That’s the question facing state officials and early childhood advocates this summer.

Having just missed getting a Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant in 2011, Wisconsin is now one of five states invited to apply for up to $22.7 million, half of the amount the state applied for in 2012. In the 1st round, the nine states with the highest review scores were awarded money in a competitive process. The funds are intended to help states build an early learning and development system.

For a while, it looked like the 2012 Race to the Top funds would go only to school districts across the country focused primarily on K-12 improvement. But, hurray! Following a nationwide advocacy push (with significant efforts from Wisconsin), federal officials decided that the next five highest ranked states could apply for a 2nd round of early challenge grants, but for half the funding that states applied for in 2012. Not the whole enchilada, but $22.7 million for early learning and development for Wisconsin is nothing to sneeze at!!

The draft proposed requirements for Round Two were announced June 15. The draft has a strong emphasis on Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS), making it a mandatory requirement. States have flexibility to choose at least two other areas to focus on. The final requirements are expected in September, and awards to states by the end of the year.

Applicants are not allowed to propose new activities, but can adjust the scope of services and budget from their 2011 application. It appears that phase two is not competitive; in other words, if states provide reasonable adjustments to their original application, they should get funded. So the key issues for Wisconsin are: what stays in and what gets dropped from the initial proposal, and what are the state’s top priorities (within the framework of the application requirements)?

Because the 2012 application must be based on new draft requirements, I am organizing my analysis in two parts:

• Requirements: Improving and Expanding Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
• Optional Activities: including quality standards and assessments, family engagement, workforce development, kindergarten entry assessments, data systems, public-private partnerships

Under the draft requirements, the state must meet all five elements of the section on tiered quality rating and improvement systems, including a section on including all early learning and development programs in the TQRIS system.

Here is my summary of some of the key QRIS elements of Wisconsin’s 2011 proposal in the five required areas:

1. Improve standards in YoungStar: learning environments, child assessments, and family engagement; improve training and TA related to high need populations (particularly children with developmental delays and special health needs).
2. Increase participation in YoungStar: public preschool, Head Start and Early Head Start, and child care programs receiving WI Shares.
3. Improve YoungStar Rating Process: increase rating and monitoring capability and parent outreach strategies.
4. Include more high-need children in high-quality programs: (a) expand training and TA in model early learning standards and Pyramid Model, serving dual language learners, family engagement; (b) develop communities of practice for technical consultants; and (c) provide incentives to help programs serving high-needs children to improve, including additional funding for T.E.A.C.H. scholarships, bonuses to help programs move up the quality scale, and underwriting Registry fees.
5. Strengthen YoungStar evaluation: add to UW evaluation plan: validation of accreditation using independent ratings, oversampling infant/toddler classrooms, and adding a parent survey.

Of these five priorities, the costs were highest for 1 and 4 above. Wisconsin will have to decide to what extent it will reduce the QRIS original plan.

In addition, under a separate competitive priority, the state 2011 application proposed efforts to expand YoungStar to 90% of regulated child care, 100% of Head Start/Early Head Start, and 60% of community-based 4K, with a plan to explore an alternative pathway for 4K YoungStar accreditation.

The draft requirements give states the options to decide what activities and how many to include in their 2012 plan, but they must select activities from two or more of three sections (C,D & F) and a competitive priority. Here are key areas Wisconsin included in its 2011 application.

Section C: Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children

C1: Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards (WMELS): revise standards and expand training, coaching & mentoring

C4: Family Engagement: Establish appropriate standards for family engagement, train staff and administrators, and evaluate parent engagement

Section D: A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce

D1: Align educators’ preparation program to Common Core Standards and literacy recommendations

D2: Increase Postsecondary and Professional Development Opportunities; target geographical areas, increase participation in Registry

Section E: Measuring Outcomes and Progress

E1: Kindergarten Entry Assessment for publicly funded kindergarten students

E2: Develop an Early Childhood Longitudinal Data System

Competitive Priority: Develop public private partnership to support early childhood educational opportunities

Because cost is a key factor in the decisions the state makes, here are ballpark cost estimates based on the 2011 proposal (the funding is spread over 4 years).

Highest cost:

$14 million Early Childhood Longitudinal Data System
$9.3 million Including more high need children in high-quality programs under YoungStar
$6.2 million Kindergarten Entry Assessments
$5.2 million Family engagement and support
$4.3 million Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards: improvement and training
$4 million Improve standards in YoungStar
$2 million Improve YoungStar rating process
$1.3 million Increase postsecondary and professional development opportunities


Less than a million:

$800,000 YoungStar: strengthen evaluation
$645,000 Align educators preparatory program
$300,000 Public-private partnership
$230,000 YoungStar: increase participation

So the challenge for the state is to determine the strongest priorities from the initial proposal, which efforts are most likely to be successful and sustainable, what can be accomplished with the available funds, and if there is a logical sequence as components of Wisconsin’s early learning and development system are being built. Should the state focus on a few priorities and do them thoroughly, or try to strengthen several initiatives that are emerging? What process should state staff use in developing the proposal? What role should stakeholders outside of state government play?

Dave Edie

Faithful Readers: Do you have ideas on these issues?

Contact: dedie@wccf.org