Pre-K Data in Practice: Unpacking the Complexities of State-Level Data Use

If one were to survey someone working in a state early childhood agency about their state’s pre-K programming, they might get a complicated, long-winded response that describes how one group of children is being served by the state pre-K program, how another group is being served by community-based organizations, how another is being served by Head Start, and so forth. There may be separate datasets that hold information at different child-, provider-, or program-levels. And, the response might also depend on the state agency one asks.

For example, in Massachusetts, the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) collects provider- and program-level data for licensed early learning programs and child-level data only for children receiving subsidies. Meanwhile, data on children enrolled in pre-K classrooms in public school settings are housed separately within the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the EEC launched a voluntary statewide grant using federal child care stabilization grant funds, they were able to gather child-level data from participating licensed early learning programs for the first time for all children, regardless of whether they receive subsidies.

How statewide pre-K is implemented—the policy context in which it happens and the funding available for not only services but also administrative capacity—impacts the subsequent design of data systems and processes that collect information to administer these programs. Decisions made along the way, such as how and whether it considers a mixed-delivery system of pre-K, also impact the information state agencies collect about how pre-K across different settings is working for children, families, and the workforce.

Jocelyn Bowne, Deputy Commissioner for Workforce, Program Support and Innovation in the Massachusetts EEC, describes how the lack of consistent or comprehensive data means their state agency gets “different pictures of different pieces” of the whole statewide pre-K landscape. Adrienne Murphy, Director of Data Analytics for the Massachusetts EEC, adds how limited available data means there is a greater potential for cases of duplication across the different types of data collected and greater room for assumptions instead of facts-based conclusions.

This problem isn’t unique to Massachusetts, though. All state early childhood departments need data to inform state strategy, policy, and program implementation. Depending on the funding source, early childhood departments might be required to collect certain data points to illustrate progress and outcomes and demonstrate the need for additional investments and resources.

In addition to understanding the overall capacity of the pre-K system, they need to know whether programs are delivering a high-quality pre-K experience, program operations costs, enrollment and teacher turnover patterns, and the impact on kindergarten readiness.

That’s why it’s important to have comprehensive data systems that facilitate information gathering across all types of pre-K programs. When universal pre-K was being built in West Virginia, describes Janet Bock-Hager, Coordinator of West Virginia’s Department of Education Early & Elementary Learning Services, the policy included language requiring collaboration with existing community programs such as early learning centers and Head Start agencies. As a result, when they built their online Early Learning Reporting System, the single data system for pre-K through second grade, they were able to gather child- and program-level data across different types of pre-K settings.

In 2019, Massachusetts launched the Commonwealth Preschool Partnership Initiative (CPPI) to expand pre-K through partnerships between the local public school districts and licensed early learning programs. This initiative also meant the EEC gained access to information on all children enrolled in a CPPI classroom, including pre-K classrooms in public school settings.

Even then, there are other data challenges that staff in state agencies face. Data gathered from new initiatives, like CPPI, may be stored in a separate system. It takes time and resources to build a longitudinal data system that integrates information across multiple agencies, settings, and grant programs.

In thinking about what data about pre-K would be helpful to have aggregated at the state level, agency staff need to balance what is required of all counties or districts while acknowledging the ways in which communities differ. They need to offer flexibility in support of counties or districts to make their own decisions about pre-K programming, such as choosing the right classroom assessment tool, based on what they know about the local needs of children and families – even if it means losing out on aggregated data at the state level.

Pre-K data use at the state level is a powerful tool. Data influence where future investments go, strengthen advocacy efforts, and impact a large population of children, families, and the workforce. It can build an understanding of the how and why of pre-K for policymakers and administrators who don’t work in classrooms so that they can better support those who do.

Enjoy what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on what’s new in Education Policy!