	Background

The growth in state prekindergarten programs has occurred for various  reasons, but three frequently cited reasons are (1) evidence of the  importance of early childhood to later development, (2) the high rate of  labor force participation by mothers of young children, and (3) increased  concern over school readiness and subsequent achievement. NIEER estimated that about 80 percent of  children served by state prekindergarten programs were four-year-olds. Selected States Designed Expanded Prekindergarten Programs to Enroll Children Voluntarily at No Direct Cost to Parents, but Differed in Geographic Breadth and Other Key Features

In the four states visited—Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and  Oklahoma—we found some similarities in prekindergarten programs. All four states’ prekindergarten programs were provided at no direct cost  to parents—regardless of family income—and were offered on a voluntary  basis; children’s enrollment was not mandatory. In addition, each program  emphasized preparation for school and incorporated the delivery of  prekindergarten services by community-based organizations as well as  schools. The states also varied in their requirements for lead teachers, and two of  the five state programs (New Jersey’s Abbott and Oklahoma) required  teachers to be certified in early childhood education. In Oklahoma, local school  districts received about $1,743 per child (54 percent of the full-day rate),  and over half of the four-year-olds participating in the state’s  prekindergarten program were enrolled in half-day programs during the  2002-03 school year. Some Program Features Had Potential Implications for Children’s Participation and Other Early Childhood Programs

Some prekindergarten design features had implications for children’s  participation and early childhood programs in the four states we visited. Transportation and Program Hours May Have Implications for Participation

Program features, which varied across states and school districts, may  have affected participation, particularly for children of low-income and  working families. None of the four states required prekindergarten  providers to transport all participating children. Officials from one Oklahoma school district told us that the combination  of a half-day program coupled with the lack of transportation to and from  the prekindergarten program reduced the participation of children from  low-income and working families. Some providers who collaborated with the state  prekindergarten programs in Georgia, New Jersey, and New York told us  that they expanded their centers to serve more children of all ages—as  some parents enrolled the younger siblings of their prekindergarten  children in the same child care center. For example, in Georgia and New York, some Head Start  grantees who provided prekindergarten services stated they were better  able to serve children by leveraging state prekindergarten and Head Start  funds. Few Data Available to Determine the Impact of State Prekindergarten Programs on Availability and Prices of Child Care

While some community-based providers were initially apprehensive about  the potential impact of the widespread availability of states’  prekindergarten programs on the market for child care, we found few data  to support this concern. For  example, perhaps the number of providers would have increased even  more had prekindergarten programs not been expanded. Some Data Have Been Collected on Outcomes for Participating Children

Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, but  little is known about outcomes for their families. One study focused on the Tulsa School District  and found that children who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten  program had significantly higher scores on several school readiness  measures than children who did not participate in the program. Given that states have limited resources, an opportunity exists  to engage community-based providers such as Head Start grantees and  other early education and care providers in the coordinated delivery of  additional prekindergarten services.
Why GAO Did This Study

For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in providing early childhood development programs for children of low-income families through Head Start and other programs. Since 1980, the number of states with preschool programs has also significantly increased. While most of these programs have targeted children at risk of school failure, more recently, interest has grown in expanding these limited programs because of the growing concern about children's readiness for school and subsequent achievement. It has also been fueled by new research on early brain development that suggests the importance of early education and by the high rate of mothers in the workforce and their need for early childhood services. In this context, questions have arisen about how the various programs are coordinated and what lessons have been learned from broad-based state preschool efforts. This work focused on four states that have expanded their preschool programs to serve more children. In these states, GAO addressed (1) how prekindergarten programs were designed and funded, (2) the potential implications of these program features for children's participation and other programs that serve four year-olds, and (3) the outcome data that have been collected on participating children and families. To gather this information, GAO conducted site visits in four states--Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.

What GAO Found

The expanded prekindergarten programs in Georgia, Oklahoma, New York, and New Jersey had some similarities in their design features. For instance, programs were offered at no direct cost to parents, regardless of family income, and each state incorporated some level of collaboration with community-based providers such as Head Start and large child care facilities. Some key differences in their design features also existed. For example, Georgia and Oklahoma had statewide programs providing prekindergarten services to over half of their four-year olds, while New York's and New Jersey's programs were more geographically targeted. States and school districts also varied in offering full- or half-day prekindergarten programs. States also varied in teacher qualifications, the percentage of prekindergarten children served by community-based providers, funding methods, and in the amount of funding per child. Some program features had potential implications for the participation of children and for early childhood programs. For example, none of the four states required providers to transport all children to and from prekindergarten, and many children were enrolled in half-day programs, which officials believed might have limited the participation of children from low-income and working families. Collaborations between programs and community-based organizations generally permitted rapid program expansion and were viewed as beneficial to early childhood programs. Finally, we found few data to determine the impact of state prekindergarten expansion on the availability or prices of child care. While some data were available on outcomes for children who participated in prekindergarten programs, less was known about their impacts on families. For example, a study in Oklahoma showed that children who participated made significant gains on several school readiness measures relative to a comparison group of unenrolled children. However, none of the four states had measured effects on families, such as parents' work effort.