Transcript Issues to Consider in Developing a Preschool Factor for

Lori Goodwin-Bowers – Colorado Preschool Program
Supervisor, CDE
Charlotte Brantley – President and CEO, Clayton Early Learning
John Augenblick – Partner, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates
November 8, 2011
Early Childhood Education in
Colorado: The Colorado
Preschool Program
Lori Goodwin-Bowers – Colorado
Preschool Program Supervisor, CDE
Colorado Preschool Program
The Colorado Preschool Program was created in
1988 to address the needs of children who may not
be prepared to be successful in school.
Authorized by the legislature to serve 20,160 atrisk children (about 28% of CO four-year-olds)
 CPP is voluntary for school districts, 170 of 178
districts in Colorado as well as the Charter School
Institute participate in the program.
 Each “slot” is funded at .5 PPR in the School
Finance Formula

CPP Enrollment over the Last Few Years
80,000
71,827
72,264
72,797
70,000
Total Number of
Four-Year-Olds in
Colorado †
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
(39.2%)
28,228
20,160
(42.7%)
30,857
20,160
(48.0%)
34,943
20,160
10,000
Estimated Number of
Four-Year-Olds
Eligible for
Free/Reduced-Price
Lunch ‡
Number of Children
Served by CPP
†Colorado State
Demography Office
0
2008
2009
2010
‡Estimate based
on actual numbers
from grades 1-8
Estimate of Total Population Served by Colorado
Preschool Program, Early Childhood Special
Education and Head Start
3-year-olds
4-year-olds
Head Start
5%
CPP
6%
Special Ed
3%
CPP
20%
Head Start
7%
Other/None
86%
Other/None
68%
Special Ed
5%
Important Features of CPP:
Locally appointed District Advisory
Councils advise the school district
in the implementation of the
program. Including:
o Recommending a plan
for delivery of services
o Monitoring programs at least
twice a year using the Quality
Standards
o Coordinating family support
services and extended day
services
o Overseeing the determination
of eligibility
Where CPP Children Are
Served
Public
School
15.5%
17 %
Head Start
67.4%
Community
Program
CPP’s Delivery System
Type of Delivery System
2010-2011
Number of School
Districts
Percentage
CPP district councils with no other licensed preschool
or child care center in the community.
62
36.7%
CPP district councils that contract out all allocated slots
40
23.7%
CPP district councils that provide services in both
community and public school settings
42
24.9%
CPP district councils where other community providers
exist but do not contract with CPP.
25
14.8%
CPP Children are Served in 67.4% of the licensed preschools in the state.
CPP Children are Served in 19.6% of the licensed child care centers in the state.
More Important Features of CPP:
• Class size is limited to 16 children with a one to eight
adult to child ratio.
• Preschool offered 10 hours per week
• Teachers must have core coursework in early
childhood education, child development and family
engagement.
• CPP funds 90 hours per year for teacher planning,
child assessment, training, and family support
activities.
• Family involvement and support are required
• Child outcomes measured through Results Matter
Programs Serving CPP Children
Must Use the Quality Standards
 Interaction Among
 Staffing Patterns
Staff and Children
 Curriculum
 Family/Staff
Partnership
 Staff Qualifications
and Development
 Administration
 Role and Function of
the Teaching Team
 Physical Environment
 Health and Safety
 Nutrition and Food
Service
 Evaluation
Relationship of Slot Allocations to
Funding per “Slot”
$8,000.00
Funding per CPP "Slot"
$7,000.00
$6,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
School District Slot Allocation
1,200
1,400
1,600
Funding Sources Used to Provide Quality
Comprehensive Education to Preschoolers
 Early Childhood Special
 School Readiness Grant
Education Funding
 Parent Tuition
 District General Fund
 Head Start
 Grants and Foundations
 Child Care Assistance
Program (CCAP)
 USDA Child and Adult
Care Food Program
 Title I
 Community
Contributions
 Fundraising
 Local Service Clubs
Benefits of CPP:
 CPP children make faster progress in
preschool than their more advantaged
peers and the amount they are behind
narrows before they enter kindergarten.
 CPP children are more likely to be identified as “at or above grade
level in literacy” in kindergarten through third grade than other at-risk
children who did not attend CPP.
 Across 3rd through 5th grade, in all three subject areas, more CPP
children were proficient or advanced than other at-risk children who
did not attend CPP.
 In kindergarten through 3rd grade, CPP reduces the need for
retention- in kindergarten by as much as one-half - thus saving
taxpayer money.
Retention Rates
Were children ever retained in…
CPP 2004-05 Cohort
At-Risk Who Did Not Attend CPP
3.5%
Percent Retained
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
K
1st
2nd
Grade
Retention rate cut in half!
3rd
Two Ways Early Childhood Students Are
Included in the School Finance Pupil
Membership Count in Colorado
Minimum Age
Eligibility
Colorado Preschool Program
Early Childhood Special Education
• Children qualify under
• All preschool students with a
legislatively defined risk factors.
disabling condition have a right to
• Every participating district has a
services and may be counted if they
“CPP” allocation
are eligible
• 3-year-olds must have 3 risk
factors and turn 3 by October 1
• 4 or 5-year-olds may qualify
with one risk factor and must
turn 4 by October 1
• Students must reach 3 during the
semester of the official count date
Colorado Preschool Program
• State:
 .5 per pupil revenue
(FY 2010-11: $70,588,974)
• State:
 .5 per pupil revenue
(FY 2010-11: $23,598,714)
 State Categorical Funds for
Special Education Programs
Under the Exceptional
Children’s Educational Act
(ECEA)
o Federal:
 IDEA Part B allocation
 IDEA, Section 619 preschool
allocation
Funding
FTE
Early Childhood Special Education
• Most children are counted as
half-day pupils (.5 FTE)
• Districts may apply for the
flexibility to fund a child using
two CPP “slots”. Only 5% of
the slots in CPP can be used
for full-day programs.
• All children are counted as half-day
pupils (.5 FTE)
Colorado Preschool
Program
Early Childhood Special
Education
Numbers
Served in
‘10-11
Colorado
Preschool
Program
• 20,160
“slots”
• 6,944 childrenFunding
How PPR Funds Can Be
Used
• Defined in statute –
(22-28-108 (5.5) C.R.S.).
• “Costs that a district would not
have incurred without the
services provided in
conjunction with the preschool
program”
• Overhead limited to 5%
• Revenues and expenses
reported by district in ADE
Financial Data
Submissions
• No guidance provided on use of
per pupil revenue
Program Funding in Millions of Dollars
75
80
70
70
60
50
65
40
60
30
20
55
10
50
0
2009-2010
2010-2011
School Year
2011-2012
(Projected)
Number of CPP Slots in Thousands
Trends in CPP Funding Over Last Three Years
Funding Amounts
Number of Slots
The Fabric of Early Childhood
Education
Charlotte Brantley - President and CEO,
Clayton Early Learning
The Fabric of Early Childhood Education at
the Community Level
 CPP is one critical component
 In many communities, other components include





Early Head Start (federal),
Head Start (federal),
the Child Care Assistance Program (federal + state),
local tax-funded programs (e.g., the Denver Preschool
Program – DPP), and
tuition-based child care and preschool programs
Characteristics of Components
 Some programs/funding streams target high need
children, such as low-income and other risk factors, or
specific age groups, such as 4 year olds
 Some operate only in center-based settings, while
others also fund family child care settings
 Some require specific program quality indicators or
performance standards
 Some focus primarily on the child, while others have a
more comprehensive family focus
The Fabric of Early Childhood Education
from the Child’s Point of View
 In the period from birth to kindergarten entry, an
individual child might be enrolled in several of these
components, often simultaneously
 An estimated 240,000 + Colorado children in this age
range have parents in the workforce
 Families weave together these ECE components, many
of which are part day, to form the whole day needed to
support their children’s health, safety and school
readiness while the parents are at work
The Fabric of Early Childhood Education
from the Provider’s Point of View
 Just as families weave these components, providers
often weave them when policies allow
 The resulting “blended” or “braided” funding streams
create comprehensive programs that meet multiple
needs of children and their families in one location
 For example, embedding CPP within a communitybased licensed child care program supports enhanced
focus on early learning while eliminating the need to
move children from site to site during the parent’s
work day
The Economic and Social Underpinnings
of the Early Childhood Education Fabric
 The US approach to ECE has evolved over decades
 The most compelling identified “need” for programs
has differed from era to era
 For example, during WWII, as women were
encouraged to enter the workforce, the companion
need for child care established a focus primarily on
health and safety of children while parents worked
 The 60’s political focus on the “Great Society” resulted
in establishment of Head Start to address school
readiness of poor children
The Economic and Social Underpinnings
of the Early Childhood Education Fabric
 In the late 70’s and 80’s states began to establish a year
of readiness programming prior to kindergarten entry,
most focusing on high need children
 As more and more mothers entered the workforce in
the past few decades, the number of child care
programs grew exponentially
 This pattern of program creation in response to one
compelling need or another has resulted in the often
fragmented “non-system of a system” we see today
The Funding Challenge
 In large part, funding has not kept pace with the
expansion of need and the expansion of programs
 Not one of the multiple funding sources (federal, state,
parent paid tuition) currently covers the real cost of
early childhood education
 In addition, many funding streams were designed to
provide only a few hours of programming (e.g., 10
hours a week for CPP), not recognizing the family
need for program hours that match the parent’s work
schedule
The Starting Early Challenge
 A growing body of research evidence supports the
critical importance of starting a comprehensive early
learning focus well before kindergarten entry,
particularly for high need children
 Results driven programs for infants and toddlers have
proven outcomes, and are the most expensive to
provide due primarily to the required staff to child
ratios (ideally three teachers to 8 children)
The Starting Early Challenge
School Readiness Scores (English Bracken) of Kindergarten Bound Children by
Age of Entry into Educare
All Sites, Adjusted, 2007-09
Children’s Home Language:
English (n=332)
Non-English (n=189)
115
110
105
105.3
105.1 104.4
98.4
100
96.4
97.0
98.8
95.5
93.0
95
88.7
90
85
< 2 yrs
2-3 yrs
3-4 yrs
4+ yrs
All
The Starting Early Challenge from a
Community ECE Fabric Perspective
 Despite the compelling evidence of the previous slide,
most programming for infants and toddlers is offered
in community-based settings, and is paid for primarily
by parents who are at the lowest earning levels of their
adult life
 In the most successful financing models,
infant/toddler programming is combined with
programming for preschoolers to leverage the dollars
available
Early Childhood Education and
School Finance Systems
John Augenblick – Partner, Augenblick,
Palaich and Associates
The General Structure of School
Finance Systems
 Most states use some form of a “foundation”
program to allocate the majority of state current
operating aid – not capital aid – to school districts.
 Under a foundation program, the state determines
how much revenue school districts should have
based on numbers of students, student
characteristics, and district characteristics.
 The state then “equalizes” aid by deducting local
revenue from the total revenue districts should have.
How Students are Differentiated
in State Aid Systems
 Most foundation formulas are based on the “dollars times
students” approach (e.g., $6,000 X 8,430 = $50,580,000).
 In determining how much revenue districts should have
from state and local sources, states may differentiate the
value of students based on:
 Grade level (e.g., .50 for K or cost weights for grade levels)
 Program (e.g., vocational education)
 Student characteristics such as: eligibility for free/reduced
price lunch, gifted/talented, language needs, or participation
in special education
It Is Possible to Add Preschool
Students to the System
 The state could count students who participate in
preschool just like students in any other grade.
 A variety of issues would arise:
 How to count students
 What cost (or relative cost weight) to apply to students
 Whether funds would be categorical or fungible
 Whether funds would be equalized
 Whether there would be programmatic requirements
How to Count Students
 What ages would be counted? (e.g., four years old, three
and four year olds, younger participants, etc.)
 Would all participants count or just some? (e.g., just
those from low income families)
 Would students be counted as full-time or part-time (that
is as 1.0 or something less than 1.0 if attending on less
than a full-time basis)
 Would there be a cap on the number of students? Note:
this age group may or may not be covered by state
education clause language.
What Cost to Apply to Preschool
Students
 The same base cost as all other students
 The actual cost of pre-school or a weight that is the
ratio of that cost to the base cost
 Differential cost based on program quality (e.g.,
higher quality programs have a higher weight)
 Differential cost for three vs. four year old students
(e.g., the cost differs between the two age groups)
 Direct education cost only or include the cost of
wrap-around services as well?
Other Considerations
 Would some portion of state funding (e.g., 85%) be required to
be spent on preschool programs or would funds be fungible
like most other funding?
 Usually, the cost of providing a service exceeds state aid
 It is more difficult to require spending of state aid if it has been
equalized so that districts receive different amounts of aid
 Would private pre-school providers be eligible for state
support? If so, how would wealth be taken into consideration?
(e.g., districts count students served privately and pass
through state, and local, support)
 Could tuition be charged? What, if any, restrictions apply?
Programmatic Requirements
 Should the quality of preschool programs be rated
(e.g., Qualistar)?
 Should standards be set for class size?
 Should teachers have to meet certain credit or
degree requirements?
 Should teachers be paid on the same schedule as
other teachers in the district?
Programmatic Requirements
 Should there be standards for facilities? Should
funds be provided for districts that do not have
appropriate facilities?
 Should a portion of “slots” be provided privately?
 Should districts be required to have plans
demonstrating how they will work with private
providers?
Funding Illustrations
 13 states and DC include preschool in their state aid




formulas.
Other states provide funding – but outside the formula.
States that do include preschool in their formulas do not
require that districts actually provide preschool.
Funding may be insufficient to meet demand either due
to the weight given preschool children or a cap on the
numbers eligible to receive state aid.
Weights can conflate time and cost. That is .60 might
mean students attending half time but cost weighted at
1.20 (50 X 1.20 = .60).
Funding Illustrations
 Student counting examples: Vermont, .46; Kansas,
.50; Iowa, .60; Oklahoma, .70 (1.3 for full-time); West
Virginia, variable depending on hours per week (25
hours = 1.0, 12 hours = .5)
 West Virginia requires that no less than 50% of the
classrooms for eligible children must be provided
through contractual agreements with community
partners” that can meet state quality standards.
 New Jersey has studied the cost of providing high
quality preschool programs, which is higher than K12 programs, but does not provide sufficient funding.