House Early Childhood Committee: Feb. 17, 2026

Representative Denise Garner Thank you, committee, for being here late in the day. Let’s go ahead and get started. First thing we need to do is consider the minutes from last meeting. Thank you very much. Second. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. Ayes have it. So the next thing is Secretary Oliva and Director Abney, if y’all don’t mind coming to the table. Thank you very much. 

We really appreciate y’all being here to clarify some of the questions that we had in the last meeting and to talk a little bit more about everything that’s going on in early childhood right now. I do have a summary of survey responses that I got back from the Arkansas Early Childhood Association and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. That came to me last night, so there’s a copy of that for you guys here. Ashelyn, I think you got a copy of it. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes ma’am, I received it this morning. 

Representative Denise Garner I put it out there so everybody could take a look at it. And if there’s questions, I’m sure y’all could answer them without seeing it beforehand. But you have it as well. Good deal. Okay, the purpose of this meeting, I think, is just to focus on making sure that our early childhood investments are economically sustainable, data driven and supportive of both mixed delivery and infant toddler access across Arkansas. 

And so if you guys can just give us an update about where we are, how the funding is changing or has changed and is changing, and some of the issues that you guys are facing. I know that in some commission meetings that the funding perspective can be dire. And so I’d like for everybody to understand that and see what we need to be doing to make sure that our early childhood is sustainable for the long term. So, do y’all have a presentation to make? 

Jacob Oliva No, ma’am. Just, I guess, for the record, Jacob Oliva, Department of Education. We don’t have a formal presentation, because I think our understanding is going to be kind of like a workshop where we’re just going to dialogue. 

I think our hope today, because the last time we were in a committee meeting was such a big committee meeting, that we wanted to kind of get maybe a smaller group of folks together to help get some better direction in understanding of what’s the state of the state as far as our investment in early education. So we didn’t bring a formal presentation today but we’re prepared to, I guess, engage in some dialogue if that’s okay with you. 

Representative Denise Garner That sounds great. Do you want to start with just some basics? 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, yeah, because I always go back to, I want to say our last committee meeting was focused more on the ABC program and the state program and how much funding was in that program. Because we were looking at the methodology where all the students seats were paid for an entire year, whether they were filled or not. 

And we’ve been working with the ABC providers, which is a large number of them are school districts. And if you can’t fill these slots, we want to look at reallocating them to places that have waiting lists and how do we better balance those seats. Because we’ve had previous conversations before the holidays around the CCDF program. But the most recent ones– and we’re prepared to speak to both programs. And I don’t think you can talk about one program without talking about the other, if that makes sense. Because at the end of the day– 

Representative Denise Garner NSRA as well.

Jacob Oliva Yeah, NSRA, because some families qualify for multiple. Some providers have all of the options. So it’s a really complicated space, which is why we brought the expert who is much more knowledgeable at navigating this landscape. And I think about it as just– I’m a parent but I don’t have kids of this age. 

And if it’s frustrating for me to understand, I couldn’t imagine trying to be a parent trying to figure out how do they qualify and what program the seats that are available. But I think part of the biggest conversations that we had most specifically was about the ABC programs. 

And we were talking about historically, have we found how many seats were paid for? Are those the right number of seats? Do we need to pay more to providers? Do we look at the state appropriation? Has that been flat for a long time? What’s the formula for determining reimbursement rates? 

Should we look at poverty rate requirements and expanding it and open up eligibility? That was kind of our takeaway, like those kinds of questions. I see some head nodding. So I feel like that that would be a good place to start if that’s fair. 

Representative Denise Garner I think that’s great. 

Jacob Oliva So I guess, Ashelyn, we can kind of talk into this. One of the questions that I want to say that we were asked is when was the last time we had seen a funding increase or the number of slots? So Ashelyn and her team was able to roll up their sleeves and go a little bit deeper into the archives. So if it’s Okay, I’d like to turn it to her to just kind of start having that initial dialogue. 

Ashelyn Abney I’d be glad to. Just for the record, Ashelyn Abney, I’m the Education Division Director for the Office of Early Childhood. I’m new into my role, so I have some information here. But if I cannot answer one of your questions, I’ll be glad to take that back to the team. When we were researching the funding for ABC, it looks like to us in 2018, there was a small increase to the ABC funding. 

Prior to that, for years, it had been flat at $111 million. And then in 2018, there looks like there was about a $3 million bump. So 114 million is the budget that we’re operating off of. And I believe that that was one of the questions. And that is one of concerns that we hear often from the provider base is the funding has been limited in that program as compared to the CCDF side, or the Child Care Development Fund, which is our federal money that comes down for us. 

Representative Denise Garner And the difference in those two as far as providers is concerned? So CCDF federal pays for what and what does ABC pay? 

Ashelyn Abney So CCDF is what is– maybe you all have heard it as SRA or school readiness assistance, or sometimes back in the day depending on how long you’ve been in this business, it would be childcare vouchers. And so with SRA, there are eligibility requirements, much like ABC, but CCDF is federally funded. Whereas on the ABC side, of course, you all know that that is our state funded regulations. 

So just in comparison, we have about 137 million that comes from CCDF on the SRA side compared to, like I said, 114 on the ABC state side. There are some nuances that are different between the programs that might be helpful for you all to consider when you’re thinking through this with us. ABC is a 10-month program, and so sometimes it’s difficult for parents because it runs along the school calendar, essentially. 

And so parents are left trying to determine what to do during the summer months, especially. But also the hours and the day are a little bit different. So sometimes those programs will end earlier in the day than, say, on the SRA side, which is your typical private center-based facilities that you all have probably heard about. So there’s a difference there. 

I’m trying to think of some overall numbers. Let me give you this. I was just about to say– enrollment is important I think for you all to just know. For ABC we serve about 23,000 children in our ABC program. Predominantly those are preschool age. A lot of times when people are thinking about ABC, they’ll think it’s only 4-year-olds. But it’s mainly 4-year-olds, but 3 and 4s, and then some centers have started doing an infant and toddler as well. 

But just for the breakdown, to kind of get your head around that, there’s 20,000 students out of that 23,000 that are preschool age. Also, I just want to give you some fast facts that might help in the conversation. There are about 1,800 licensed providers in our state. 1,700 of those are center-based and 193 are home-based. 

In comparison, in the ABC programs, there are about 221 providers total that participate in the ABC programs. Of those, like Secretary Oliva said, predominantly are schools. There are 151 of those, compared to 40 non-private and 21 home visiting. 

Roughly, we serve about 14,871 children over on SRA side. So that’s important. And that is the one, the program that sometimes you will hear from your circle of influence about a wait list. And we have about 2,800 children on the wait list for SRA. I’ll stop right there. That’s a lot of talking. I’m glad to answer any questions or continue on.

Representative Denise Garner What about rural versus urban and tiered, financially tiered numbers? Do you have those? 

Ashelyn Abney I do not have those in front of me, but I can absolutely get that for you and give you some information. 

Representative Denise Garner I think a lot of the providers who would have liked to use ABC can’t do it because it’s just cost prohibitive. Because if they’re not in a school system, then they have to pay for their own rent. They have to pay for all of those kinds of things that are funded in other ways in the public school system. 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, I think as the public schools to meet the match can use indirect costs. So that puts those smaller private providers at a little bit, probably more of a disadvantage. 

Representative Denise Garner Right, so if we’re increasing ABC and focusing on more school-based, I don’t want to get to the point where we’re leaving out our home-based and center-based programs, especially if we are taking 3 and 4-year-olds out and there’s no funding for infant and toddler. And maybe that would be helpful if you talk about funding, the differences in funding K-12 per person and the differences in funding early childhood. Because you’ve got to have the reimbursement from those older kids to subsidize the infant and toddlers because it’s just a market fail. You can’t do it if you don’t have those other pieces of the puzzle. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. That is something my team and I looked at. So for an ABC student, roughly the cost per student that is paid is $5,105. And my understanding of what it is in the K-12 world would be up around the 8,000 mark. So that’s the difference between the two, if that’s helpful. 

Representative Denise Garner Yes, very helpful. Thank you. And then I would love to, if you’ll let staff know about rural and urban. Because I do, that’s the other issue I think if we’re looking at school based, there are definitely some deserts out there. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. 

Representative Denise Garner In both directions, so that would be helpful to know. 

Ashelyn Abney Absolutely, I’ll do that. It’s actually something I’ve not thought about. So I’m interested now too since you brought it up. 

Representative Denise Garner Just to see what the difference is. Okay. What else, committee? Okay. Representative Mayberry. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you. I always have a lot of questions, not as many as Representative Duke sometimes has, though. She’d laugh at that. Anyway, so first of all, I’m sorry if you said it and I missed it. I know that you said that it was $111 million before. And then in 2018, it was 114 million of money that goes to the ABC programs. There was a $3 million increase. How long had it been at 111 million? If you said it, I missed it. I’m sorry. 

Ashelyn Abney That’s okay, I did not say it. In the 2009-2010 was when it went to $111 million. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Okay, that’s a pretty long time ago. And that wasn’t that much of an increase in 2018 at that time. And then you were commenting that  ABC school funding is at $5,100, $5,105, I think, is what you said. And what we pay for students now in K through 12, our teacher to student ratio is far different, especially if we look at infant care. Is it one in five for infant care? 

And that is certainly not what it is for K through 12. I mean, even kindergarten is different than the high school ages. So there’s a big difference. And if we really want to make sure that our kids are reading by third grade, which I agree. I mean, I think that we don’t want children not being able to read because then everything else falls apart. What I love about the LEARNS Act was moving it over to ADE, all this. 

I think I’ve said this a few times. I can’t say it enough. Because we’re looking at children learning from birth all the way up. I know I’m talking to the early childhood educator here. And I know you agree. Birth to 3 is when the brain expands the most and we really need to focus on making sure that we’re putting the foundation there. So when we’re looking at $5,000 versus $8,000 for this same student, how much can we move that needle? I know there’s a big picture, and it requires legislators getting involved. It’s not just ADE, but this is probably more for our commissioner here. Do you see us being able to apply more money into this area of education in this next coming session, either fiscal session or in the next legislative session? 

Jacob Oliva I think that’s a good question. And I don’t want to speak to more money in the fiscal session because everybody adopts two-year budgets. But looking long-term, as we’re looking at a state investment in education, I think it needs to be part of the conversation. There are a little bit of differences in early learning and K-12. We have compulsory attendance laws and a whole lot more requirement in K-12 than we have in early learning. 

So, I don’t think just throwing money at the problem is going to fix the fact that we still have deserts and islands. We still have lack of access to good teachers. We still have challenges to some resources. But I think that’s a big part of why in the LEARNS Act was establishing the local leads, putting everything under one agency is that we have boots on the ground to help us identify, what are those gaps, what are those needs, what are the resources, is there going to be a need for more of a state investment? I would imagine, right? It’s hard to have this conversation without allocating resources. 

But as we really make that transition to quality and how do we define quality and align payment structures to quality, not just environment, is how you’re going to get those kids or those young children ready for kindergarten so that their grade reading scores go up. 

And this is, if there’s anything good about these conversations of where there’s been a challenge is we’ve got a lot of folks that are coming to the table from all over the state to help define quality and make sure that we align our reimbursement pay payment structures with, if we’re looking at better beginnings rating system, do we need to reimagine that? And if we are going to reimagine that, this would be a good time to do it. And then what are the right dollars that we want to allocate for reimbursements with that? 

Ashelyn Abney I agree with everything you just said. It is an ongoing conversation that my team and I have in the office about how do we make sure that we are fully aligned with the K-12 world and that whatever we’re doing down in the birth to 5, and I especially love that you said birth to 3, because you’re absolutely right. And it’s rare I hear people talk about it. So that’s exciting. 

But we want to fully align ourselves with whatever’s happening in K-12. So as an example, when we’re talking about quality, even a piece that we are talking about is an assessment that lives down in the early childhood world that will then connect into what they’re doing at the kindergarten level. So that’s just one example of the ongoing conversations that we’re having all around the line that you’re speaking about. 

Jacob Oliva And I’ll tell you, because we’ve been visiting a lot of schools lately, and we were visiting a program in Pine Bluff at an elementary school there, and I was blown away with what these students were doing in a 4-year-old classroom with a good licensed teacher that had the right resources. 

I was like, this is going to change the trajectory of these kids’ lives. It was impressive. I would encourage the legislature to visit some of these programs, because it’ll show why we need to have this conversation. It’s not a babysitting service. 

Representative Julie Mayberry So, if you don’t mind? Okay. So, we had the LEARNS Act two sessions ago. Last session we had ACCESS for higher ed. Can we work now towards maybe simplifying? I mean, you were just talking about how complicated it is, the SRA, the ABC. Some way simplifying some of that so that we’re not talking about this fund and this fund and this fund and just make it easier for our childcare providers as well to simplify some of that. 

Jacob Oliva So, me personally, I think that would be fantastic. And I think that’s why we want to work with these work groups that we have vested, because there’s things that we can do at the local level, right, to help invite that conversation to improve quality, things that we could do at the state level. That’s under our purview right here, which is why we’ve been talking a lot about the ABC program versus the federal programs because we get to make our own rules. It’s our sandbox, right? 

But then there’s things that I think collectively as a state we can work on at the federal level. And we are in a prime position to have the administration that we have that understands that the federal bureaucrats don’t know what’s right for students in Arkansas and are encouraging us to untackle those laws, see if we can apply for waivers, and come collectively with a plan that’s built from the local, state and the federal level to take the handcuffs that they put on us each and every single day, not only in this early learning space, but in K-12 and higher ed. 

Those bureaucrats handcuff innovation. And these programs are handcuffed too. And if we can collectively come up with a waiver to be set free and do what we know is right for our students and families, there is no better opportunity to align that vision. And I think if we were able to go to the feds that says we have a local and state policy that supports what we’re asking for from a federal waiver requirement, it really increases our likelihood of getting those waivers. 

Representative Julie Mayberry I still have more questions, but I’ll let others ask. Thank you. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. As a follow-up, a quick follow-up to Representative Mayberry, can you talk a little bit about the other side? Obviously, when we moved early childhood to Education, the collaboration with K-12 is immensely important. What about those prenatal to 3 programs? Are you working with, I assume, some of those are still in DHS or mostly Department of Health? You tell me. So are you working with the early childhood to collaborate with them so that that transition is seamless as the K-12? 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. And thank you for mentioning that. Listen, I will talk to anybody and everybody that will talk with me about early ed, particularly birth to 3. And so it is important to my team and to me that we continue those conversations because a lot of great work has happened over the course of years in early ed in that age bracket. So my hope is to keep tying it all together. 

And there’s even discussions I’ve been in recently about prenatal, which piques my interest. But my responsibility is absolutely birth through 5. So I do work on both ends of that from when that little feet hit the earth all the way up to when I pass them on to kinder. So yes, ma’am, we are. 

Representative Denise Garner And did you inherit those programs? Are they still– the Department of Health still has–? 

Ashelyn Abney There are some that are scattered around that, honestly, I’m still learning about myself. The part B, part C, and our special needs are with us as well. So home visiting, of course, is outside of our program at the ADE. But we visit and coordinate back and forth with those just through the grants that we do with local partners, whether that’s the university. Or other entities, we do that as well. So the conversation is continuing all the way across the continuum. Yes, ma’am. 

Representative Denise Garner Great. Thank you. 

Ashelyn Abney Oh, yes, and head start. So recently we will be taking back the head start state collab office, will join us at the Arkansas Department of Ed. That will be a newly hired position that we have not yet done. We’re waiting on our extension. We haven’t been noticed up on that yet. But once that happens, then the state collab office will also come and join us. 

Representative Denise Garner Great, thank you very much. Representative Painter. 

Representative Stetson Painter Thank you, madam chair. And this is just a request. You had some great facts that you were throwing out really, really, really quick. If you could send us that to our staff, I think that will help us have that conversation when it comes to looking at funding and so forth like that. 

Jacob Oliva Can I just clarify? Like when we were talking about the enrollment, the dollars, the history, the amount? Absolutely, we can put a one-pager together. 

Representative Stetson Painter Yes. And that will help me understand where we’re lacking. And facts speak, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. Representative Barnett. 

Representative Lincoln Barnett Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question. I know many of the concerns that we had before were dealing with the childcare development block grant changes. And I know that since that time, the state of Arkansas has received a $14.7 million federal grant. And I wanted to know how those grant dollars are going to be implemented. 

Are they going to be implemented in any way to supplement some of those changes with CCDBG? Or will it be used in any way to reduce the number of students? I think it was approximately 1,100 that were on a wait list. I’m interested in knowing how those federal dollars are going to be implemented. 

Jacob Oliva Great question. And thank you for asking that. And this is, I think, definitely, as I’m learning the space, which is why I need these experts, I wish I could give you an easy answer. It gets a little bit complicated, but I do want to point out that when we were in front of the committee meetings– I want to say it was probably around in November– and we were looking at rate changes and answering a lot of questions because we got a reduction in funding at the federal level. 

And we knew that was going to impact our PDG grant and our CCDF grant. And we were trying to impact why we got a third quarter or fourth quarter reduction in the previous year cycle and why that’s impacted over current years. One of the things that we made a commitment to as an agency to the delegation was that if there are any competitive grants that become available, we were going to be the first state to have the application in the hopper. 

And I mean, I remember specifically making that commitment. And the grant you’re referring to was a competitive grant. And we had an incredible application. And our team worked with stakeholders and came together and met the deadlines of that grant and was able to receive that grant for some funding to do exactly what you’re saying about, how do we kind of look at filling in our shortfalls and our gaps. Because it’s a one-year grant. And I’ll let Ashelyn talk about how that works because it is going to help some because we can take some of the burden of costs that may have been in other programs and use the competitive grants, but it’s not going to make us whole. 

Ashelyn Abney That’s right. So you’re referring to what’s called a PDG B5 grant, preschool development block grant. And  we did receive $14.741 million and we were super excited. The thing to remember about that grant is it is a systems building grant. So whereas before you might have seen some of the funding go out specifically towards services to children, this particular grant is not a direct services grant. 

But like Secretary Oliva was saying, it will help us to use some of the money that we would have historically used under CCDF to meet the needs under and be able to fund it a different way through the PDG grant. It’s also really important to note with that PDG grant, it’s a one-year grant. So it is a very quick, aggressive, fast pace, a grant that has to be out of the door by December 31st of this year. So some of the things that we’re doing is it’s going to help with the local leads that you’ve heard mentioned before. It’s also going to us with third party class observations. 

So classes the observation tool that we’ll be using in our facilities and at our sites to help us determine the quality level. It’s going also to be geared towards workforce and also towards data systems. So we’re excited to see where that goes. We have not, we do not have all of those fully sketched out and organized. I know the direction that we’re going to go in, but here quickly we should be able to give more information about exactly what we’re doing with that. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. I just want to remind you guys that there is a an acronym sheet from the first committee that’s in the document section of the first committee that will have all of these acronyms for all of the grants and tell you what they do and what they don’t do. Representative Vaught.

Representative DeAnn Vaught Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for getting us that list. I just want to go back and touch just a couple of things. Because like Representative Painter, it was very fast for me to try to keep up and catch on. So you probably already answered this question. What’s our current percentage of ABC slots allowed to community-based slots? So the community-based versus the school. Does that make sense what I’m asking? 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. I believe so and I apologize to you all. I’ll try to slow down a little bit. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught No, that’s fine. That is fine. 

Ashelyn Abney My daddy tells me that all the time. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught It’s just afternoon for us and we’ve been in meetings upon meetings at this point. 

Ashelyn Abney Understand and I apologize. Okay of the 221 providers that we have right now, 138 of those are school districts. Ten of them are educational service co-ops. Three are public universities. 46 are community-based programs. Three are family childcare homes. And 21 fall under the home visiting category. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught Thank you. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught The last time I asked about slots, I’m not sure that my question really got answered in the email. So I want to know, do we have people who are turning away slots, whether they’re in the community based or whether they are in the school based, whichever way, do have those returning to y’all? And if we do, then do you allocate those slots somewhere else? 

Ashelyn Abney So, yes, ma’am. To answer your question, we do have some that will turn back their slots. That’s in my short time here, unusual, but it has happened since I’ve been here. We actually go to the state board whenever we need to look at slot reallocation or moving slots. So we actually do have a plan to go for March to talk about the number of slots. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught That’s my questions for now. I have more, but I’ll get back in. Thank you, ma’am. 

Representative Denise Garner Just to add to that, how many community-based providers have turned in slots, have turned back slots? 

Ashelyn Abney I do not know the answer to that, but I will get it. 

Representative Denise Garner Either declined or return. That’d be great. Thank you. Representative Gonzales Worthen.

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions, one on the, I think you mentioned 1,100 are on the wait list. 

Ashelyn Abney 2,800. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen 2,800. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen And then out of those 2,800, do we know how many the division point of, like 0 to 3, 4-year-olds. 

Ashelyn Abney It’s sitting on my desk, so I will get that. I will absolutely get that for you. I know that the families that are waiting are 2,080, and there’s about 2,800 on there. But I can give you that breakdown. I actually have it, and I failed to bring it with me. I’m sorry. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen I have a follow-up question, Madam Chair. My question is, I know that there is– I think in one of our committee meetings, secretary, you mentioned that we are going to be really working on a kindergarten readiness plan. And so I wondered what that might look like. 

Is that going to be part of the one-year grant in terms of systems improvement related to– I too am very concerned about the third grade reading level. And so when I’m thinking about what a wonderful way to ensure that our kids are ready for kindergarten, if we have enough slots to fill for the families to get that pre-K or infant toddler, and then they’re moving through the system, they should be, or pretty much should be kindergarten ready where our third grade reading level should be increasing. 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, I think that’s the whole spirit of why we’re here today, ultimately with that same goal. And I think we know, kind of even what the research says around that investment in early learning and making sure we’re really driving those conversations of quality. Because if children have access to quality early learning environments, then we know there’s a correlation to improve kindergarten readiness. 

As we’ve been kind of navigating, looking at improving, say, better beginnings that’s built on an environmental rating scale to a class observation tool. We know that that kind of theory of action is that we can help improve quality while we establish those local leads to help provide direct support with those educators in the classroom and kind of standardizing our observations, kind of like some iterator reliability components on that. 

So when you talk about the seats, I think it’s almost like a two prong approach. Because one is when you look at access, you have parents and families that want to participate in high quality early learning programs. If you’re in kind of what I refer to as like a desert or island, like there’s not a quality program within say 50 miles of your house, you really don’t have an opportunity, right? 

So one is how do we identify those deserts and islands, which is what we’ve been working on to see if we can find somebody that might want to open a program, whether it’s a mom and pop provider, work with a school district, a faith-based partner. Those conversations are happening. And then two, if there are parts of the states that just have a long waiting list because the centers that are open are full and they’re at capacity. So it’s kind of a two pronged approach, but I think the short answer to your question is we want to improve quality. But while we’re doing that, we got to improve access. 

Representative Denise Garner You know, as we’re talking about third grade reading levels, one of the best indicators for third grade reading is vocabulary at three years old. So if we don’t have zero to 3 development, then we’re lost before we ever get there. So if we wait for 4 and 5, we’re waiting too long. Representative Ennett 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you, madam chair. I have a question. Over here. Right here. When was the last Arkansas specific cost of quality study conducted for ABC and SRA? And if you already addressed it, forgive me. 

Ashelyn Abney No, ma’am, I haven’t. It was about three years ago because we’re coming up on needing to do another market rate survey right now, actually. So my team is looking at a request for proposals on that, and we should be doing it shortly. We are also very interested in the actual cost of care, so it’s been a minute. 

Representative Denise Ennett Thank you. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’m. 

Representative Denise Garner And just to add on to that, our current reimbursement rates are directly related to that particular cost modeling. So we use that for our reimbursement rates now. And that was three years ago? 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am, it was roughly three years ago. 

Representative Denise Garner And what is the break-even point? So how many, at the current reimbursement, how many students can be enrolled in a standard ABC classroom to cover the fixed and staffing costs? Do you know? 

Ashelyn Abney I do not know offhand. I would imagine it would be variable, depending on the school district. Because what I do know– or even the private ABC. Because there has to be a certified teacher per the ABC rule, but there’s some leeway in that on how many they have compared to how many students they have. So I’ll write down that question and see if I can get you an average break-even cost. 

Representative Denise Garner Just wondered. And what the difference is between school-based and center-based and home-based, just trying to figure out the barriers as much as anything. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. I didn’t think about looking at that, and I should have. One of the things that my team did look at, though, is just the whole, like, how much would it cost in today’s dollars compared to the way it is funded? And I know that that amount was around $175 million would be what the ABC program would need. So that’s a little bit different. And those are rough estimates. That’s just us trying to look.

Representative Denise Garner Okay, Representative Wooldridge. 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for being here. I have a question about federally funded slots. That may be something that you’ve covered and it was under an acronym that I didn’t recognize. But I know when I visited with the school in the district I serve, they were talking about having an allotment of federally funded spots and that they had received notification that the funding was potentially going away. Is that funding that’s being– I think what I was told by someone at the department was that funding was being put into a different bucket. And I guess it’s all going to be funded out of SRA funds. Is that right? 

Ashelyn Abney Very close. So you’re talking about what is called the Federal Pre-K Program. 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge I think that’s correct. 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, okay, Federal Pre-D has always been CCDF money. It was just another program that was set up to help support ABC. That is going to come to an end at the end of June of this fiscal year. Those children that are in those programs will be rolled into ABC slots if that particular program is an ABC participant. Many of them are. Or those children will go back through and be eligible and run through the eligibility criteria for the SRA side. 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Can I have a follow up, madam chair? 

Representative Denise Garner Absolutely. 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Thank you. So will those slots or those children that are in those slots, will they automatically qualify since there’s a waiting list? Or will they get put at the back of the list even though they’re in a funded spot currently? 

Ashelyn Abney Okay, so what will happen is they will have to qualify depending on which way they’re going. So some children will go into ABC. Chances are they’re already going to qualify for the ABC criteria. Or if they’re moving over to the CCDF side, they’ll need to qualify there. You had another question. Oh, grandfathering in. So they’ll have to meet the criteria of whichever program that they’re in, but they will get to bypass the waitlist since they were already in a program. 

Representative Jeremy Wooldridge Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. Thank you. 

Representative Denise Garner Representative Mayberry. 

Representative Julie Mayberry So in the fall, we had all this discussion over the SRAs and basically put a Band-Aid on the system as a whole. And I know we had lots of providers who were here, I know you remember, and many of them were saying that they’re going to have to go out of business. This is not sustainable. We can’t do it. Many of them said that the plan that we went forward with will help get them through a little bit. So I first want to ask, how many, are you aware of, have dropped since, let’s say, I don’t know, October? How many childcares around the state no longer exist? 

Jacob Oliva To my knowledge since we began those discussions, that have notified us that they’re closing because of a change in funding statewide was, I want to say, six providers. But since then with our new rates, we’ve added 26 new providers into the state as well. So some of them have changed locations. Some people are changing names. Some changed their providers. 

So we actually have more providers now with the new rates than we did under the old rates. And I think it’s important to remind everybody the reason we started having this discussion is because we got a federal allocation reduction, right, that we weren’t planning on. And that dollar amount is continuing, and it was about $6 million a year. So we’ve been working with our friends at the federal level to try to unpack this formula to determine why we got such a big reduction because we don’t feel like our poverty rate went down in the state. 

And what we’re leaning towards as we’re still unpacking this– we don’t have all the answers yet– is a lot of these programs are built around meal reimbursements that are happening in school. And because we have not made going to school five days a week a priority and holding school districts to 178 days of the school year, they’re having less school and serving less meals. That has impacted our reimbursement rates in this grant and will also impact reimbursement rates in a lot other grants. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Just looking at the notes that were given, Representative Garner gave us this piece of paper. You said you got it earlier today. The summary of the survey responses for school readiness assistant providers. And I’m just reading, just some of that information here because I feel like this is the people who might not be able to be in this room just sharing their thoughts, and many of them saying we lost almost 20% of our families because of the sudden, steep increase in what they would have to pay. 

We lost families in the after school program immediately and they became latchkey kids, which creates a whole other slew of problems. I heard today about a child who was six years old and left at home. That’s a scary thing. Co-pays have had a significant impact on the families we serve. We lost enrolled families due to the financial burden, causing many to reduce their hours at work. So I mentioned earlier this is an education thing, really important. We want children to learn. 

But it is also a workforce issue. It is the foundation to our workforce when parents have to reduce their hours at work. The business kind of struggles. What are you seeing regarding the copays? Are you hearing the same thing that a lot of families are not able to match these copays? 

Jacob Oliva I think we hear from all of the above. And sometimes when we look at the intent of that federal grant, the intent was always have co-pays. We just didn’t implement them. So yeah, is it something that’s a new requirement? Is it painful? 100 percent. Do we want to do it? No. But we knew we had to look at the long-term sustainability of this program and make immediate changes because we were getting reductions that we hadn’t planned on, and which is why since August, October, November, December, as we’ve been having these conversations, I feel like the conversation around access to childcare, workforce needs, respite care, kindergarten readiness should revolve more around state programs instead of relying on a federal grant that changes in every session and we don’t know the long term facts on that. 

The budget, look at how long it’s been taking to get some of the federal dollars into a budget. And meanwhile, we have got to make payments to providers. At some point if we’re not able to draw down funds, I’m going to have to tell providers, it’s gone. When we look at projected fund balance and reserves, we’re payment to payment. And we had to make those changes. They weren’t popular, but we had make them. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have programs at all right now. 

And hopefully, if we can get more competitive grants, as we start getting more strategic in-state programs, if we could offset in-state programs some of the burden that’s in the federal grant, I think that could open up more dollars to providers to reducing seats and helping cover those administrative costs like trying to find that balance. And that’s where, when we talk about what’s the future– I think somebody asked, like, what’s future? I think that’s the conversation. Because if we can alleviate burden in the federal grant– and I’ll give you an example. 

We used to pay for the data reporting system. That was on a contract on how we collect all this data that had been on a mainframe since 2007. And the cost of that software to be held and updated with a contract provider came out of that grant, right, the cost of doing that grant. So as it moved to our agency, they rebuilt a whole new system called KidCare. And was it a smooth and easy transition? No, there’s hiccups. But we built that in-house with existing staff to come off that contract. With that coming in-house, it frees up dollars in that contract, like in the CCDF grant. 

So, we have to look at, as we move forward, how do we protect the dollars in administrative costs or overhead costs or grants to programs that’s not directly supporting families? And the second we said, like, there’s professional development requirements, there are other components in here, but if we want to prioritize providers and families and we started notifying some of these universities that we’re reducing their funds, they started complaining too, right? 

So at some point there’s a ceiling there. There’s a pie. And I always like to say when you’re building budgets, if the pie doesn’t get any bigger, all we have is the pie. And if you want different pieces of that pie to go to somebody else, which neighbor is getting a larger piece and which neighbor is getting a smaller piece? Because right now our pie shrunk. And that’s what’s the painful part, and it’s hard for people to understand. 

We didn’t get the same pie from last year to this year and we’re not getting the same pie next year. Every year the pie has gotten smaller and everybody wants a bigger piece of a smaller pie. So this isn’t fun. This isn’t easy. But I think there’s opportunity. 

Because with looking at the state investment, if we can protect that pie– and I feel like I hear from the legislature, when we protect that pie, we want to protect families and the providers that are supporting those families over other institutions. And sometimes those aren’t popular decisions, but they have to be made. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Are there any changes to the home visiting programs, the HIPI program maybe even specifically? Do you see any changes taking place there? 

Jacob Oliva I think that’s a great question. And I think as we’re unpacking some of these programs, I think there are students and families that are double dipping. And then when I come back to you and say we’re not going to let families double dip, you’re going to hear from them too. 

Representative Julie Mayberry So explain to me how they’re double dipping. What’s taking place? You’ve discovered some double dipping there? $2 million a year? 

Ashelyn Abney So in the home visiting section of ABC, there’s roughly 3,000 children that I mentioned to you all about. And of that, 1,200 are what we call dually enrolled, meaning that they have a service that’s provided to them in their home, where the home visiting folks will teach the parent the curriculum and the parents then in turn teach their children the curriculum, which is a wonderful thing. 

At the same time, those 1,200 children are also being served dually in an ABC program, meaning they’re going to an ABC program. So it is one of the things that is a potential consideration that if we just limit it to one, like choose one or the other, that would save us about 2.4 million. And for me, that translates out to about 470 children. So it’s just something that we can consider as we’re all talking about it together. 

Representative Julie Mayberry That’s good information to know. You had mentioned kind of what started all this was that you were going, notifying the school districts about the ABC slots that they have, if they’re not using them, you’re going to, basically you’re not going to get paid for them. Because that’s the way it is with the other SRA program, right? If you don’t have someone enrolled, you don’t get that payment. But the way its been with ABC, if I’m understanding it correctly, is that they were being paid regardless because they had a slot. Kind of update us with what those figures are. Have you been communicating with the school districts and sharing that information and kind of worked through all that? 

Ashelyn Abney I wouldn’t say we’ve worked through all of it. But we definitely are, yes, it is an ongoing thing that we are looking at. But just to give you a little bit of perspective, so by paying for enrollment only instead of slots allocated in January, we saved $576,000. So in my world, that’s big. And so it’s just another thing that we can consider looking at, in terms of how do we get as many children served at the end of the day that we possibly can with a very limited budget. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Speaking of ABC, I know of a school district that would like to add preschool to their offerings there. And they have space, but it’s going to require quite a bit to prepare a classroom for preschool and especially a playground. A playground is pretty expensive to add because it can’t be the same as the other school playground, developmentally appropriate for the preschool age. 

I had a bill, not last session, but the session before, that would have allowed school districts to apply foundation funding to be used for pre-K because currently they can’t. Is that something that can be discussed, maybe put on the table as an opportunity to allow some school districts to make use of funding that already exists? And I realize that pie is getting smaller too and building costs go up and all that. Or is there some other avenue to help the school districts with building? 

Jacob Oliva Yeah, to me, one, I think it’s a fair question to have that discussion. Because I do think it would require some legislative changes or rule changes or some more direction. But at some point, I just feel like, when do we just start doing things that are common sense, right? Like, if a bus is going to a house to pick up a 6-year-old, but we can’t pick up the 3-year old, like, at what point does that just not make sense, right? 

If we’re going to a playground that could serve 5-year olds and 4-year-olds, why couldn’t we do what’s right? So I think I would need to unpack that a little bit more. But if it’s a school that’s serving students and families, like most of our communities, and I always love going to like economic development meetings where we’re talking about industry and bringing everybody in. 

And I always like to remind them that the school districts are the number one employers in most of our communities, right? So when the school districts are thriving, communities are thriving. Everybody in the community has some sort of connection to the school districts. School districts don’t only hire teachers. They hire electricians, they hire plumbers, they hire bus drivers, diesel mechanics. They hire everything and cover the entire spectrum. So if this is going to be a service to a community, how do we invest in that service? And I don’t know all the answers, but I think collectively we can come up with a pretty good plan. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Okay, well that definitely would help this particular school district if they could make use of their current playground and maybe even just add another smaller piece of equipment because the size of what a 3 year old can get on is a little different than the size of what the you know 8, 9, 10, 11 year old wants to play on in the height, the fall and all that. But that would definitely help them. But also just funding, they said that the classroom would cost– now, they have a building. So they’re not starting from scratch. But they said that each classroom was going to cost them about $15,000 to prepare that classroom to meet the requirements that are there currently.

Jacob Oliva Furniture. I mean, those classrooms look different, have different furniture, and it’s an investment. It’s a capital investment. 

Representative Julie Mayberry So just throwing that out there, that there are school districts that are probably interested and want this, but they need a little bit of support to be able to do that. 

Jacob Oliva And I think it’s great that school districts want to get in this space. And to me, that’s encouraging because they’re seeing the value in that as well. 

Representative Julie Mayberry I’ll get out of the queue. 

Representative Gonzales Worthen.

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen Yes. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for being here. And my question had to do with the HIPPY program as well. So if a family is in the HIPPY program then technically they’re not supposed to be in the ABC program. Is that kind of what I’m hearing, or when it was mentioned that they’re dually enrolled? I’m just asking. 

Ashelyn Abney They can currently be enrolled in both. And so they can have home visiting and they can be in the ABC program. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen So we’re not saying you only can be in one and not the other. 

Ashelyn Abney No, ma’am. I was saying that could be a consideration if we wanted. 

Jacob Oliva I would make that recommendation. I’ll be clear. These families are double dipping and we have families on a waiting list. We need to use our resources wisely and efficiently. This pie is not growing and we’ve got to expand this pie to as much reach as we can. I don’t know what it would take to make that an action but that’s something that I would recommend. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen Yeah, I was just curious because I could see parents in our community where they’re trying to do everything they can to ensure that their kids are kindergarten ready, they’re ready for school. Additionally, they are also learning English and so they’re also trying to get their hands on as much learning as they can. 

That was part of my question related to that. And so do you see the HIPPY program or programs like the home visiting type of programs expanding upon that so that we can ensure that kids are kindergarten ready? Last week when we were talking about chronic absenteeism and oftentimes that kindergarten age, that’s one of the red flag grade levels, so to speak, where parents are afraid to–  it’s okay, you can miss school, it’s just kindergarten, okay? 

They don’t see the– they’re not quite– they don’t see the impact that it can have on that child because that’s where all of those pre-literacy foundational skills are taught is at that kindergarten level. However If we’re able to increase more of the home visiting type of programs, at least they’re in something, whether it’s the home-visiting or whether it the preschool program just to help with that piece because I think that we could reduce that. And so that was my question with the HIPPY program. Thank you. 

Jacob Oliva I want to echo your sentiment towards chronic absenteeism. And when you look at what the data says, there’s a myriad of reasons why students are chronically absent. But typically if a student misses 10% or more of the school year, they’re considered chronically absent, which could be 17 days depending on your school calendar, which is like two days a month in a school year. 

And when it comes to kindergarten, there’s sometimes a sense of apathy around the importance of it because it’s not compulsory. When you start looking at compulsory attendance laws that come in, typically, I want to say it’s age 6 to 17 in Arkansas. Every state’s a little bit different. We need to model that it’s important, which is why I’m an advocate for every single school district to adopt a 178-day school calendar. 

So when you think about these school districts that adopt a 136-day calendar, and chronic absenteeism is a problem, and then we close for ice storms, are we modeling that school’s important as an adult to students? So I agree with you. We need to set the expectation as adults that going to school is important. And when kids do come to school, we need to guarantee they get a day of high quality learning. 

Representative Diana Gonzales Worthen I agree that school is extremely important. And parents oftentimes, just my experience with families, sometimes they do not know that not sending their child to school in kindergarten, the detrimental effect and impact it can have on the child. And it doesn’t take very long when you say, okay, your kids are not in school, they’re less likely to be reading on grade level by third grade. 

They’re less likely to graduate high school. They’re more likely to drop out of school. And last week, we heard our kids who are incarcerated, 80% of them are not reading on third grade reading level. And so I think that oftentimes parents really do not know that information. That’s been our experience. Parents just didn’t know that. And once they know that, I mean, what parent wants their child to have those detrimental impacts? My question related to the pre, what we’re doing before kindergarten. 

They’re going to be learning that because I’m sure that the HIPPY program and the preschool programs are also saying it’s important to send your child to school at every grade level. And so that’s kind of a– that’s the message, but it’s ongoing. And so that was the reason for my question. So thank you. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. Representative Painter. 

Representative Stetson Painter Thank you, Madam Chair. And sorry if I missed this. So if we would not allow double dipping here, it would save us about 2.4 million. How many kids did you just say we could take off the wait list? 

Ashelyn Abney Roughly 470. 

Representative Stetson Painter 470. I hope we take a look at that soon. 

Ashelyn Abney I have some information to share back, Representative Garner, if it’s okay to one of the questions and it was the wait list by age group. Is this an appropriate time to share? So as of today, so this is an increased number. There are 2,971 children on our wait list. Of those infants, so for us that is birth to 18 months, there are 638. Toddlers, which is 19 months to 36 months, 769. Preschool, which is 37 months to 72 months, 995. And school age, which would be over the 72 months, is 569. 

Representative Denise Garner That’s helpful, thank you. Representative Mayberry. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you. Back to that dual enrollment thing. And I’m just thinking and just wanted to ask the question, can you look closely at who is doubly enrolled? And maybe you’ve already done this. I don’t know. But is it possible that some of those children are ones that have been identified as having a developmental delay and perhaps need that reinforcement of the parent kind of learning what they need to be doing at home, but also are working and everything?

 I just want to make sure that we’re not having some unintended consequences by just saying there’s no way, Jose, you can ever double dip and make sure that that’s looked at, that it’s not high-risk situations. Because a lot of times, the children who are in the home visiting programs are identified as being high risk. 

Ashelyn Abney You’re absolutely right. And that’s a fair question. And yes ma’am, we can do that. I want to make sure that I say from my vantage point and my boss will correct me if I’m wrong, but home visiting is a great program. It is a great program. I wonder, and my team has collectively been talking about looking at it differently. 

So for an example, and this is just an example, but looking at through more of a contracted way to pay for that particular seat instead of it coming out of ABC so that we could look more specifically about what is that child currently challenged with if there are any challenges. So I think that that might open up more leeway for that particularly child to get in the appropriate spot that they need to be in.

Jacob Oliva What I was going to say, I think to that point, which is the importance of why we need child find in some of those other programs. Because if we can catch students early that need intervention and support, we know the impact on that grows exponentially. And a lot of the students that do go through those programs would qualify for a different pot of money. 

So that’s why I keep going back to this is a small space for little small people. It’s so complicated and nuanced, that if we can uncomplicate this system, I think we could build better programs, which is why I think that we could look at some state policies. But we really need to lean on this friendly administration at the federal level to see if we could look at how they allocate funds and if we can braid and blend dollars to support students and not try to fund a bunch of siloed programs.

 It can make this a lot easier. So I think your question is fair because there may be students that are in these programs that need additional layers of support. But if those students are properly identified as needing additional layer support, that’s a different pot of money that can provide that support. 

Representative Julie Mayberry So perhaps the child qualifies for speech therapy or physical therapy or something at the facility. The preschool, they’re getting it at the school. Are you saying then that maybe there’s another pot, maybe there is Medicaid money that then could help compensate for that care? 

Jacob Oliva Depends. It depends on their age, and it depends on which programs they qualify. But perhaps. I feel like I’m just giving general dollars cause it’s not that kind of drive, but yes. And if there’s ways to qualify students for additional resources that can protect limited resources, we need to make sure we’re leveraging those to the best of our ability. 

Representative Julie Mayberry I guess just what went through my mind. I mean, initially, when you say that, well, no, we don’t want some of double dipping. But then thinking about it more, back to when my kids were young and I’ve had some that have had developmental delays. I will say I was very fortunate I was able to stay home with my children and I highly suggest that. 

So I see all sides of this. But I worry about families who they can’t stay home with their child. But they have a child who has developmental delays. The child may have autism or has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy or whatever it might be. And they need that childcare so that they can work, but they also need some training on their own of what do I need to do? 

And they’re not going to get that just by dropping their child off at childcare. And that’s why the HIPPY program probably has helped them. And I just want to make sure that we, just not put everybody into the same bucket, and that we thought through some of that because there could be some unintended consequences. And then that child’s not getting all that they need to succeed and all that. 

One other thing, and I just have to question, and I’m sorry. I had asked about how many facilities went out of business and other people are watching while we’re talking. And someone has told me that, no, child care centers, there’s actually been 56. Can you clarify the information that you shared with us saying that there were only six, but we added 26? Because I’m being told that there’s actually 56.

Jacob Oliva There were six that cited the rate change as their reason for closing. There are centers that have closed because they moved. There are centers that have changed their program. There are centers that didn’t cite funding as an issue. Families don’t want their service. 

Every center that has cited a reason for closuring or restructuring, yeah, there’s more than just six in the state. But we’ve had, is it maybe eight, six or eight? Is it eight? I said the wrong number. There are eight that cited it specifically because of the change of funding. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Just always better clarification as to what you are defining and what you meant. I’m sorry. 

Ashelyn Abney I was just going to say we are closely watching that. That’s very near and dear to my heart too. Just look and see what’s happening. And I had heard those numbers as well. And so when we pull down the report to the providers that will tell us, so there’s that caveat. But typically they do tell us why they are closing. 

So we have eight on our list that closed because of a funding. And I counted in that eight any type of funding, whether it was on our part or their part. It didn’t matter to me. Just if it they had noted funding, then that’s what we counted. 

Representative Julie Mayberry Thank you so much. And thank you for this dialogue. It is so very important. I know that everybody can say different committees have important things, but this is our foundation of so many of our education systems. So thank you. 

Representative Denise Garner Thank you. Representative Vaught.

Representative DeAnn Vaught  Thank you. I want to go back to slots because I forgot to ask a question and I just read my notes and realized I had forgotten this. So when we’re allocating new slots, and I think you said you all are about to go to the state board about this issue– am I correct in remembering that? 

Ashelyn Abney Yes ma’am. 

Representative DeAnn Vaught There’s been a lot come through. What defines need? What defines for each area that they need a new slot? Or can you tell how y’all define that? 

Ashelyn Abney Yes, ma’am. So we look at a couple of things. First of all, we look on enrollment. So when we have a site that is requesting more seats, we look to see that they were 100% enrolled and that they are maintaining that enrollment. So that’s the first thing that we look at. Then we also look at their county service at the poverty level to see what percentage of the children are being served already within that county. And so if the percentage of that is 40% or less, we try to look to see if slots can be moved to that particular area. Sometimes that works and sometimes not because sometimes there’s not the capacity of that particular area to take on more slots. But those are the things that we look at first. 

Representative Denise Garner Are there any more questions? Representative Painter. 

Representative Stetson Painter Not really a question, maybe a step. I just want to clarify when I’m talking about making sure that we take care of maybe the double dipping, I just want to make sure we’re being efficient. And if we’re able to take care of their needs but also help other kids and take down the wait list, I think we should all be comfortable in doing that. 

Jacob Oliva I think we’re on the same page. 

Representative Denise Garner And I’ll just end by saying that you have so many people in this room and the rest of the state that are interested in this issue. What can we do to help to make sure that we have family and stakeholders and providers, everybody having input into some of these issues. I think some of the things that we’ve talked about when providers or families have been in the room have been fairly simple changes that could be made. 

Obviously, I hate the fact that we’re looking for grants all over the place to try to fix this. That’s not stability. We’ve got to figure out a way to make sure that early childhood development and the childcare that families need for boosting our economy, that that is a stable environment. And so I hope that we can still get together frequently to try to see what’s going on, to figure out where we are. I hope there’s a lot of transparency and accountability in all of these programs so we know what’s happening. And I hope that you’ll lean on us to try and help figure out. I know the commission’s involved. The commission has a task force that’s looking into some of these kinds of things. 

But you’ve got a room full of people that are interested enough that if we could figure out where we could put some more money, I have a hope we could find it. So what can we do to make sure that we are making this program the best it can be for the most amount of people with the stability to make sure that everyone knows what’s happening? 

I think that’s the frustration in the providers and the families. They just don’t know from one day to the next or one month to the next. And I know you guys don’t know about funding from one month to the next. So what can we do to fix that? And I think that’s the question that I want answered and I’m certainly willing to do whatever I can do to help make that happen. And I know the folks in this room are. 

Jacob Oliva So I’ll go first, and I think it’s a great question. And I think kind of our hope, too, as an agency, to even kind of fulfill your inquiries, that we do keep this dialog going. Because we get blamed as the bad people all the time. But we’re actually trying to do everything we can to support students and families and be clear and transparent. And as much as we feel like we communicate, you can never communicate enough, right? So I think that’s a fair criticism. 

And I think it would be wise of this committee, I think this is an early learning committee, right? I think we should have a battle rhythm where, as we’re meeting, we do provide updates, even if the update is no changes from last meeting, that it’s just letting everybody know that this is important, this is a priority, this is at the forefront. 

I know like Ashelyn and her team are working with those task forces and they want to help come up with a strategy, right? At some point, that strategy may look like policy and we may need help down the road. If it requires a law change, I do think there’s opportunity to look at federal waivers that may help protect some of these programs and serve more families. And then as we work with our local leads, we’re getting a lot of good information in. 

And I just always want to make sure people know that we, and especially Ashelyn, and I am a big believer in this space. I think somebody once told me that, and I don’t know if this is true research or not, but it was like 90% of brain development starts before kindergarten but that it’s less than like 1% of a state budget, right? Like, I get it. I’m not here to try to close providers or say they’re not doing a good job. 

We’ve got folks that are working hard each and every single day to give the best quality learning opportunities and care for children that I’ve ever seen. I have been visiting programs all over the state. We are doing amazing things. I promise you, we’re going to see an increase in kindergarten readiness. We’re going to continue to see an increase in third grade literacy scores. We didn’t get here overnight. We’re not going to get out of here overnight. But we’ve got to keep this at the forefront because these providers need help. The school districts need help. The families need access to services. And this isn’t a one and done conversation. 

So I think as we work with the workforce, look at recommendations, we should have agency updates, like just kind of as our, maybe our normal way of work, at least through fiscal session and moving on. We’re not opposed to that and we may not always have an update or great news, but it keeps this conversation going. We can’t let this fall to the wayside. It’s too important to get right. And I think that’s what you’re worried about as well. 

Representative Denise Garner Exactly, exactly. Thank you so much. And I appreciate everything you’ve done with the commission and with the committee. I will mention that we have in the past had an early childhood caucus as well. And so anybody who’s interested, let me know and we’ll take a look at that as well. 

I think education is just as important as what we’re talking about with policy and with everything that’s going on. So anyway, thank you very much for everything you guys have done. Is there any more business to come before this committee? With that, I’ll take a motion to adjourn. Thank you. Second. We are adjourned.