Abbott Early Childhood Programs
The First Year: Registration Outreach and Information Uneven
Excerpt from Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ),
Special Report, December 1999The May 1998 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Abbott v. Burke places implementation of preschool programs for three- and four-year-old children in the 30 poorest districts on a fast track. While an unprecedented opportunity for young children, the mandate that these programs be implemented by the fall of 1999 was a daunting challenge for the districts. The Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ) has tracked these implementation efforts through a number of advocacy strategies, such as a leadership role in the Early Care and Education Coalition.
Throughout the summer of 1999, ACNJ began to receive information about the difficulty parents were having in obtaining accurate information on how to register their three- or four-year-old children for their district’s preschool program. ACNJ decided to conduct a phone survey in all 30 Abbott districts to see what instructions were being given to parents who wished to register their children for the public preschool. Posing as parents, ACNJ staff members attempted to phone each Unified Child Care Agency (UCCA), an elementary school, the Superintendent’s office and a child care center in every Abbott district, seeking information about enrolling their child in the free preschool program.
The Results
In eight of the 30 districts, a system had been developed for registering children for the public preschool program.
Regardless who was contacted the specific districts, (superintendent’s office, elementary school, child care center, county UCCA), the information obtained all lead to the same registration process. For the most part, these eight districts had implemented a seamless and simple system for parent registration.
Due to the time of year, ACNJ was unable to obtain enough information to adequately determine whether a working system was in place in four of the Abbott districts.
For the remaining 18 districts, regardless of who was contacted, two common problems became evident:
1. A Lack of Organization
At the time the telephone survey took place, many districts still had not addressed and/or resolved major issues of program implementation. The survey results showed that an organized process was often lacking. The following are some examples indicating the districts’ lack of organization for registering students:
Multiple telephone transfers were necessary to identify the appropriate staff member to assist with registration information
Information elicited from various district personnel was conflicting
Several districts had waiting lists, lotteries and/or limited registration dates and spots
The Unified Child Care Agencies (UCCAs) did not appear to be part of the outreach process
2. Information was not Filtered Down to Those Individuals Who Had Contact With Parents
ACNJ assumed that most parents would not ask for any specific staff person when calling to register, and thus, would probably be receiving information from the staff member who answered the telephone. In placing the calls, the ACNJ found that regardless of whether the superintendent’s office, an elementary school, the child care center or a UCCA was called, many of the individuals were ill-prepared to appropriately respond to the questions asked.
In some instances, accurate information was provided or ACNJ was transferred to more knowledgeable staff members who gave out accurate information. However, in several instances, ACNJ staff members receive erroneous information from the person answering the telephone. It was clear that accurate information was not been disseminated to those persons whose responsibility it was to answer the telephones.
Recommendations
In order to minimize the problems identified in this survey, ACNJ makes the following recommendations:
In order to provide a seamless registration process, every Abbott school district must develop and implement a communications protocol to be followed by district staff, staff from contracting child care centers and staff of the County UCCA. Parents’ access to information should be the same, regardless of where they call.
Not only should accurate information be given to parents about registration, but parents should be informed about the types and quality of programs participating in the district’s free public preschool. In all the contacts made, no information was dispensed about existing differences between preschool programs located in public schools and those located in subcontracting child care centers or between preschool programs existing in different subcontracting centers.
All agencies involved must make outreach a high priority. Two districts stated that they had distributed fliers to every home in the district. A few others stated that they had placed advertisements in local newspapers about the preschool program. However, the information obtained from the phone calls concerning specific steps to be taken to register children was minimal.