlly
thAt All ChIldren ACross the gloBe
should hAve. melIndA renCh gAtes
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
5/24
t Pb
Research shows what concerned parents,
educators, and social workers know rom
daily rsthand experience: Many children
begin lie with measurable indicators o
socio-economic disadvantage, or risk
actors, that are oen overwhelming. In
Washington state, percent o all children
age 05more than 109,000 statewideare
born with two or more o these risk actors,
poverty being the most prevalent. Without
successul interventions involving parents
and caregivers, many o these children, by
kindergarten, are in danger o alling behind
other children in their social, emotional,physical, and cognitive development. Te
arther behind children are when entering
kindergarten, the more dicult it will be or
them to catch up, and the lower the likelihood
that they will grow up to be successul young
adults.1 Te result is an enormous loss o
human potential and a high cost to taxpayers.
(See Appendix A or how we dene risk
actors and successul young adulthood.)
t si
oday we know more than ever about howmuch the rst ve years shape a childs lie.
Economic, education, public health, and
neuroscience research clearly point to the
need or increased public investment in
quality early learning or children as an
eective approach to prevent serious negative
outcomes such as homelessness, poverty, and
incarceration. Likewise early learning leads
to positive benets earlier in lie, including
higher education levels and academic achieve-
ment. As a state, however, Washington has
ailed to invest adequately in our childrens
earliest years. Supporting the critical compo-nents o quality early learning, including
high standards and support or parents and
childcare and pre-kindergarten programs,
oers the greatest potential to ensure that
all Washingtons children have the oppor-
tunity to be successul throughout their
school years and beyond.
o sa
Our mission is to work with others to ensure
that every child in Washington state has the
opportunity, rom birth, to be successul in
school and in lie. While high-quality early
learning is critical to all children, our invest-
ment strategy is to ocus on children who
have multiple risk actors that can jeopardize
school-readiness and to reach them where
they spend the majority o their dayeither
at home with a parent or guardian or in a
licensed childcare acility. Using this existing
inrastructure, we will help create a variety
o high-quality early learning environments
by providing support to parents and bytransorming childcare rom the current
average low-quality custodial care to eective
centers that will help parents prepare children
socially, emotionally, and cognitively by age
5 to succeed in school and lie. Over the next
10 years, through our statewide grantmaking,
demonstration communities, and promising
models, we will work in partnership with
other public and private entities to help all
amilies in Washington state gain access to
aordable, quality early learning or their
children. We will begin by concentrating
investments and demonstrating the eec-tiveness o quality early learning in two
geographically and demographically diverse
communities. We also will work to leverage
these investments statewide by working with
public and private partners across Washington.
t Ipac
We have designed our early learning
strategy to make a real dierence in the
lives o children, their amilies, and
Washington communities over the next
decade. We will evaluate our eort by
measuring results on two ronts:
Signicantly increase the school-readiness
rate among all children entering
kindergarten in the two demonstration
communities.
Statewide, reduce the gap between low-
income and high-income childrens rate
o school-readiness.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
6/24
Neither our present educational system norour current public unding in Washington
state is designed to support the act that
childrens success in school and lie is
signicantly determined beore they ever
enter kindergarten. By the time most
unding and programs kick in to help
children, many children are already behind
socially, emotionally, and cognitively, and
likely will never catch up.
PArt 1: the ProBlem
Washington state has long been among the
nations bellwether education states, oen
leading the way on policies that advance all
o its citizens. However, Washington state isnot among the nations leaders in providing
early learning that prepares children or
successul young adulthood.
In analyzing why Washington state has
allen behind in outcomes or children,
we looked across a number o key actors
that indicate how children are aring. Sadly,
Washington children trail the nation in
many critical actors. As the chart below
shows, we have allen even urther behind
other perennial bellwether states such as
Minnesota, with its similar population size,
racial mix, and demographics. In Washington,
the inant-mortality rate continues to rise.
More than one in our children (8 percent)
live in amilies in which no parent has ull-
time, year-round work. More than one third
o children rom birth to age 5 live in or near
poverty. Te percentage o teens not attending
school or working is on the rise. Te juvenile-arrest rate is more than 50 percent higher
than the national average. Just 7 percent
o our children graduate rom high school,
and only 5 percent are ready to succeed in
college.2 (See Appendix B or a demographic
snapshot o Washington states children and
youth population.)
W a ia w.
Although navigating a certain amount
o adversity is part o growing up, many
children live with serious multiple riskactors, or measurable indicators o socio-
economic disadvantage, that aect their
ability to succeed in school. A wealth o
research shows a direct correlation between
a childs odds or early success and whether
or not they have such risk actors in their
lives. In our study o Washington state, we
used the ollowing risk actors: poverty (the
most prevalent); single or no parent; no
parent employed ull time/ull year; all
parents with disability; mother does not
have high school degree; no parent fuent
in English. Tere are certainly many other
actors, but these are the most widely cited
and statistically valid.
Research tells us that children with only
one o these risk actors typically have the
resiliency to succeed. wo or more risk
actors, on the other hand, markedly impede
a childs chances or success, and can lead
to negative outcomes such as homelessness,
poverty, and incarceration later in lie.
According to researchers, children with
two or more o these risk actors have a ar
greater chance o ailure throughout their
school years and beyond.3
Pa cii i aii wiw i ac.
Children in amilies with two or more risk
actors are more likely to experience the
ollowing problems:
Family-related conditions, including:
Abusive or neglectul (stressul) amily
environment
Poor or no parent-child bonding (rom
05 years, a childs low attachment to the
primary caregiver can be linked to later
problems, including teen pregnancy,
criminal behavior, and drug abuse)
FIGURE 1
Youth problems in washington state
h w C m*, u.s.
WA MN US
Children in amilies with no parent with ull-time, year-round work 8% 1% %
Children 05 in poverty 1% 9% 19%
Families with children headed by a single parent 0% 1% 8%
eens not working and not attending high school (disengaged) 8% % 8%
High school graduation rate 7% 8% 71%
College readiness rate 5% % %
Juvenile arrest rate 1.9% 1.8% 1.%
eens (117) who requently binge drink 11% 1% 11%
Young adults who requently binge drink 1% 50% 1%
eens (117) whove recently used il licit drugs 1% 1% 11%
Young adults suering rom serious mental illness 15% 1% 1%
Birth rate or 1517 year olds 1.9% 1.8% .%
* WechoseMinnesotaorcomparisonbecauseithasapopulationsizeandracialandgeographicdemographicssimilartoWashington.Source:Child Facts: Washingtons Children; Greene,PublicHighSchoolGraduations;Indicator Website; Kids Count; Minnesota Kids; SchoolMatters;State o Washingtons Children; USDHHS,StateEstimates;WashingtonDSHS,Economic Costs.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
7/24
Low caregiver knowledge o child cogni-
tive, emotional, and social development
Poor mental health o parent or
caregiver
Delayed language development
Societal conditions, including:
Low-quality, out-o-home childcare
Stressul neighborhood living conditions
Bad schools
Poverty and under- or unemployed
parents
Socially isolated parents
Health and nutritional decits and
disabilities
hw a ci a a i i
Wai a?
Overall, percent o all children age 05
have two or more risk actorsa total o109,75 children statewide. Te percentages
dier dramatically with race and ethnicity.
While 1 percent o white children are at
risk, the percentages rise to percent o
Arican-American children, 5 percent o
Hispanic children, and 9 percent o Native
Americans. Obviously, this population is
dynamic, as new children both enter and
move beyond this 05 age group each year.
Tat is, as new children become part o this
at risk population each year, others enter
the school system without the preparation
they deserve. See Figure .4
hw ci ai b a.
It is troubling that nearly one in our children
begin lie with these disadvantages. But even
more disturbing is the long-term impact:
Children who are behind when they start
school will likely never catch up academically.5
Fully 75 percent o the children inWashingtons lowest-income classroomsare not school-ready, according to an
assessment o kindergarten-readiness rates
conducted by the Washington State Oce
o Superintendent o Public Instruction and
Washington State University.
One survey shows that, across the state, all
classrooms are not created equal when it
comes to school-readiness: High-income
classrooms are rated more than twice as
school-ready as low-income classrooms.
(Students were assessed by their own
teachers based on a composite measure
o ve school-readiness actors: cognitive;
language and vocabulary; social-emotional;
health and motor skills; and approach tolearning.) See Figure .6
Te ability o children to be successul at
school and lie begins earlybeore they ever
enter the school system. Many enter school
with sizable delays in cognitive, social,
physical, or emotional development and
may be years behind their classmates when
they enter kindergarten. Even i they make
considerable gains throughout their school
years, some will remain well below grade
level every step o the way. In this sense,these children are alling behind and ailing
beore they ever enter school.
FIGURE 2
how manY Children are at-risk in washington state?
C a 05 2+ r Fc
otal number
in group
Children with +
risk actors
Percentage o
group with+ risk actors
All races/ethnicities 7,8 109,75 %
White ,99 5,95 1%
Hispanic 70,05 1,59 5%
Native American 7,0 ,59 9%
Arican-American 17,181 7,88 %
Asian 5,5 5,10 0%
Other/multiracial ,1 9,19 8%
Source:UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.
Correlation between household inComeand sChool-readiness
Kindergarten Readiness 2005
39%
25%
36%
58%
45%
Percentag
eo
fkin
dergarten-rea
dy
80100% 080% 00% 00% 00%
Percentage o students in classroom receiving ree or reduced cost lunch*
*Freeandreducedlunchisameasurementopovertyequalto185percentotheederalpovertylevel.Aneighborhoodwhere80to100percentothechildrenreceivereeorreducedlunchesisanextremelypoorneighborhood.
Source:WashingtonStateUniversity,WashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.
FIGURE 3FIGURE 3
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
8/248
Wa cib ac c-ai?
Over the last ew decades, a confuence o
socio-economic changes has dramatically
changed how we care or children and
increased the need or quality early learning
in Washington state. Due to the changing
role o women, welare reorm, and increases
in single-parent amilies, young children are
increasingly cared or outside o the home.
In 1975, percent o mothers with
children age 0 were in the workorce.
In 199, welare reorm began to bring
many mothers into the workorce and, by
000, 1 percent o mothers with children
0 were working.7
Te number o low-income children in
subsidized childcare in Washington has
more than doubled rom 15 percent in
1990 to percent in 00.8
Working parents want the best environment
or their children. Yet as the need or quality
early learning grows, the unding to pay or it
is unavailable; parents cant aord it, and state
subsidies dont cover the cost o quality. At a
time when young children are increasingly
receiving little more than custodial care, neuro-
science is shedding new light on how critical
the rst three years o lie are to success in
learning. While 85 percent o a childs core
brain is ormed by age , less than percent
o public investments in education have
occurred by that time. See Figure below.9
With more children in the care o others, the
need or quality early learning environments
is crucial. Research consistently shows that
poor cognitive, social, and emotional develop-
ment in early childhood has a long-term
impact and is tied to problems later in lie:
Brain development is most intense rom
birth to years o age. Te number o
synaptic connections in the brain peaks
at age . Synapses that get used stay in the
brain; i synapses are unused, they begin
to be eliminated by late childhood.10
Poverty in early childhood is correlated
with lower cognitive scores and lower
school achievement.11
Children learn social and emotional skills
early in lie. Tese skills dramatically
infuence academic achievement later
in liemore so than cognitive ability.12
Children who grow up in abusive,neglectul, and dysunctional amilies
experience our to 10 times more
alcoholism, substance abuse, depression,
and suicide as adults. Tere is a dose-
response relationship; that is, the more
adverse early experiences, the more
negative later outcomes.13
Approximately one-third o abused
and neglected children will eventually
victimize their own children.14
At a time when growing numbers o youngchildren are receiving little more than
custodial care, neuroscience is shedding
new light on how critical the rst three years
o lie are to success in learning and lie.
t cqca c.
As young adults, many at-risk youth experi-
ence one or more o the ollowing problems:
substance and alcohol abuse, criminal
activity, educational ailure, no workorce
involvement, poor mental health, antisocial
behavior, homelessness, and early pregnancy.
Te costto these young people, and to
societyis enormous:
88,000 youth (age 18) in Washington
state are not employed and not in school.15
1,000 young adults in Washington
(age 18) receive welare, representing
$0 million per year in support.16
Nationwide, multiproblem youth (those
involved in more than one sel-destructive
behavior) represent less than 0 percent o
the population, but they account or 88 per-
cent o arrests associated with violence,
7 percent o total arrests, 87 percent o
health problems associated with drug use,
and 79 percent o problems associated
with alcohol.17
Nationwide, multiproblem youth cost
society an estimated $5 billion to
$50 billion annually, and ,000 to 5,000
lives are lost each year as a result o multi-
problem behaviors.18
lai wa w a 10 a Pacifc nw ii.
As we have studied these problems and
examined solutions and strategies or
addressing them, the oundation has drawn
on our decade o working with public and
private partners to help amilies and children
succeed in the Pacic Northwest. We have
documented the approaches that have made
the most measurable dierence. Going
orward, our early learning strategy will be
inormed by what weve learned.
highest potential For impaCt
Washington Brain Growth and Public Investments by Child Age
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 8 10 1 1 1 18 0
Child age
Brain growth Cumulative public investment
Source:Bruneretal.,Early Learning Let Out.
FIGURE 4FIGURE 4
Percentageofbraingrowth
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
9/24
One o the most requently needed
services or amilies transitioning out
o homelessness is quality childcare
(Sound Families evaluation).
Children rom low-income amilies
may benet more rom high-quality
care and be more negatively aected by
poor-quality care than are higher-income
children (UW Human Services Policy
Center, Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Home Center).
Children who are exposed at a young
age to reading and language development
vastly increase their social and mental
development, have higher sel-esteem,
perorm better in schools, have decreased
incidence o early pregnancy, and use
less alcohol and ewer drugs (Page Ahead
Childrens Literacy Program, Hearing
Speech and Deaness Center).
Many low-income children enter ado-lescence with ew developmental assets.
Te programs that are most successul
at helping adolescents to recover assets are
much more intensive and expensive than
prevention programs (YMCA o Greater
Seattle, Campre USA o Portland, Boys &
Girls Clubs, Catholic Community Services,
Friends o Youth, Friends o the Children).
Family support centers can be very
eective in preventing child abuse and
ostering positive parent-child rela-
tionships by oering parenting classesand respite care (Childrens Services o
So-Valley, Sae Harbor Crisis Nursery).
Physical space or social services is oen
poor, which aects both the program
quality and the clients sel-esteem.
Providing appropriate space can greatly
improve outcomes (Martin Luther King
Jr. Day Home Center, First Place, and
Hopelink).
A well-trained and highly committed
sta that is adequately compensated andretained over time is integral to program
success across a wide variety o youth
and amily service providers (Community
Access to echnology program evaluation).
PArt 2: the solutIon
During the oundations study o at-risk
children, we did not immediately arrive at
quality early learning as a long-term giving
strategy. We began by examining a wide
range o approaches to improving outcomes
or Washington youth.
We considered a number o major preventive
approaches: quality early learning; out-o-
school activities or adolescents; quality
health care; economic development; and
amily support services. We also assessed
ways to intervene later in lie to solve prob-
lems that oen result rom lack o school-
readiness. Tese intervention approaches
included workorce training; oster care;
and interventions to reduce juvenile crime,
homelessness, and substance abuse.
We then assessed how well each approach
measured in light o several oundation and
Pacic Northwest program criteria.
Ciia a p i cii i i a ai.
On ve critical tests, quality early learning
was the right t or us.
1. Ai wi ai picip. Te
oundation believes that philanthropy plays
an important but limited role. We are unders
and shapers; we rely on others to act and
implement. Our ocus clearly prioritizes
some o the most neglected issues, where
programmatic ocus and vigorous advocacy
can promote greater equity. We identiy a
specic point o intervention and apply
our eorts against a theory o change. In
addition, we believe in preventing problems,
rather than intervening later when theyve
become more dicult and expensive to solve.
Quality early learning works early in the prob-
lem cycle to deter the need or later, more
intensive intervention. It uses a targeted
approach, ocusing on a single solution with
the greatest potential to benet the greatest
number o children. Quality early learning
also supports and builds the base or the
oundations existing investments in K1
education by preparing children beore they
enter the system or success in school and lie.
2. scc ac-ba i.
A growing body o evidence demonstrates
that the cumulative developmental toll
experienced by high-risk children can
be prevented or signicantly reduced by
providing high-quality early learning rom
birth to the start o kindergarten.19
Numerous landmark research eorts
demonstrate the longitudinal impact o
high-quality early learning, including three
o the most important and long-term studies:
1) High Scope/Perry Preschool in Michigan;
) Abecedarian Project in North Carolina;
and ) Chicago Parent-Child Centers in
Illinois. (Our statistics are based on the
longitudinal studies in early learning rom
Perry Preschool and Abecedarian.) Proven
home-based, parent-support models such as
the David Olds Nurse-Family Partnership
and other models rooted in attachment
theory demonstrate that working directly
with parents can dramatically improve out-
comes or children. ogether, these and other
studies have helped mobilize a nationwide
movement in early learning. See Figure 5 on
next page.20
Te results: clear, consistent, and long-term
benets. Te High/Scope Perry Preschool is
a 0-year study o 1 low-income Arican-
American children who were assessed to be
at high risk o school ailure. Fiy-eight o
the children were assigned to a group that
received a high-quality preschool program at
ages and ; the other 5 children received
no preschool program. Forty years later, the
dierences in education, crime, and income
levels clearly demonstrate the positive impact
o early intervention. (See Appendix C.)Te group that received high-quality early
learning had higher IQs at age 5, higher
high-school graduation rates, ewer arrests,
and higher median annual incomes than
those who received no preschool.
In the 0-year Abecedarian study, 57 inants
rom low-income amilies received high-
quality childcare rom birth to age 5. Tese
participants were twice as likely to still be in
school at age 1 as the control group. Tey
were also, on average, two years older when
their rst child was born, and nearly threetimes as likely to attend a our-year college.
A signicant return on each dollar invested.
Te economic benets o early learning are
clear and compelling. Cost-benet analyses
perormed on the long-term returns o
quality early childhood programs show
returns o $ to $8 or every $1 invested.
Te return on investment is signicant or
the individual (in increased earnings), the
government (in decreased special education,
remediation, and welare costs), and society
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
10/2410
(in decreased crime and its related costs).
Most o the costs are incurred by age 5; the
majority o the benets occur between the
ages o 18 and 7. Cost benets are calculated
by adding all o the proven cost savings gen-
erated rom such programs (plus the other
related costs incurred, such as increased public
expenditures as more youth attend public
colleges), and then subtracting the cost o
the original implementation.
A number o states across the country have
leveraged this body o research and used it
as a model or bringing quality early learning
to scale.
Over the past 20 years, Illinois has made
quality early learning a priority. Te state
has been an innovator in expanding early
learning to include home-based and birth-
to- programs. It has done so through a
state-unded early childhood block grant
with a set-aside or birth-to- programs.
In Oklahoma, ree, high-quality pre-kinder-
garten is available to all 4-year-olds. Districts
that choose to provide pre-kindergarten are
reimbursed or each child enrolled. In 00,
the program was unded at $7 million
and served more than 0,000 children
5 percent o the children eligible.
In North Carolina, Smart Start is a public
initiative that provides early education
unding to all the states 100 counties.
State unding or Smart Start is currently
$19 million. Te unds are used to improve
the quality o childcare, make it more
aordable and accessible, provide access to
health services, and oer amily support.
New Jersey provides the highest level o
unding or pre-kindergarten programs o
any state in the country. Te New Jersey
Supreme Court has mandated that all
children in districts where at least 0
percent o children qualiy or ree or
reduced-cost school lunches have access
to quality pre-kindergarten programs.
Currently, the Abbott Preschool Programs
receive $5 million annually rom the
state, and non-Abbott children benet
rom a separate preschool program that
receives $0 million annually.
Te early learning movement is also global.
At the 1990 World Conerences on Education
or All in Tailand, 155 countries including
the United States signed a declaration that
Learning begins at birth. In 000, the World
Education Forum in Dakar established
expand and improve comprehensive early
childhood care and education, especially
or the most vulnerable and disadvantaged
children as one o six international goals.
In the European Union, 5 states have agreed
to the Barcelona arget, which states that
90 percent o all children ages and 5 should
have access to early childhood development,
and that percent o children rom birth-
to- should have access to early learning.
Europe has led the way with promising
models, including Reggio Emilia in Italy,
Les Ecoles Maternelles in France, and Sure
Start in the United Kingdom.
Te economic benets o early learning are
signicant. Cost-benet analyses perormed
on the long-term returns o quality early
childhood programs show returns o $4 to
$8 or every $1 invested.
3. hi pia ipac. Te oundation
aims to und eorts that will bring the
greatest benet to the greatest number o
children in Washington state. Signicant
research, including that o Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, shows
that the greatest return on investment is
achieved by investing in children at the
earliest age possible. See Figure .21
Heckmans research is based on evidence o
the way skills are ormed, and it expresses his
undamental belie that investments made
early in childhood create a skill multiplier
eect. Tat is, skill begets skill, and learning
begets more learning. Early advantages
accumulate, just as early disadvantages do.
Much o the cost-efectiveness o early learning
has been demonstrated repeatedly across a wide
range o positive outcomes: reduced crime
and delinquency; increased educational
achievement; reduced grade repetition and
special education; increased employment,
productivity, and earnings; and less welare
dependency.22
Te real internal rate o return or high-
quality early learning programs is estimated
at 1 percent, with 80 percent o those returns
beneting the general public, primarily inthe orm o crime reduction. (Te internal
rate o return is an alternate measure or deter
mining the benets o early learning. It
calculates the interest rate received or an
investment that consists o payments and
revenue occurring at regular annual periods,
much in the way one would assess the rate
o return on an investment such as stocks
or bonds.)23
suCCessFul researCh-based models exist
Benet Costs Table for Three Early Childhood Programs
dollars returned for each dollar invested
$2.91
$0.92
$3.27
$2.51
$4.66
$1.58
$2.28
$0.16
$1.57
Chicago Parent-Child Centers
$7.10 total
Perry Preschool
$8.74 total
Abecedarian Project
$4.01 total
n Returns to participants: such as increased earnings.n Returns to government: such as decreased special education/remediation costs,
decreases in welfare payments.
n Saving to society: for decreases in crime-related costs for crimes not committed.Source:Bruneretal.,Early Learning Let Out.
FIGURE 5FIGURE 5
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
11/24
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
12/241
PArt 3: our strAtegy
Te oundation is taking a strategic approach
to early learning based on our theory o
change (how everyone working together can
leverage signicant change) and our theory
o action (the part we will play in making
it happen).
o ca. I public and private
entities in our state join orces to create an
aligned network o prevention and treatment
eorts or children and youthspanning
rom prenatal to 18we can create oppor-
tunities or all Washingtons children
to become successul young adults. (See
Appendix D.)
o aci. I our oundation makes
a ocused, 10-year investment in early learning
in Washington state, we can help create the
public and political will to develop a sustain-
able system o aordable, high-quality early
learning across the state. Ultimately, our
actions and those o our partners will lead
to higher levels o school-readiness, greater
success in school, ewer negative adolescent
behaviors, and a greater likelihood o success-
ul young adulthood. See Figure 8.
A iw i a.
Working closely with other public and private
unders, we will take a threeold approach,
investing in 1) targeted demonstration com-
munities; ) promising models; and )statewide eorts to build and support the
inrastructure or early learning. Our theory
o action is based on rst demonstrating a
Washington state quality early learning
model in select communities as proo
o a concept that can inorm and create
demand or expanding that model to every
community in the state. (See Appendix E.)
Appac #1:
ta dai Cii
argeted demonstration communities are akey component o our long-term investment
strategy. We will work with two communities
to develop a comprehensive initiative to
ensure that all children and amilies within
these selected communities have access to
high-quality early learning. Tese two com-
munities will exempliy the eectiveness o
early learning in improving outcomes or
young children, and will inorm our statewide
grants. (See Appendix F.) Tese demon-
stration communities will have:
High concentrations o children with
two or more risk actors.
Strong local capacity.
Demonstrative evidence o broad support.
Appropriate size (,000,000 children
age 05).
Demographic, political, and geographic
diversity.
Using these criteria, we will select one
demonstration community in Eastern
Washington and one in Western Washington.
We will identiy and invite a short list o
potential communities to submit a letter oinquiry, and we anticipate making the nal
community selections by summer o 00.
Our aim is to reach a majority o children
age 05 in the demonstration communities,
including at least 70 percent o children
in poverty. We expect this comprehensive
community approach to:
Reach children where they are spending
the majority o their day, whether in
childcare or with a parent or caregiver,
through a variety o interventions.
Demonstrate the value o a mixed-incomemodel.
Demonstrate the eectiveness o strength-
ening the existing inrastructure.
Involve school districts in early learning.
Involve other public and private partners.
Provide a platorm to educate statewide
constituents on the eectiveness o high-
quality early learning.
Wa a w i ipac?
Parent support and education. Trough a
variety o programs inside and outside o
the home, parents and caregivers will receive
inormation, training, and support to be their
childrens rst and most important teachers.
Comprehensive early learning centers that
serve the whole community. Our unding
approach is to create a coordinated network
o quality early learning in the demonstration
communities, building new resources and
strengthening existing eorts. Tis will
include tailoring services to meet the unique
needs o each amily. Central to this approach
is building one model childcare center, or
hub, per community, that serves the entire
community.
Licensed childcare. Using a variety o
approaches, we will transorm existing
licensed childcare in the two demonstration
communities rom todays low and moderate
quality to high-quality, aordable early
learning environments. Tese communities,
which will include new high-quality hub
centers, will demonstrate quality and act as a
catalyst in transorming the more than ,100
existing centers and nearly ,00 existing
home-based centers statewide.
CritiCal need exists in washington
Availability of Accredited Care in Washington
26144
2,107
Number ochildcare centers
Number oaccredited centers
Number oaccredited centers in
low-income communities
Source:AccreditationSearchResults;MappingConcentrations;Schrager.
FIGURE 7FIGURE 7
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
13/24 1
Wa a ciica aci a caac i ca?
Quality improvements:
Expand support and education or parents.
Create and implement standards o quality
or early learning.
Create opportunities and incentives
or teachers to increase training and
proessional development.
Create incentives or existing childcare
to improve.
Access:
Make quality early learning aordable
and accessible to allchildren and amilies
within the demonstration communities.
Pa ii: Wa w wi i ai cii.
In the two demonstration communities, the
oundation will support the development
o community plans to implement compre-
hensive early learning strategies. Aer the
approval o a communitywide business plan
or early learning, our unding will support
a wide range o programs, classes, and
development, including proessional
development, curriculum development,
physical improvements, pre- and post-natal
support programs, home-based literacy
programs, parent support programs, child
development classes, inormation and
reerral resources, case management,
and community education classes.
Appac #2: Pii m
Trough promising model grants, the
oundation will support innovative eorts
on a smaller scale to improve early learning
or children throughout Washington state.
Specically, the oundation is interested in
supporting community-based eorts that
replicate proven eective models or hold the
promise o adding to the knowledge base
about what works well or young children.
Wa a w i ipac?
Build knowledge about what works. Although
we know a lot about what high-quality early
learning looks like, there is more to learn,
particularly about how to eectively bring
proven practices to scale.
FIGURE 8
our theorY oF aCtion
1 i 2 cc
3 c
4 y c
, .
C
ommunityapproche
d
C
Create high-quality,
comprehensive early
learning opportunities
or all children in select
high-risk communities
p m
Promote innovative orpromising community-
based approaches
Prove eectiveness
Replicate in new
communities Demonstrate
near- and long-term
outcomes
sc
c
cc
rc
c
scc
y
c
pc/p
p
A coordinated approach
between government,
businesses, foundations,
and other stakeholders
Inormed market
Enabling policies
Adequate unding
Washington state
model
ey c
w
,
,
cc
y
Mobilize support
Increase demand or
access to high-quality
early learning
Build political will
among voters and
elected leaders
Encourage
participation in the
eort
sttewideapproche
s sy
Encourage
improvements o key
components o
early learning at a
statewide level
accy
Promote outreach,
education, and advocacy
across the state
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
14/241
Wa a ciica aci a caac i ca?
Program replication:
Fund collaborative eorts to coordinate
community-based early learning eorts.
Create replicable programs based on
proven research models.
New models: Demonstrate the eectiveness o
promising new approaches.
Work in diverse communities to expand
approaches to providing amilies and
children with access to quality early
learning.
Pa ii: Wa w wi
i cii ac a.
Te oundation will be proactive in working
with communities, institutions, public
agencies, and nonprots that are ocused
on the ollowing:
Community. Implement community-based
collaborative eorts ocused on creating
high-quality early learning.
Replication. Expand, or take to scale,
proven models that are known to improve
outcomes or amilies and young children.
Innovative approaches. Design, test, or
research early learning models that will
inorm and advance early learning inWashington.
Recipients o our promising models grants
will be aligned with Washington states
benchmarks or early learning and develop-
ment, which are being designed to ensure
that children are prepared or school.
Currently under study by the Washington
Learns Early Learning Council, these
benchmarks include physical well-being,
health, and motor development; social and
emotional development; approaches toward
learning; cognition and general knowledge;and language, communication, and literacy.
Eligible programs may be ocused on
children in licensed care or children at
home with a caregiver.
In addition to being aligned with state
benchmarks, programs must be committed
to meeting our ve standards o quality: 1)
highly trained and adequately compensated
teachers; ) strong, research-driven curricu-
lum emphasizing emotional, social, cognitive,
and physical development; ) research-based
education and programs or parents, along
with parental involvement in care; ) low
child:teacher ratios; and 5) appropriate
physical space.
Appac #3: sawi e
In close partnership with other public and
private stakeholders, the oundation will
support, promote, and encourage statewideeorts to improve early learning across the
state. Tese eorts include programmatic
initiatives, education, and advocacy eorts
as well as other strategic opportunities or
statewide early learning improvements.
In developing our statewide approach, we
studied a number o other states that have
succeeded in elevating the importance o
quality early childhood learning and in
galvanizing public and private support. In
Caliornia, Illinois, and North Carolina, the
keys to success are remarkably similar. Allthree states have strong champions, eective
organizations, public education, political will
and capital, robust private support, demon-
stration projects, and research and evaluation.
(See Appendix G.) In Washington state, many
o these key elements are in their nascent
stagesbeing discussed or proposed, with
an ongoing need to build political will
and capital.
Wa a w i ipac?
Our statewide early learning eorts are builtupon the ollowing main objectives:
Encourage appropriate public investment
and the creation o policies and inra-
structure to support quality early learning.
Increase public understanding o, and
support or, quality early learning.
Broaden the participation o partners to
invest, act as advocates or quality early
learning, and bring new voices to the eld.
Promote necessary inrastructure improve-ments, such as quality standards, teacher
training, and birth-to- programs.
Te rst three objectives provide a ramework
or three interrelated strategies targeted at
three primary audiences: government; the
public, including parents, guardians, and
communities; and partners such as providers,
businesses, oundations, and nonprot
organizations. See Figure 9.
Wa a ciica aci a caac i ca?
Creating a system that rates and rewards
quality and inorms parents. A system to
measure the quality o early learning must
be developed in Washington that will inorm
parents and reward quality improvements.
Such a system will include incentives or
early learning programs to achieve levels o
quality above basic licensing and accept more
children on state subsidy.
Inorming and educating on the importance o
early learning. Along with our partners, we
have a plan to inorm, educate, and advocate
or quality early learning statewide. We will
use the two demonstration communities and
our investments in promising models as plat-
orms to advocate about the need or statewide
policy change and increased public nancing
or all Washington children. We also will work
to build and provide evidence, knowledge,
and tools or those working in the eld.
Building a strong inrastructure to support
access to quality early learning or all children.
Ensuring that all children have access to
quality early learning requires strengthening,
expanding, and aligning many o our state
systems or supporting children and amilies.
As quality standards are created, additional
training and monitoring will be needed.
Pa ii: Wa w wi
a awi .
We will make grants in the areas o system
improvements, policy research, awareness
and education, and community outreach.
System improvements. We will und eorts
that have potential to improve, streamline, or
coordinate the children and amily support
systems in Washington state. Examples
include public-private, quality-improvement
initiatives, the creation o needed inra-
structure, and other statewide approaches
to improve early learning across the state.
Policy research. Our unding will support
eorts to build the evidence base or
quality early learning and to inorm policy
development, such as researching possible
nance models to increase the quality and
availability o early learning or all Washington
children, and modeling a statewide early
learning system.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
15/24 1
Awareness and education. We will und
activities to increase public understanding
o the importance o quality early learning
and school-readiness. Tese may include the
development o communication materials to
promote quality early learning; education o
policymakers, key leaders and constituencies,
parents and caregivers, and the general public
about the need or quality early learning and
core requirements; and the development omedia strategies to raise the visibility about
the need and promote positive examples.
Community outreach. We will und eorts
to mobilize support or quality early learning
and to increase collaboration among the
various groups involved. We need to cultivate
strong champions, oster bipartisan support,
and bring together a diversity o advocates
or quality early learning to ensure all
Washington children have access and the
opportunity or success in school and lie.
t c bii
a ai ca.
Over the next 10 years, the oundation will
invest up to $90 million in early learning,
which is dependent upon other public and
private investment in the near term to match
our contribution. Ultimately, the dollars we
invest through this strategy are intended to
leverage signicant new public investments
in early learning in order to sustain and
expand the demonstration communities
and promising models statewide. Our strategy
is aimed at creating the public and political
will needed to achieve this goal within
10 years. With increased state commitment,
the improved quality o early learning in
demonstration communities will become
sustainable, and high-quality early learning
will become a reality or all children in
Washington state.
It wont be easy or inexpensive. We believe
the cost o closing the school-readiness gap
by setting high standards or quality early
learning may necessitate more than doubling
current expenditures (including ederal and
state unds).
W a w piiic abc a bi b?
A growing number o states have
signicantly increased investment in earlylearning. In addition to Caliornia, Illinois,
Georgia, and Oklahomas signicant
increases, other states have proposed
major increases: Hawaii (1 percent);
Iowa (177 percent); New Mexico (
percent); and ennessee (50 percent).31
Washington has the beginnings o
community and state-level bipartisan
support. In its 005 session, the Washington
state Legislature passed a $ million
increase in subsidies or childcare, with
bipartisan support. In the summer o 005
Gov. Christine Gregoire launched the
Washington Learns study, which includes
a new public-private commission to make
recommendations or the uture o the
states early learning system.
Washington has business and private
oundation leadership and support behind
early learning. Te new Seattle BusinessPartnership or Early Learning has strong
nancial and leadership support rom
Boeing, Saeco, the Chamber o Commerce
and the Seattle Foundation.
Washington state has a legacy o the public
supporting substantial new dollars or new
policy priorities. In 005, we have seen the
passage o an $8.5 billion transportation
package (Washington), a $10 million
Family and Education Levy (Seattle), and
a new hospital levy (King County).
Washington state government is reassessing
how it manages childrens issues due to past
ailures. Gov. Gregoire has made reorming
early learning a top priority.
Cost-efective prevention approaches are
gaining momentum in Olympia, and
quality early learning is an approach that
more than pays or itsel. Te Legislature
recently had the Washington State Institute
or Public Policy rate a variety o preven-
tion measures on their cost-eectiveness.
FIGURE 9
approaCh #3: statewide advoCaCY
Three Interrelated Strategies Targeted at Three Primary Audiences
what who how
Encourage increased
public investment and
creation o enablingpolicies or quality
early learning
g
State
Local
Federal
Engage government
Public-private partnership
Advocacy organization capacity-building
Research and evaluation
Increase public
understanding o, and
support or, quality
early learning
pc
Parents/caregivers
Community
Public education campaign
Advocacy organization capacity-building
Research and evaluation
Media
Broaden participation o
partners to invest, act as
advocates or quality
early learning, and bring
new voices to the eld
p
Businesses
Foundations
Nonprots
Engage new partners
Public-private partnership
Advocacy organization capacity-building
Research and evaluation
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
16/241
Additionally, in its 005 session, the state
Legislature passed a bill, which elects
to reinvest projected cost savings rom
reducing youth incarceration into proven
eective amily-based therapies that will
divert youth out o the juvenile justice
system and create better outcomes or
children and amilies.
Wa a aj i aai a?
We developed our strategy or quality early
learning with an understanding o the risks
involved. No statewide undertaking o this
magnitude is without challenges, but by
being aware o them rom the beginning,
we have shaped our program to address
and minimize risks:
Sustainability. Te long-term success o quality
early learning will require an increase in
public understanding and nancial support.Te states current economy and budget crisis
make it challenging to increase public invest-
ment in early learning with existing revenues.
Tere is limited public will to increase public
revenues to und any new social program,
and limited understanding o the value o
early learning among key stakeholders.
Our strategy includes components to educate
parents and the community on the value o
quality early learning. As the oundations
unding decreases over time, we will have
increased the capacity o education andadvocacy organizations that can educate,
inorm, and mobilize key stakeholders on
this issue.
Nascent early learning advocacy. Currently
there are a limited number o organizations
ocused on early learning advocacy.Our
strategy requires partnerships with, and active
participation by, early learning providers and
advocates. As much as possible, we intend to
work within the existing inrastructure to
expand capacity, coordination, and expertise
in the eld. Our strategy includes investmentsin increasing the capacity o advocacy and
early learning organizations.
Managing expectations. While there is much
discussion about early learning in the state,
change has been slow. Many may look to the
oundation as the unding solution to the
problems o early learning.
We base our strategy on a public-private
partnership, and we will not invest unding
until partners agree to join the eort. Te
oundation will likely play a critical role in
mobilizing and coordinating eorts, but as
a convener and catalyst undernot a sole
unding entity.
Opposing views. Critiques o preschool
programs have been published. Some believe
that birth-to- is a time or children to be with
their parents, and that government should
not interere. Some parents do not want their
children in a government program.
We will support parents and stakeholders on
the components o quality early learning and
how it benets children. Our strategy reaches
parents and children where they already
areat home or in childcarebut does not
advocate moving children rom one arena
to another. Lastly, the program will be volun-
tary, never mandatory.
Increasing costs or some parents. Increasing
the quality o existing childcare will increase
the per-child cost o operating. While encour-aging state subsidies or low-income children
is part o our advocacy strategy, moderate-
income amilies may see the costs o
childcare rise.
Creating innovative, thoughtul public-
private partnerships will oset the costs o
increased teacher salaries or all children,
not just low-income children. Our advocacy
strategy includes encouraging increase o the
subsidy eligibility to include amilies whose
earnings exceed the current cuto or subsidy
(185 percent o the ederal poverty level).We will seek to create models o aordable
quality at existing centers in order to keep
costs as moderate as possible.
PArt 4:
the ImPACt: Assessment
And ImProvement
We believe that by investing in early learningwe will improve outcomes or children over
both the short and long term.
s
In the two demonstration communities,
an increase in rates o kindergarten-
readiness, and in the rates o children
age 05 meeting appropriate develop-
mental benchmarks.
Statewide, narrowing o the school-
readiness gap between low-income
and high-income children.
Increased public and private investment
or early learning.
l
Greater success o children and youth
throughout school years.
Reduced rates o negative behaviorssuch
as teen pregnancy and criminal activity
and increased positive behaviors among
adolescents.
Greater likelihood o success in young
adulthood.
Sustained commitment o public
investment to early learning.
Research shows that intensive early child-hood programs reduce problem adolescent
behavior by at least 0 percentage points.
Tey also increase positive behavior. In
selected results rom the Abecedarian, Perry
Preschool, and Chicago Parent-Child Center
studies, the eect o participation in early
childhood programs is evident across a
number o positive indicators at age 0 and
later in lie. Compared to the control group
that had no early childhood learning pro-
grams, more o these children went on to
complete high school, attend college, and
gain skilled employment. Fewer o themhad to repeat a grade, became binge drinkers
became teen parents, used marijuana, or had
a juvenile arrest record. See Figure 10.32
Wa i aciab?
Based on existing studies, we have set a goal
to achieve the ollowing results by 01:
Signicantly increase the school-readiness
rate among all children entering kinder-
garten in the targeted demonstration
communities. A survey by the WashingtonState Oce o Superintendent o Public
Instruction estimates that currently only
5 percent o all Washington state children
in low-income kindergarten classrooms
are school-ready (vs. 58 percent in high-
income classrooms).33
Statewide, reduce the gap between low-
income and high-income childrens rate
o school-readiness.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
17/24 1
hw wi w ac c ?
We will monitor and evaluate a series o
measurable outcomes among children,
parents, teachers, childcare, and the system
statewide. We are currently working with
independent evaluators to design the
program evaluation.
Wa wi w wi wa wa?
Improve the program by asking ourselves key
questions. Are our interventions working as
intended? How do we improve them? What
models are best or specic populations?
Are we reaching the children and parents we
most want to reach? Based on what we learn,
we will modiy the program as we go orward.
Educate and inorm. We also will use what
we learn to educate and inorm others in
the early learning eld, acilitate program-
matic and organizational improvements, and
drive change.
PArt 5: ImPlementIng our
eArly leArnIng strAtegy
We envision working with both a public-
private partnership and community-level
intermediaries to implement our strategy.Our operational plan emphasizes a partner-
ship that coordinates and manages statewide
and community operations.
Ideally, a statewide public-private partnership
will administer pooled unds, make recom-
mendations through aligned unding,
oversee community eorts, provide technical
assistance and monitor quality, coordinate
advocacy eorts, work with the evaluation
team, and raise money.
Community-level intermediary organizations,which may or may not be the service provi-
ders in a given locale, will lead in coordinating
services, manage subcontractors, develop
and implement a business plan or the
community, and raise local matching unds.
what does long-term suCCess look like?
Projected Effect Size of Early Childhood Learning Programs at Age 20
More complete high school
More attended college
More gained skilled employment
Fewer have juvenilearrest records
Fewer were currentmarijuana users
Fewer becameteen parents
Fewerwerebinge drinkers
Fewer hadto repeata grade
15%
15%
19%
21%
18%
20%
21%
20%
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 5% 10% 5% 20% 25%
Percentage point dierence vs. child not in early childhood learning program
Source:Campell;Schweinhart.
FIGURE 10FIGURE 10
what is aChievable?
Current Estimates and Projected School-Readiness Rates*
66%
2014
54%
2014
40%
2005
25%
2005
arget communities Statewide
*School-readinessisdefnedbyassessingchildreninfvechildhooddomains:social-emotional,language/
literacy,approachestolearning,cognition,andmotor/physicalabilities.ThesemetricsarecurrentlyunderstudybytheEarlyLearningCouncil.
Source:WashingtonStateUniversity,WashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.
FIGURE 11FIGURE 11
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
18/2418
APPendICes APPendIx A
hw w f a-i?
Children with any two o the ollowing risk
actors (poverty being the most prevalent)
are considered at-risk o ailure throughout
their school years and beyond. A wealth o
research supports this denition. Te risk
actors that we chose to include are (this listis not comprehensive):
Poverty
Single or no parent
No parent employed ull time/ull year
All parents with disability
Mother does not have high school degree
No parent fuent in English
Source:UniversityoWashingtonHumanServices
PolicyCenter.
Wa w a b cc
a?
Te oundation asked two leading researchers
in youth development to help us dene what
successul young adulthood looks like. Peter
Benson, a leader o the asset development
school o youth development, and Dr. David
Hawkins, the leading researcher in risk and
protective actors or children, dened
successul young adulthood to include the
ollowing measurable outcomes:
Physical health
Psychological and emotional well-being
Lie skills
Healthy amily and social relationships,
Educational attainment and civic
engagement
Visit http://www.gatesoundation.org/
nr/downloads/PNWG/EarlyLearning/
SuccessulDevelopment.pd
or executive summary o this report.
APPendIx B
sap Wai appai.
Snapshot o Washington states population
otal population (00): ,11,5
1,0,000 children 017 years o age
80,000 children in each birth cohort
80,000 children 05 years o age
90,000 youth 17 years o age
50,000 young adults 18 years o age
Racial/ethnic distribution
White: 81.%
Asian/Pacic Islander: .8%
Arican-American: .%
Native American: 1.%
Multiracial/other: .8%
Other: .%
Hispanic or Latino o any race: 8.0%
Poverty*
otal population: 10.%
Children 05: 1.%
Children 17: 1.%
*The2005ederalpovertyguidelineasdefnedbytheU.S.DepartmentoHealthandHumanServicesis$19,350oraamilyoour.
Source:U.S.Census.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
19/24 1
APPendIx C
suCCessFul researCh-based models exist
High/Scope Perry Preschool in Michigan and the Abecedarian Project in North Carolina are two landmark research eorts that demonstrate the
longitudinal impact o high-quality early learning.
h/sc py pc: 40-year study o 123 low-income Arican-American children who were assessed to be at high-risk o school ailure
(58 were assigned to program group that received high-quality preschool at ages 3 and 4, while 65 were assigned to another group that received nopreschool program).
Arrested 5+ times by age 0
Earned $0K+ at 0
Graduated regular high school
Basic achievement at 1
Homework at 15
IQ 90+ at 5
T ac pjc: Controlled study in which 57 inants rom low-income amilies were randomly assigned to receive high-quality childcare
rom birth to age 5 and 54 children were in a non-treated control group.
Special education
Grade repeater
High school graduation
Four-year college
n Program group (received high-quality early learning) nNon-program/control group (did not receive high-quality early learning)
Source:HeckmanandMasterov,The Productivity Argument.
36%
55%
60%
40%
65%
45%
49%
15%
61%
38%
67%
28%
25%
48%
31%
55%
67%
51%
36%
13%
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
20/240
APPendIx d
our theorY oF Change
i c j c c f c y
18 c c w c c cc y .
A Continuum of Youth-Development Investments
p
s
Age
P 0 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 15 1 17 18
Earlylearning
Pre/post natal
amily supportscc
Y
a
oc*
Physicalhealth
Psychological
and
emotional
well-being
Lie skills
Healthy
amily and
socialrelationships
Educational
attainment
Civic
engagement
Dept. o Health, Dept. o Social and Health Services, local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses
Early literacy
programsParents, Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP), Head Start,
local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses
Preschool Parents, ECEAP, Head Start, local jurisdictions, private unders including Gates, businesses
Quality
childcare State, local jurisdictions, parents, private unders including Gates, businesses
Parent
support Private unders including Gates, businesses, state and local jurisdictions
Middle/highscho
olprograms
Quality K-1
education Gates Education program, ederal, state and local governments
Out-o-schoolactivities Gates Community Grants, private unders, business, parents, state and local jurisdictions
High-risk
behavior programs Gates Community Grants, state and local jurisdictions, private unders
Economic
development State and local governments, business
Health
care State and local governments, business, parents
Gates Foundation investments Investments by others
*SeeAppendixA.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
21/24
APPendIx e
strategY overview
o y cy c :
t d C
ac
p m
ac s ac
Overview Comprehensive network o high-qualityearly learning in two demonstrationcommunities. Includes the creation o
new early learning centers, but with the
primary emphasis on improving existing
early learning care.
Community-based eorts thatinvolve multiple community
partners
Interesting/promising models
that have potential to be replicated
and/or taken to scale
Important initiatives involving multiplepartners that will impact early learning
statewide
Invest in components o early learning
support systems
Promote outreach, education, and
advocacy across the state
Components Within each demonstration community,we will und:
One high-quality early learning center
Improvements to existing licensed
childcare
Home-based programs
Parent/community education
Projects involving multiple
community-level partners in a
coordinated approach to increase
quality early learning
Promote innovative or promising
approaches to early learning
Pilot projects or programreplication
Capacity building
Statewide impact
Multiple unding partners
Strong ability to pool unding
May be managed by an intermediary
Examples argeted high-risk, high-needcommunitiesone in Eastern
Washington and one in Western
Washington
Funding may support:
Community-based approaches
Replication or development o
best practice models
Promising new approaches
Advocacy and community education
raining programs
Higher education programs
Parent education programs
Grants Fund communities over the long term asa major under as well as contribute to
undraising and advocacy. Expect other
public and private co-unders.
Fund partially, but require high level
o local undraising and partner
match. Funding would be provided
or 15 years.
Funding would nearly always involve other
public and private unding.
Rationale Demonstrate the eectiveness o creatinghigh-quality early learning opportunities
or all kids in high-risk communities
on outcomes or school-readiness and
lielong success. Use the knowledge to
inorm and educate with the goal o
bringing these elements to scale or all
kids in Washington and improve
statewide outcomes.
Support innovative approaches to
bringing quality early learning to
children and amilies in diverse
communities across the state.
Expand the knowledge base about
how to bring early learning to scale
across the state.
Invest in large scale, statewide initiatives
that build the support systems and capacity
to ensure that all amilies and children in
the state have access to high-quality early
learning opportunities.
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
22/24
APPendIx
targeted demonstration Communities
o c c c qy y c, c
f. T c f c q c y. C
cc c, , cy.
pc
C a t ? r
Create early
learning hubs
(1 per
community)
Highly trained and appropriately compensated teachers
Proven eective curriculum
Family support programs
Physically appropriate space
Provides technical assistance to existing centers
Serves primarily high-risk children
Blends state and ederal unds
Integrates community support programs
Impact o high-quality care
Improved outcomes or high-risk
children
Improved outcomes or amilies
Impact o blended unding
Focal point or early learning in
community
Demonstration o high quality
Create a state model
o early learning
Mobilize community
around early learning
Improve
existing centers
eacher training connected to compensation training
with appropriate compensation
Improved acilities
Eective curriculum
Mixed income
Impact o modest investments in
early care
Impact o public/private partnerships
Platorm or advocacy strategy
Improve quality or
allchildren within
select communities
Expand home-
based support
programs
Home visits or new births
Promote early literacy and strong attachments at home
Family support programs
Importance o 0
Cost-eectiveness o early intervention
Improved outcomes
Support parents
Reach children where
they are
Expand parent/
community
education
Awareness o childs development
Importance o quality early learning
Positive parenting
Behavior change
Increase demand or quality early
learning
Build public support
Educate parents and
stakeholders
APPendIx g
advoCaCY suCCess FaCtors
w cc c qy y z c
c c.
C
($723m y)
i ($30m
y 10 y)
n C
($220m y)
Strong champions Rob ReinerU.S. Rep. Michael HungtonU.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer
Irving Harris Gov. Jim Hunt
Phil Kirk
Eective organization Caliornia Commission on Children andFamilies, Preschool Caliornia
Ounce o Prevention, Day Care Action
Council, Voices or Children
Smart Start
Public education Yes Yes Yes
Robust private support Yes Yes Yes
Demonstration projects Varies by county Educare Yes
Research and evaluation Yes; beginning to develop county-by-county Some Yes
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
23/24
1 Benson,PeterL.andJ.DavidHawkins.ExecutiveSummary: Successul Young Adult Development. AreportsubmittedtotheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.10December2004.
2 Child Facts: Washingtons Children. 2005.ChildrensAlliance.14April2005..
Greene,Ph.D.,JayP.andMarcusA.Winters.PublicHighSchoolGraduationandCollege-ReadinessRates:19912002.EducationWorkingPaper.No.8.CenterorCivicInnovationattheManhattanInstitute.February2005.
Indicator Website. 2005.NorthwestAreaFoundation.14April2005..
Kids Count. 2005.TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.14April2005..
Minnesota Kids: A Closer Look, 2004 Databook. 2004.ChildrensDeenseFundMinnesota.14April2005..
SchoolMatters. 2005.Standard&Poors,TheMcGraw-HillCompanies,Inc.14April2005..
The State o Washingtons Children: Winter 2003.December2003.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.14April2005..
UnitedStates.SAMHSA.U.S.DepartmentoHealthandHumanServices.State Estimates o Substance Use romthe 20022003 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.11February2005.14April2005..
WashingtonState.DepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.The Economic Costs o Substance Abuse.2March2005.14April2005..
3 Schorr,LisbethB.withDanielSchorr.Within Our Reach:
Breaking the Cycle o Disadvantage. NewYork:Doubleday,1989.
4 Profle o Children and Youth in Washington State.PresentationpreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.May2004.
5 Shonko,JackP.,andDeborahPhillips,eds.FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: The Science o Early ChildhoodDevelopment.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,2000.
6 Pavelchek,Dave.First-Ever Statewide KindergartenTeacher Survey on School Readiness. WashingtonStateUniversitySocialandEconomicSciencesResearchCenter.PresentationorWashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.January2005.
7 Oser,CindyandJulieCohen.Americas Babies: The ZEROTO THREE Policy Center Data Book. ZEROTOTHREE.2003.
8
WashingtonStateDepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.EconomicServicesAdministration.DivisionoChildCareandEarlyLearning.Licensed Child Carein Washington State: 2002. June2004
9 Bruner,Charles,etal.Early Learning Let Out:An Examination o Public Investments in Educationand Development by Child Age. February2004.VoicesorAmericasChildrenandtheChildandFamilyPolicyCenter.14April2005..
10ZEROTOTHREE.BrainWonders: Helping BabiesGrow and Develop. 14April2005.19April2005..
11Mandell,Dorothy,etal.Impact o Substance Use andViolence/Delinquency on Academic Achievement orGroups o Middle and High S chool Students in Washington.14May2002.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.14April
2005..
12A New Framework or Assessing the Benefts o EarlyEducation. September2004.AWorkingPaperbytheCommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..
13Felitti,VincentJ.,etal.RelationshipoChildhoodAbuseandHouseholdDysunctiontoManyotheLeadingCausesoDeathinAdults:TheAdverseChildhoodExperiences(ACE)Study.American Journalo Preventative Medicine (1998)14:245-258.
14Long-Term Consequences o Child Abuse and Neglect.March2004.NationalClearinghouseonChildAbuseandNeglectInormation.19April2005..
15Profle o Children and Youth in Washington State.
PresentationpreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.UniversityoWashingtonHumanServicesPolicyCenter.May2004.
16Porter,Laura.Dataandeedbackonyourpresentation.E-mailtoKenThompson.16February2005.
17Biglan,Anthony,etal.Helping Adolescents at Risk:Prevention o Multiple Problem Behaviors. NewYork:TheGuilordPress,2004.
18Ibid.
19Ramey,Ph.D.,CraigT.TheCriticalNatureoEarlyLearning.InvitedtalktoUnitedWayoAmericaBoardoTrustees.15March2005.
20Bruner,Charles,etal.Early Learning Let Out: AnExamination o Public Investments in Education andDevelopment by Child Age. February2004.VoicesorAmericasChildrenandtheChildandFamilyPolicyCenter.14April2005..
21Heckman,JamesandDimitriyMasterov.The ProductivityArgument or Investing in Young Children.WorkingPaperNo.5.InvestinKidsWorkingGroup.4October2004.CommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..
22Barnett,W.Steven,KirstyBrown,andRimaShore.Policy Brie - The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Shouldthe United States Have Preschool or All?April2004.NationalInstituteorEarlyEducationPolicyBrie,Issue6.14April2005..
23Rolnick,ArtandRobGrunewald.Early ChildhoodDevelopment: Economic Development with a HighPublic Return.March2003.FederalReserveBankoMinneapolis.14April2005..
24
Shonko,JackP.,andDeborahPhillips,eds.FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: The Science o Early ChildhoodDevelopment.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,2000.
25A New Framework or Assessing the Benefts o EarlyEducation. September2004.AWorkingPaperbytheCommitteeorEconomicDevelopment.14April2005..
26Kagan,Ed.D.SharonL.Advancing Child Abuse andNeglect Protective Factors: The Role o the Early Care andEducation Inrastructure. TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.September2003.CenterortheStudyoSocialPolicy.15April2005..
27Barnett,W.Steven,KirstyBrown,andRimaShore.Policy Brie - The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Shouldthe United States Have Preschool or All?April2004.NationalInstituteorEarlyEducationPolicyBrie,Issue
14April2005..28Child Facts: Child Care in Washington. 2005.ChildrensAlliance.14April2005..
29Head Start, Early Head Start and Early Childhood Educationand Assistance Programs in Washington State: State Profle2001-2002. 2002.WashingtonStateDepartmentoSocialandHealthServices.15April2005..
30Accreditation Search Results.NationalAssociationortheEducationoYoungChildren.March2005.11March2005..
Mapping Concentrations o At-Risk Youth in Washington.DataDictionarypreparedortheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation.HumanServicesPolicyCenter.November2004.
Schrager,Laura.FW:Assignment#2205:RequestromValisaSmithotheGatesFoundation:InoonSunnyside.E-mailtoValisaSmith.31March2005.
31Scott,Ph.D.,L.Carol.Leadership Matters: GovernorsPre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2006. April2005.Pre-KNow.5May2005..
32Campbell,F.A.,C.T.Ramey,E.P.Pungello,J.Sparling,andSMiller-Johnson.2002.EarlyChildhoodEducation:YoungAdultOutcomesromtheAbecedarianProject.Applied Developmental Science6:42-57.
Reynolds,ArthurJ. The Chicago Child-Parent Centers: ALongitudinal Study o Extended Early Childhood InterventionInstituteorResearchonPovertyDiscussionPaperno.1126-97.1997.14April2005..
Schweinhart,Ph.D.,LawrenceJ.The High/Scope PerryPreschool Study Through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions,and Frequently Asked Questions. 2005.14April2005..
33Pavelchek,Dave.First-Ever Statewide KindergartenTeacher Survey on School Readiness. WashingtonStateUniversitySocialandEconomicSciencesResearchCenter.PresentationorWashingtonStateOfceoSuperintendentoPublicInstruction.January2005.
endnotes
7/31/2019 Early Learning Strategy
24/24
Bi & mia ga ai
Po B 23350
sa, Wai 98102-0650
usA
v 206.709.3100
Top Related