Overview

Massachusetts's preschool program, Community Partnerships for Children (CPC), was established in 1993 to provide children of working families with subsidies for accessible, affordable, and high quality early care and education programs in public school and community childcare settings.  Parent co-payments are assessed based on a state sliding scale. Community councils work collaboratively with local programs to develop a local system of early care and education.  In recent years, state budget cuts have resulted in reductions in the services provided by CPC councils. In 2001-2002, Massachusetts served 12% of its four-year-olds in the CPC program; by 2004-2005, only 8% of four-year-olds were served. Enrollment increased to 10% in 2005-2006, although state funding did not increase.

In August 2006, Governor Romney vetoed a bill which would have established a voluntary, universally accessible high-quality pre-k program for all 3- and 4-year-olds in Massachusetts, although he approved an appropriation of $4.6 million in the FY 2007 budget to establish universal pre-k pilot projects. Governor Patrick increased UPK Pilot funding to $7.1 million for FY 2008.

The Massachusetts Head Start state supplement program provides funding for grants to support program quality and increase access for children and families in Head Start programs. State Head Start funding has steadily increased from $6.14 million in FY 2005 to $9 million in FY2008.

In July 2004, Massachusetts established a new state Department of Early Education and Care. The department consolidated early care and education services from other state agencies and oversees all public and private early education and care programs and services.

State Policy

The Office of School Readiness works in conjunction with the Office for Child Care Services (OCCS) to develop a statewide system of early childhood programs that promote school readiness, early literacy and academic success for all Massachusetts children entering primary education.  State policy encourages the department of education to "seek to increase the availability of early care and education services."  A state advisory council is required to conduct a comprehensive study of the state's early care and education needs and report its findings every other year.  Newly enacted legislation establishing the Department of Early Education and Care seeks to phase in the provision of a high-quality early childhood education program for every preschool age child.

Eligibility Criteria 

CPC preschool is available to three- and four-year-old children of working parents, with priority given to families with incomes below the Statewide Median Income (SMI).  State laws and EEC policies and regulations have effectively created two categories of CPC eligible children:

• Families with an incapacitated parent or a child with special needs may enroll if their family income is no greater than 85% of the SMI. They become ineligible if their family income increases to 100% of the SMI.

"Special needs" include physical or mental disabilities, developmental delays, learning disabilities, or sensory or communication impairment. "Parental incapacity" includes depression, substance abuse, disability, mental illness, chronic illness, or the need to provide full-time care to another child with special needs.

• Children of working parents—or parents participating in a job training or job search program, going to school, or meeting other criteria— may enroll if their family income is no greater than 50% of the SMI, but they become ineligible if their family income increases to 85% of the SMI.

Priority for enrollment is given to children in foster care (or in the custody of a grandparent or other guardian), homeless children, children of military personnel, children of teenage parents, and children with special needs (or whose parents have special needs).

Children in foster care, or in the custody of a grandparent or other guardian, are exempt from family income requirements.

UPK Pilot Program grants are available to pre-k programs serving children ages 2 years 9 months to 5. Preference is given to programs in communities with underperforming schools and programs serving 50% or more children with family incomes below 85% of the SMI.

Program Length/Duration

Massachusetts provides programs of varying lengths to serve parents with different work schedules, but requires that no less than one-third of the slots funded will provide a full-day, full-year program. UPK Pilot Program grants are also intended to help programs create flexible schedules to accommodate various parental work schedules, especially by providing wrap-around services.

Funding

The Massachusetts Department of Education distributes grant funds to a lead public or private early education agency within each town. This lead agency, in turn, distributes funds to local public and private programs to provide preschool services in accordance with a plan developed by the area CPC council. Parents are required to pay a fee for the CPC program based on a sliding scale, although there are exceptions to the fee requirement for some families under particular circumstances. 

Quality Standards

The Massachusetts Department of Education publishes three guidance documents that include program standards for early childhood programs.  All programs receiving CPC funding are required to comply with these standards and seek accreditation from the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs.  Boards of education may establish, in collaboration with specified organizations, standards and licensing procedures for pre-kindergarten programs that exceed the state standards. 

In a national survey of quality standards, the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) gave Massachusetts a rating of 6 out of 10, finding its curriculum standards to be comprehensive, its maximum class size of 20 and staff-child ratio  of 1:10 to be adequate, but its teacher degree requirements  to be insufficient.  Only teachers hired in a public school preschool program are required to have a bachelor's degree and P-2 certification; teachers in a community preschool program are allowed to meet Office of Childcare Services standards. There is no degree requirement for assistant teachers.

Massachusetts meets NIEER’s benchmarks for vision, hearing, and health screening and referral; support services; and site visits for monitoring purposes. The state does not meet NIEER’s benchmark of at least one meal a day for preschoolers, since programs operating less than four hours a day are only required to provide a snack.

Pre-K programs receiving UPK Pilot Program grants also must follow the state guidance documents, must be accredited, and must implement an age-appropriate curriculum. These programs must maintain a maximum class size of 20 and staff-child ratio of 1:10.

Each town has a Community Partnership Council that selects a lead agency to provide services and develop a proposal to be submitted to the Department of Education.  The lead agency may subcontract with other public and private agencies to provide services.  The councils are encouraged to develop collaborative programs, which coordinate services from various providers and combine a number of funding sources. Providers may include Head Start, public school programs, private preschools, child care centers, independent family child care programs, or family child care systems who meet CPC provider quality criteria. UPK Pilot Program grants may also be used for programs offered by any of these providers.

Requirements for Student Assessment and Program Evaluation

Massachusetts's Guide to Community Partnerships for Children recognizes the importance of measuring and documenting young children's educational progress through developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate assessment tools and provides guidelines for selecting such tools for young children.  The Guide also provides guidelines for program evaluation.  Each year, the state undertakes a comprehensive review and site visit of randomly selected CPC sites. UPK Pilot Program grantees must also utilize an approved assessment tool to evaluate program participants.

The recently established Board of Early Education and Care has been charged with developing (1) a kindergarten readiness assessment for preschool children and (2) a comprehensive evaluation of early education and care programs.

Legal Framework

Education Clause in State Constitution

The education clause in Massachusetts's state constitution provides that "it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish ... the public schools and grammar schools in the towns ... ."

Summary of Case Law on School Finance System

In Hancock v. Driscoll (2005), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts upheld the Commonwealth’s school funding system and overturned the finding of a specially appointed trial court that the Commonwealth was failing to meet its duty to provide all Massachusetts children with a constitutionally adequate education. The SJC based its finding of constitutional compliance on "comprehensive and systematic overhaul of State financial aid to and oversight of public schools" undertaken by the Commonwealth in response to the 1993 decision in McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Educ. (1993). In McDuffy, the SJC held that the Commonwealth has a constitutional duty "to provide an education for all its children, rich and poor, in every city and town of the Commonwealth at the public school level" and that it had fallen short of this constitutional mandate due to the disproportionate allocation of state funds resulting in a lower quality of education in poorer districts. The McDuffy decision resulted in the enactment of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. Twelve years later in the Hancock decision, the SJC found that the Act had "profoundly altered" the Commonwealth’s role in education through standardized statewide criteria for funding that increased the state’s mandatory assistance to public schools, and by establishing uniform, objective performance and accountability measures for every public school student, teacher, administrator and school in the state. While upholding the school funding system, the SJC recognized that "serious inadequacies in public education remain," and cautioned that the Commonwealth is still open to legal challenge under the education clause if it does not continue on a course of improvement.

The McDuffy Court appeared to adopt the adequacy standard articulated by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., by holding that "an educated child must possess" the seven capabilities outlined by court in Rose. However, in Hancock, the SJC retreated from this ruling and stated that McDuffy "recognized that an ‘educated child’ possesses these ‘capabilities’, [citations omitted] but did not mandate any particular program of public education."  The SJC has also held that the Massachusetts constitution does not guarantee each individual student the fundamental right to an education.

Summary of Case Law on Preschool

In Hancock v. Driscoll, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts upheld the state school funding system and rejected the trial judge’s recommended remedies, which included a directive that the Commonwealth study the actual cost of providing all children an adequate education; determine the costs of improving the capacity of local districts to effectively implement essential programs; and follow through on needed changes. The trial court had specifically recommended that the Commonwealth be required to include in the cost study a high quality preschool program for three- and four-year-old children at-risk for school failure. The lower court defined at-risk preschoolers as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. The court found that without high quality preschool education, children at risk for school failure would be unable to achieve a constitutionally adequate education. The trial court recommended that the Commonwealth fund a high quality preschool program for all at-risk students who were unable to pay.

The SJC rejected the recommendation for a cost study, finding that it would divert attention from educational reform and that any study "is rife with policy choices that are properly the Legislature’s domain." The Court singled out the preschool recommendation as an example of impermissible judicial intervention, noting that each choice concerning programs that best address the needs of at-risk students "embodies a value judgment; each carries a cost in real, immediate tax dollars; and each choice is fundamentally political."

Constitutional Provisions on Public Education

M.G.L.A.  Const. Pt. 2, C. 5, § 2

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

Case Law on the Right to Public Education and Preschool

Is Education a Fundamental Right under the State Constitution?

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117, 129, 615 N.E.2d 1088, 1095 (1995), that a student's right to an education under the Massachusetts constitution is not a "fundamental right," which would trigger strict scrutiny analysis.

School Finance Cases in Favor of Plaintiffs:

McDuffy v. Sec'y of the Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 619, 615 N.E.2d 516, 619 (1993)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the State Constitution requires the magistrates and legislatures of the Commonwealth to provide education in the public schools for all children, and found that "the current state of affairs [fell] short of the constitutional mandate" due to the disproportionate allocation of state funds that resulted in a lower quality of education in poorer districts.

Hancock v. Driscoll, Report of Superior Court, _ Mass. _(2004); 2004 WL 877984; 2004 Mass. Super. Lexis 118 (April 26, 2004), available at http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/chapter70/McDuffy.html. Suffolk County, Civil Action No. 02-2978, April 26, 2004.

In 1999, nineteen low-wealth school districts filed a motion for further relief alleging that the Commonwealth failed to take appropriate legislative action to rectify the constitutional deficiencies in the education funding system found by the Supreme Judicial Court in the McDuffy case. The enforcement action is known as Hancock v. Driscoll.  On April 26, 2004, a state trial court issued a report and recommended decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  The report finds that the Commonwealth's school funding system is unconstitutional because it fails to provide all students with a level and quality of education required by the Massachusetts Constitution - "an education that will equip ... [students] ... to fulfill their responsibilities and enjoy their rights as productive, participating citizens in a republican government."  To cure the constitutional deficiencies, the trial court recommended the Supreme Judicial Court direct the Commonwealth to: (1) determine the actual cost of allowing all children in the focus districts the opportunity to acquire the McDuffy capabilities, which the court equated with the cost of implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for all of the districts' children; (2) determine the costs of bringing about meaningful improvement in the capacity of local districts to effectively implement the necessary educational programs; and (3) implement the funding and administrative changes that result from these cost determinations. The trial court also recommended that the SJC provide guidance to the Commonwealth on the types of program areas that either must be covered in the cost determinations, or at least should be considered for coverage. Preschool education, along with special education, adequate school facilities, and all seven of the curriculum frameworks, was on the trial court's list of  "must be covered" programs. The trial court’s recommended decision was rejected by the SJC in February 2005. See discussion under School Finance Cases Against Plaintiffs.

Standard for a Constitutionally Adequate Education:

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) retreated from its earlier ruling in McDuffy v. Sec'y of the Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 618-19, 615 N.E.2d 516, 554 (1993), in which it adopted the adequacy standard established by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212 (Ky. 1989), and held that  "[a]n educated child must possess at least the seven following capabilities: (i) sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization; (ii) sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable students to make informed choices; (iii) sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation; (iv) sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness; (v) sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage; (vi) sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and (vii) sufficient level of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market." 

The SJC in Hancock ruled that "[i]n McDuffy [citations omitted], this court recognized that an ‘educated child’ possesses these ‘capabilities’ [citations omitted], but did not mandate any particular program of public education." Thus, the SJC relieved the Commonwealth of the duty to provide a system of education that provides all children with the opportunity to achieve the seven capabilities. Once relieving the Commonwealth of this duty, the SJC did not attempt to redefine an adequate system of education. Instead, the SJC upheld the state school funding system based on a finding of "comprehensive and systematic overhaul of State financial aid to and oversight of public schools" undertaken by the Commonwealth in response to the 1993 decision in McDuffy.

School Finance Cases against Plaintiffs:

Hancock v. Driscoll, 443 Mass. 428, 822 N.E.2d 1134, (2005)

In Hancock v. Driscoll (2005), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts upheld the Commonwealth’s school funding system and overturned a finding of a specially assigned trial court that the Commonwealth was failing to meet its duty under the state constitution to provide a constitutionally adequate education to all Massachusetts children. The Court also declined to uphold the trial judge’s recommended remedies, which included directives that the Commonwealth study the actual cost of providing all children an adequate education; determine the costs of improving the capacity of local districts to effectively implement essential programs; and follow through on needed changes. The SJC based its finding of constitutional compliance on "comprehensive and systematic overhaul of State financial aid to and oversight of public schools" undertaken by the Commonwealth in response to the 1993 decision in McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993), in which the SJC declared the Commonwealth’s school finance system unconstitutional. The McDuffy decision resulted in the enactment of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. In Hancock, the SJC found that the Act had "profoundly altered" the Commonwealth’s role in education through standardized statewide criteria for funding that increased the state’s mandatory assistance to public schools, and by establishing uniform, objective performance and accountability measures for every public school student, teacher, administrator and school in the state. While upholding the school funding system, the SJC recognized that "serious inadequacies in public education remain," and cautioned that the Commonwealth is still open to legal challenge under the education clause if it does not continue on a course of improvement.

Decisions Ruling School Finance Issues Were Non-Justiciable:

None.

Cases Related to State-Funded Preschool:

Hancock v. Driscoll, 443 Mass. 428, 822 N.E.2d 1134, (2005)

In a ruling upholding the state’s school funding system, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rejected the trial court’s recommendation that the Commonwealth conduct a study of the cost of providing all Massachusetts children an adequate education, and include in that study the cost of a public preschool program for all low-income children, children with disabilities, and children with limited English proficiency.  The trial court's preschool directive was based on evidence of the research demonstrating the benefits of high quality programming for children at risk for school failure. These benefits, cited by the trial court, include improving children's school readiness, socialization skills and school performance and, in the long term, increased high school graduation rates and college attendance, better employment and reduced crime. The trial court outlined the specific components of a high quality preschool program: prepared and well-paid teachers, small classes, and high standards for learning and teaching. Relying on evidence that many children in the plaintiffs' school districts start kindergarten far behind their peers in more affluent districts, the trial court recommended that a high quality preschool program be "mandated" for at risk children because "the evidence has demonstrated that if high quality preschool programs are not provided, the Commonwealth will not be in a position to fulfill its obligation to educate all the children … because at least some of these children start out so far behind, a situation exacerbated by the lack of adequate early childhood education."  The trial court recommended that the state preschool program be "offered free of charge at least to those who are unable to pay."

The SJC declined to adopt the trial court’s recommendation for a cost study, finding that such a study is "rife with policy choices that are properly the Legislature’s domain." The SJC singled out the preschool recommendation as an example of impermissible judicial interference, noting that the decision as to which programs best serve the needs of at-risk students "is a policy decision for the Legislature." The Court concluded that "[c]ourts are not well positioned to make such decisions."

The trial court’s opinion in Hancock v. Driscoll is available at: http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/chapter70/McDuffy.html

Pending School Finance Cases:

None.

Statutes, Regulations and Guidance Documents on State Preschool Program

Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, General Laws chapter 15, section 54 (M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54), Early Care and Education Services for Children of Working Parents; Development of Proposal; Eligibility; Office of School Readiness; State Advisory Council on Early Care and Education.

Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, General Laws, chapter 15D, section 1 (M.G.L. ch. 15D, § 1, et seq.), Department of Early Education and Care.

2007 Mass. Session Laws, Chapter 61, Section 2, line item 3000-5075, Universal Pre-Kindergarten Pilot Program (cited below as "2007 UPK Pilot Law")

Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 606, Section 10.00 et seq. (606 CMR 10.00): Subsidized Child Care

Community Partnerships for Children Renewal Application (FY 2008) (cited below as "CPC Renewal Application")

EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide (2007)

Note:  The Massachusetts Department of Education has not issued formal regulations pertaining to early childhood programs (other than eligibility rules), but has issued three guidance documents:  Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds (2003),  Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (2003),  A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children (2001).

Provisions Expressing State Policy on Preschool:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(a): ... Pursuant to this section, the department shall seek to increase the availability of early care and education services and to encourage all local providers of such services to work together to create an array of options allowing families to select programs that fit with their schedules.     

M.G.L. ch. 15D, § 1: Department of Early Education and Care; Purpose: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the commonwealth to assure every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential by providing and encouraging services which maximize a child's capacity and opportunity to learn, which strengthen family life, and which support families in their essential function of nurture for a child's physical, social, educational, moral, and spiritual development.

M.G.L. ch. 15D, § 3: Board of early education and care; duties; membership; appointments; length of term; purpose

(a) There shall be a board of early education and care, hereinafter referred to as the board. The board shall set policies and establish regulations related to early education and care programs, and services. The Board shall oversee and supervise the administration of a high-quality system of public and private early education and care. The board shall oversee the development and implementation of a program of voluntary, universally accessible high-quality early childhood education to all preschool-aged children in the commonwealth, subject to appropriation. The board shall oversee the development and management of an educationally sound kindergarten readiness assessment for pre-school children and a comprehensive evaluation of early education and care programs, including the establishment of baseline data to inform the design and implementation of a universally accessible, high-quality early education and care program for all pre-school age children. The board shall oversee the development and implementation of a workforce development system designed to support the education, training and compensation of the early education and care workforce, including all center, family child care, infant, toddler, preschool and school-age providers.

Eligibility Criteria for State Preschool Program:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(a): ... three-year-old and four-year-old children of working parents... . All slots funded pursuant to this section ... shall be responsive to the needs of working parents.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(f):  All funds provided pursuant to this section shall provide services to children of working parents.  For purposes of this section, "children of working parents" shall include any child of a two-parent family in which both parents work either full-time or part-time, and any child of a single-parent family in which the parent works either full-time or part-time; provided, however, that a child of working parents admitted to a program shall be allowed to remain in that program for the remainder of the year regardless of whether said child's parents continue to be working parents.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(h):  Families with incomes below the statewide median income level shall be given priority for all services provided pursuant to this section ... .

606 CMR 10.03

The following general provisions apply to all subsidies administered by EEC.

(1) Eligibility.

(a) Subsidies administered by the Department of Early Education and Care are available only to residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

(b) Eligibility Periods. Eligibility is determined for periods not to exceed twelve months, and is renewable in accordance with EEC policy. …

(3) Priority in Funding.

(a) Children will be authorized for child care subsidies in accordance with priorities established by EEC, and subject to available funding.

(b) Parents whose eligibility for a specific EEC subsidy program is ending have priority for access to other EEC subsidies over other parents who have not previously received an EEC child care subsidy. …

606 CMR 10.04, Income Eligible Child Care Subsidy

Subject to appropriation, an income eligible child care subsidy is available to eligible parents for care by a contracted, voucher, or in home or relative child care provider, in accordance with regulations, guidelines and policies established by EEC.

(1) Eligibility Criteria. To be eligible for an Income Eligible Child Care Subsidy, parents must meet both income eligibility and service need requirements established by EEC.

(a) Financial Requirements. Income eligibility is based on the income and the size of the family. Families headed by caretakers are exempt from financial eligibility guidelines.

1. Families With an Incapacitated Parent or a Child with Special Needs.

Families with an incapacitated parent or a child with special needs are financially eligible for the Income Eligible Child Care Program provided that their gross monthly income is at or below 85% of the State Median Income as determined by EEC at the time of enrollment. Financial eligibility will continue until the family’s income reaches 100% of the State Median Income as determined by EEC. …

2. All Other Families. Families who do not have an incapacitated parent or a child with special needs are financially eligible for the Income Eligible Child Care Program provided that their gross monthly income is at or below 50% of the State Median Income as determined by EEC at the time of enrollment. Financial eligibility will continue until the family’s income reaches 85% of the State Median Income as determined by EEC. …

(b) Service Need Requirements. Except when requesting a subsidy for a child with special needs, both parents living in the household must document either a part time or full time service need. Activities acceptable for establishing a service need are: seeking paid employment for a maximum of eight weeks; paid employment; maternity leave from paid employment for a maximum of twelve weeks; participating in education or training, as outlined at 606 CMR 10.04(1)(b)5.; or incapacity of the parent.…

Note: Income eligibility tables and sliding fee scales are available in the EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide, Appendix A: EEC Income Eligibility Levels and Parent Co-Payment Schedule. The Appendix summarizes the above eligibility guidelines as follows:

Community Partnerships for Children, Contract, and Voucher

Standard Income Eligibility:

→ Entry: 50% SMI or below

← Exit: 85% SMI

Parent or Child with Documented Special Need:

→ Entry: 85% SMI or below

← Exit: 100% SMI

EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide, Appendix C: Verification of Special Needs Form

… Eligible families must meet income requirements and be participating in an approved activity such as work, school, or training. Families may be exempt from the activity requirement if a parent or child has a documented physical, health, emotional, and/or mental disability or special need. …

… 5a) Nature of CHILD’S special need(s)/disability (check all that apply):

• Autism
• Emotional Impairment
• Developmental Delay
• Physical Impairment
• Cognitive Impairment
• Specific Learning Disability
• Sensory Impairment
• Health Impairment
• Communication Impairment
• Neurological Impairment

… 5b) Nature of PARENT’S/GUARDIAN’S special need(s)/disability (check all that apply):

• Parental depression
• Substance abuse
• Terminal illness
• Mental illness
• Chronic illness
• Disability
• Other child in family with a special need/disability requires full time care by parent during the day

EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide, Section 2.0.1. Waiting List Child Priority Status Codes

All children placed on the EEC centralized waiting list should receive one of the following child priority status codes:

… Please note that there are three exceptions to this policy: families who have a DTA [Department of Transitional Assistance, the state welfare agency] authorization or DSS [Department of Social Services] referral for care and families who receive services through CPC Inclusive Learning Environment Funding [children with disabilities]. These are the only families not placed on the EEC centralized waiting list.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

… [F]unds from this item shall be expended on grants to improve the quality of and expand access to preschool programs and services to children from the age of 2 years and 9 months until they are kindergarten eligible …

… [I]n awarding grant funds under this program, preference shall be given to establishing pre-school classrooms in towns and cities with schools and districts at risk of or determined to be under-performing in accordance with sections 1J and 1K of chapter 69, schools and districts which have been placed in the accountability status of identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring pursuant to departmental regulations, or which have been designated Commonwealth priority schools or Commonwealth Pilot Schools pursuant to said regulations, schools or districts with a high percentage of students scoring in level 1 and 2 on the MCAS exams, or programs which serve children not less than 50 per cent of whom are from families earning at or below 85 per cent of the state median income…

Program Length/Duration:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(a): ... Not less than one-third of the total slots funded shall provide full-day, full-year care that meets the needs of parents who work full-time.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(e):  Proposals should include a mix of programs: full-day, full-year programs to meet the needs of parents who work full time; part-day programs operating during different parts of the day to serve parents with various work schedules; and other options the local council determines will allow the system to best serve the needs of parents and children.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

…[T]he grant program shall be sufficiently flexible to serve families with various work schedules; provided further, that programs receiving grant funds may use the funds to … facilitate or provide access to wrap-around services for working families …

Scope of State’s Responsibility to Provide Preschool:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(a):  The board may contract with school districts, head start agencies, and other child care providers to provide early care and education opportunities to three-year-old and four-year-old children of working parents.  Pursuant to this section, the department shall seek to increase the availability of early care and education services ... All slots funded pursuant to this section shall be in addition to existing services ...

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(e):  Proposals shall describe how the services provided will meet the needs of working parents in the local community...

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(j):  The board shall establish an office of school readiness which shall be responsible for developing program standards for early childhood programs operated by school districts, excluding any subcontractors that are not school districts, and teacher certification standards for those early childhood teachers who are required to receive such certification. The office may, pursuant to this section, provide technical assistance to other providers of early care and education services. The office shall be responsible for the administration of all department early childhood programs for children from birth through age six. It shall be the mission of the office to work in conjunction with the office for child care services, and such other state agencies as may be appropriate, to develop a statewide system of early childhood programs that promotes school readiness, early literacy and academic success for all Massachusetts children entering primary education ...

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(k):  The board shall appoint a state advisory council on early care and education. Members of the advisory council may include, but are not limited to, teachers, parents, representatives of state human service agencies, private providers of child care, higher education, business, labor, and government. Council members shall be broadly representative of the racial and ethnic diversity of the commonwealth. The advisory council shall conduct a comprehensive study of future trends in early care and education, including the provision of services for children from birth to age three, and shall examine all early care and education services provided by the state to evaluate which populations have the greatest need for services, to what degree those populations are served by the program created by this section as well as by other existing services, and shall develop strategies for serving all unserved segments of the population. The council shall report its findings to the board, the chairmen of the house and senate committees on ways and means, the house and senate chairmen of the joint committee on education, arts and humanities and the secretary of administration and finance not later than January first of each odd-numbered year. In addition, the advisory council shall review early care and education program evaluations, certifications and program standards, and make recommendations to the board on needed program changes. The board shall report on the progress of the early care and education program and make recommendations to the general court by filing the same with the clerks of the house of representatives and of the senate on or before June thirtieth of each year.

Scope of State's Responsibility to Fund Preschool:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(h):  ... Families receiving services pursuant to this section shall make payments in accordance with the sliding scale fee schedules promulgated by the executive office of health and human services, without regard for the eligibility standards established by said executive office.

606 CMR 10.03(2):  Parents receiving child care subsidies may be required to contribute to the cost of the child care services they receive, in accordance with a sliding fee scale established by EEC, as amended from time to time.

   (a) How Fees are Assessed. The full weekly parent fee will be assessed for the first child in the family in EEC subsidized care; one half the weekly fee (appropriate for the child's program type) will be assessed for the second child in the family in EEC subsidized care, and one quarter of the weekly fee (appropriate for the child's program type) will be assessed for each additional child in the family in EEC subsidized care.

   (b) Additional Fees. No additional fees may be charged to parents, except in accordance with EEC policy...

EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide

5.0.1. Co-Payment Determination for Special Populations

5.0.1.A. Families Authorized by DTA [Department of Transitional Assistance, the state welfare agency]

Fees will not be charged to parents authorized for care by DTA.

5.0.1.B. Foster Parents

Fees will not be charged to foster parents authorized for care by DSS [Department of Social Services].

5.0.1.C. Temporary Guardians

Fees will not be charged to temporary guardians.

… 5.2. ADDITIONAL FEES

Providers shall not charge parents, for whom they are receiving EEC financial assistance funding, any additional "registration," application, field trip, special activity, food for special events, or materials fees for participation in their program, or surcharges for late payments of parent fees. Providers may not collect fees from parents receiving EEC financial assistance to supplement their approved EEC reimbursement daily rate.

Additional fees may be charged for services not offered to every child as part of the regular early education or out-of-school time program, such as transportation, when not paid by EEC. Only providers who have signed a transportation addendum as part of their provider agreement or who hold a transportation contract with EEC are allowed to provide transportation with EEC funding. At their discretion, parents may enter into agreements with vendors for services that are made available through the program, and parents will be expected to pay for such optional services.

Providers may charge parents for the care of children who remain in care beyond program hours due to late pick-up by parents, and for bank fees resulting from checks deposited against overdrawn accounts (e.g., bounced checks).

Note:  The income eligibility tables and sliding fee scales are available in the EEC Financial Assistance Policy Guide, Appendix A: EEC Income Eligibility Levels and Parent Co-Payment Schedule

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

[$7,138,739 is appropriated] For the Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten Program established under chapter 15D of the General Laws; provided, that funds from this item shall be expended on grants to improve the quality of and expand access to preschool programs and services … funds shall be awarded directly to programs; … remaining funds available after grants are made to eligible programs may be expended on programs working towards the designation of being a Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten Program participant;… programs receiving grant funds may use the funds to enhance teacher and staff quality and compensation, enhance program ability to interpret and use assessment data effectively, enhance developmentally appropriate practice, incorporate ancillary services into the program, facilitate or provide access to wrap-around services for working families, or to increase capacity to expand access to age-eligible children on the centralized wait list maintained by the department; provided further, that preference shall be given in awarding grants to those programs which demonstrate affordability for middle class and working class parents according to standards to be developed by the department …

Source of Funding for Preschool Program:

"A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children: A resource for program development and implementation of early care and education programs," October 2001, p. 105.  Administering the Grant and Developing Subcontracts.  Funds for the CPC program are distributed through grants from the Department of Education to a lead agency.

"A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children: A resource for program development and implementation of early care and education programs," October 2001, p. 133.  A lead agency may be:  a school district; a Head Start agency; or a child care agency listed by the Office of Child Care Services.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

[$7,138,739 is appropriated] For the Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten Program established under chapter 15D of the General Laws …

Scope of Child's Right to Attend Preschool:

No statutory/regulatory provision.

Curriculum Content Standards for Preschool Program:

See Massachusetts Department of Education guidance documents:

Early Childhood Program Standards for Three- and Four-Year-Olds, and Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

… [A]ll programs designated as Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program participants shall meet high program quality standards including those outlined in the Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds and the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences, and including appropriate standards for … age-appropriate curriculum and child assessment practices …

Teacher Certification/Qualification Standards for Preschool Program:

There are no statutory or regulatory provisions relating to preschool teacher degree requirements. Such requirements are in the Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds , pp. 23-25. The requirements, adopted in 2003, only apply to newly hired staff and differentiate between public school and community preschool programs. Newly hired teachers in public school preschool programs must hold an Early Childhood (PreK-2) license from the Department of Education; newly hired teachers in community preschool programs must meet Office of Child Care Services licensing standards and within seven years must achieve an associate's degree with 12 credits in early childhood education and within 14 years must achieve a bachelor's degree with 18 credits in early childhood education. Assistant teachers are not required to hold a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential.

The new legislation establishing the Board and Department of Early Education and Care provides for the development of an early childhood workforce. The first Workforce Development Plan was issued in January 2006.

M.G.L. ch. 15D, § 5:

The board shall develop and annually update an implementation plan for a workforce development system designed to support the education, training and compensation of the early education and care workforce, including all center, family child care, infant, toddler, preschool and school-age providers. The board shall solicit input from organizations and agencies that represent a diverse spectrum of expertise, knowledge and understanding of broader workforce development issues and of the professional development needs of the early childhood and care workforce. In order to inform the plan, the board shall conduct:

(1) an inventory and assessment of the current resources and strategies available for workforce and professional development in the commonwealth, including but not limited to Head Start trainings, community-based trainings, higher education programs, child care resource and referral agency trainings, state and federally funded workforce development trainings/programs, public school system trainings/credentialing, and other trainings that address the needs of those who work with children and make recommendations for coordinating the use of those existing resources and strategies;

(2) analyses using current data on the status of the early education and care workforce, including work experience, certifications, education, training opportunities, salaries, benefits and workplace standards; and

(3) an assessment of the workforce capacity necessary to meet the state's early education and care needs in the future.

In the development of the plan, the board shall consider:

(1) core competencies, a common and shared body of knowledge, for all those working in the early education and care fields;

(2) streamlined and coordinated state certification, credentialing, and licensing within the early education and care fields including teacher and provider certification and licensing, the child development associate, public school teacher certification, and other program standards as appropriate for director, teacher and provider credentialing requirements;

(3) a mandatory and regularly updated professional development and qualification registry;

(4) agreements among higher education institutions for an articulated system of education, training, and professional development in early education and care;

(5) approval of early education and care training programs and academic coursework, incentives for associates and bachelors programs to meet best practices and to modify curricula to reflect current child development research, and certification of trainers and teachers;

(6) coordination of existing workforce resources among public agencies, including establishing regional workforce support resources in coordination with child care resource and referral agencies;

(7) a range of professional development and educational opportunities that provide appropriate coursework and degree pathways for family child care as well as center-based providers at all levels of the career ladder that are available in locations, days, and times that are accessible;

(8) credit for prior learning experiences, development of equivalencies to 2 and 4 year degrees, and the inclusion of strategies for multiple pathways for entry into the field of early education and care;

(9) recruitment and retention of individuals into the early education and care workforce who reflect the ethnic, racial, linguistic, and cultural diversity of Massachusetts families based on the current census data;

(10) incentives and supports for early education and care professionals to seek additional training and education, such as scholarships, stipends, loan forgiveness connected to a term of service in the field, career counseling and mentoring, release time and substitutes;

(11) guidelines for a career ladder or career lattice representing salaries and benefits that suitably compensate professionals for increases in educational attainment and with incentives for advancement, including a salary enhancement program;

(12) public and private resources to support the workforce development system;

(13) a data collection and evaluation system to determine whether the workforce and professional development activities established pursuant to this chapter are achieving recruitment, retention and quality of the workforce goals; and

(14) ways to recognize and honor advancements in educational attainment among early education and care professionals.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

[A]ll programs designated as Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program participants shall meet high program quality standards including those outlined in the Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds and the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences, and including appropriate standards for teacher and staff quality, … any newly-funded programs designated as Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program participants must have been accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the National Association of Family Child Care or a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential; … programs receiving grant funds may use the funds to enhance teacher and staff quality and compensation,

Other Quality Standards for Preschool Program:

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(b):  The board may establish standards for pre-kindergarten programs delivering services pursuant to this section, and said standards shall meet or exceed the existing standards of the office for children for programs which serve three- and four-year-old children in whole and half day programs. The board shall collaborate with the Office for Children, the Massachusetts Association of Day Care Agencies, Parents United for Child Care, the Young Men Christian Associations of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Independent Child Care Organization, and Head Start to develop, for said programs, a common set of standards and licensing procedures built around the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs accreditation process; provided that said procedures may include regulations regarding physical facilities and equipment that shall be the minimum standards for said programs notwithstanding stricter provisions of the existing regulations promulgated by the office for children.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(i): ... All programs providing services pursuant to this section shall seek accreditation from the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs... .

Class size and staff-child ratios are found in the Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds, p. 27. Massachusetts allows a maximum class size of 20 and a staff-child ratio of 1:10.

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

… [A]ll programs designated as Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program participants shall meet high program quality standards including those outlined in the Early Childhood Program Standards for Three and Four Year Olds and the Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences, and including appropriate standards for teacher and staff quality, teacher to child ratios and group size, age-appropriate curriculum and child assessment practices, kindergarten readiness assessments, comprehensive services like health and dental screenings and mental health supports where needed, transition to kindergarten policies, and program evaluation; provided further that any newly-funded programs designated as Massachusetts Universal Pre-Kindergarten program participants must have been accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the National Association of Family Child Care or a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential; … programs receiving grant funds may use the funds to enhance teacher and staff quality and compensation, enhance program ability to interpret and use assessment data effectively, enhance developmentally appropriate practice, incorporate ancillary services into the program, facilitate or provide access to wrap-around services for working families, or to increase capacity to expand access to age-eligible children on the centralized wait list maintained by the department …

Delivery of Preschool Services:

M.G.L. ch. 15, §54(a): ... Pursuant to this section, the department shall seek ... to encourage all local providers of such services to work together to create an array of options allowing families to select programs that fit with their schedules... .

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(c):  There shall be not more than one proposal submitted for each town. The proposal shall be developed by a community partnership council comprised of a principal, three individuals who provide care and education to young children, two parents of young children, a member of the local resource and referral agency, a representative of the local head start agency, a representative of private providers of child care, and others with experience in the care and education of young children. The council shall select a lead agency, which may be the school district, a head start agency, or a licensed child care agency. Council members shall be broadly representative of the racial and ethnic diversity of the community. The council shall develop a proposal which the lead agency shall submit to the department. Each member of the council may include comments in the final proposal submitted to the department.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(d):  The lead agency may subcontract with other public and private agencies to provide services; provided that any teacher employed by the contracting school district in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten is not displaced as a result of such contract.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(e): ... Community partnership councils are encouraged to develop collaborative programs that coordinate services from various providers whenever such coordination can facilitate the efficient provision of early care and education services. Community partnership councils are further encouraged to develop proposals that include linkages with other human services agencies and which seek to combine a number of funding sources. Other agencies and programs may include, but are not limited to, state and federal nutrition programs and public health programs.

M.G.L. ch. 15, § 54(g):  Funds provided pursuant to this section shall not be used to provide services to those eligible for child-care services provided by the department of transitional assistance; provided, however, that local councils shall seek to coordinate programs funded by this section with services funded or operated by the department of transitional assistance and other sources, including Head Start, Title 1 of the elementary and secondary education act, the department of social services, special education departments of local schools, and full-fee-paying parents.

CPC Renewal Application at 6

Direct service funds may be used to serve families who meet EEC financial assistance income and activity requirements with preschool-age children in Head Start, public school programs, private preschools, child care centers, independent family child care programs, or family child care systems who meet CPC provider quality criteria …

UPK Pilot Program

2007 UPK Pilot Law

[F]unds from this item shall be expended on grants to improve the quality of and expand access to preschool programs and services to children from the age of 2 years and 9 months until they are kindergarten eligible, through a mixed system of service delivery including public, private, non-profit and for-profit pre-schools, child care centers, nursery schools, preschools operating within public and private schools and school districts, Head Start programs, independent and system-affiliated family child care homes …

Requirements for Student Assessment and Program Evaluation:

"A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children: A resource for program development and implementation of early care and education programs," October 2001, p. 47.  High quality early care and education programs and services: 

[A]ssessment is an important way to gather information on the wellbeing of young children.  The appropriate purposes of assessing young children are for the teachers to arrange appropriate learning opportunities based on children's developmental capacities, for parents to gain knowledge about their children's progress, and for administrators to know if the program is effective ... [Y]oung children's educational progress needs to be measured and documented by developmentally-, linguistically- and culturally- appropriate assessment tools.  Observation-based assessment tools may include but are not limited to:  portfolio assessments, classroom observation measures, teacher report measures, parent report measures, IEP team member reports, therapist's or professional's reports.

Guidelines for selecting assessment tools for young children:

• The assessment must be developmentally and culturally appropriate.
• Children's linguistic background must be taken into consideration in any authentic assessment of oral language proficiency.
• The context of the child's language and literacy development must be taken into account, which includes the learning environment and the resources available.
• Multiple sources of information should be included in the assessment.
• Assessment should take place on a recurrent or periodic basis.
• The assessment procedures should be reliable and valid.
• Family members should be an integral part of the assessment.
• Assessment should be conducted in natural, non-threatening settings and involve tasks that are relevant to the child.
• Staff members need to be well trained when using assessment tools with young children.

"A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children: A resource for program development and implementation of early care and education programs," October 2001, p. 55:

Each CPC program must do ... three activities within a three-year period.

• Activity One: conducting Community Profiles for needs assessment and demographic information
• Activity Two:  program evaluation
• Activity Three:  evaluating collaboration and the Council's work ...

For more information on the CPC Evaluation Cycle of Activities and Reporting Requirements, see pages 57-68 of the "A Guide to Community Partnerships for Children."

Comprehensive Review and Site Visit (CRSV):

The Comprehensive Review and Site Visit (CRSV) is a collaborative effort that includes Early Learning Services staff, Community Partnerships for Children (CPC) Coordinators, staff from private audit firms, and early care and education consultants. The team approach brings with it a broad range of experiences, which enables us to understand the complexity and uniqueness of each program.

We select sites randomly. However, we also aim to balance the number or urban, suburban, and rural sites we visit, as well as reach out to communities across the Commonwealth. In addition, we do not visit lead agencies that are selected for reviews conducted by other DOE units or State agencies (e.g., Program Quality Assurance - PQA, or the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability - EQA).

Each review team will conduct a programmatic and fiscal review of the selected CPC programs.

The programmatic review includes observing selected programs and conducting interviews to assist the Department in:

• Assessing how the CPC program is implementing a plan for meeting the five gran