Time for a Washington state Early Learning Act

Last spring, the Washington Legislature passed a monumental education-reform bill — ESHB 2261 — amending our existing Basic Education Act.

In a surprise move, Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed a section that would have included early learning for at-risk children in the definition of basic education. Her veto message stated: "If early childhood education is to become part of our definition of basic education it cannot be made available only to at-risk children."

Although the governor was not explicit in her reasoning there are constitutional implications to consider regarding this state's early-learning policies.

What Gregoire should do to live up to the sentiment of her veto message is to promote a separate, omnibus bill, such as an Early Learning Act.

Subsequent to her veto, the governor asked recommendations to be developed for potential legislation that would: "provide early-learning opportunities for all children birth to five, their families, early-learning caregivers and educators." These recommendations, along with a draft Early Learning Plan, were delivered at the beginning of December.

The Early Learning Plan, even in draft form, is well thought out, comprehensive and in ways very innovative. It highlights the extensive scientific evidence that demonstrates just how crucial a child's earliest years are in terms of his or her overall development, including noting that brain development is most intensive from birth to age 3.

In terms of achievement gaps, the evidence shows that the earlier the intervention the more effective the results. Economists have shown that a dollar spent on early learning can save taxpayers as much as $17 later.

However, the plan and the recommendations are presented in a somewhat cautious, almost apologetic tone. Understandably in these challenging economic times, we have to be prudent when considering new initiatives. Nevertheless, considering all the evidence, we must look at early learning not merely as an investment to be considered but as a key element of education reform.

Article IX, section 1, of our state constitution states: "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference."

From a constitutional perspective, the scientific evidence points to our mandated obligation. What we must do is equate "kindergarten readiness" with "ample provision." Certainly, to define "ample" even in terms of K-12 is at best a subjective matter. On the other hand, in a court of law, if pressed to define "all" it would not take much evidence to prove that persons from birth to the age of 5 are in fact "children."

There would be advantages to an Early Learning Act as separate from the Basic Education Act. It could highlight the recognition of parents as a child's first and most important teachers. Another reason is to acknowledge the early-learning continuum, birth to the third grade, as the "learning to learn" phase in a child's development.

Finally, in designing a comprehensive early-learning system, in terms of delivery, we can utilize and expand existing systems within local communities, such as child care, home visiting, parent education, etc., to fulfill the state's "paramount duty."

This Early Learning Act could be prioritized with phase-in considerations over a number of years, as was done with ESB 2261. It would be a major piece of education reform. It would be a major step in creating a seamless education system for all of Washington's children.