Shayna Cook, left, assistant state superintendent in the state Department of Education’s Division of Early Childhood, gives a presentation on prekindergarten expansion. Sitting next to Cook is Tara Phillips, executive director of operations, policy and strategy in the early childhood division. Photo by William J. Ford
One of the requirements for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future 10-year education reform plan was to expand prekindergarten, but it’s off to a slow start.
None of the state’s 24 school districts came anywhere close in the past two school years to the Blueprint’s requirement that at least 30% of pre-K students should be in privately run facilities, according to data presented Tuesday to the state Board of Education.
Because no one reached the mark, it was lowered to 10% for this school year, a level that only four counties were able to achieve last year.
The Blueprint plan requires school districts to provide a mixed-delivery system, serving young students in both public and private child care centers. But local school districts said in Blueprint plans that some private providers find it challenging to participate in the state’s prekindergarten expansion due to lack of space, finding qualified personnel and other challenges.
However, state Department of Education officials said Tuesday that the state is actually moving faster on pre-K when compared to other states.
One benchmark is allowing families earning incomes at or below the 300% federal poverty level, said Shayna Cook, assistant state superintendent in the department’s Division of Early Childhood. Cook said other states chose 100% or 200% of the federal poverty level.
And the 31,873 students enrolled in pre-K in the 2022-23 school year — 30,718 public and 1,155 private — grew to nearly 33,000 in the 2023-24 school year, with 31,381 in public and in 1,601 private facilities.
“This growth demonstrates the state’s commitment to expanding access to quality pre-K education and reflects efforts to begin to lay the foundation for the mixed delivery system,” Cook said.
Even with that increase of slightly more than 1,100 more seats added, nine of the state’s 24 jurisdictions had zero private providers to begin the 2022-23 school year.
A Maryland State Department of Education graphic to show number of prekindergarten students enrolled in 2023-24 school year that includes percentage of private providers in the state’s 24 jurisdictions. Screenshot.
Only Howard and Worcester counties were able to record double-digit percentage of private providers that year, with 14% and 13%, respectively. Howard County’s share was unchanged last year, but Worcester County’s percentage of private providers rose to 18% last year.
After being in single digits in the 2022-23 school year, Carroll and Wicomico counties exceeded double figures last school year at 12% and 11%, respectively.
Five counties still had no private providers last school year: Garrett, Kent, St. Mary’s, Somerset and Talbot counties.
Cook said there remains a lack of communication between private providers and local school districts.
One plan is for the department to promote its “Push to Pre-K Initiative,” which provides technical assistance on the prekindergarten expansion program. In addition, providers can also receive grants to help expand their business.
State Superintendent Carey Wright said during a briefing with reporters Tuesday that it’s difficult to “get a business off the ground,” especially in rural counties.
“Reach out to us. We’re here to help,” she said to private pre-K providers. “We can help you as much as we possibly can to get your feet on the ground. That’s the resource that we bring, so use us.”
More time needed
The board deferred action Tuesday on a controversial literacy policy that could result in third-graders being held back if they do not meet reading standards.
One reason for the delay was the presence of three new board members participating in their first meeting – Kenny Clash, Kimberly Lewis and Xiomara V. Medina. A decision on the policy will how be pushed back for at least another month.
“We decided that it was better for us to take more time to consider this policy, to give our new members an opportunity to get up to speed [and] take into account the best feedback we’ve received from stakeholders that’s guiding our additional development,” said board President Joshua Michael.
Xiomara V. Medina listens to opening remarks from Board President Joshua Michael at her first board meeting Sept. 24. Photo by William J. Ford.
The board last month considered a revision to the policy that would let parents and guardians allow their children to advance to the fourth grade, but they would have to agree that their children enroll and participate in a supplemental reading support program.
But reading intervention and other literacy programs would start in kindergarten for students who need additional support.
A few minor changes that could be made include an emphasis on local school district control with guidance from the department and to ensure support for all students in kindergarten through third grade.
“What was initially in the media as a retention policy is not a retention policy. It is really a parent-choice policy,” Wright said Tuesday. “It is not a finger-pointing exercise. It’s the ability for us to see what schools need the most help.”
Medina, an associate director of clinical training and field placement at Bowie State University’s Department of Counseling and Psychological Studies, said she would like the policy to reflect more cultural awareness.
“This whole thing has reduced our children to numbers. There’s not a single cultural consideration you’ve told me,” she said after state officials completed a brief summary of the policy. “I’m missing people in all of this.”
If approved, the policy wouldn’t be implemented until next school year. However, the retention portions wouldn’t begin until the 2026-27 school year.
Nikki Woodward, vice president of the Maryland State Education Association, said the union recommends delaying implementation of the entire policy until the start of the 2028-29 school year.
“This timeline allows for adequate training of educators and families on new curriculum and requirements,” she said to the board. “It also ensures enough time for data collection and tracking the success of interventions.”