Appendix III: Recommendations to Fund Quallity Pre-K Programs Effectively and Efficiently in Health Envrionments

Recommendations To Fund Quality Pre-K Programs Effectively And Efficiently In Healthy Environments

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented stress on New Jersey’s fiscal health. It has also exposed numerous problems with the State’s infrastructure.  Most especially parents have been left in a horrible situation, whether they are working from home with young children or back at work with children learning virtually or on a hybrid schedule. Short-term remedies have expanded NJ Department of Children and Families (NJDCF) licensed childcare to school-aged students and increased monetary assistance to both families and providers to meet the costs associated with this extended and expanded care. The question is: What do state leaders need to do in the long-term? It is our hope that this document will get this conversation started to a viable solution which will address environmental/health/safety standards as well as utilizing taxpayer dollars more effectively and efficiently.

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY OVERVIEW:

Many of New Jersey’s public-school buildings are not structurally sound or equipped to safely serve children under the age of six. Public school buildings do not adhere to the necessary EPA standards required by ALL private licensed childcare centers for licensure. The fact that public school buildings are explicitly exempt from current NJ state law endangers all young children attending child care and preschool. As the State has learned through their efforts to safely re-open schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, our aging public school infrastructure contributes to the spread of COVID-19 as well as other airborne diseases. The average age of a public-school building in NJ is 68 years. Many buildings have antiquated ventilation systems impacting air flow. Many are not air-conditioned. Many schools still have lead particles on surfaces and in water. Most were built with banned materials which include PCBs, asbestos, lead and other toxins. Young children absorb toxins at more than twice the rate as children over 6 years old. Young children also have hand to mouth exploratory behavior and their living zone is close to the ground where the highest concentration of toxins exists. These toxins cause permanent neurological damage.  These environments are clearly not safe for our young children.

1. Environmental Safety:

New Jersey Department of Children and Families environmental regulations are among the most stringent in the country.This is due to NJ’s Madden Law (P.L. 2007, c.1),which requires DCF licensed childcare centers that are not in public school buildings to test air, soil and surfaces of the interior, exterior and all property and contiguous structures to their location. (for example, no license is approved near a nail salon, funeral home, dry cleaner etc.)  A no further action letter must be submitted from the EPA before any operation commences. Private licensed childcare centers must continually test EPA standards.  Any remediation needed most be done immediately to retain their license-even if this is from traces of lead present in their toilet water. This is for good reason. Developmental delays caused by these toxins are most often permanent when absorbed by children under 6 years of age. Public schools were granted an exemption from the requirements of the Madden law because it is too costly to fix all the environmental concerns in our antiquated public-school buildings. As such, clearly, children under age six do not belong in an environment where they can be exposed to such harmful contaminants and where the health of the child is not the number one priority.

2. Physical Safety:

Historically we have always prepared our schools for disasters; bomb raids, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes etc.  In the past decade we have also added active shooter training and structural safety measures to our facilities, like bullet proof locked vestibules. Visitors and parents have limited if any access inside buildings.  Our administrators, teachers and K-12 children have been educated on all of these protocols and procedures.  However, these are not the same protocols for pre-school age and younger children.  Even if they are walking they are dramatically less mobile.  They do not understand, much less follow direction the same way.  They require specialized equipment for evacuation and they need to be housed with ramps closest to an exit.  All of this would most likely cause substantial restructuring of current public school facilities because they are not designed for this age group.  Likewise, safety measures did not contemplate this younger population.  Pre-school and/or childcare age children in these facilities pose a serious breach to security of K-12 students. Children under 6 years of age are not self sufficient or have the ability to articulate their needs.  Therefore, parents are not just casual visitors. Parent interaction with staff members is a required necessity at a minimum twice a day at drop-off and pick-up.  This introduces a very large additional population into our secured entrances throughout the day.  Our current public school safety protocols would be in jeopardy every day. 

3. Health Safety:

Clearly, COVID-19 is an easily transmitted airborne illness. The CDC states that transmission increases when individuals are indoors. In August, Governor Murphy said that inadequate ventilation could prevent a school from opening in person and is one of the more complicated issues to address. While indoor air quality standards for schools are not new, COVID-19 has forced school districts to designate a person to be responsible for indoor air quality, as well as insuring that there is a written plan.  Private licensed child care centers already address this issue in their OOL requirements and with substantially higher standards. Although school districts may have “maintained” their aging ventilation systems through the years, they have never been asked to certify that their systems are working to manufacturer's requirements or recommendations, as do private centers.  Childcare centers undergo meticulous inspections on a regular basis to ensure that all systems are working to the highest levels and protecting our state’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.  For more information: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/index.html)

ECONOMIC OVERVIEW:

According to data sourced from the NJDOE’s Division of Early Childhood Education and presented by the Education Law Center’s NJ State-Funded Preschool Program tool, in 2019-2020 only 54% of 3 & 4 year olds in NJ eligible for state funded full-day preschool participate.  The enrollment cost is $692,241.537.

Disturbing is the fact that these numbers do not address the children who are not counted in these calculations simply because they do not live in an “eligible” district. 

If all eligible children participated we would actually need $1.2 billion.  Even if enrollment goals were similar to Abbott funding at 83% it would still require $1 billion.  However, if UPK actually encompassed all 3 & 4 year olds, as contemplated in our expansion efforts, it would ultimately cost the state over $2.6 billion every year. The 2020 budget for preschool is $874 million and that also designates money for preschool expansion beyond our requirements. 

Our belief is that ALL eligible children can be served if State lawmakers are willing to revise the current method of funding UPK. To do this, the State needs to focus on the children most in need regardless of where they reside and stop focusing on a school district’s capacity to serve preschoolers in public school buildings. An eligible preschooler is one that is part of a family unit where the gross monthly income is 130% below the poverty level.

How can the State fund pre-K more effectively and efficiently while ensuring children in need receive services first, regardless of where they reside?

There should be one funding stream for preschoolers eligible for UPK and it should flow from the State Treasury to the impacted students, not school district/buildings universally. The most fiscally prudent way to do this is through the DCF county-based Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&R’s). The CCR&R’s act as a conduit connecting state/federal funding to the eligible child in need of preschool programming and services. For decades, the CCR&R’s have been used as a vehicle for administering funding that flows through the DHS/DFD to entities providing community-based preschool programs and services. There is no reason the same funding mechanism cannot be used for UPK funding.

There are so many good reasons forsupporting this model.

1. All children in need regardless of where they live will receive services.
2. Provide much needed reliable revenue streams for child care providers.
3. Families will get to choose from a list of safe, licensed, high-quality childcare/preschool programs within the community.
4. Programs will be spread throughout the State, allowing parents to select the most convenient location for the parents/guardians/caregivers whether it is close to work or close to home.
5. Programs will operate on a schedule that is more conducive to a traditional work day and calendar year.
6. Community-based preschool programs pump money into the economy through the use of commercial leased space, the purchasing of goods and services, etc. ($4.1 billion to our economy)
7. Most community based licensed preschool programs pay taxes. ($400mm+) public schools does not.
8. Community care providers in the private sector already provide the required care and education under state DCF regulations (and have for decades), at a reduced cost to taxpayers.

Not only would this systemallow for children of needy families to receive universal pre-K, it also gives their families a choice of providers, more days of care, with extended day care, and on the days when public schools are closed. Parents would have the freedom to tour various DCF-licensed childcare centers and then make their enrollment decision based on their family’s specific needs-including centers closer to their jobs. For families already utilizing a licensed childcare center for infant and toddler care, this model encourages continuity of care in an environment where the child and family are already comfortable and have well-established relationships with the teachers, staff, and care providers

This shift would substantially move the state closer to its goal of universal pre-K by allowing families who can afford early childhood education to continue to pay for it as they normally would, while reserving state fundsto provide services solely for those who cannot, through pre-existing relationships between CCR&Rs and DCF-licensed childcare centers. At a time when every taxpayer dollar is crucial, this is the only solution that is fair, logical, and fiscally responsible.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought childcare into the forefront of almost every decision and conversation for families and politicians alike. Protecting the essential childcare industry is more important now than ever. By implementing this new way of funding lawmakers can support working families in three ways:

(1) Provide Universal Pre-K to families who cannot afford it

(2) Ensure a viable childcare industry to serve families for years to come

(3) Recover and grow our economy and workforce

This paper was developed by the Early Childhood Education Advocates (ECEA) and the New Jersey Child Care Association (NJCCA).  Questions can be directed to ECEA President Guy Falzarano at 732-261-0507 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.