Riverside County Preschool Plan Advisory Group

Susan MuenchowJennifer Anthony

Irene LamKaren Manship

October 17, 2007

Outcomes for the Day!

Update on process so far Meetings, interviews, and teleconferences with

Needs Assessment and Budget Subcommittees Review findings on:

Criteria for Phase In Criteria for Program Quality Cost of New & Upgraded Slots 4 Potential Scenarios

Discuss possible approaches based on findings

Determine next steps

Considerations for Phasing In Preschool in Riverside County

Need: 14 districts had >25% API 1-3 k enrollment in at least one zip 5 districts had >50% ELL in at least one zip 12 districts had an ECE enrollment rate <45% (countywide

average) Capacity (Existing Revenue/Facilities)

4 school districts obtained AB172 funds 6 districts reserved Title I funds for preschool At least 7 districts received First 5 School Readiness Funds

Facilities Several districts have plans for new or expanded facilities

Number of Ks Enrolled in Low API – Western Part of County

Number of Ks Enrolled in Low API – Eastern Part of County

Benefits for Disadvantaged Children

Preschool children who participated in part-day, school year Chicago Child-Parent Centers (CPC)*: Received higher average scores on reading and math

tests during elementary school than children who didn’t participate in the program.

Were nearly half as likely to be placed in special education as non-CPC participants.

Economic return of $7 for every dollar invested.

*Source: Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J. Robertston, D.L., & Mann, E. (2000). Long-Term Benefits of Participation in the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. Chicago, IL: March 30, 2000.

Benefits for Disadvantaged Children in Chicago Parent-Child Centers

Children Who Attend Preschool Fare Better

14%

23%

7%15%

66%

25%

38% 35% 32%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

SpecialEducation

Placements

Grade Retention Multiple Arrests WelfareDependency

High SchoolGraduation

Preschool Participants Non-Preschool Participants

Benefits for ALL Children

All socio-economic groups in Oklahoma Pre-K Program experienced gains Free-lunch students on all 3 tests Reduced-price lunch & full-pay lunch students on 2

tests All racial & economic groups experienced

gains Latino & African-American students on all 3 tests White & Native American students on 2 tests

*Source: Gormley, Jr., W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D. & Dawson, B. (2004). The Effects of Oklahoma’s Universal Pre-K Program on School Readiness. Georgetown University Center for Research on Children in the U.S.

Projected Long-Term Benefits of Preschool for All Children in California

A 1-year high-quality universal preschool program in California will result in long-term savings of $2.62 for every dollar invested:Reduced grade retentionReduced use of special education Increase in high school graduatesReduced child maltreatmentReduced juvenile crimeSource: Rand Corporation Study, 2005

Outcomes Depend Upon Quality

Only high quality programs have been found to produce these effects

Programs found to have large effects meet or exceed NIEER quality benchmarks

NIEER Quality Benchmarks

Comprehensive early learning standards Teacher has a BA Teacher has specialized training in pre-K Assistant teacher has CDE (at least) At least 15 clock hours/year of in-service Maximum class size 20 or lower Staff-child ratio 1:10 or better Vision, hearing, health screening/referral & family

support At least 1 meal/day provided Site visits conducted

Program Quality Criteria – Recommendations from NIEER and First 5

Program Characteristic

NIEER Benchmark for Preschool

Programs

First 5 California PFA Demonstration

Grant Criteria Maximum class size

<20 20 for four-year-olds, or 24

(depending on staff/child ratio)

Staff-child ratio At least 1:10 3:24 or 2:20 Teacher degree BA Master teacher with

BA & 24 ECE units within 5 years & ECE credential within 10 yrs

Assistant teacher degree

CDA credential or equivalent

AA degree

Other Movement Toward Increased Educational Qualifications

Program Characteristic

NAEYC Accreditation Criteria for Preschool Programs

Head Start Reauthorization Proposed Program Requirements

Maximum class size

<20 for 4-year-olds <18 for 3-year-olds

<20

Staff-child ratio At least 1:10 for 4-year-olds At least 1:9 for 3-year-olds

At least 1:10

Teacher degree AA, with 75% with BAs by 2020

50% in program have BA by 2011

Assistant teacher degree

50% have CDA credential or equivalent, or 100% enrolled in program to attain CDA or equivalent

Have a least a CDA and working toward an AA or bachelor’s degree

Cost Estimate Assumptions

First 5 California PFA Demonstration Grant criteria: Minimum of 3 hours/day of services for school year Mixed Delivery System Build on Existing State Preschool, Head Start & other

publicly & privately funded settings Staff-child ratio of 3:24 or 2:20 Master teacher with BA & 24 ECE units within 5 years

& ECE credential within 10 years Assistant teacher with AA degree Compensation for BA level teacher comparable to that

of public school teachers Teachers teach two sessions

Countywide & School District Cost Estimates

Countywide Total cost calculated at full implementation (i.e., all school

district attendance areas, with no phase-in) 80% participation rate

API 1-3 School Attendance Area Phase in by Year 5 80% Participation Rate

API 1-5 School Attendance Area Phase in by Year 5 80% Participation Rate

Sample School District Attendance Areas (Large, Medium & Small)

Upgraded & New Spaces

Direct costs based on beginning public K-12 teacher salaries

Annual cost of an upgraded space = $1,935

Annual cost of a full space = $5,754Cost of new space in Riverside =

virtually same as statewide cost identified by AIR and RAND

Scenario I. Countywide – All districts, 80% participation

Cost at full implementation$88 million for 21,434 childrenUpgraded spaces = 6,789Spaces that already meet standards =

1,608New or full-cost spaces = 13,037

Scenario II. All low API 1-5, 80% participation

YearPhase in API

1-5

Inflation Adjusted

(@3%)

No. of low API (1-5) children served

No. of upgraded

slots

No. of full cost

slots

No of slots that already meet PFA

(special education

slots)

Year 1 $8,082,096 $8,082,096 3,096 820 1,480 796

Year 2 $17,174,454 $17,689,688 5,396 1,640 2,960 796

Year 3 $27,277,074 $28,938,248 7,696 2,460 4,440 796

Year 4 $38,389,956 $41,949,741 9,996 3,280 5,920 796

Year 5 $50,164,689 $56,460,800 12,208 4,060 7,353 796

Scenario III. All low API 1-3, 80% participation

YearPhase in API 1-3

Inflation Adjusted

(@3%)

No. of low API (1-3) children served

No. of upgraded

slots

No. of full cost

slots

No. of slots that already

met PFA (special

education slots)

Year 1 $4,640,688 $4,640,688 1,769 500 840 429

Year 2 $9,861,462 $10,157,306 3,109 1,000 1,680 429

Year 3 $15,662,322 $16,616,157 4,449 1,500 2,520 429

Year 4 $22,043,268 $24,087,274 5,789 2,000 3,360 429

Year 5 $28,684,455 $32,284,607 7,060 2,480 4,151 429

Scenario IV. 5-Year Phase-in for Sample Districts

District

# of 4 year olds (at 80% participation) with annual

4% population

growth

# of upgraded

slots

# of slots that already meet PFA standards (special

education)# of full

cost slots Total

Small District 89 61 2 60 123

Medium District 1589 541 57 1000 1598

Large District A 1198 163 86 958 1207

Large District B 1887 468 60 1380 1908

5-Year Phase-in for Sample Districts: Cost Estimates

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Small District

$124,572

$237,081

$258,558

$453,970

$586,863

Medium District

$1,198,464

$2,623,138

$4,291,145

$6,365,809

$8,615,094

Large District A

$1,079,268

$2,357,166

$3,743,395

$5,505,231

$7,382,654

Large District B

$1,443,696

$3,159,890

$5,169,208

$7,718,240

$11,205,975

Factoring in Wraparound Care

Need for Wraparound care in Riverside County

According to 2005 Resource & Referral Network, 90% of parents who called for referrals requested full-time care

48% of children under 6 have both parents (or a single parent) in the labor force

Sacramento County’s Bridging Model in Elk Grove Unified (EGUSD)

Pilot in existing child care settings. Credentialed preschool teacher teams with staff in

licensed child care centers & family child care homes to provide preschool services.

Each Preschool Bridging Model classroom will also be supported by a Professional Development Coach. Coach assists the teaching staff through observation, accommodations & mentoring.

Source: www.sackids.saccounty.net/coswcms/groups/public/@pub/@wcm/documents/webcontent/sac_007522.pdf

Sacramento County’s Bridging Model in Elk Grove Unified (EGUSD) – (cont’d)

Preschool Bridging services include: 3-hour preschool program, 5 days per week; Mentoring of classroom staff or family child

care provider; Child assessment and referral; and Kindergarten Transition planning.

Source: www.sackids.saccounty.net/coswcms/groups/public/@pub/@wcm/documents/webcontent/sac_007522.pdf

Sacramento County’s Bridging Model (cont’d)

Expenditure per child?About the same as new part-day

preschool slot in a center setting, but advantage of offering full-day service

Substantially more expensive in a family child care setting

Source: www.sackids.saccounty.net/coswcms/groups/public/@pub/@wcm/documents/webcontent/sac_007522.pdf

Action For Children’s License-Exempt Quality Enhancement (LEQE) Initiative in Illinois

Approximately 70% of Illinois children in childcare are in license-exempt homes.

In LEQE: Care & education are linked across settings 3-5 year old children are taken to a part-day

State PreK classroom 4 days/week 5th day – teachers visit FFN home w/ books &

activities Funded by State PreK @ $3k per child FFN providers receive full day child care

assistance payments

Leveraging Revenue

Cost of four scenarios

Countywide:All children: $88.1 millionTargeted:

API 1-3: $28.7 millionAPI 1-5: $50.1 million

Sample school district attendance areas:Large districts: $7.3-$11.2 millionMedium district: $8.6 millionSmall district: $586,000

Three Potential Revenue Sources

Title IAB172 (or similar state legislation)Parent/User Fees

Title I

May be used for: Any child in a Title 1 school Children above income level for other subsidized

programs Comprehensive services not funded by other

programs such as State Preschool Both school-based and community-based settings Developmental screenings Professional development for teachers working

with young children at risk of school failure Renting or leasing privately owned buildings

Allocating Title I

May be used for early education, from birth through kindergarten

School District receives allocation from state & can reserve % for preschool

Local elementary school can reserve a portion of its allocation for preschool

School districts in Riverside County reserving Title I dollars for preschool

School District

Title I Allocation,

FY2005

Title I Preschool

Allocations, 2005

Percent Allocated

to Preschool

Beaumont Unified $1,148,737 $12,067 1.05%

Desert Sands Unified

$6,759,373 $50,000 0.74%

Jurupa Unified $6,385,927 $160,000 2.51%

Lake Elsinore Unified

$3,511,078 $10,000 0.28%

Palm Springs Unified

$6,871,357 $330,000 4.80%Palo Verde Unified $1,558,256 $20,000 1.28%

TOTAL $26,234,728 $582,067  

Title I funds for preschool

What if all school districts in Riverside county allocated 4.8% of their Title I allocation to preschool, as Palm Springs does? $4 million countywide $3.7 million in API 1-3 attendance areas

What if all school districts allocated 10%, as in Merced? $8.3 million countywide $7.8 million in API 1-3 attendance areas

These funds could support additional quality upgrades or improved access

State Preschool & Family Literacy (AB 172) Awards – Total of $2,050,300 in Riverside County

Part Day AB172 Awards in Riverside County

Riverside County Superintendent of

Schools, $170,520.00, 8%

Mt. San Jacinto Community College,

$175,392.00, 9%

Lake Elsinore Unified School

District, $350,784.00, 17%

Hemet Unified School District,

$227,360.00, 11%

Family Service Association,

$643,104.00, 32%

Desert Sands Unified School District, $170,520.00, 8%

Val Verde Unified School District,

$312,620.00, 15%

Riverside County AB172 Awards

Part Day  Thousand Palms Child Care Center $87,696Desert Sands Unified School District $170,520

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools $170,520Mt. San Jacinto Community College $175,392

Hemet Unified School District $227,360Val Verde Unified School District $3112,620

Lake Elsinore Unified School District $350,784Family Service Association $643,104

Full Day  Thousand Palms Child Care Center $109,626

TOTAL $2,247,622

AB172 funds for preschool

What if Riverside is allocated three times as much in AB172 funds next year? $6.7 million countywide

Governor’s New Recommendations???

Potential priorities under discussion…Focus expansion on Title 1 school

attendance areasFocus expansion on children eligible for free

and reduced price lunchFocus on children currently eligible for State

Preschool

Parent fees – Los Angeles model

Los Angeles Universal Preschool parent fee schedule:

Median Income up to:Parent Pays (per

Year) Monthly PIF

$26,742 $0 $0

$31,885 $100 $8.33

$37,542 $200 $16.67

$45,000 $300 $25

$53,484 $400 $33.33

$60,000 $500 $41.67

$75,000 $600 $50

$100,000 $900 $75

$125,000 $1,500 $125

$150,000 $2,500 $208.33

$200,000 $3,000 $250

200,001+ $3,500 $291.66

Parent fees – Nuview School District Model

Charges $10 fee per day for families not eligible for State Preschool or Head Start

=$1800 annual flat fee for all parents over income threshold

Parent fees- revenue estimate assumptions

Low API neighborhoods: LAUP collected approximately $700,000 in parent fees last year for just over 6,500 children, for preschool programs targeted to higher-poverty areas = approximately $100 per child annually

Countywide: An estimated 57% of parents are over the income eligibility level for State Preschool; thus 43% might pay $1800 annual fee (Nuview model).

Countywide alternative: Parents over threshold pay full annual reimbursement rate for State Preschool ($3,714) on AVERAGE (sliding scale still recommended)

Parent fees for preschool

$100 average annual parent fee in low API attendance areas: $760,000 in API 1-3 $1.2 million in API 1-5

$1800 annual parent fee for parents over income threshold, countywide: $16.6 million

$3714 annual average parent fee for parents over threshold, countywide: $34.2 million

Impact of All Revenue Sources: Countywide

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Title I set aside at 4.8% Title I set aside at 10%

AB172 Title I Parent fees ($1800) Remaining cost

$60.8 million

Scenario I- Serving entire county: Total cost $88.1 million

$56.5 million

Impact of All Revenue Sources: API 1-5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Title I set aside at 4.8% Title I set aside at 10%

AB172 Title I Parent fees ($1800) Remaining cost

$38.2 million

Scenario II- Serving API 1-5: Total cost $50.1 million

$33.9 million

Impact of All Revenue Sources: API 1-3

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Title I set aside at 4.8% Title I set aside at 10%

AB172 Title I Parent fees ($1800) Remaining cost

$17.5 million

Scenario III- Serving API 1-3: Total cost $28.7 million

$13.5 million

Other issues

Preliminary Facilities estimate (new facilities only):At least $71.3 million

Workforce Development:TBD

Next Steps

Additional guidance on criteria for recommendations, final report and advocacy.

Questions? Contact:Susan Muenchow: smuenchow@air.orgJennifer Anthony: janthony@air.org Irene Lam: ilam@air.org Karen Manship: kmanship@air.org

ADDITIONAL SLIDES

Impact of $100 average parent fee in low API neighborhoods

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scenario III: Serving allAPI 1-3 attendance areas

Scenario II: Serving all API1-5 attendance areas

$100 parent fees Cost remaining

$28.7 million $50.2 million

$28.0 million $48.9 million

$760,000 $1.2 million

Impact of $1800 parent fee countywide

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scenario I: Serving entire county

$1800 parent fees Cost remaining

$88.1 million

$71.6 million

$16.6 million

Impact of $3714 parent fee countywide

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Scenario I: Serving entire county

$3714 parent fees Cost remaining

$88.1 million

$71.6 million

$16.6 million

Head Start

FY 2007 Head Start Reauthorization House bill has 1.1% increaseWould amount to $9.7 million increase for

CaliforniaBoth House & Senate bills propose raising

income eligibility from 100 to 130% of federal poverty level

What are Other Counties Doing?

Yolo - The City of West Sacramento (Yolo County) adopted a Developer Fee Ordinance that can be used to support the development of Preschool/childcare facilities and equipment which is estimated to generate $250,000-$300,000 depending on the pace of development.

What are Other Counties Doing?

Prop H in San FranciscoPhases in payments for education

enrichment over 5 years (2005-2010)Provides $ for specific needs such as

subsidies, new facility development, and provider support for FCCH and centers.

What are Other States Doing?

Voters in Arizona, Nebraska, and Denver, Colorado, approved ballot measures to increase funding for early childhood programs.

Denver’s Question 1A

Voters in Denver, Colorado, approved Question 1A, the Preschool Matters initiative, which sets a 0.12% (12 cents for every $100 spent) sales tax increase as the source of funding for the Denver Preschool Program.

The sales tax is projected to raise $12M in revenue a year.

For the average Denverite, it will come out to about $25 more in sales taxes stretched over 365 days.

Nebraska’s Proposed Amendment 5

Nebraska’s Proposed Amendment 5 allows public school funds to be used to fund early childhood programs and will create an early childhood education endowment fund with an initial investment of $40M.

Arizona’s Proposition 203

Arizona’s ballot initiative Proposition 203, the First Things First Initiative, will raise $150 million every year to fund voluntary health screenings & early education programs for children ages birth to five by instituting an 80 cent per pack tobacco tax.

NAEYC Program Quality Elements

Relationships: Promotes positive relationships among all children & adults to encourage each child's sense of individual worth & belonging as part of a community, & to foster each child's ability to contribute as a responsible community member.

Curriculum: Implements a curriculum that is consistent with its goals for children & promotes learning and development in each of the following domains: aesthetic, cognitive, emotional, language, physical, & social.

Teaching: Uses developmentally, culturally, & linguistically appropriate & effective teaching approaches that enhance each child's learning and development in the context of the program's curriculum goals.

Assessment of Child Progress: Informed by ongoing systematic, formal, & informal assessment approaches to provide information on children's learning and development. Assessments occur within the context of reciprocal communications with families & with sensitivity to the cultural contexts in which children develop. Assessment results are used to benefit children by informing sound decisions about children, teaching, & program improvement.

Health: Promotes the nutrition and health of children & protects children and staff from illness and injury.

NAEYC Program Quality Elements (cont’d)

Teachers: Employs and supports a teaching staff that has the educational qualifications, knowledge, & professional commitment necessary to promote children's learning and development and to support families' diverse needs and interests.

Families: Establishes and maintains collaborative relationships with each child's family to foster children's development in all settings. These relationships are sensitive to family composition, language, and culture.

Community Relationships: Establishes relationships with, and uses the resources of, the children's communities to support the achievement of program goals.

Physical Environment: Has a safe and healthful environment that provides appropriate & well-maintained indoor & outdoor physical environments. The environment includes facilities, equipment, & materials to facilitate child and staff learning and development.

Leadership and Management: The program effectively implements policies, procedures, & systems in support of stable staff and strong personnel, fiscal, & program management so that all children, families & staff have high-quality experiences.

Source: http://www.naeyc.org/about/releases/20050426.asp