¿ì»îapp¹ÙÍø

Despite the threat of funding cuts and layoffs in Federal agencies that impact early childhood education programs, the tone at the New Practice Lab’s in-person convening of the Early Care and Education Implementation Group, representing 10 communities across the country last month, was decidedly resolute. These leaders come from red, blue, and purple states, and their programs serve different populations. Across this diverse group, as unlikely as it may seem, local leaders are invigorated and ready to meet the challenge of the moment—and drive the national agenda in a way that supports children, family and educators.

Here, we discuss the top 10 takeaways from the meet-up:

The original thesis of this working group is holding: sharing practical, nitty-gritty lessons across geographies facilitates the implementation of publicly-funded early childhood programs—and it’s working. During the convening, we heard about how an email to providers in Denver, Colorado inspired a similar communication to San Antonio, Texas just days later. Procurement design details from Multnomah County, Oregon migrated to Alameda, California. We even traded some hot procurement takes. Even when our attention is diverted by federal level shakeups our wonky, in-the-weeds conversations about local delivery are what brings us to the table again and again.

[Craving in-the-weeds content? We have shared lessons from this group about building centralized enrollment systems, designing family outreach programs to boost program participation, partnering with institutes of higher education on workforce development, and more. All publications about the working group can be found here.]

Local leaders are stepping up where national leaders have stalled, too often getting caught up in the many “but what about…?” conversations that stymie progress towards . ? But what about home-based providers? But what about prioritizing high-needs communities first? All great questions, but for each there are at least a half-dozen examples of local early childhood programs that have addressed that very challenge. While having the answers to some of these complex questions is a great ego boost on some level, it also feels deeply frustrating: why not just invite local leaders to the table?

While federal progress towards public preK feels remote, this is not a season of inaction. This is a time to deepen relationships across localities so we can share lessons and build power, and to forge connections at all levels of government so we can be ready for the next window of opportunity. We heard about prior windows of opportunity where the relationships just weren’t in place for federal policymakers to easily tap local leaders for ideas. To make sure that doesn’t happen the next time around, we need to make noise to elevate the innovative models already happening at the local and state level. When we see devastating impacts from policy choices, let’s make sure those are widely heard and understood to demonstrate why and how we can do better. (Since the working group met, new federal actions have been taken—including that administer federal Child Care and Head Start funds. As the impact of shifts like this become more clear, it will only heighten the need for local leaders to communicate about impacts on the ground.)

Before we build large-scale early care and education systems, we need to build relationships, not only with educators, providers, and families, but also allies, and even more alternative potential partners. These coalitions are critical to support public investments in early education. We heard powerful examples of how programs have enlisted business leaders, labor, and philanthropy, for example. We can build strong multi-sectoral coalitions authentically by bringing leaders to see the work on the ground, and showing them the program and impact data that will align with their priorities. At the national level, familiarizing legislators and regulators with local early childhood initiatives will help advance the most feasible, promising solutions going forward. All the while, the relationships we build across communities continue to benefit our respective implementation work and create strength in numbers.

[In a prior brief, we looked at different approaches that communities have taken to meaningfully include community members in their planning work.]

Early childhood is often pitted against other very real issues like housing and K-12 education. Several people shared stories of being asked by legislators, “well if you want this, what would you cut instead?” Abundance is a bit of a buzzword these days, but we can lean into our own abundance agenda, making the case that early childhood education investments should not be traded off with housing or food support or education by positioning early childhood education a public good, and an economic necessity. This may feel like an empty platitude, especially when some states are considering budget cuts to early care and education in light of broader fiscal challenges, and federal funding uncertainty looms large. Still, there may be tactics to push back on the idea that early care and education can be cut without consequence. Some leaders shared that they banded together with other groups to push for more coherent cross-issue messaging, rather than allowing a dynamic where public services are pitted against each other.

Within the early education community, infighting is rampant. We get lost in the details  — even something as seemingly superficial as ! We need to focus on the broader headwinds working against us here. Fighting with ourselves makes it easier for policymakers to dismiss the sector and argue that “we don’t know what want.” We get lost in circular discussions about whether universal pre-K—arguably a very good policy!—is because it inadvertently erodes child care providers’ profit margins. The real question we should be asking is: why should we have to worry about profit margins in early childhood at all when this should be a public good? The marketization of early education is a much better target to go after than each other.

As the people who run publicly-funded early childhood programs, we know what it takes and we know what the gaps are. We should be driving the agenda in coalition conversations and serving as the standard-bearers. Others will step into the breach if we don’t (like ) and the public conversation won’t include our priorities.

It’s important to recognize what will land with a specific audience when making the case for public investment in early childhood education. Some decision-makers will be swayed by a classroom visit and an honest conversation with an educator; others will be swayed by a . Empowering educators and parents to tell their own stories is critical—and it takes real resources (like training, materials, and stipends where possible) to do it well.

This group knows it well: for every big, public commitment to children, families, and educators, there are tireless administrators and public servants working to realize the goal. It’s not a role that necessarily comes with glory and compliments; invariably, just about everyone in this working group has been yelled at during a public meeting. There have been lawsuits, public audits, and contentious stakeholder meetings. For many members, this group has served as a powerful peer community—a place where others have faced off against the same challenges. For some, particularly those employed by public agencies, the opportunities for respite are limited and burnout is high. In our continued work, we want to pay particular attention to how we can continue to serve as a support network—most proximately to each other, and then more broadly to others doing this work.

We can and will be relentless: until we have a system that guarantees high-quality early learning to all children, we have more work to do. Other policy and advocacy communities, like those focused on climate and the green economy, have found ways to weave their issue into every conversation. At every level of government, in every sector, all leaders have good reason to care about early childhood education.

The ECE Implementation Working Group is a group of early childhood education leaders from cities and counties across the country. These leaders gather to share best practices from their experience working with families and local communities, and their work aligns with the New Practice Lab’s theory of change: that implementation lessons should inform policy design from the start. More information about the Working Group can be found here. You can reach out to us with questions about the group and its work at npl_work@newamerica.org.