Nurturing What We Invest In: Listening, Learning, and Evaluating During Universal Pre‑K and Child Care Expansion

In my last blog, Seeds of Opportunity: Growing Universal Pre‑K and Child Care Wisely, I discussed the importance of investment in early childhood programs for both children and the larger economy. Maryland Governor Wes Moore underscored this connection when he said, “Expanding access to affordable, quality child care is one of the best ways we can support our children and grow our economy at the exact same time.¹” Realizing that promise, however, requires investments that are intentional, targeted, and grounded in evidence.

That distinction becomes especially important when states move to large‑scale implementation of universal child care or Pre-K. In my last blog, I highlighted Tennessee’s experience with expanding its Voluntary Pre‑K (VPK) program. The state moved quickly to increase access, but the rapid scale‑up outpaced the systems needed to support and monitor quality. By second grade, children who had participated in VPK were performing behind their peers². These findings were surprising and the researchers noted that children’s experiences varied across the program, suggesting that overall quality was not retained during the scale up³. The Tennessee VPK experience makes clear that quality cannot be assumed during expansion; it must be monitored.

One of the most effective ways to ensure that quality is maintained as programs grow is systematic and rigorous evaluation at each step of implementation. Implementation evaluation, or evaluation of the roll‑out as it is happening, ensures that the needs of families and children are being met and allows for flexibility to address challenges that emerge at the local level. It also helps confirm that staff are supported to deliver programming at the highest quality.

One of the clearest lessons from Tennessee is how quickly program quality can erode when growth outpaces the systems designed to sustain it. Quality is not a luxury in early childhood programs; it is foundational to children’s learning, development, and preparation for school. Maintaining that quality requires attention to both structural and process elements. As described in my previous blog, structural quality includes features like small teacher‑child ratios, well‑equipped classrooms, and materials that support exploration and motor development. Process quality refers to the interactions that shape children’s daily experiences: warm, responsive teaching; emotionally safe environments; and opportunities for children to explore and learn through play.

Learning From Implementation as It Happens

There is no one‑size‑fits‑all plan for universal child care or PreK. Cities and states are made up of communities with different histories, resources, cultures, and daily realities, and no single blueprint can anticipate every need. Effective plans must be broad enough to set clear expectations yet flexible enough to be adapted locally. What works well in one community may fall flat in another. Evaluating implementation as it is happening allows leaders to hear directly from those on the ground as to what is working and what needs tweaking. It also allows those involved in the implementation to have a voice in the process, increasing investment and buy-in. Implementation evaluations create a systematic way to capture and act on this feedback so programs can maintain structural quality, process quality, and staff engagement across all settings.

This tension between statewide plans and local realities became clear in my work in Michigan.  When I was involved in evaluating how Preschool Development Grant, Birth to Five (PDG B‑5) funds were used, we held focus groups with staff from the Great Start Collaboratives (GSC) all across Michigan. Each GSC is rooted in its local community and designs programming based on the needs of the families it serves. Yet statewide rules sometimes conflicted with local realities. For example, GSCs were prohibited from offering gas cards to facilitate attendance at programs because some families had used them for non‑transportation purposes. During focus groups with GSC leaders, however, those in rural areas explained that gas cards were essential; without them, families simply could not afford to travel to programs. These same GSC leaders noted that funding formulas also created inequities: GSCs received state dollars based on the number of families served, but rural communities, where families live far apart, often needed more resources to run successful programs than GSCs in densely populated areas. This feedback was then relayed to the Michigan Department of Education; the evaluation helped to elevate the voices of GSC staff. As the focus groups in Michigan demonstrate, it is essential to stay in close communication with the people who experience implementation firsthand when universal child care and Pre‑K programs are rolled out.

Listening to the People Closest to the Work

As large-scale early education and care programs are rolled out, it is important to talk directly to both those involved in the implementation and those served to ensure that the roll-out is aligned with the plans and intentions of the expansion. Even the most well-intentioned leaders are removed from the day-to-day operations and are not always able to accurately envision what is needed for successful implementation. Listening to the people implementing the work and the families navigating it is the only way to understand what is happening on the ground. 
Implementation evaluations that include regular focus groups and interviews with site administrators, staff, and families create structured opportunities to bring crucial insights to light. These conversations help illuminate both the process quality families and children experience each day and the structural conditions that support that experience. Engaging staff and families ensures they have a real voice in the implementation process, which builds their sense of ownership and investment in the work. This shared investment strengthens program expansion by identifying challenges early and creating the conditions for timely, effective adjustments that preserve program quality.
Site staff are closest to day‑to‑day operations and are often the first to notice when something is not working as intended. Families, meanwhile, experience the system from the other side and can speak to whether programs are meeting their needs. Listening to both groups provides leaders with the insights needed to maintain the quality of the program at current sites and guide expansion efforts.

Surveys offer another way to capture staff and family perspectives at scale. Well‑designed surveys can shed light on both process quality, such as how children and families experience the program, and structural quality, including ratios, facilities, and access to materials. When surveys are designed well, they allow researchers to gather rich information from everyone involved in a PreK or child care expansion and to identify issues affecting most participants as well as those that affect specific groups.

What Staff Voices Teach Us About Strengthening Our Investment

A clear example of how implementation evaluation improves programs by talking with implementation staff, a lesson that applies equally to PreK and child care expansion, comes from the Regional Education Laboratory Midwest’s work with the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). Ohio schools were required to assess K –3 students’ early literacy skills at the start of the school year. For each student reading below grade level, teachers had to create a Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan (RIMP) outlining the interventions the child would receive. Wanting to understand how the process was working in practice, ODE staff interviewed district leaders, held focus groups with teachers, and launched a teacher survey to gather feedback.

One of the biggest takeaways was that teachers were treating the RIMP as a compliance exercise and using the interventions they preferred, regardless of what the RIMP recommended. ODE had also not considered how duplicative the RIMP process was with the process used for students needing an IEP. District leaders believed teachers were receiving professional development on completing the RIMP, but teachers reported having to figure it out themselves, often relying on the school’s reading specialist. In short, the RIMP was not functioning as ODE intended. With this feedback, ODE was able to merge the RIMP process with supports for children with dyslexia and reduce redundancies, improving the system and moving the process closer to a true instructional tool rather than a compliance task.

What Families Reveal About Meeting Real Needs

Just as staff insights strengthen the systems that support implementation, families offer a different and equally essential perspective on how programs function in practice.  Yet, families are often left out of program implementation plans despite the fact that the programs are intended to meet their needs. When programs are expanded to be universal, they must include more and more families, increasing the variety of needs to be met. Families are also the best source for confirming that process quality is in place and that children are experiencing warm, sensitive, and responsive providers and teachers. In short, families are the best reporters of their children’s experiences in the program.

When evaluating how Michigan’s GSCs were working to strengthen family engagement, we found a gap between what program administrators thought families needed and what families wanted. As part of this evaluation, we held focus groups with GSC staff from all across Michigan. They reported that parent representatives on their boards were especially impactful. Although staff often believed they understood what families needed, parent representatives were far better at identifying priorities and solutions. They were also more effective at outreach, engaging more families in services. As a result, several GSCs invested in training parent representatives to advocate for themselves, their families, and their communities. As the Michigan experience demonstrates, including families in implementation evaluations ensures that the universal child care or PreK program is continuing to meet the needs of all families served.

Seeing the Whole Picture Through Many Voices

Focus groups and interviews allow us to learn about key people’s experiences with PreK or child care program expansion and to probe more deeply into issues that surface. However, these methods capture only a limited set of voices. Surveys make it possible to hear from many more staff and families, offering a broader picture of how implementation is unfolding across sites. Because surveys can be completed anonymously, participants often feel more comfortable sharing concerns or naming challenges that may not arise in group settings. In many cases, survey findings reveal issues that were not raised during interviews or focus groups, allowing them to be identified and addressed early.

Online surveys can reach large numbers of respondents and allow people to participate wherever they feel most comfortable. In the Ohio project, ODE emailed the survey link directly to elementary school teachers, which allowed teachers to respond anonymously while ensuring that only Ohio public school teachers received the survey. In Michigan, we distributed the family survey link through public libraries and at Great Start Collaborative events to reach a broader set of families. However, open distribution also introduced challenges: because the link was publicly accessible, automated bots were able to complete the survey. We had to run several checks to identify and remove ineligible responses before analyzing the data.

Surveys play a critical role in implementation evaluation because they reach far more people than interviews or focus groups and provide a more representative picture of how universal PreK or child care expansion is working across communities. By capturing the experiences of the majority, surveys reveal which challenges are truly widespread rather than limited to a small set of voices. This broader view is essential during large‑scale implementation, when leaders need to understand whether their child care or PreK programs are being implemented as intended across many different sites. Surveys can illuminate both process quality, such as how children and families experience the program, and structural quality, including ratios, facilities, and access to materials.  When survey findings point to patterns that cut across classrooms, programs, or regions, leaders can focus their efforts where they will have the greatest impact and make timely adjustments that strengthen quality for all children and families.

Final Reflections

There’s no better investment in our future than an investment in childcare, to help mamas and daddies get to work and to give our babies a strong start.”

– Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)⁴

Universal child care and universal PreK strengthen the economy by allowing parents to work and by preparing young children for success in school and beyond. These programs deliver the strongest results when both structural and process quality are maintained across settings so that all participating children enter school ready to learn. The Tennessee experience shows how quickly quality can erode during expansion when monitoring systems are not in place. By incorporating the perspectives of program staff and the families they serve, leaders gain the insight needed to keep programs responsive to local conditions and aligned with community needs. Implementation evaluation builds shared ownership of the work and strengthens the conditions needed to maintain quality during scale‑up. With ongoing evaluation and a willingness to adapt, implementation plans can evolve as communities change, ensuring that universal programs remain high quality and effective for all families. Continuous evaluation is how communities and their leaders protect their investment and ensure that the returns reach every child and every community.  Because when we nurture what we invest in, every child, every family, and every community benefits.

---

1. Herron, P. (2025, January 31). Governor Moore visits Montgomery County Child Care Center to discuss monitor expansion and affordability – the MOCO Show. The MoCo Show. https://mocoshow.com/2025/01/31/governor-moore-visits-montgomery-county-child-care-center-to-discuss-expansion-and-affordability/ ↩︎
2. Snow, K. (2015, October 1). Making sense of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K study. www.naeyc.org/resources/blog. Retrieved December 11, 2025, from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/blog/tennessee-voluntary-pre-k-study  ↩︎
3. Snow, K. (2015, October 1). Making sense of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K study. www.naeyc.org/resources/blog. Retrieved December 11, 2025, from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/blog/tennessee-voluntary-pre-k-study  ↩︎
4. Essential excerpts: Child care quotes from The Hill. (2026, February 10). First Five Years Fund. https://www.ffyf.org/resources/2024/07/essential-excerpts-child-care-quotes-from-the-hill/ ↩︎