Resilience: Pandemic Impact on Early Learning Collaboratives (2020-2021)

RESILIENCE: Pandemic Impact on Early Learning Collaboratives (2020-2021) Rachel Canter and MacKenzie Hines December 2021

BACKGROUND The 2020-2021 school year was an historic year for Mississippi’s early learning collaboratives. The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted pre-K families and the people trying to serve them through the early learning collaborative (ELC) program.

However, in a big vote of confidence in the quality of the program, the 2021 legislature made the largest investment the state has ever made in pre-K—$16 million, doubling the funding.

In September and October of 2021, we surveyed all the ELCs in Mississippi to provide Mississippi early education advocates, partners, and funders a clearer picture of ELC challenges and successes during the COVID crisis in the 2020-2021 school year. We used an online platform, Qualtrics, for the survey, which contained 31 items including multiple choice, matrix, and open-ended questions. Several of the survey items were similar to those found in the National Survey of Public Education’s Response to COVID-191 conducted by the American Institute of Research. We distributed the survey via email to the lead contact for each ELC, and all of the 18 2020-2021 ELCs responded.

CAVEATS The data collected from the ELCs is self reported. We gave each ELC an opportunity to preview the report to ensure accuracy, but we did not attempt to independently verify the information through any third-party source. Our analysis highlights overall trends we noticed in the data when we compared the responses from each collaborative. In the case of Clarke Early Learning Collaborative, the long-time lead contact retired in 2020-2021, so the new lead contact was unable to answer all the questions fully.

SUMMARY The story of the 2020-2021 school year for collaboratives is one of persistence through uncertain and difficult times. None of the collaboratives permanently closed their programs, although learning had to change to respond to the exigencies of the pandemic. Despite evolving enrollment, ELCs were able to maintain maximum class sizes of 20 students. ELCs were also able to retain teachers and teaching assistants through the entire 2020-2021 school year. Every ELC used the additional funds provided by the 2020 per-pupil rate increase to extend or maintain high-quality learning for their students in this critical time. Today, ELCs are poised to learn from each other, continuing to make Mississippi’s ELC program the best in the country.

1

The survey gathered information in six key areas: • Student Enrollment: How did enrollment change during the pandemic?

• Teacher Retention: How did staffing change during the pandemic?

• Closures: Were ELCs required to close during the 2020-2021? If so, how did ELCs navigate closures?

• Types of Learning: How did the ELCs provide learning?

What new COVID-19 policies were implemented to ensure safety and learning?

• Raise the Rate: How did the updated per-pupil funding impact ELC operations?

• Navigating the 2020-2021 School Year: What lessons did ELCs learn?

American Institutes for Research (2020). National Survey of Public Education’s Response to COVID-19. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 2

PART I. STUDENT ENROLLMENT: HOW DID ENROLLMENT CHANGE DURING THE PANDEMIC? Challenge: Parents appeared initially reluctant to enroll very young children in pre-K programs in fall 2020.

As was the case with K-12 public education in Mississippi as well as nationwide, almost every ELC surveyed experienced a drop in fall 2020 enrollment. The National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER) released a policy brief in March 2021 detailing the impacts of COVID-19 on the national decline in pre-K enrollment in fall 2020. This brief pointed to three causes, two of which seem relevnt to Mississippi: 1) lack of in-person options, and 2) families concerned about safety of in-person schooling. In Mississippi, 12 out of 18 ELCs reported lower initial enrollment numbers than what they were funded for in 2020-2021. Only six ELCs reported filling every funded seat at the beginning of the school year. Three of those six reported enrolling more seats than were funded by state dollars.

Even though 12 of the ELCs started fall 2020 with lower enrollment than their funded seats, seven of these ELCs saw an increase in enrollment before the end of the 2020-21 school year. Based on the data, it seems

many families made the decision to enroll their students into ELCs midyear. These increasing enrollments over time may have been driven by a variety of factors, including many K-12 districts going back to school in person after the first semester (and older siblings leaving the house), increasing parent comfort or familiarity with pandemic safety measures implemented by ELCs, or an inability of families to sustain having young children exclusively at home. Based on 2021-2022 preliminary enrollments, we do not believe the lower 2020-2021 enrollments represent a decrease in demand. Current ELC enrollments for 2021-2022 are at expected levels, and in some cases, demand exceeds supply.

Table 1 shows the number of seats funded at the beginning of the year, how many students were enrolled at the beginning of the year, and how many were enrolled by the end of the school year.

Success: Despite evolving enrollment, ELCs were able to maintain maximum class sizes of 20 students.

The maximum class size for an ELC is 20 students. This requirement is in the Early Learning Collaborative Act and is based on the National Institute for Early Education Research’s Quality Benchmarks. Small class sizes are important components of quality because students are able to get more personalized support from teachers; however, maintaining classes of 20 or fewer students is expensive as programs must hire more staff for pre-K than would be needed for kindergarten. During the 2020-2021 school year, ELCs maintained maximum class sizes of 20 students, which indicates

that collaboratives had enough funding to protect small classes despite enrollment challenges. The one change we noted related to class sizes was actually that some Head Start programs lowered their maximum class size below 20. According to one Head Start director, some Head Start classes did this to ensure six feet of separation between students as recommended by the federal Office of Head Start. This reduction was a temporary measure and all Head Start classes are expected to return to a maximum size of 20 in 2021-2022.

“The pandemic has changed how our pre-K classrooms operate...Our teachers and teaching assistants have gone above and beyond to make sure our program continues.”

Jennifer Calvert, Monroe Early Learning Collaborative MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 3

Table 1. ELC Enrollment During 2020-2021 School Year Legend: No Change (Yellow), Decrease (Red), Increase (Green) Early Learning Collaborative Corinth-Alcorn-Prentiss Early Learning Collaborative Picayune School District Early Head Start Cleveland Early Learning Collaborative Lamar County Early Learning Collaborative Lafayette-Oxford Early Learning Collaborative Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative Marion County and Columbia Early Learning Collaborative Petal Early Learning Collaborative George County Early Learning Collaborative Monroe Early Learning Collaborative Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative Hattiesburg Early Learning Collaborative Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance Clarke County Early Learning Partnership McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success Grenada Early Learning Collaborative Coahoma County Pre-K Collaborative

How many students were enrolled in collaborative seats at the end of 20202021?

20 90 140 318 138

How many students were enrolled in collaborative seats at the beginning of 2020-2021?

239 full-time; 5 half-time 20 90 235 340 102

180

110

110

80 159 250

53 120 180

60 121 190

138

102

122

147 329 119 80

108 248 85 68

120 290 83 60

192

152

152

138 160

138 200

138 186

How many seats was your ELC funded for at the beginning of 2020-2021?

239 full-time; 5 half-time

231 (difference of 13) 20 90 220 340 111

PART II. TEACHER RETENTION: HOW DID STAFFING CHANGE DURING THE PANDEMIC? Success: ELCs were able to retain teachers and teaching assistants through the entire 2020-2021 school year.

In addition to parent reluctance, we were concerned with whether ELCs would have staffing issues as a result of COVID-19, either due to teacher reluctance to serve in in-person classrooms or due to financial challenges.

Overall, most of the ELCs were able to maintain teachers and assistants as well as at least a 1:10 staffing ratio per classroom as required in the law.

Two ELCs stated that having access to increased per-pupil funds allowed them to maintain their staff.

We want to note that teacher and teaching assistant numbers are directly related to student enrollment. If the nine ELCs that reported lower student enrollment had been able to meet their funded seats, they would have needed more teachers and assistant teachers, and this may have caused staffing challenges. However, ELCs were able to successfully staff the classrooms they were able to enroll, maintaining student-teacher ratios.

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 4

PART III. CLOSURE Challenge: Some ELCs or specific providers had to close for a period of time in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Nearly every expert agrees that in-person learning is critically important for young children to be successful. As a result, many collaboratives put an emphasis on figuring out how to return to in-person learning as safely as possible, as soon as possible. Nonetheless, cases of COVID in schools were inevitable with the presence of general community spread and the absence of widespread immunization, which was not available to either adults or children through most of the 2020-2021 school year. The unpredictable nature of a pandemic means that ELCs had little notice of when they might need to close and for how long. Planning for these scenarios was one of the most difficult situations for ELCs to handle.

When in-person closures were required by COVID protocols, each ELC handled them in different ways. Seven out of 16 reported having to close entirely (no virtual) for some period of time during the 2020-2021 school year, although none closed for very long. Some collaboratives also had periods of closure related to inclement weather or its effects. 11 ELCs never suspended program operations but did offer a virtual learning option during periods when students could not meet in person. (Tallahatchie and Greenwood-Leflore remained virtual across all classrooms for the whole school year.)

Table 2. Teacher and Assistant Teachers

Early Learning Collaborative Corinth-Alcorn-Prentiss ELC Picayune School District Early Head Start Cleveland ELC Lamar County ELC Lafayette-Oxford ELC Starkville Oktibbeha ELC Marion County and Columbia ELC Petal ELC George County ELC Monroe ELC Greenwood-Leflore County ELC Sunflower County ELC Hattiesburg ELC Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance Clarke County Early Learning Partnership McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success Grenada ELC Coahoma County Pre-K Collaborative

How many teachers started the 2020-2021 school year?

14 2 7 12 23 7 9 4 8 12 7 9 20 6 4

How many assistant How many How many teachers teachers started the assistant teachers ended the 2020-2021 2020-2021 school ended the 2020school year?

2021 school year? year?

14 13 13 2 2 2 7 7 7 12 12 11* 23 23 23 7 7 7 9 5 5 4 4 4 8 8 8 12 12 12 7 7 7 9 9 9 20 14 14 5 6 6 4 4 4

10

10

11

11

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

* Lamar ELC reported teaching assistants were down to 11 because the program never replaced a Head Start teacher who left due to the class being virtual.

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 5

Mississippi Early Learning Collaboratives

PART IV. TYPES OF LEARNING Challenge: Most ELCs had to provide at least two different learning environments within their program as some classrooms were virtual while others were in person.

One of the unique characteristics of ELCs is their collaborative nature. To be eligible for state funding, all collaboratives are required to have two or more partners, including at least one school district and at least one Head Start, if one exists within the county. Collaboratives can also include private childcare centers and private or parochial schools. As part of the ELC program, providers work together to ensure there is uniformity in curriculum and quality across providers.

When the pandemic hit, each ELC, and in some cases each provider within an ELC, navigated the challenge in a different way. In most cases, Head Start went virtual. This meant that ELC Head Start classrooms served 100% of their students virtually while other students within the same ELC, often those attending a school district classroom, might have attended in person. In general, districts and licensed childcare centers tried to maintain in-person classes.

When reviewing the feedback on the survey, one of the biggest challenges for ELCs was providing consistent curriculum and quality despite these two very different learning plans—virtual and in person—within the same program. Since providers are frequently not located within the same facility or campus, it was even more challenging to ensure collaboration while implementing different learning plans.

“In our public school classrooms, our pre-K students were the only students allowed to have in-person instruction throughout the 2020-2021 school year.

K-12 remained virtual until April of 2021.”

Leigh Ann Reynolds, Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative

Clarke County Early Learning Partnership

Clarke County Quitman Lower Elementary, Manual Goff Head Start Amanda Allen Cleveland Early Learning Collaborative

Cleveland, MS Nailor Elementary, Bell Elementary, Hayes Cooper Center, Bolivar County Head Start Patsy Clerk Coahoma County Pre-K Collaborative

Clarksdale, MS Clarksdale Municipal School District, Coahoma Opportunities, Incorporated, St. Elizabeth’s Catholic School Dr. Toya Harrell-Matthews Corinth-Alcorn-Prentiss Early Learning Collaborative

Corinth, MS Corinth School District, Alcorn County School District, Kid Kountry, Corinth Head Start, Prentiss County School District Tanya Nelson George County Early Learning Collaborative

George County George County School District, Singing River Education Head Start Kristi Kirkwood Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative

Leflore County Threadgill Primary School, Claudine Brown Elementary, Leflore County Elementary, Greenwood Head Start Edshundra Gary

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 6

IN PERSON: Student are physically present in school with scheduling modifications to follow CDC and Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) recommendations.

HYBRID: Combines online and face-to-face instruction for students. Schools must meet virtual learning requirements.

VIRTUAL LEARNING: Instruction provided exclusively through virtual learning.

May also be called “digital learning” or “online learning.”

How In-Person Learning Changed In addition to having a virtual option, every ELC also had to make changes to in-person instruction in order to accommodate the pandemic. In Table 3, we detail some of the changes the programs made to protect their students.

Table 3. Providers, Learning Plans, and Number of Students

Legend: All In-Person (Blue), All Virtual (Green) Early Learning Collaborative

Corinth-Alcorn-Prentiss Early Learning Collaborative Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative Marion County and Columbia Early Learning Collaborative Picayune School District Early Head Start Lafayette-Oxford Early Learning Collaborative Petal Early Learning Collaborative George County Early Learning Collaborative Monroe Early Learning Collaborative Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative* Cleveland Early Learning Collaborative Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative Hattiesburg Early Learning Collaborative Clarke County Early Learning Partnership McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success*** Grenada Early Learning Collaborative Coahoma County Pre-K Collaborative Lamar Early Learning Collaborative**** TOTALS (2,697 students)

Number of Sites

In Person (students)

Hybrid (students)

Virtual (students)

5 2 5 2

228 42 109 40

0 0 6 0

25 60 0 0

4

131

60

149

2 2 9 3 4 3 6 7 1

20 120 145 0 52 0 52 167 60

0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0

33 0 49 122 45 85 4 123 **

4

17

0

135

2 3 2 66

78 10 150 1,421

0 0 18 148

60 190 48 1,128

* Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative only reported on their 3 school district sites and not Head Start. **Clarke County Early Learning Partnership only reported students that attended school district classrooms, which were in person. We know that the Head Start partner had students who attended virtually, but we do not know how many students were in the program because of a change in personnel. ***McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success reported Head Start students in their in-person count and virtual count. We removed Head Start from the in-person count in order to not count them twice. McComb Head Start classes were virtual for the majority of the year. ****Lamar Early Learning Collaborative provided hybrid learning in April 2020; 18 students moved from virtual to hybrid learning.

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 7

Table 4. Changes Made to Instruction

Type of Change

Number of ELCs That Made the Change

Smaller class sizes Hybrid instruction option Shortened school day Shortened school year Discontinued or reduced the number of available learning centers Discontinued the use of shared classroom supplies Specials (separate classes such as art or music) took place in the classroom Discontinued field trips Increased use of technology Discouraged hugs

6 5 4 2 3 11 8 14 10 10

Discontinued Shared Supplies In 2020-2021, providers had to supply students with individual sets of crayons, glue, books, and other learning materials to prevent transmission of the virus. In some cases, students were given supplies to take home if they were learning virtually. Many ELCs noted that they used the 2020 per-pupil funding increase to cover the increased cost of supplies.

Discontinued Field Trips Before the pandemic, the Monroe Early Learning Collaborative wrote an op-ed about why field trips are so important to the pre-K classroom. Field trips allow students to contextualize their understanding of the world around them. For example, students might spend a week learning about zoo animals and their different habitats by reading books, playing with different animal toys, singing about animals, and drawing different habitats for animals. At the end of the week, if students can travel to see animals at a zoo, farm, or wildlife refuge, the experience will make all of their learning even more memorable. However, as a result of the need for social distancing, COVID-19 halted all field trips as a learning tool.

Discouraged Hugs One of the saddest findings of our survey was that ELCs had to discourage hugs, which are important measures of affirmation and care from adults for many four-year-olds. Other national work shows that the stress of the pandemic negatively impacted family mental health, including that of children. ELCs had to substitute other signals of support such as elbow bumps instead of hugs.

Mississippi Early Learning Collaboratives Grenada Early Learning Collaborative

Grenada, MS Grenada Elementary School, Grenada Headstart Kim Ezelle Hattiesburg Early Learning Collaborative

Hattiesburg, MS Rowan, Hawkins, Woodley, Thames, Grace Christian, Tunja Little Ones, TJ’s Learning Center, Smart Start, USM CCD, Therah’s Childcare Center, PRVO Headstart Hope Mikell Lafayette-Oxford Early Learning Collaborative

Oxford, MS Bramlett Elementary, Lafayette Elementary, Mary Cathey Headstart, Willie Price Lab School Tamara Hillmer Lamar County Early Learning Collaborative

Lamar County Lamar County School District, PRVO Head Start Heather Lyons Marion County and Columbia Early Learning Collaborative

Marion County CPS Pre-K, EME Pre-K, My Luv Daycare, WMP Pre-K, PRVO Headstart Amanda Stevens McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success

McComb, MS CCLC, KECC, Kennedy Headstart, Westbrook Headstart Betty Wilson-McSwain

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 8

Other changes In addition to the changes made to instruction identified in Table 3, ELCs stated they limited the number of students who entered learning centers at any given time, used barriers in the classroom, and separated kids by classroom on the playground.

Health-Related In-Person Learning Policies Challenge: All ELCs had to adopt new operating policies and procedures for in-person learning.

To protect students from the spread of disease, the 16 ELCs that returned to inperson learning implemented many new policies and procedures. These policies ranged from mandatory masking for adults and students to daily temperature checks and social distancing. Table 4 identifies the different policies ELCs adopted during the 2020-2021 school year.

How ELCs Implemented Virtual Learning Most ELCs had to provide some type of virtual instruction in addition to in-person learning. We asked a series of questions to get an idea of what learning looked like when an ELC offered virtual learning.

Two ELC programs (Picayune School District Early Head Start and George County Early Learning Collaborative) reported only offering in-person learning during the 2020-2021 school year. Conversely, two programs only offered virtual instruction (Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance and Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative). 13 other programs provided a virtual option in addition to in-person instruction (see Table 2 for details on the type of learning each ELC provided).

“Parents are more concerned about their children’s social and emotional development and well-being than they were prior to the pandemic. They also are more concerned about excessive screen time and lack of access to extracurricular activities. They are less concerned about the child’s language development than prior to the pandemic.”

Mississippi Early Learning Collaboratives Monroe Early Learning Collaborative

Monroe County West Amory, Aberdeen, Hatley, Smithville, Hamilton, Calvert’s , Lil’ Blessings, MAP - Aberdeen, MAP - Amory Jennifer Calvert Petal Early Learning Collaborative

Petal, MS Petal Primary School, Headstart DeDe Smith, Ph.D. Picayune School District Early Head Start

Picayune Picayune School District Dr. Pamela Thomas Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative

Oktibbeha County Emerson Preschool, ICS Head Start Oktibbeha County Ellen Goodman Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative

Sunflower County A.W. James Elementary, Rosser Early Learning Center, DHA/Head Start Drew, DHA/Head Start Ruleville, DHA/Head Start Indianola Leigh Ann Reynolds Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance

Tallahatchie County Eva Covington Headstart, West Tallahatchie Headstart, Charleston Elementary Leigh Sargent

Impacts of the Pandemic on Young Children and Their Parents, National Institute for Early Education Research MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 9

In Appendix A (Table 5), we detail which strategies the ELCs used during the 2020-2021 school year. The biggest takeaway is that there was no single plan or strategy used consistently across the collaboratives. Every program with a virtual option tried a different combination of strategies.

For example, Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative had students attend class virtually as their primary strategy and supplemented that learning with physical materials, digital materials, pre-recorded lessons, instructional lessons on TV, and learning packets that families picked up.

Most often, ELCs had students attend virtual classes as the primary way of providing virtual instruction. This means that students logged into a Zoom meeting or other meeting software and the teacher interacted with them in real time.

On average, ELCs required students to log in for roughly four hours. At the top end, Corinth-Alcorn-Prentiss Early Learning Collaborative required students to log in six hours a day, while at the bottom end, Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative required two hours a day. Table 6 shows how ELCs monitored students when they were logged into virtual learning. The most commonly used strategies were 1) student interactions with their teacher (e.g., how many students attended virtual one-on-one meetings or emailed their teacher), and 2) monitoring data on regular student attendance or participation in virtual learning activities. Often ELCs identified using more than one strategy to monitor student engagement.

Table 5. New COVID Policies

In-Person Policies Mandatory mask policies for adults Mandatory mask policies for children Social distancing in the classroom In-classroom lunch periods Closed the building or program to visitors Temperature checks for staff or students Quarantine policies Additional sanitation

ELCs with New Policies 15 13 14 13 16 16 16 16

“Our collaborative did not provide in-person learning at all during the 2021-2020 school year.”

Leigh Sargent, Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance Table 6. Strategies to Monitor Students During Virtual Learning

Strategy Monitoring data on student attendance or participation in virtual learning activities on a regular basis Student sign-ons to the provider’s online portal or learning management system Student log-ins to online programs assigned by our ELC Student interactions with their teacher (e.g., how many students attend virtual one-on-one meetings or email their teacher) Student completion of assignments

Number of ELCs 14 11 9

15 9

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 10

Additional Barriers to Providing Virtual Instruction Challenge: Providing high-quality virtual instruction means an educational program has to have a solid digital infrastructure in place, which most ELCs did not have prior to 2020.

Essential to high-quality virtual learning for young children is a device, reliable internet connection, and adult supervision to support learning at home.

We asked two questions about the digital infrastructure of the ELC prior to the 2020-2021 school year.

Figure 1. Were the following activities part of your ELC’s 2020-2021 strategy for delivering virtual learning to your students?

10

15

8

12

6

9

4

6

2

3

0

0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

No, not part of our strategy

Yes, as a way to supplement instruction

Yes, as a primary component of instruction

Students work on physical learning materials (e.g., paper packets, worksheets, textbooks) Students work on learning materials made available digitally (e.g., emailed, posted on a website, Google Classroom, Canvas) Students work on digital learning activities using external websites (e.g., PBS Learning Media, National Geographic)

Students work on digital lessons as part of an online program provided by an outside vendor (e.g., ST Math, Khan Academy, Newsela) Students attend virtual classes (e.g., via Google Meet or Zoom) taught by their teacher on a fixed schedule Students attend virtual tutoring sessions with their teacher at scheduled times Students attend virtual “office hours” with their teacher on an as-needed basis

Students watch lessons pre-recorded by a teacher in the ELC and made available online (e.g., YouTube, Google Classroom) Students watch instructional lessons or programs on television (e.g., PBS) Teachers/program provided learning packets/supplies for families to pick up Students attended drive-thru learning events

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 11

Before the 2020-2021 school year, did your ELC assess which families lacked access to digital devices and/or the internet? Select all that apply.

Assessment Strategies

Number of ELCs

No, we did not collect information about access issues

10

Yes, we conducted a survey of families across the ELC

4

Yes, we had teachers ask each of their students/families

4

Yes, we took requests from families Other—Each site polled parents

2 1

Other—The school district put out a survey to the parents in our community

1

Before the 2020-2021 school year, most ELCs did not collect information about family access to the internet or devices. However, many ELCs were able to provide digital devices to students and families that needed them.

We also asked what support ELCs were able to provide to families during the 2020-2021 school year. Futhermore, all ELCs provided some guidance and resources to help families support student learning at home.

In March 2020, how many students/families in your ELC faced the following challenges?

Assessment Strategies

Number of ELCs

Very Few or No Students/Families (10%) Limited access to digital devices (e.g., desktop computer, laptop, tablet)

8

Limited access to reliable internet connection

6

Limited capacity of family members to support student learning at home

4

Some Students/Families (10-25%) Limited access to digital devices (e.g., desktop computer, laptop, tablet)

2

Limited access to reliable internet connection

3

Limited capacity of family members to support student learning at home

3

Many Students/Families (25-75%) Limited access to digital devices (e.g., desktop computer, laptop, tablet)

5

Limited access to reliable internet connection

6

Limited capacity of family members to support student learning at home

8

All or Almost All Students/Families (More Than 75%) Limited access to digital devices (e.g., desktop computer, laptop, tablet)

3

Limited access to reliable internet connection

3

Limited capacity of family members to support student learning at home

3

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 12

PART V. ENGAGING FAMILIES Challenge: All collaboratives must provide opportunities for family engagement, even in a pandemic.

Like collaboration, family engagement is a key requirement of the Early Learning Collaborative Act. When applying to be a part of the ELC program, applicants include a written family engagement plan that allows families to communicate with pre-K staff informally, access the program without prior notification, and participate in learning activities with their children. Fulfilling the engagement requirements became more difficult during the 2020-2021 school year, most notably because some students were participating virtually only and many in-person sites closed their buildings to visitors. Despite the challenges, all ELCs expected their staff to try to reach families. In Table 7, ELCs identified the strategies they used to ensure engagement with families and students while they were learning virtually. Again, almost all ELCs reported using more than one strategy.

Most ELCs are in agreement that parent and family engagement dropped during the 2020-2021 school year. Many programs worked to establish alternatives to their in-person engagement experiences by providing online parent workshops and virtual parent/teacher conferences. Teachers communicated through packets sent home, text messages, and phone calls. However, nothing was really able to replace in-person events and meetings with families.

Table 8. Engagement Strategies Used

by ELCs in 2020-2021 Engagement Strategy

Number of ELCs

No expected outreach to students or families

0

Notify family via automated phone call, text message, or email

13

Expect provider staff (e.g., counselors, attendance office) to call, text, or email student or family

10

Expect teachers to call, text, or email student or family

13

Expect teachers or school staff to visit student at home

1

“It was a challenge for teachers to connect with families without the families coming into the centers. Relationships with families suffered, but they got better once children started with in-person instruction. Family conferences were held virtually, and it was challenging to make sure the families understood what the teachers needed to communicate to them to assist their child at home.”

Ellen Goodman, Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 13

PART IV. RAISE THE RATE: THE 2020 PER-PUPIL FUNDING INCREASE Success: Every ELC used the additional funds provided by the 2020 per-pupil funding increase to provide high-quality learning for their students.

During the 2020 legislative session, the legislature raised the pre-K rate from $4,300 to $5,000 per child, a difference of $700 total and $350 in state funds. Because the pandemic interrupted the session, the legislature made this change directly in the budget bill which means it has to be renewed annually. In 2021, we were able to extend the change again via the budget bill. This means that ELCs have continued to receive additional funding this school year to help navigate the pandemic. To show how this continued rate change impacts pre-K classrooms, we asked each ELC how this funding impacted their classrooms during the 2020-2021.

PART V. NAVIGATING THE 2021-2022 SCHOOL YEAR: CHALLENGES Due to the pandemic, providers could no longer work in the same ways that had made the collaboratives successful in the past. In order for ELCs to work more effectively with their providers, many of the ELCs implemented virtual meetings with the leads at the different providers. Face-to-face meetings were removed from almost all ELCs, which meant professional development and staff and planning meetings had to be over an online meeting platform like Zoom. The increase of virtual meetings then led to virtual fatigue for some of the collaboratives. In one case, an ELC reported that it struggled to get teachers to participate in virtual meetings, which made professional development challenging.

The biggest challenge and concern for ELCs was the fact that teaching four-year-olds virtually is “not very developmentally appropriate.”

So much of the value of early education comes from the one-on-one interactions teachers have with their students and the relationships they build with families. Many of those strategies are lost when translated to a virtual learning environment. On top of the environment being extremely challenging, ELCs had to figure out how to help families get connected to the internet and train them to work alongside the teacher to teach

The majority of ELCs used the additional funds to purchase more technology to support virtual and at-home learning. They also purchased instructional materials and supplies. Two ELCs noted that the additional funds made it possible to maintain staff. In short, the additional dollars provided by the 2020 legislature made it possible for ELCs to navigate the toughest year in history.

“We purchased new devices for scholars and assistant teachers. We also purchased classroom resources to support the themes of the curriculum.

We added books that provide parent engagement support to distribute to each scholar to build student at-home libraries. We purchased interactive tables to build literacy and social development skills.”

Betty Wilson-McSwain, McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success lessons or present new content. This was a big ask for families if parents or guardians were working full time or had limited access to the internet.

Children and teachers are resilient, but the 2020-2021 school year was challenging and stressful for all involved. Every ELC made changes and accommodations in a situation that was less than ideal.

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 14

LOOKING TO 2021-2022 Many ELCs are not offering virtual pre-K in the 2021-2022 school year unless there has been a specified need. However, many of the ELCs have continued to offer virtual meetings and communications with families. For one ELC, this means continuing a virtual monthly series to provide families with materials and activities to support their child’s learning at home. Programs are also requiring teachers to be prepared to go virtual if their classrooms have to close because of quarantine. ELCs have had to learn to be more agile in how they provide early learning to their students and families.

Furthermore, many of the health policies adopted during the 2020-2021 school year to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 have remained in place for ELCs. This includes sanitizing practices, temperature checks, masks, and social distancing.

As the ELCs look to the future, we asked what ELCs wanted to learn from their peers. Seven ELCs were interested in learning more about how other programs were engaging families. This included specific comments on social and emotional activities for families and the Ready Rosie program (a family engagement program). The second most requested topic was navigating virtual learning and technology. Five ELCs were interested in learning what platforms other programs were using, how other programs were implementing virtual learning, and what the most effective strategies were. Other requested topics included how ELCs were navigating learning loss, the types of professional development being offered to teachers, and how centers were managing to meet social distancing and sanitary guidelines.

CONCLUSION Early learning collaboratives in Mississippi were resilient during the 2020-2021 school year. Like all schools and educational programs across the globe, ELCs had to make dramatic accommodations in order to ensure safety. Having access to additional resources during the most trying time in education allowed ELCs to make the shifts they needed within the constrictions of COVID-19. ELC’s ability to offer high-quality pre-K in Mississippi, especially in this time of crisis, will have a lasting, positive impact on kids throughout their entire educational journey.

“We found new ways to engage families (Facebook Lives, prerecorded teacher videos about learning concepts, drive-in jungle themed family movie night, Festival of Trees drive-thru event to help virtual students study tree farms, etc.). Engagement looks different, but it is still happening and our children are growing as a result of the learning partnership between our ELC and families. Whatever the needs of our children and families are, we work to meet them.”

Lamar Early Learning Collaborative Heather Lyons MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 15

Appendix A Table 5. Virtual Strategies Students work on physical learning materials

Students work on learning materials made digitally

Students work on digital learning activities using external websites

Student work on digital lessons as part of an online program provided by an outside vendor

Students attend virtual classes

Students attend virtual tutoring sessions

Students attend virtual office hours

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

Starkville Oktibbeha Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

No

Yes, as primary

Marion County and Columbia Early Learning Collaborative

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Picayune School District Early Head Start

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Lafayette-Oxford Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Petal Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, as supplemental

George County Early Learning Collaborative

Students watch pre recorded lessons

Students watch instructional lessors or programs on TV

Teacher/Program provided learning packets/supplies for families to pick up

Students attended drive thru learning events

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

No

No

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

NO RESPONSE

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

No

No

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

No

Monroe Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Greenwood-Leflore County Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

No

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Lamar County Early Learning Collaborative

No

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as supplemental

No

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as primary

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

Yes, primary

No

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

Yes, as supplemental

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes, as supplemental

No

Collaborative

Corinth-AlcornPrentiss Early Learning Collaborative

Cleveland Early Learning Collaborative Tallahatchie Early Learning Alliance Sunflower County Early Learning Collaborative

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 1

Collaborative

Hattiesburg Early Learning Collaborative

Students work on physical learning materials

Students work on learning materials made digitally

Students work on digital learning activities using external websites

Student work on digital lessons as part of an online program provided by an outside vendor

Students attend virtual classes

Students attend virtual tutoring sessions

Students attend virtual office hours

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, primary

Yes, supplemental

Clarke County Early Learning Partnership

Students watch pre recorded lessons

Students watch instructional lessors or programs on TV

Teacher/Program provided learning packets/supplies for families to pick up

Students attended drive thru learning events

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

Yes, supplemental

No

NO RESPONSE

McComb Community Collaborative for Early Learning Success

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

Yes, Primary

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Grenada Early Learning Collaborative

Yes, supplemental

No

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

Coahoma County Pre-K Collaborative

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

No

No

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

Yes, supplemental

MISSISSIPPI FIRST RESILIENCE 2

Mississippi First is a 501c3 public policy non-profit that champions transformative policy solutions ensuring educational excellence for every Mississippi child. Mississippi First is a leading voice for state-funded pre-K, high-quality public charter schools, rigorous state learning standards, and commonsense testing and accountability policies. We are also actively engaged in improving Mississippi’s educator pipeline.