Editorial: Expand existing pre-K programs in Hawaii

There are very few who do not embrace the value of pre-kindergarten and other early-learning programs for toddlers and young children. According to the Education Commission of the States, a 2018 study by Georgetown University and the University of West Virginia found that “benefits of high-quality pre-K can stretch beyond school entry, reaching into a child’s middle school years.”

Hawaii has been late to the game of investing in public pre-kindergarten. In the last five years it has been advancing, though too slowly, down the path toward universal preschool for children below kindergarten age.

There is much to be done, both in finding funds to support the growth of the existing system of public and private pre-K programs, and in developing the workforce to run the new child centers that should emerge.

Early learning has been a centerpiece of Gov. David Ige’s policy agenda; last year he pushed for more preschool classrooms to open on public school campuses. The goal then was to add more than 300 pre-K classrooms, and there were no illusions that this hurdle could be reached in the near term.

The state’s early-learning network is dominated by private operators, but the state Department of Education offers classes to about 1,600 students in its existing pre-K program.

The Executive Office on Early Learning (EOEL), governed by an Early Learning Board (ELB), oversees a public pre-K program on school campuses with 44 classrooms able to serve 880 children; that’s set to expand to 1,100 children next year, with the addition of 10 classrooms. The government- funded Head Start program rounds it out with funding for 2,200 preschool-age children at various sites.

With all of that, half the state’s toddlers, about 20,000 kids, have no access to childcare or preschool.

This year Ige is joined by the leadership of the House and Senate Democratic caucus in a mission to pick up the pace, leveraging state funds to grow enrollment in private programs, too.

House Bill 2543 is the vehicle through which that change is being pursued; a House Draft 1 of the bill comes up for decision-making on Tuesday before the committees on finance and on lower and higher education.

It should be moved out to the House floor in line for a vote this week, but there is still time to sharpen its focus to more efficiently support the proposed public-private system of delivering early learning.

The main goal should be, first, expanding the existing Preschool Open Doors program of child-care subsidies offered to eligible families for the year before kindergarten; second, identifying sites the state could offer for new pre-K programs to open where they are needed most; and third, exploring ways to build a workforce in early learning, which remains one of the greatest obstacles.

Establishing an early-learning trust fund from sources such as fees, grants, donations and appropriations also seems sensible; finding those sources can fall to the EOEL.

The problem is that the bill also seeks to expand the bureaucratic structure behind these services. As testimony already has indicated, this seems wholly unnecessary. The current draft bill would create the position of an “early learning coordinator,” with full salary and benefits, who could hire staff.

An unspecified amount of money would be appropriated for these staff positions. The measure proposes that the coordinator, who would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate and have full salary and benefits, would be a voting member of the ELB.

But, as EOEL Director Lauren Moriguchi correctly pointed out in her testimony, the coordinator and staff would duplicate the functions of EOEL and the ELB, which lawmakers established just three years ago. The current board chairman, Robert Peters, also asked in his testimony whether a new entity is needed.

The answer, of course, is no. The EOEL should simply continue with the oversight of classroom programs.

And it should be the agency to credential any new programs benefiting from public support — those that tap the expanded Preschool Open Doors funding, and those that will be leasing sites the state can provide, at libraries, college campuses or on other public properties.

It’s the state’s primary concern to identify those sites. The bill requires parents enrolling kindergarteners to disclose the pre-K programs they used — an effort to gather data and strategize the placement of new sites.

That’s also likely unnecessary. There should already be ample information on where the service gaps now exist, especially on neighbor islands, from institutions such as Kamehameha Schools. Why reinvent the wheel with new studies of the issue, when the problems are fairly clear?

The focus must be on efficiently identifying places where new programs can be started, and on activating the training of staff to work with the kids. They’re the ones to deliver the learning opportunities that Hawaii’s young children need, right now.