A Montgomery County Preschool Promise
Recommendations for Offering Affordable, High Quality Preschool to All
Submitted to The Montgomery County Commissioners
November 17, 2015
Revised 11162015
TABLE OF CONTENTSLetter ...............................................................................................................................................1
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................2
Goal ............................................................................................................................................................5
Vision, Mission, Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................6
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................7
Why Offer a Preschool Promise? ............................................................................................ 8
What the research says about Preschool ...............................................................................................8
What Montgomery County data show ...................................................................................................8
Why Preschool must be high quality .................................................................................................. 14
How Would a Preschool Promise work? ..............................................................................18Educating the community about the power of Preschool ............................................................... 18
Expanding the availability of high quality Preschool ........................................................................ 19
Coaching and assistance to improve quality .............................................................................. 19
Measuring and improving teacher-child interactions ................................................................ 20
Providing advanced professional development ........................................................................ 20
Priming the early childhood education pipeline ........................................................................ 20
Providing salary stipends ............................................................................................................... 21
Offering expansion grants ............................................................................................................. 21
Supporting “unrated” Preschools ................................................................................................. 21
Assisting families in finding and paying for high quality Preschool ............................................... 22
Easy enrollment .............................................................................................................................. 22
Tiered tuition support for families ................................................................................................ 22
How would a Preschool Promise be evaluated? ............................................................... 24
What would a Preschool Promise cost? .............................................................................. 26Estimated Preschool Promise budget ................................................................................................. 26
Other cities’ Preschool Program budgets .......................................................................................... 27
What are the recommended next steps for a Preschool Promise? .................. 29Demonstration models ......................................................................................................................... 29
Endnotes .........................................................................................................................31 Appendices ................................................................................................................... 33
A. Steering Committee Roster ............................................................................................................ 34
B. Preschool Return on Investment Summary ................................................................................... 35
C. Step Up To Quality Benchmarks .................................................................................................... 38
D. Metrix Report — Tuition Table Alternatives .................................................................................... 40
E. General Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 55
F. Quality Improvement Cost Estimates ............................................................................................ 58
G. Estimated Budget at Scale — in 2020 ............................................................................................. 60
H. Estimated Budget at Scale — Maximum Investment .................................................................... 62
I. Projection for 2025 Goal ................................................................................................................. 64
J. Preschool Enrollment Tally .............................................................................................................. 65
K. Preschool Capacity Table ................................................................................................................ 66
Commissioner Deborah Lieberman
Commissioner Judy Dodge
Commissioner Dan Foley
Montgomery County Administrator Joe Tuss
Dear Commissioners Lieberman, Dodge, Foley and Mr. Tuss,
Thank you for inviting us to investigate how Montgomery County might adopt a
Preschool Promise that would allow more of our children to attend an affordable,
high quality Preschool.
After more than six months of research and review, the Preschool Promise Steering
Committee is convinced that offering a Montgomery County Preschool Promise should be
an important priority for our community. Ensuring that children start school on track
is a prerequisite for their educational success.
The evidence is compelling that children who come to kindergarten “ready to learn”
are more likely to read well in 3rd grade and more likely to graduate from high school —
essential precursors for earning a college degree or a post-high school credential. To assure
our employers that they will have the workers they need to win in the global competition
for jobs, we, as a community, must have a talent “pipeline.” To that end, teaching children
begins before kindergarten. The adage that “It’s never too late to learn” is simply not true
when it comes to preparing children to excel.
Our recommendations are the product of hours of thoughtful investigation and discussion,
including consultation with local and national experts. We and our Committee are grateful
for the opportunity to share our conviction that a Preschool Promise is critical to our
children’s success and our region’s continued economic vitality.
Sincerely,
Deborah A. Feldman David Melin President, CEO Dayton Regional President Dayton Children’s Hospital PNC Bank
1
OVERVIEW
Introduction
The charge to the 25-member Preschool Promise Steering Committee (see Appendix A) was to examine
how Montgomery County could benefit from and adopt a Preschool Promise that would ensure all
Montgomery County children have the option of attending an affordable, high quality Preschool.
The evidence is overwhelming that too few of our children are “kindergarten-ready,” and, as a result,
many will struggle to succeed in school. In fact, only slightly more than a third of Montgomery County
children are fully prepared to start school as measured by their scores on Ohio’s mandated kindergarten
readiness test.1
Only slightly more than a third of Montgomery County children are fully prepared to start school as measured by their scores on Ohio’s mandated kindergarten readiness test.
The consequences are significant:
• Children who start school behind too often stay behind throughout school
• Children are missing out altogether on learning essential social skills and behaviors
that are easiest to teach in the early years
• Teachers can’t teach the content they’re supposed to teach until children catch up
• Too many children are held back
• Schools are being forced to spend precious resources on expensive academic
and social interventions
Confident in the belief that promoting high quality Preschool is an investment that saves money in the
near term and the distant future, we asked this question: How can we, as a community, help ensure that
all children have both the academic and social skills needed to succeed not just in kindergarten, but
throughout their school careers?
Our Committee met seven times over a period of more than six months. As part of that work, the group
consulted local and national experts, reviewed local and national data, and studied best practices from
other communities that have created, or are considering
creating, a Preschool Promise.
Other regions and cities are embracing the challenge
and figuring out how to start early to ensure their
children will be successful and ultimately better
educated. They — and we — recognize that today’s
children are tomorrow’s workforce. To ignore this
need consigns children to a poorer future and our
community to a less competitive place in the world.
{
2
Specifically, research from across the country highlights the positive impact of Preschool on student
outcomes as children enter kindergarten. In Denver, Boston, San Francisco and here in Ohio in
Cuyahoga County, studies show that children who attend high quality Preschool are making important
gains in math and literacy, and learning essential behaviors such as delaying gratification, working well
with others and listening attentively (see Appendix B).
We believe this research and our own local data support an investment in high quality Preschool for our
children. Every year that we enroll more children in Preschool, and every time we expand the availability
of high quality Preschools in our community, we will be helping to drive student success.
Enrolling more children in high quality Preschool must not, however, be an end in itself. This critical
experience is only a start — a springboard — to school success and to having a more highly educated
community. Once our children begin kindergarten, they will continue to need the support of caring
families, positive role models and mentors. They must be in high quality schools with effective teachers.
They must grow up in safe neighborhoods. Their health and wellness needs have to be met. And we
must be a community that expects every child to graduate from high school with a career plan that
involves earning a college degree, a marketable credential or joining the military.
This focus on the education and well-being of children from “cradle to career” is being effectively
championed by Learn to Earn, an initiative we support. While adopting a Preschool Promise is a crucial
element of the Learn to Earn continuum of educational excellence and workforce development that our
community is committed to creating, it is only one step in ensuring our children are successful in life and
on the job.
While we believe our community must act urgently to adopt a Preschool Promise, it would be a mistake
to expect overnight success. Other cities and regions have found that significant increases in student
outcomes take time. Educating parents, for instance, about the power and importance of their children
attending a high quality Preschool will not happen in an instant. We also have much work to do around
increasing the number of high quality Preschools in our community, which is a critical prerequisite for the
results we want to see. We can’t emphasize this latter point enough: Simply providing more children the
option of attending Preschool will not alone produce better-prepared young learners. Children are not
well-served in programs that merely babysit.
Simply providing more children the option of attending Preschool will not alone produce better-prepared young learners. Children are not well-served in programs that merely babysit.
In order for a Preschool Promise to have the impact other communities are documenting and
celebrating, we believe children must be in high quality Preschools with well-trained teachers and
effective curricula. Though research shows that children who attend Preschool are scoring higher on
kindergarten entrance assessments than their similarly situated peers who did not attend Preschool, not
shockingly, it also finds that one year of Preschool alone does not always totally close the readiness gap.
This is especially true with our low-income children who are often 12-14 months behind their middle-
and upper-income peers when they enter Preschool.2
{
3
“Students who go to a quality Preschool are better problem-solvers. They have higher pre-literacy and pre-math skills. And they’re socially and emotionally successful.”
—Monica George Smith, 1st Grade Teacher, Dayton Public Schools
Eliminating the divide — not just shrinking it — has to be the objective. It’s for that reason that we
must constantly evaluate the latest research about the most important elements of high quality
Preschool. We must keep looking for ways to build on the benefits children realize from Preschool
so that all children start school ready to learn and on equal footing. If we foster a culture of
continuous improvement in our Preschool programs, child outcomes will improve. Early childhood
education research is exploding. Best practices will evolve as educators become increasingly more
knowledgeable about how best to teach young children.
Thus, to be truly successful, a Montgomery County Preschool Promise must do three things:
1. Educate the community about the power of Preschool
2. Expand the availability of high quality Preschools
3. Assist families in finding and paying for high quality Preschool
Again, we are not naïve. Offering high quality Preschool to all children is not a magic bullet that
guarantees their success. Their families play a vital role; the schools they subsequently attend are
critically important; the community we build and that children grow up in has profound effects.
While we acknowledge the power of these forces, every child also deserves to start school having
had the benefit of all the teaching and learning that a high quality Preschool provides.
While we have examined other communities’ approaches to offering a Preschool Promise and
learned from their successes and mistakes, there is no cookie-cutter solution that’s right for all.
Our recommendations represent what the 25-member Steering Committee believes meet the
needs of Montgomery County’s children and families.
4
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Pillars of Success
Teaching young children can’t wait. Ensuring that every
child can attend one year of high quality Preschool is an
investment in our future. Preschool benefits all children —
improving their readiness for kindergarten and helping
them start school on track. Children who start behind too
often stay behind. High quality Preschool saves money
now and later. It’s the first step in building the pipeline of
educated workers we need to keep and attract good jobs.
• To drive enrollment in Preschool, families
must know the value
and impact of high
quality Preschool
• To drive public and private, personal and philanthropic, investment in Preschool, citizens
must understand how
Preschool pays off
• To drive results, families
must have high quality
Preschool choices
• To drive achievement, Preschool programs must
have a culture of continuous
improvement based on the
latest research
• To drive more and better choices, Preschool
programs must be
supported and rewarded
for improving quality
• To drive children’s school readiness and success, Preschools
must be affordable
and easy to access
Educate the community about the power of Preschool
Expand the availability of high quality Preschools
Assist families in finding and paying for Preschool
ED
UC
ATE
EX
PAN
D
ASS
IST
Double the number of children who attend a high quality Preschool in the next 10 years, moving from 35% to 70%
The GOAL
5
VisionAll Montgomery County children are ready for kindergarten and have the foundation needed for success in school and in life.
MissionBecause Preschool is an important building block for a child’s success, we will promise every child in Montgomery County the opportunity to attend at least one year of affordable, high quality Preschool. That commitment requires providing tuition assistance to families and helping Preschools continuously improve the quality of their programs.
Guiding Principles
1. Families are a child’s most important teacher.
2. To ensure the greatest return on investment, a Preschool Promise must foster continuous quality improvement.
3. A Preschool Promise must be simple for families to access and administratively efficient for Preschools to join.
4. Funding a Preschool Promise is a shared responsibility, and we must leverage all available financial support, including federal, state, and local public dollars, as well as private investment.
5. Transparency in how funds are spent is essential.
6. Because of the complexity of adopting a Preschool Promise, the initiative should ramp up and evolve over time.
6
Recommendations
1. Offer tuition assistance to all. All families should be eligible to participate in a Montgomery County Preschool Promise. Tuition assistance should be available at all programs that have earned at least 3 Stars under Ohio’s Step Up to Quality rating system and be tiered based on: a family’s financial need; the quality level of the Preschool they choose; and the type of program (full-day vs. part-day, year-round vs. school year) selected.
2. Enroll 4-year-olds first. Priority for participation should be given first to children in their last year before kindergarten and then to low-income 3-year-olds.
3. Ensure families have choices. Public and private Preschools, including both for-profit and not-for-profit programs, should be eligible to participate. There should be a “one-stop shop” for accessing tuition assistance and an easy-to-use web site to help parents navigate their Preschool options and choose wisely for their children.
4. Foster continuous quality improvement. The backbone for increasing the number of high quality Preschools and for supporting high quality Preschools should be Ohio’s Star-Rating system, also known as Step Up to Quality. High quality for the purpose of a Montgomery County Preschool Promise should be defined as a 3-Star, 4-Star or 5-Star Preschool. Preschools should receive support to improve their programs, including coaching for their teachers and stipends for hiring highly qualified teachers. Special attention should be given to ensuring that all communities and neighborhoods have high quality Preschools.
5. Promote excellent teaching. Practical options to create a career pathway for early childhood educators should be developed to increase the number of staff with credentials and degrees in early childhood education.
6. Track results to ensure education outcomes improve. Success should be measured by the increase in the number of children who attend a high quality Preschool (defined as a 3-Star to 5-Star program or a public school Preschool). Student growth and kindergarten readiness should be tracked and reported using student assessment data from Preschool, kindergarten and 3rd grade.
7. Require accountability. A Preschool Promise should be administered by an independent, non-governmental organization that includes representation from families, Preschool providers, childcare experts and funders, with appropriate oversight by County officials.
7
WHY OFFER A PRESCHOOL PROMISE?
What the research says about Preschool
Study after study show that Preschool improves children’s school readiness (see Appendix B). Language,
literacy, and math skills all increase with formal instruction and teaching. It’s important to remember
that kindergarten today is not the kindergarten of old. Where once that experience was mostly play,
kindergartners now are expected to begin learning phonics and academic content — and it’s hoped that
they already know the alphabet, are able to count and recognize colors and distinguish rhyming words.
Beyond creating the academic underpinnings for kindergarten, high quality Preschools also teach young
children critical social skills. They learn, for example, how to wait their turn, persist with difficult tasks,
work well in groups, control their impulses and delay gratification — all important behaviors for success in
school. Local research mirrors national studies that show exactly this sort of quantifiable achievement. In
a study of children in local school districts, researchers found that children who had attended Preschool
consistently scored higher on their readiness tests.
Finally, Preschool is an opportunity to identify any health issues and learning disabilities. Early
intervention often can mitigate these issues if a special need is diagnosed early.
What Montgomery County data show
Every year about 6,500 Montgomery County children enter kindergarten. Just over 1 in 3 — about
37% — have the skills they need to start school fully prepared. We know this because Ohio requires
school districts to give all children a kindergarten readiness test to assess their skill levels and
determine the instruction they’ll need.
% of Montgomery County children who test ready for kindergarten*
County average includes charter schools and school districts.
36.5% 36.8% 38.3% 37.6% 37.1%
Source: Ohio Department of Education.
25
30
35
40
45
502009–10 2010–11 2011-12 2012–13 2013–14
*Students scoring in the highest “band” of the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment-Literacy categories.
8
Significantly, Preschool’s value, however, doesn’t just end at kindergarten. The enrichment experience
has powerful ongoing effect. Again, local data reflect national findings, showing that 96% of children who scored well on their kindergarten readiness test went on to be proficient readers in the 3rd-grade. (Ohio’s kindergarten readiness test places children in one of three
“bands” or categories. Of those students who scored in the highest band, 96% scored proficient or better
on Ohio’s 3rd-grade reading assessment, while only 63% who were in the lowest performing range
were proficient.)
Clearly, Preschool helps build a strong foundation for children’s K-12 education.
Source: Analysis conducted by University of Dayton Business Research Group for ReadySetSoar in the fall of 2012, using data from 11 Montgomery County school districts.
Proficient on 3rd Grade
Reading Test
60%
70%
80%
50%
100%
Band 1 Band 2 Band 3
63%
85%
96%
90%
Ready Kindergartners are Strong Readers
Kindergarten Readiness Test
“Quality preschool gives children a foundation for their school career. Children who attend Preschool are more prepared socially and academically for kindergarten. Preschool makes an important difference.”
—Kathy Taylor, Kindergarten Teacher, Kettering City Schools
9
Too many kids are missing out
An estimated 25% to 35% of Montgomery County children who enter kindergarten each year have
not attended Preschool. Because Preschool is expensive, there is a temptation to think that children
who don’t attend are concentrated in communities with larger numbers of families living in poverty.
But as the following chart shows, children who are missing out on Preschool are scattered throughout
the County. In fact, some lower-income communities actually have higher Preschool attendance
than more economically diverse areas because of the availability of state and federally supported
Preschool assistance.
Too often when they investigate enrolling their child in Preschool, many middle-income families
(including many where both parents work outside the home) quickly decide they can’t afford the
investment. Consider that in Northridge, Huber Heights, West Carrollton, Mad River and Miamisburg,
more than 40% of 4-year-olds are not attending Preschool. School districts readily will attest that when
large numbers of children come to kindergarten without having attended Preschool, their teachers
struggle to ensure every child achieves on grade-level.
% of children not in childcare/Preschool at age 4 by School District
Northridge 44.9%
Huber Heights 43.5%
West Carrollton 42.1%
Mad River 41.7%
Miamisburg 40.2%
Dayton 39.7%
New Lebanon 38.8%
Trotwood-Madison 36.9%
Northmont 31.7%
Brookville 30.9%
Vandalia-Butler 28.8%
Jefferson Township 27.8%
Valley View 27.0%
Centerville 24.8%
Kettering 17.9%
Oakwood 10.6%
Montgomery County 34.6%
Source: Data are from the 2014-15 Kindergarten Parent Survey Data administered by the University of Dayton Business Research Group.
“We researched if we could get Preschool for free, and we fall between the cracks. We both work. We took our older daughter out of Preschool for half the year. ”
—Parent, West Carrollton focus group
10
While a limited number of Preschool “seats” are available for some of our very lowest income families
through the federally funded Head Start program, only one-third of eligible children are reached
through this underfunded program.
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services also offers limited funding for childcare assistance
to parents who are working or attending school and earn 130% or less of the Federal Poverty Level,
($31,525 for a family of four). While this state funding is accounted for in the funding model we
recommend, the state’s payments to Preschool programs that agree to serve low-income children are
far from adequate to cover the expense of providing a high quality experience. State reimbursement
for full-time Preschool/childcare covers approximately 65% to 70% of the true cost of high quality care.3
The possibility that the federal or state government is anytime soon going to address this problem —
and pay for universal high quality Preschool — is, we believe, unlikely.
Preschool and childcare work together
More than 3 out of 4 Montgomery County children under the age of 18 are growing up in families
where all parents in the home work outside the home.4 Some live in single-parent homes; others have
parents who are both employed. In either case, many of these families need full-day, year-round care in
order to keep their jobs.
This 21st century reality is why high quality Preschool and high quality childcare go hand-in-hand — and
for that reason, in this report, the terms “Preschool” and “childcare” are used interchangeably. Childcare
should include — and often does provide — Preschool. (Of course, employers, not just employees,
benefit from high quality Preschool in the community. When parents are confident that their children
are in high quality Preschool and childcare, they’re less likely to miss work and more likely to be
productive on the job.)
Understandably, not all families will have the same needs and wants — and a Preschool Promise must
recognize those different preferences. Some parents will require full-day, year-round care, while others
will want a more traditional part-day, school-year-based program.
Families can’t afford the cost
It’s not just a good guess that cost is the most important barrier for families that aren’t giving
their children the advantage of Preschool. In surveys of kindergarten parents conducted in all 16
Montgomery County school districts, and also in professionally conducted focus groups with families
of young children, parents said that the No. 1 reason that they did not send their children to Preschool
is “couldn’t afford it” (40%).
Parents said that the No. 1 reason that they did not send their children to Preschool is “couldn’t afford it” (40%).{
11
Importantly, the percentage of families saying they “couldn’t afford” Preschool was highest (58%)
for those earning between $35,801 and $47,700. Though hardly well off, these families fall far out
of the realm of qualifying for any Preschool financial assistance under Head Start or state childcare
assistance where eligibility stops at $24,250 or $31,525 respectively, for a family of four.
Many people who don’t have small children are surprised to learn just how expensive high quality
Preschool is. Full-time, year-round Preschool costs about $8,000 to $11,000 a year — at or near the
cost of a year’s tuition at some of Ohio’s public colleges. At the well-respected, high quality Bombeck
Family Learning Center, a non-profit program on the University of Dayton campus, for example, fees
for a full-time preschooler are $220 per week. While that rate is prohibitive for many families, even
it does not reflect the “real” costs of operating this 5-Star Preschool. Tuition is effectively discounted
because the University generously covers the Learning Center’s facility costs.
The Bombeck Center’s fees are by no means out of the ordinary. Private childcare providers in
Kettering charge about $200 per week for full-time preschoolers.
Source: Kindergarten Parent Survey 2014-15 school year; analysis performed by the University of Dayton Business Research Group.
Parents Saying “Couldn’t afford it” by Household Income
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Greater than $95,400
$71,501-$95,400
$47,701-$71,500
$35,801-$47,700
$23,900-$35,800
Less than $23,900
9%
27%
38%
58%
47%
38%
12
While all children can benefit from high quality Preschool, the experience is particularly important for
low-income children. The U.S. Department of Education’s April 2015 study, “A Matter of Equity: Preschool
in America,” notes that children from low-income families and children at risk of academic failure “start
kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their peers in pre-literacy and language skills.”5
Well over half of the Montgomery County 4-year-olds not attending Preschool — an estimated 60% — are
growing up in families earning less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Level ($48,500 for a family of 4). Talk
to our teachers and they are adamant that many of these children start kindergarten significantly behind.
Source: American Community Survey 2013, 5-year estimates, Table B17024.
Average Funding and Fees for Preschool
Type of Program Description Approximate Funding/Fees
Head Start Mix of part- and full-day, part- and full-year
$7,000/year
State Early Childhood Education Preschool*
12.5 hours a week, school year $4,000/year
State Special Education Preschool
Part-day, school year Varies based on needs
Subsidized Childcare Based on work and school schedule; family childcare
$147/week full-time for an unrated program; 5% tiered increase for each Star
Private Pay Programs Mix of hours and services $200-$215 /week full-time,$8,000-$11,000/year
* Ohio’s Early Childhood Education (ECE) Preschool is offered to select districts to serve low-income preschoolers with a part-day, school year Preschool.
Family Income of Montgomery County 4-year-olds
26% in families earning 301% of the FPL or more ($72,750 or more for a family of 4)
60% in families earning 200% of the FPL or below
($48,500 for a family of 4)
14%
26%
60%
14% in families earning 201% – 300% of the FPL (between $48,500 and $72,750 for a family of 4)
13
Why Preschool must be High Quality
A Preschool’s quality is critical to producing the academic and social progress children need to be
ready for kindergarten. Not surprisingly, children in high quality programs make the biggest gains.6
In recognition of this common-sense judgment — and the empirical studies that support it — Ohio,
in 2007, adopted a voluntary initiative aptly named Step Up to Quality as a way to encourage and
incentivize Preschools to improve their programming.
Aimed at all Preschools but specifically at programs that serve low-income children whose families
are eligible for state childcare assistance, Step Up awards “Star Ratings” designed to recognize
quality. Step Up to Quality’s 1-Star to 5-Star distinctions are tied to the educational qualifications
of a Preschool’s teachers and the educational programming it delivers, among other criteria.
Importantly for providers, the more Stars a program earns, the greater the reimbursement it receives.
(The guidelines for earning a Star Rating are in Appendix C.)
The ample national research relating to the importance of quality also is borne out by local research.
Montgomery County data clearly document that in lower income neighborhoods, children who attend Star-Rated and public Preschools score higher on Ohio’s kindergarten readiness test than those attending “unrated” programs.7
Much as families need financial assistance to afford Preschool, they also need high quality options for
their children. While Montgomery County does not have a shortage of Preschool choices, it does have
a shortage of certifiably high quality programs. Specifically, fewer than half of Montgomery County
children who currently attend Preschool are in programs that have demonstrated they are high quality
under Ohio’s Step Up to Quality initiative. While Step Up is not a perfect measure of quality, it still
figures prominently in our recommendations of how to ensure that a Preschool Promise promotes
student learning.
Where Step Up to Quality falls short is its exclusive focus on structural characteristics such as teacher-
to-child ratios, maximum class size, and teacher qualifications. Some important research finds that a
Preschool’s “process” quality features – rich and stimulating teacher-child interactions, for example —
drive the biggest gains in academic and social and emotional skills.8
It’s for this reason that we believe Step Up to Quality doesn’t set the quality bar high enough.
Substantive teacher-child interactions, in particular, should be encouraged through methods and
evaluations discussed later.
“Quality means higher cost, but you can’t afford the best even though you want to send your child to the best.”
—Parent, West Carrollton focus group
14
The value of Step Up to Quality
Notwithstanding its limitations, Step Up to Quality is an important leap forward by Ohio to improve
Preschools. Moreover, institutionalizing it in a Montgomery County Preschool Promise has important
financial implications that cannot be overlooked. Current state law requires providers to be Star-Rated by
2020 if they want to participate in the state childcare assistance program for low-income working families;
a second State-sponsored Preschool assistance program requires providers to have a 3-Star, 4-Star or
5-Star distinction as a condition of applying for funding. Because of this coming mandate, many local
programs — if they want to continue to tap state Preschool funding — have no choice but to meet new and
higher quality standards.
By integrating the Star Rating benchmarks in a local Preschool Promise and anticipating this new
requirement, Montgomery County will be able to take full advantage of the maximum state Preschool
funding and also improve local Preschools’ quality. (The guidelines for earning a Star Rating are in
Appendix C.)
Source: University of Dayton Business Research Group analysis of Ohio Department of Education Spring 2015 enrollment data and Ohio Department of Job and Family Services enrollment data from Summer 2015 childcare licenses.
% of students in high quality Preschool
Students in High Quality Preschool (3-5 Star Rated and Ohio Department of Education licensed programs)
Students in Unrated and 1-2 Star Rated Programs
NOT in Preschool41%
35%
24%
15
Current participation in Step Up to Quality
Because of generous investments by Montgomery County, The Frank M. Tait Foundation and the United Way
of Greater Dayton, Montgomery County has seen a steady increase in Preschools applying for and earning
Star-Rating distinctions. Over eight years, the number has grown to 84 (as of September, 2015). The great bulk
of Star ratings — 74 — were awarded to childcare centers licensed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family
Services. In addition, 7 of 125 licensed home-based Preschool providers have earned one or more Stars.
It’s also worth noting that these investments to promote Step Up to Quality have resulted in Montgomery
County having the highest percentage of Star-Rated Preschools of all of Ohio’s urban counties. The lessons
learned from the dedicated work of 4C for Children and our Preschools that have “stepped up” their quality
have informed the recommendations in this report.
While it is important that we have steadily increased the number of Star-Rated Preschools, the vast majority of
programs have only earned 1-Star or 2-Star distinctions. Ohio defines high quality as 3-Star or better, and our
goal is to assist providers to move to the 3-Star level and higher.
*Unrated number includes 112 center-based programs licensed by the Ohio Department of
Job and Family Services and 56 Preschools licensed by the Ohio Department of Education.
ODE Preschools must be invited to apply for a Star Rating.
05
29
39
48
64
79 7984Star-Rated programs
June ‘07 June ‘08 June ‘09 June ‘10 June ‘11 June ‘12 June ‘13 June ‘14 Sept ‘15
# of Preschools by Star Rating
As of September, 2015
39
168
137 817 5-Star
4-Star
3-Star
2-Star
1-Star
Unrated/ODE Licensed*
16
In addition to childcare and Preschool programs licensed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family
Services, another important provider of Preschool programs are public schools. Licensed by the Ohio
Department of Education (ODE), these Preschools only recently became eligible to earn a Star Rating.
While the number earning the distinction will climb, so far just three of 59 local public schools have
received a Star Rating. (Because they typically hire certified teachers and have a highly structured
curriculum, school-based Preschools likely will be designated 4-Star or 5-Star.)
Leveraging Step Up to Quality
There are multiple challenges to leveraging the value of Ohio’s Step Up to Quality Initiative.
First, this voluntary program is long on expectations and short on funding to cover the increased
costs of its new, more demanding standards. Even accounting for the financial incentives for earning a
Star Rating, current state reimbursement rates for low-income children are woefully inadequate to
support Step Up requirements.
To earn 3, 4 or 5 Stars, a provider must make significant investments in personnel, curricula and more.
Many Preschools that accept only children receiving state-funded childcare assistance simply cannot
increase the fees their low-income parents pay to cover the cost of those requirements. Preschool
administrators are convincingly adamant that the expense of Step Up far outweighs the token financial
statement Ohio is making with slightly greater reimbursement rates.
Second, Step Up has not been marketed well to families. Many parents do not know about Star Ratings,
and those who are familiar with the quality ratings often do not understand how the distinctions can help
them choose wisely.
Third, as previously mentioned, Step Up addresses the structural features of Preschools well, but needs
to be supplemented with additional expectations that promote student learning. The fact that Step
Up does not speak to so-called “process” quality features — especially measurements around critically
important teacher-child interactions — should not be overlooked in the creation of a Montgomery County
Preschool Promise.
Finally, a Preschool conceivably may be high quality and, nonetheless, choose not to earn a Star Rating.
If a program does not accept children receiving state-subsidized Preschool, there is no incentive —
beyond the marketing value of being Star-Rated — to submit to the additional inspections and standards.
In time, however, this cost-benefit analysis for providers could change. If, for example, all Montgomery
County children are eligible for some tuition assistance under a Montgomery County Preschool Promise
and if those funds may only be used at a Star-Rated facility, Preschools may reconsider the value of
participating in Step Up to Quality. Put another way, if families receive financial benefits for choosing a
Star-Rated program, that incentive can be a powerful, market-based force for encouraging Preschools
throughout Montgomery County to make the investment to meet Step Up standards.
While we grant these shortcomings in Step Up to Quality, we remain convinced that having an
independent quality measure is essential to ensuring the public accountability that must be central to an
effective Preschool Promise. Tuition assistance simply cannot be awarded without quality control; and to
drive the results that will make a difference for children, we must assist our Preschools in their investments
to improve.
17
HOW WOULD A PRESCHOOL PROMISE WORK?
The Preschool Promise model we are recommending has 3 essential pillars:
1. Educate the community about the power of Preschool
2. Expand the availability of high quality Preschools
3. Assist families in finding and paying for high quality Preschool
We believe that a Montgomery County Promise will achieve its goals only if all of these
components are addressed.
Pillar 1: Educating the community about the power of Preschool
While there is an ever expanding and compelling body of research that documents the value of
Preschool, many people are unaware of how children, schools, families, employers and entire
communities benefit when children start school ready to learn.
Quite simply, more people need to know why Preschool matters to them — today and into the future.
An aggressive grassroots public education campaign about how Preschool sets the stage for our
children’s success is essential. It should “connect the dots” for citizens, emphasizing specifically that the
quality of our workforce depends on the educational attainment and achievements of young people.
When children fail in school, that lost opportunity inevitably haunts them into adulthood. Moreover,
when a student can’t read, doesn’t graduate or doesn’t go on to earn a marketable credential or
college degree, the wider community also loses out. Consequences cascade, including reduced
earning power, increased need for social services and public assistance and greater demand for
health care, to name just a few negative outcomes.
This education campaign should target not just parents with young children but also the broader
community, including families without young children, persons whose children are grown, seniors
and employers.
This effort must help citizens see how everyone
benefits by investing in children when life-long
habits are being formed.
This work has begun with the development
of a “Preschool Power” campaign, but its
success will depend on enlisting a cadre of
advocates aggressively making the case for why
children — and Montgomery County — need a
Preschool Promise.
18
Pillar 2: Expanding the availability of high quality Preschools
Efforts to expand the availability of high quality Preschool to the children in Montgomery County should
be multi-faceted. Providers benefit from:
• Instructional coaches
• Training on curriculum and assessments to improve teacher-child interactions
• Assistance in recruiting and paying highly trained teachers
• Seed money to expand
Coaching and help to improve quality
Much as they would like to do so, many providers are not financially able to earn and sustain a 3-, 4-,
or 5-Star Rating. Preschool administrators are persuasive about their struggle to hire and compensate
certified teachers, provide professional development for their staff and improve their curricula.
Programs that are willing to improve their quality should be offered assistance to reach and sustain a
3-Star, 4-Star or 5-Star distinction. We recommend Preschools be given a menu of options to assist them
in moving up the quality ladder (which, because of administrative requirements, can take as long as two
years at each level), with the benefits increasing as a Preschool receives a higher rating.
Options should include coaching on curriculum and child assessments; training on sustainable high
quality Preschool business models; involvement in professional learning communities; implementation
of CLASS (the Classroom Assessment Scoring System); and goal setting. This assistance should stress
continuous improvement, emphasizing the need to constantly evaluate a program’s methods and to raise
student outcomes.
Currently, there is some support (funded by the state and supplemented with local United Way dollars
provided to 4C for Children) to assist providers in earning Star Ratings. However, 4C for Children’s
funding is limited, and is not adequate to support all providers in the County.
Because quality programming is so critical, providers that want to participate in the Montgomery
County Preschool Promise and are “unrated” should be required to earn a 1-Star rating within two years;
programs that enter at a 1-Star or 2-Star level should be required to commit to earning 3 Stars within two
years; and all programs should agree to continue working toward higher levels of quality.
It should be noted that providers told our Committee that the staff at 4C for Children have been
indispensable in helping them earn Star Ratings. We recommend that additional investment in
4C for Children be made to expand the organization’s work.
Supplementing the Star Rating System
Though we believe the Star Rating system should be the backbone for evaluating quality, it is an
incomplete measure. Supplements to it are detailed on the next pages, and other quality measures based
on national and local research likely will need to be added in the future.
19
Measuring and improving teacher-child interactions
Participating programs that already have a 3-Star distinction should be required to use CLASS©, an
effective measure of the quality of teacher-child interactions (the most important driver for improving
student achievement). Programs also should set goals for improvements in CLASS scores. (Use of CLASS
is required for all federally funded Head Start agencies, and CLASS resources are expanding.)
What is CLASS?
The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)™ is an observational
tool that provides a common lens and
language focused on what matters
— the classroom interactions that
boost student learning. Data from
CLASS™ observations are used to
support teachers’ unique professional
development needs, set school-wide
goals, and shape system-wide reform
at the local, state, and national levels.
Based on research from the University
of Virginia’s Curry School of
Education and studied in thousands
of classrooms nationwide, the
CLASS™ observation tool:
• focuses on effective teaching
• helps teachers recognize and
understand the power of their
interactions with students
• aligns with professional
development tools
• works across age levels
and subjects9
Providing Advanced Professional Development
As part of the menu of choices for 3-Star, 4-Star and
5-Star programs, Professional Learning Communities
should be offered, focusing on specific topics such
as dialogic reading, intentional teaching, and other
advanced topics.10
Promoting family engagement
The importance of family engagement in a child’s early
years cannot be underestimated and goes hand-in-hand
with the efforts Preschools make to help children get
ready for kindergarten. Preschools have an opportunity
to build relationships with parents and caregivers and
to offer helpful ways for families to teach their children
at home. Effective strategies to engage families through
Preschool programs are being developed, and these
offerings should be incorporated in the menu of choices
for Preschools that are 3-Star, 4-Star or 5-Star to further
improve their programs.
Priming the early childhood education pipeline
There is a shortage of teachers who are trained to
provide the high quality experiences that are essential to
the success of a Preschool Promise. For that reason, we
believe that there must be a collaborative and energetic
effort to increase the number of teachers with 2-year
and 4-year degrees in early childhood development.
Currently, the only educational requirement to work in
a licensed childcare program is a high school diploma,
a standard that perpetuates the dearth of qualified
professionals and the low status — and disturbingly
low pay — in the industry.
20
A task force should be created to identify creative solutions for expanding the local pool of qualified
teachers and staff. Sinclair Community College and the University of Dayton already work together on
articulation agreements and have career pathways in place; these pathways should be explored through
the eyes of a childcare teacher to ensure that the options are realistic. Student loan forgiveness programs
and tuition assistance for staff who earn early childhood education degrees and commit to working in
Montgomery County are examples of incentives that should be considered. Associate and bachelor
degree coursework should be offered at convenient times for childcare employees in order to help them
continue working and earn degrees in the field.
Providing salary stipends for highly qualified staff
In recognition of the fact that Preschools are low-margin small businesses and particularly to
acknowledge that salaries for Preschool teachers and staff are exceedingly low,11 we recommend that the
Montgomery County Preschool Promise incentivize programs to employ well-trained teachers and staff
and to help them minimize teacher turnover (which is academically and socially detrimental to young
children who need and benefit from consistency).
Offering expansion grants for high quality programs
It also is critical to help Preschools that are already highly rated to add more “seats.” This should be
done through “expansion grants” that assist programs with one-time start-up costs to open new
classrooms or expand. Preschools that have already earned a high quality distinction should be eligible
to apply and present their case for how many additional children they could serve and the costs that
would be incurred.
Supporting ‘unrated’ Preschools
Montgomery County has about 80 Preschools that are “unrated.” The vast majority of our low-income
children are enrolled in these programs – an important concern because research shows that children
growing up in low-income families benefit the most from a high quality Preschool.
Though we recommend that the ongoing quality assistance support should be offered only to programs
that have earned a Star Rating, we also recommend that some funds be set aside to offer grants to help
programs move from “unrated” to 1-Star. To qualify for this “business development” funding, applicants
should document their needs and show evidence of their commitment to earn and increase their Star
Rating. This funding should be offered as “one-time” money to support programs over a 1-2 year period
to help them achieve at least a 1-Star Rating.
21
Pillar 3: Assisting families in finding and paying for Preschool
Easy enrollment
As part of a Preschool Promise, parents of young children should be able to easily learn about:
• the Preschool options convenient to them
• the importance of choosing a high quality program
• the financial assistance they can receive
Based on feedback from families about their difficulty finding a high quality Preschool and their struggle
navigating the registration process (a task that is all the more complicated for low-income parents who
may or may not be eligible for financial assistance), Montgomery County’s Preschool Promise should have
an easy-to-use centralized registration process. This system should be “Turbo Tax”-like in that it should
walk families through their options and provide online access to live support during convenient times.
This simplified registration system must be marketed to families to ensure they know about this important
opportunity for their children, and the registration portal should be available for all families to use,
regardless of whether they choose to receive tuition assistance under a Preschool Promise. Simplifying
the process of identifying a high quality Preschool is an important and cost-effective way to increase
enrollment quickly.
Tiered tuition support for families
Given that each year almost a quarter of our 3- and 4-year-olds (an estimated 3,145 children) are not
attending Preschool, and that the No. 1 reason is cost, tiered tuition assistance is essential to increase
Preschool enrollment. Meanwhile, because more than half of children who are attending Preschool —
5,320 each year — are in programs that are not designated as high quality, we recommend that tiered
tuition assistance be contingent upon choosing at least a 3-Star program, with that assistance increasing
incrementally for 4-Star and 5-Star Preschools.
We also recommend that a Montgomery County Preschool Promise acknowledge that many middle-
income families cannot, even with financial sacrifices, afford to send a child to a high quality Preschool.
In recognition of this reality, we suggest that assistance be available to all and tiered, depending on a
family’s household income, family size and type of program chosen (year-round or school year; part-time
or full-time).
Families need access to a tuition assistance table that, at a glance, shows the amount of aid they are
eligible to receive depending on their personal situation and choices. The table also should account for
any state or federal assistance that the family may be entitled to receive.
22
Based on our review of the Denver Preschool Program, which uses a tiered tuition assistance model, we
recommend that a reimbursement schedule be updated annually. (See the analysis from Metrix Advisors
in Appendix D for additional recommendations regarding the tuition table.)
Finally, the tiered tuition assistance should be funded to account for both fixed and variable costs —
in other words, a portion of the tuition help would be paid each month to cover the fixed costs of a
Preschool’s teacher salaries, utilities, building maintenance, etc., and a portion would cover a program’s
variable costs and be directly tied to a child’s attendance.
An important note about eligibility: We emphatically recommend that a child’s eligibility for participation
in a Montgomery County Preschool Promise be determined on an annual basis, as is currently done in
Ohio Department of Education licensed Preschools and Head Start. Our rationale is that young children
need to consistently be in Preschool to benefit from the experience. Moving children in and out of
Preschool — because a family’s financial circumstances change or because a parent is “sanctioned”
under a benefit program — defeats the intent of a Preschool Promise.
With this concern in mind, we recommend that If a family is receiving subsidized childcare from state
funding and becomes ineligible, the family may apply for a special waiver to remain enrolled at the same
Preschool using financial assistance from the Montgomery County Preschool Promise.
23
HOW WOULD A PRESCHOOL PROMISE BE EVALUATED?
In recognition of Montgomery County’s long history of being at the forefront of innovative, effective
public policy, we propose a comprehensive and transparent system of evaluation. Parents should
be required to sign a release form at the time of enrollment in the Preschool Promise program that
gives permission for data to be shared for the purposes of research and evaluation.
To this end, we recommend contracting with an independent research organization that would:
• Track and report students’ aggregate kindergarten readiness scores by school district
• Report individual children’s readiness scores to a child’s Preschool (contingent upon parental
permission), for the purpose of promoting that Preschool’s continuous improvement
• Track and report students’ aggregate performance on Ohio’s 3rd-Grade Reading Guarantee
• Report the increase in the number of children attending high quality Preschools
• Report the growth in number of high quality Preschools and high quality Preschool “seats”
by geographic area
• Report the increase in Star-Rated programs by Star-Rating level
We are not recommending a “gold standard” research study such as a Randomized Control Trial
(RCT) due to the high cost and associated challenges. However, we do suggest that Montgomery
County track the academic outcomes for Preschool Promise participants as described on
these pages.
In addition, we acknowledge the need for a comparison group for purposes of evaluating the
impact of a Preschool Promise. A more cost-effective method than a Randomized Control Trial is
continuing the administration of the ReadySetSoar “Kindergarten Parent Survey,” which collects
child-specific data about childcare and Preschool participation across all 16 school districts in the
County. Though this data is self-reported, it provides more reliable information for participation
rates and comparison groups than other available sources. This data collection effort has been
conducted in partnership with the University of Dayton Business Research Group since 2010,
allowing for credible historical comparisons.
24
Child Outcomes
Step Up to Quality does not look at child outcomes, and because the goal of a Preschool Promise
is to better prepare students for kindergarten, there needs to be a direct focus on improvements in
kindergarten readiness. To understand the impact of Preschool on student outcomes and kindergarten
readiness, we recommend looking at two different measures.
1. Fixed Measures of Readiness: Readiness Skills checklists, or “fixed” readiness markers, can help
the community gauge the overall degree of success in preparing children for kindergarten. The
Readiness Skills checklist created by ReadySetSoar where preschool teachers and/or parents
complete an assessment of a student’s progress can be used to track learning from the start to end
of the Preschool year. This assessment could be done online by a Preschool teacher and/or parent
and conducted with every child participating in a Preschool Promise.
2. Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) scores: Children who enter public schools are required
to take the state’s Kindergarten Readiness Assessment at the start of kindergarten. These scores
can be collected and correlated with students participating in a Preschool Promise, and can be
compared to children who did not participate and those who said on their Kindergarten Parent
Survey that they did not attend Preschool.
While neither of these approaches meets the standard for “gold-standard” research, taken together they
will provide important findings to understand the impact of a Preschool Promise.
Into the future, however, more discussion and analysis will be needed around judging a Preschool
Promise’s results. For instance, some researchers and educators believe that even if a child does not
score “fully ready” on a kindergarten readiness test, if the child started Preschool woefully behind
and progressed significantly — scoring nearly ready on a kindergarten assessment — that gain may be
important enough to drive better 3rd-grade reading performance. In other words, our “yardstick” for
success must be driven by data and performance.
It is also important to note that education research best-practice states that student outcomes should
be assessed after a program has been fully implemented — usually two or three years into program
implementation. Also, the initial sample size receiving the Preschool Promise services will be relatively
small, and may be inadequate to provide “statistically significant” outcomes. Therefore, child assessment
data should be used with caution in the start-up years of a Preschool Promise. It will be important to
monitor process improvement and fidelity of implementation in the Demonstration years and to
build in flexibility to adapt strategies to better improve programs and child outcomes based on
what’s learned.
Identifying causation in student outcomes
As the interest in Preschool has grown across the country, so has the level and rigor of research regarding
what aspects of quality are most important in improving student outcomes. As Montgomery County
grows its investment in Preschool, it is recommended that opportunities to apply for and participate in
research efforts be prioritized as part of a Preschool Promise. Findings from these types of research will
be critical in refining quality supports for Montgomery County’s Preschool programs. Studies should be
considered at a local level in partnership with faculty at the School of Psychology at The University of
Dayton to better understand linkages between various quality components and child outcomes.
25
WHAT WOULD A PRESCHOOL PROMISE COST?
High quality Preschool is not cheap. Not unlike K-12 education, teaching children well requires highly qualified
staff, robust training and effective curriculum. As noted earlier, full-day, year-round Preschool with childcare costs
between $8,000 and $11,000 annually.
Estimating the precise cost for offering high quality Preschool for all Montgomery County 4-year-olds is difficult
to calculate. We don’t know with certainty, for example, how many parents and Preschool programs will choose to
participate. We don’t know what type of Preschools parents will select. We don’t know how many parents will opt
for which quality level.
The estimated budget for a Preschool Promise is $12 million to $16 million when implemented countywide. A
recommended distribution of funds is shown below and broken out by the three pillars we believe are required
for effective and successful implementation.
This budget is based on many assumptions drawn from existing local and state data. We relied on the American
Community Survey to estimate the population of 4-year-olds and their family incomes. We used enrollment
data for children in state and federally funded programs to understand current participation in various types of
Preschool programs. And we projected the likely progression of programs earning Star Ratings during the next
five years to estimate the budget for 2020. Additional details regarding our assumptions are in Appendices E–H.
On the adjacent page, we’ve included budgets from Preschool Promise programs in Denver and San Francisco,
two programs that have long experience with offering this benefit to families.
Demo Group
% of Total Budget Year 2020 % of Total
BudgetMax Budget (All 5 Star)
% of Total Budget
Education/Community Awareness 150,000 6% 500,000 4% 500,000 3%
Expanding Availability of High Quality 991,200 37% 4,956,000 40% 4,620,000 29%
Assisting Families
Enrollment and Customer Service
195,000 7% 300,000 2% 300,000 2%
Tuition Assistance 1,052,932 39% 5,264,661 43% 8,881,967 56%
Admin and Evaluation 280,000 10% 700,000 6% 700,000 4%
Administration
Evaluation
Reserves 0% 586,000 5% 750,098 5%
Total $2,669,132 100% $12,306,661 100% $15,752,065 100%
Estimated # of Children Served 600-800 3,500-4,000 4,500-5,000
Average Cost per Child $3,813 $3,282 $3,316
Estimated Preschool Promise Budget
Other Cities’ Preschool Program Budgets
DENVER PRESCHOOL PROGRAMDenver
YearActual2014
Sales Tax Revenue $14,004,383
# of Children 4,356
Tuition Assistance 61%
Quality Improvement 9%
Enrollment Customer Service 3%
Evaluation 3%
Community Outreach 5%
Other Expenses <1%
Administration 4%
Net to Reserves 14%
100%
Average Cost per Child $3,214.96
PRESCHOOL FOR ALLSan Francisco
BudgetedFY 2015/16
Total Revenue* $34,388,803
# of Children 4,372
% Revenue
Enrollment 74%
Quality Supports 13%
Infrastructure (Eval/Data) 5%
Child Health 2%
Administrative 6%
Total Expenses 100%
Average Cost per Child $7,865.69
*$30M is from the City’s General Fund, remaining $4M from State grants
27
Additional Recommendations
In considering the cost of a Preschool Promise, it is also recommended that two additional steps
be taken to best leverage our community’s assets:
• Identify institutional partners that could provide support to Preschools — such as businesses
and organizations that need childcare for their employees (as an incentive to join the
business, to improve productivity, to reduce absenteeism). An example of a successful
partnership is Mini University, Inc., which partners with Montgomery County and Premier
Health. Additional opportunities for partnerships should be explored.
• Work with public Preschools to develop a funding model that will further leverage public
Preschool. Currently, each school district funds and operates its Preschool program differently.
It is important to identify ways Montgomery County’s investments can advance commitments
already being made — not supplant the monies districts currently devote from state grants,
general funds, and federal Title 1 dollars.
28
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
What would it take to have 70% of our children enrolled in high quality Preschool by 2025?
Today just 35% of Montgomery County 4-year-olds are attending high quality Preschool. To meet
our target of having 70% of children enrolled by 2025, we estimate that we need to move about
4,500 more children into high quality programs. (Some children are attending Preschool, but they
are in programs that are not rated high quality.) According to the simplest analysis, at least an
additional 500 children need to be in high quality Preschool each year, and 15 Preschools need to
earn a high quality distinction each year to achieve our community goal. (See Appendix I.)
Demonstration Models
Building on all that’s been learned with the Kettering Preschool Promise, it is recommended that
a larger Demonstration of the full Preschool Promise model be implemented during the next few
years with a goal of securing sustainable funding to take the program County-wide by 2018 or 2019.
The Kettering Preschool Promise Pilot is an important and innovative partnership between
Montgomery County, the City of Kettering, Kettering City Schools and the City of Moraine. However,
it was focused only on tuition assistance (not all 3 pillars of a Preschool Promise as outlined in these
recommendations). In addition, the tuition assistance was limited to residents of the Kettering City
School District earning 300% or less than the Federal Poverty Level.
We believe other partnerships like this one can be created, and that other communities will be
willing to engage in this important work.
The next step should be to implement a full-scale Demonstration, with appropriate funding
allocated to the 3 pillars of a Preschool Promise. The size of the pilot must be adequate to support
economies of scale in marketing, enrollment, and quality support.
Criteria for selection of additional pilots
Priority for funding new pilots should be given to communities that:
1. Have at least 7-10 Preschools with varying Star-level distinctions (in order to evaluate the impact
of working with providers to improve quality)
2. Have a significant number of children who are not attending Preschool (more than 300 children)
3. Have a significant number of children who are attending “unrated” Preschools or 1-Star and
2-Star programs (more than 300 children)
4. Have a coalition that includes school leaders, community leaders and Preschool providers who
are committed to pioneering this work
5. Have a network of individuals and groups that can spread the word to parents about the
availability of a Preschool Promise in their community
It is also recommended that an “enrollment analysis” be considered when selecting new
demonstration pilots. The charts in Appendices J and K detail Preschool enrollment and other
relevant statistics (including locations of Preschools and their quality level, with comparisons by
population) that should be considered in identifying pilot communities.
29
Conclusion
Public understanding of the benefits of Preschool — for children and ultimately for a community’s
economic competitiveness — can be achieved. In Ohio, Cuyahoga County has had a universal
PreKindergarten program for the last eight years; then in 2014, Cleveland launched PRE4CLE focused
on children in Cleveland Public Schools. The City of Columbus is investing $10 million to increase
enrollment in Preschool. Cincinnati is planning a ballot initiative
for 2016 that would fund Preschool for all of that city’s 3- and
4-year-olds.
Meanwhile, Denver began offering tuition assistance for
families to send their children to Preschool in 2006. Today,
70% of children in Denver attend Preschool, while 90% of
students who participated in the Denver Preschool Program
are testing ready for kindergarten. And Seattle passed a 4-year
demonstration levy in the fall of 2014 for the Seattle Preschool
Program, while San Antonio has Pre-K 4 SA.
Montgomery County has no end of committed early childhood
professionals and passionate advocates for children who
are dedicated to ensuring that Montgomery County is in
the vanguard of communities that understand the power of
Preschool. They — and we — are eager to help ensure that all
children start school with the foundation they need to succeed. The work ahead will not be easy, but
the stakes are just too high — for children and for Montgomery County — to be intimidated by the
challenge. In today’s hyper-competitive economy, supporting education when it matters most is among
the best investments we, as a community, can make.
“The achievement gap starts even before kindergarten. In order to best prepare all of our children to compete and succeed in the 21st century economy, they must be afforded a smart start in life — and that means making Preschool accessible for all of Denver’s youngest students.” —Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock
30
ENDNOTES:
1 Data is from the Ohio Department of Education’s report of the state’s Kindergarten Readiness
Assessment – Literacy (KRA-L) scores. 37% of Montgomery County children scored in the highest
band, Band 3, on the KRA-L in 2013-14.
2 Source: Department of Education, (2015). A matter of equity: Preschool in America.
US Department Of Education.
3 University of Dayton Business Research Group calculation based on the Ohio Department of Job and
Family Services January 2015 payments for Preschool children in Montgomery County. The average
12-month payment for full-time Preschool was $7,541.
4 American Community Survey 2014 1 year, Table S2302.
5 Source: Department of Education, (2015). A matter of equity: Preschool in America.
US Department Of Education.
6 Source: Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J. Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., …
Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Ann Arbor, MI:
Society for Research in Child Development.
7 The University of Dayton’s Business Research Group conducted regression analysis to explain the
correlation between a child’s experiences from birth to age five and his or her kindergarten readiness
score. The data has been collected via a “Kindergarten Parent Survey” that is administered at the
start of each school year. The information collected on the survey is then paired with kindergarten
readiness test scores. The data has been collected each school year across all 16 school districts
starting in the 2011-12 school year.
8 Yoshikawa, et al (2013) states, “Higher-quality preschool programs have larger impacts on children’s
development while children are enrolled in the program and are more likely to create gains that are
sustained after the child leaves preschool. Process quality features—children’s immediate experience
of positive and stimulating interactions—are the most important contributors to children’s gains in
language, literacy, mathematics and social skills. Structural features of quality (those features of quality
that can be changed by structuring the setting differently or putting different requirements for staff
in place, like group size, ratio, and teacher qualifications) help to create the conditions for positive
process quality, but do not ensure that it will occur.”
9 http://curry.virginia.edu/research/centers/castl/class
10 Dialogic reading has been used in the PNC-funded Passport to Kindergarten program in Montgomery
County for five years and is one potential offering.
11 A 2013 Ohio Education Research Center found that teaching staff at a Ohio Department of Job and
Family Services licensed program averaged $11.36/hour. Beginning teachers at Ohio Department
of Education public Preschools earned $20.79/hour-plus. (http://earlychildhoodohio.org/files/
resources/2013%20Workforce%20Study-General%20Analysis%20Report.pdf)
31
32
APPENDICES:
A. Steering Committee Roster
B. Preschool Return on Investment Summary
C. Step Up To Quality Benchmarks
D. Metrix Report — Tuition Table Alternatives
E. General Assumptions
F. Quality Improvement Cost Estimates
G. Estimated Budget at Scale — in 2020
H. Estimated Budget at Scale — Maximum Investment
I. Projection for 2025 Goal
J. Preschool Enrollment Tally
K. Preschool Capacity Table
33
APPENDIX A: Steering Committee Roster
Shauna Adams Associate Professor of Early Childhood Teacher Education; Executive Director, Center for Early Learning, University of Dayton
Annie Burden Family Childcare Provider, Dayton
Mary Burns President & CEO Miami Valley Child Development Centers, Head Start
Lorna Chouinard Director, Miami Valley 4C for Children
Bob Curry Partner, Thompson Hine, LLP
Vickie Dannals Director of Childcare Services, YMCA of Greater Dayton
John Haley CEO, Gosiger, Inc.
Kim Hall Principal, Walter Shade Early Learning Center, West Carrollton City Schools
Scott Inskeep Superintendent, Kettering City Schools
Ellen Ireland Community Volunteer; Board Chair, Dayton Leadership Academies
Tom Kelley Assistant Administrator, Montgomery County
Debbie Lieberman Commissioner, Montgomery County
Peggy Mark Chief Learning Officer, Premier Health
Dan McCabe Chief Administrative Officer, CareSource
Nicole McKenna Owner and Director, My Father’s House Childcare
Jarrod McNaughton Corporate Vice President, Kettering Health Network
Jeffrey Mims Commissioner, City of Dayton
Amy Riegel Manager, Division of Community Development City of Dayton
Jenni Roer Executive Director, The Frank M. Tait Foundation
Jessica Saunders Community Relations Manager, Dayton Children’s Hospital
Josh Sullenberger Vice President of Operations, YMCA of Greater Dayton
Jim Spurlino President & CEO, Spurlino Materials
Julie Thorner President, Mini University, Inc.
Lori Ward Superintendent, Dayton Public Schools
Vanessa Ward Co-Pastor, Omega Baptist
CO-CHAIRS:
Debbie Feldman President & CEO, Dayton Children’s Hospital
Dave Melin Dayton Regional President, PNC
STAFF:
Robyn Lightcap Director, ReadySetSoar/Learn to Earn Dayton
34
APPENDIX B: Preschool Return on Investment Summary
The Case for Subsidizing High Quality Preschool EducationCompiled by Dr. Richard Stock, Director, University of Dayton Business Research Group
Fall 2015
Impact on School Readiness: There is good evidence that recent universal preschool education programs have impacted kindergarten readiness scores of students in Denver, Boston, San Francisco and Tulsa.Evidence from Boston indicates high quality preschool matters for kindergarten readiness. Evidence from Tulsa suggests that attention to continued preschool program improvement can lead to longer run academic gains.
The best evidence on school readiness comes from a regression discontinuity study of the Boston Preschool program by Weiland and Yoshikawa (2013). They concluded the Boston preschool program with its “combined evidence-based curricula with trained BA- and masters-level teachers and coaching support produced positive effects on multiple domains of school readiness. Language, literacy, and mathematics impacts were in the moderate-to-large range (effect sizes 0.45–0.62), whereas Executive Function impacts were in the small range (0.20–0.27).” Further, the Boston study suggested “children who were eligible for free or reduced lunch benefited statistically significantly more than those who were ineligible on numeracy (Applied Problems), inhibitory control (Pencil Tap), and attention shifting.”
An evaluation of the San Francisco Preschool for All program using a regression discontinuity design compared students based on whether they have yet had the experience of preschool. It found statistical significant impacts on Early Literacy (Effect Size = 0.40), Early Mathematics (Effect Size = 0.40) and Self Regulation (Effect Size = 0.51), (ASR, 2013)
Research by Hill et al, (2012) examines the impact of Tulsa’s universal preschool program on third grade test scores. They use a propensity score matching to create a control group prior to conducting their regression analysis. Of particular importance, they examine both the impact on an initial early cohort of students (2001-02) and a late cohort (2006-07). They discover no significant impact for the “Early” Cohort on 3rd Grade Scores but a statistically significant impact for the “Late” Cohort on 3rd grade mathematics. The impact is statistically significant for boys and those on “Free” Lunch. They note that “Pre-Kindergarten program maturation and changes in K-3 instruction may explain the differences in program effectiveness by cohort.”
Impact on Adult Lifetime Earnings: There is strong evidence that high quality preschool has an impact on adult lifetime earnings. That evidence suggests increases in lifetime earnings of 6% to 15 % for the children of low income families.
Bartik, (2014, p11) summarizes the results of several random assignment studies that examined the impact of early childhood education on adult lifetime earnings.
‘These experiments found large long-term benefits. Perry Preschool, on average,increased its child participants’ future earnings by 19 percent. The Abecedarian program increased adult educational attainment and employment rates: The adult education effects predict a lifetime earnings increase of 15 percent. The higher adult employment rates,
35
APPENDIX B
which exceed the boost expected from the educational attainment gains, bring the predicted lifetime earnings increase to 26 percent.”
Bartik also noted a recent study of the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program (Pre-K) that found an effect of increasing average earnings by 8%.
Beyond the studies that have lasted long enough to observe directly the impact on adult earnings, indirect evidence comes from studies that have examined the relationship between kindergarten readiness scores and adult earnings. When those studies are considered, Bartik (2014, p18) concludes “these calculations suggest that state and local pre-K programs increase future adult earnings of children from low income families by 6 to 15 percent.” Of particular interest, Bartik notes research evidence that the short term impact of increased test scores associated with preschool education actually under predict the long term impact of preschool on adult earnings, (Bartik, 2014, p13).
Evidence of Impact of Childcare Subsidies on Labor Supply: In 1997, Quebec enacted a new policy to subsidize childcare for children at age 4 by permitting approved providers to begin offering subsidized slots at $5 per day, Lefebvre et al (2008). The policy was gradually extended to cover all children from 0 to 6 years old by the year 2000.The policy had a significant positive effect on the labor supply of mothers, both in the short term and then in the longer term as children reached school age, Lefebvre et al, (2008, p10.) The longer term effects were only significant for less educated mothers (p25).
Importance of the Continuous Quality Improvement Aspect: Sabol et al (2013) reviewed the relationship between childcare providers’ aggregate ratings on state level quality standards, (like Ohio’s Step Up to Quality ratings), and measures of school readiness for children. They found that “generic system composite ratings were not significant predictors of child outcomes. There were few associations of composite ratings to children’s learning in the nine replicated state Quality Rating Information Systems.”, (Sabol et al, 2013 p846). Further, of the five individual quality indicators, “the CLASS measure of teacher-child interaction quality consistently was the strongest predictor of children’s learning, followed by the learning environment (ECERS-R).The structural quality measures of staff qualifications, staff-child ratio, and family partnership provided weaker and less consistent prediction of children’s learning”, (Sabol et al, 2013 p846). These results suggest that it is important to continue to help centers focus on appropriate quality indicators even after they have earned a particular Star Rating and bolsters the argument for continued investment in quality improvement in preschools.
Evidence on 1 year vs. 2 years of Preschool: Recent work by Domitrovich et al (2013) suggests that two years of enhanced preschool can be of substantial additional advantage to low income children relative to just one year. They concluded that given an enhanced preschool experience, (defined by integration of enhanced curriculum components in a standard Head Start program), children who received two years of the enhanced preschool had “significantly higher receptive vocabulary scores at kindergarten (effect size = 0.53) than did children who received one year.”(p709). Similar differentials were shown for other literacy measures. In addition, there were significant impacts on numeracy, (effect size = 0.33).
36
APPENDIX B
Bibliography
Applied Survey Research 2013 “Evaluating Preschool For All Effectiveness”
Timothy A. Bartik 2014 “From Preschool to Prosperity: The Economic Payoff toEarly Childhood Education” W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Celene E. Domitrovich, Nicole R. Morgan, Julia E. Moore, Brittany R. Cooper, Harshini K. Shah, Linda Jacobson, Mark T. Greenberg2013 “One versus two years: Does length of exposure to an enhanced preschool program impact the academic functioning of disadvantaged children in kindergarten?” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 704–713
Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson 2013 “Investing in Preschool Programs” J Economic Perspectives 2013 Spring; 27(2): 109–132
Carolyn J. Hill, William T. Gormley Jr, Shirley Adelstein, and Catherine Willemin. 2012 “TheEffects of Oklahoma’s Pre-Kindergarten Program on 3rd Grade Test Scores.” Center forResearch on Children in the United States, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 19 (2012)
Pierre Lefebvre, Philip Merrigan and MatthieuVerstraete 2008 “Dynamic Labor Supply Effects of Childcare Subsidies: Evidence from a Canadian Natural Experiment on Low-Fee Universal Child Care” Working Paper 08-24 Centre Interuniversitaire sur le Risque, les Politiques Economiques at l’Emploi
T. J. Sabol, S. L. Soliday Hong, R. C. Pianta and M. R. Burchinal 2013 “Can Rating Pre-KPrograms Predict Children’s Learning?” Science VOL 341 23 AUGUST 2013 pp845-846
Christina Weiland and Hirokazu Yoshikawa 2013 “Impacts of a Prekindergarten Program on Children’s Mathematics, Language, Literacy, Executive Function, and Emotional Skills” Child Dev. 2013 Nov-Dec; 84(6):2112-30
Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Christina Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M.Espinosa, William T. Gormley, Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips and Martha J. Zaslow 2013 “Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education” Society for Research in Child Development
37
AP
PE
ND
IX C
: Ste
p U
p T
o Q
ua
lity
Ben
chm
ark
s
38
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRESCHOOL PROMISE
PRELIMINARY REPORT Tuition Scale Calculation& Administration Alternatives
December 17, 2014 (revised: May 21, 2015)
Prepared for: Robyn Lightcap DirectorReadySetSoar4801 Springfield Street Dayton, OH45431
Prepared by: Rob McDaniel
Metrix Advisors, LLC 2499 Washington Street
Denver, CO 80205 (303) 641-3443
MBE/DBE Certification #8570 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The ideas contained in this proposal represent the intellectual property of Metrix Advisors, LLC. The details of this proposal shall not be disseminated beyond Ready SetSoar and its affiliates without the written permission of Metrix Advisors, LLC. All methods, processes and concepts contained herein are strictly confidential and may not be shared with any outside parties.
APPENDIX D: Metrix Report — Tuition Table Alternatives
40
Montgomery County Preschool Promise
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary 1
Background 2
Other Public Funding 3
Administrative Approaches 4
Appendix I: Tuition Scales 10
APPENDIX D
41
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 1 of 13
Executive SummaryIn October 2014 Metrix Advisors, LLC was contracted by Ready SetSoar to develop three different approaches for calculating and managing a tiered tuition credit model for the Preschool Promise program that is under consideration in Montgomery County, Ohio. This report puts forward those scenarios and includes a discussion of the pros and cons of each approach for implementing a universal tuition assistance program in Montgomery County.
To inform this report Montgomery County representatives provided pertinent demographic, research and program documentation to Metrix. This information, combined with data and insights from the Denver Preschool Program (DPP), serve as the basis for this report.
As Preschool Promise is a new initiative with distinct goals and objectives, this report also necessitates the wide use of data assumptions to generate the required analyses. Every effort has been made to back stop our assumptions with actual data, however, in some instances data was wholly unavailable. In these cases, we applied our experience from managing the DPP enrollment and eligibility operation to derive the needed variables, and have highlighted these assumptions throughout this document.
The tuition credit administration approaches detailed in this document are:
1. Stand-alone –Similar to the current program design utilized by DPP that emphasizes low administrative overhead and joint accountability between preschool system partners.
2. System Dependent –Captures and quantifies all of the public funding sources that impact the 4 year-old preschool system in Montgomery County.
3. Statistically Driven –Combines elements of both approaches by capturing the impact of other public funding sources in an efficient administrative manner.
As with all major public policy initiatives, each of the approaches to program design discussed in this report carry positive and negative elements. The intent of this report is not to favor any one of the three choices, but rather to inform decision makers in Montgomery County of general alternatives for the distribution of public funds earmarked as tuition assistance for preschool students.
APPENDIX D
42
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 2 of 13
BackgroundIn March of 2014 ReadySetSoar created a Preschool Promise “preliminary report” with an overview of research and program objectives for a potential new publically funded preschool program for Montgomery County. The same document identified an overarching goal of ensuring 1,300 low income 4-year-olds who are not attending preschool at all and over 2,000 who attend programs that are not quality-rated be provided a funding mechanism to make preschool an option.
This report expands that objective to create the profile of a universal funding program for all 4-year-olds in Montgomery County. In order to create this profile, a set of core program assumptions have been established to proxy how the program might actually function once implemented. These core assumptions are constant across the three administration approaches and identified in the table below.
Input Assumption Description
Enrolled Students1 5,200 Calculated at 80% of 4 year olds in Montgomery County.
Tuition Credit Budget 2 $10.0M Starting estimate for planning purposes. Cost of quality and funding viability analysis TBD.
Income Tiers 6 Tier 1 =<100% FPL Tier 2 = 100% - 125% FPL Tier 3 = 125% - 200% FPL
Tier 4 = 200% - 300% FPL Tier 5 =>300% FPL Opt Out = no income provided
Participation Levels 3 Part Day (5hrs/wk min): paid at 50% of Full Day rates
Full Day (25 hrs/wk min): paid at 100% (baseline factor)
Extended Day (33 hrs/wk min): paid at 115% of Full Day rates
Quality Ratings 3 6 0 = Unrated 1 = Quality
2 = Quality 3 = High Quality
4 = High Quality 5 = High Quality
In order to reasonably estimate spending for each administrative approach, enrollment must be further decomposed into student mix. The mix for participation is based on experiential data from DPP. The Quality and Income Tier mix is derived from data provided by Montgomery County.4 The student mix assumptions utilized in all three administration approaches are as follows:
Participation Quality Income Tier Part Day 25% 0 50% 1 34% Full Day 60% 1 10% 2 8%
Extended Day 15% 2 2% 3 19% 3 3% 4 14% 4 13% 5 23%
5 22% Opt Out 2%
1 Source: Basic Data for Preschool Model Richard calculated July 2014.xls/Month Cty FLP kids 2 Source: Discussion with Ready SetSoar Director. Assumed for preliminary, and directional purposes only 3 Ohio Department of Education and Job and Family Services 5‐star Quality Rating and Improvement Scale 4 Source: preschool promise_3‐4‐14.pdf (American Community Survey 2013)
APPENDIX D
43
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 3 of 13
Other Public FundingAll three administration approaches discussed later in this document include consideration for other public funding (OPF) sources available to 4-year-old preschool students in Montgomery County. In the Preschool Promise preliminary overview, these various factors are discussed in detail, but omit several essential data elements to present a complete view of the exact impact of OPF dollars on the County preschool system.
Additional data generated by Dr. Richard Stock from the Business Research Group (BRG) at the University of Dayton was also provided to Metrix for this report. The table below details each funding source contemplated in this report, and presents the key assumptions that were utilized for calculation of the tuition credit scales associated with each program administration approach.
OPF Source 5 Provided Data Key Assumptions Utilized Inputs
Head Start (federally-funded)
<100% FPL
$10.3M annual funding
3 & 4 year olds = 1,275
Mix of Part Day and Full Day participation
4 & 5 year olds eligible
$600/mo. ($8,102/yr.)
71% of funding goes to 4 year olds
Part Day = $405/mo.
Part Day mix = 31%
Full Day = $809/mo.
Full Day mix = 69%
12 mo. program
$5.4M annual funding (4 yo only)
Enrollment (4 yo) = 875 Split = 296 P/D - 579 F/D Avg. credit = $683/mo. 9 mo. funding impact to
Preschool Promise
“ECE” Preschool (state-funded)
<200% FPL
$2.72M annual funding
Enrollment = 568
Part Day student slots (12.5 hours/week)
$4K / year
School Year: 9 months (180 days)
3-and 4- year old funding currently in Governor’s proposed budget for FY’16
FY’17 funding would move to 4yo only
Benefit: ~$530/month
$2.7M annual funding (4 yo only)
Enrollment = 568 (4yo only w/budget chg)
Avg. credit = $532/mo. <100% FPL = 82% of 4yo
beneficiaries 100% - 125% FPL = 18% of
4 yo beneficiaries
Subsidized Childcare (PFCC) (federally & state
funded)
<125% FPL intake
$4.8M annual funding
Enrollment = 1,400
Part time = 176 / $272/mo.
Full time = 725 / $4,266
Part Day mix = 20%
Part Day = $272/mo.
Full Day mix = 80%
Full Day = $482/mo.
9 mo. program
$3.6M annual funding (4yo only)
Enrollment = 901 Split = 176 P/D - 725 F/D Avg. credit = $441/mo. <100% FPL = 82% 100% - 125% FPL = 18%
For the purposes of this report, a key assumption is that children who receive other sources of public funding can only leverage a maximum of two sources of funds (e.g., Head Start + ECE Preschool, or ECE Preschool + PFCC). As Montgomery County continues to refine its preschool funding model, this assumption should be refined to include more detailed student funding segmentation.
5 Data regarding State funded special education programs unavailable at time of analysis.
APPENDIX D
44
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 4 of 13
Approach 1: Stand‐Alone In the Stand-Alone administrative approach for tuition credit distribution, we borrow heavily from the program design currently utilized by the Denver Preschool Program (DPP) in Denver, Colorado. Notably, DPP evolved to this approach after utilizing a System Dependent approach for the initial three years of the program (2007 – 2010).
The decision to move to a Stand Alone approach was largely driven by the economic recession that began in late 2008 when a significant drop in sales tax collections forced the elimination of summer programming and a corresponding reduction in the aggregate DPP tuition credit budget.6 In the context of the economic recession, DPP decision makers wanted to utilize their experiences with the original tuition credit approach and develop a model that focused on minimizing economic risk, captured a macro-view of available other public funding sources, and reduced confusion on behalf of providers and families for determining their actual tuition credit amount.
CalculationOften referred to as a “what you see is what you get” scale, the stand alone tuition credit scale (presented on page 11 of Appendix I) is very clear in that once your eligibility level has been determined you are entitled to receive exactly the amount listed in the table. This greatly reduces confusion for providers and parents. Any interested party can simply look on the scale and determine their tuition credit if they know their income level, quality rating of their provider, and anticipated participation level.
The stand-alone scale is means-tested, in that low-income families receive a higher tuition credit than high-income families, is differentiated by participation level, and rewards enrollment at high quality providers. The specifics of the sliding scale in the stand-alone approach are listed below:
One nuance of the DPP approach is the “Opt Out” income category. This category allows for families that are either unwilling or unable to provide proof of income to participate, but at a significantly discounted rate. As this report is a preliminary document, the Opt Out category, as well as the decrease from one level to another (i.e., the slope of the scale) for both Income and Quality is for representative purposes only and should be adjusted to reflect the policy objectives of Preschool Promise.
6DPP is funded through a 15 basis point sales tax on purchases in Denver County (12bp prior to 2014 reauthorization).
$321$289
$257
$193
$77
$31
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Income Tier$237
$215$205
$192$172
$151
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Quality Rating
APPENDIX D
45
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 5 of 13
Other Public FundingAlthough this approach is referred to as stand-alone because the scale does not directly take other public funding into account, OPF is accounted for in a broader manner. As noted in the Preschool Promise collateral materials, the cost of high-quality preschool education can easily exceed $10,000 per year. In the stand-alone approach utilized by DPP, a review of the total amount of OPF distributed to Denver’s 4-year-olds yielded the conclusion that all public funding accounted for significantly less than 50% of the cost of delivering high-quality preschool to the same demographic.
Additionally, in the first few years of DPP it became very clear to the organization that attempting to track every public dollar at the child level carried a significant administrative cost and oftentimes yielded poor and lagging payment data. While this initial approach may have created an illusion of accuracy, the actual results were mixed and did not merit the programmatic risk that accompanied the approach.
Taking these significant factors into account, the stand-alone approach captures other public funding by assuming:
All public funding does not come close to exceeding the cost of delivering quality preschool programs to Denver’s 4-year-olds.
Since public funding is limited the potential for overfunding a student above the tuition rate is limited.
Contractual agreements with providers and families to self-report any instances where a student receives public funding in excess of the cost of tuition minimizes the chance of over-payment.
Implementation of a robust Quality Assurance Program (QAP) to audit vendors and providers for contractual compliance in only utilizing DPP dollars up to the cost of tuition.
ResultsThe table below captures the major benefits and challenges of the Stand-Alone approach.
Pros
Easy for stakeholders to understand
Low administrative cost allows for more dollars to flow to students
Assumes negligible risk from other public funding sources
Places accountability for compliance on providers and parents
Has been utilized by peer organizations (e.g., Denver Preschool Program)
Con
s
Does not track other public funding sources at the individual student level
Places accountability for compliance on providers and parents
Dependent on QAP sampling to identify potential overfunding beyond monthly tuition
APPENDIX D
46
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 6 of 13
Approach 2: System Dependent The System Dependent administrative approach for tuition credit distribution also borrows from the Denver Preschool Program’s experience with a program designed around the concept of “last dollar in.” In the early childhood education community, “last dollar in” is generally understood to mean that a new program (e.g., Preschool Promise) should only act as gap funding between existing funding and the cost of tuition.
CalculationWhile the concept of “last dollar in” may make intuitive sense, the DPP experience demonstrates the challenges with turning the concept into an operational reality. To illustrate this point, Example 1, below, demonstrates the concept of “last dollar in” through three different scenarios (A-C):
Example 1 A B C
Tuition Rate $1,000 $1,200 $1,200
ECE Preschool $444 $444 $444
Subsidized Childcare $400 $400 $200
Funding Gap: $156 $356 $556Example 1 illustrates the fundamental challenge with an administrative approach based on capturing the funding gap: every case is unique. In Example 1 is $156 or $556 the correct tuition credit?
One approach would be to distribute credits “up to” $556 to capture all cases. This, however, assumes that data is available from all sources in a timely and reliable manner. If data is not available, the end result is delayed payments to providers, changing payments based on changing data, and an assumption of risk for changes to any of the inputs that were the basis for the static tuition scale. In addition, the subsidized childcare reimbursement varies each week as the state reimburses based on a swipe card system and calculates actual hours. Attendance may vary week-to-week based on holidays, sick days, snow days, and varying schedules.
For the system dependent tuition credit scale (presented on page 12 of Appendix I), the applied methodology is to estimate the other public funding amounts by student segment and then mark up the tuition credit scale by those amounts to proxy a gross tuition credit. The slope of the scale elements for the system dependent scale are presented below:
$493$444
$395
$296
$118
$47
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Income Tier
$364$331
$314$295
$265$232
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Quality Rating
APPENDIX D
47
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 7 of 13
While the actual slope of the line is identical to the stand-alone approach, one critical difference between the two approaches is the average values of the monthly tuition credits. In the system dependent approach, average tuition credits are almost twice as much as the stand-alone average credits. This is due to the fact that the system dependent scale includes $9.6M in other public funding. Put a different way, the stand-alone scale creates a tuition credit liability to the funder of $19.6M, almost two times the planned budget ($10.0M).
ResultsThe table below captures the major benefits and challenges of the System Dependent approach.
Pros
Manages public funding at the individual student level
Supports the “last dollar in” philosophy
Places accountability for compliance solely on the gap funder
Potential to drive system-wide data collaboration
Con
s
Difficult for stakeholders to understand
Creates an unfunded liability to the gap funder
Carries high overhead costs for data management
Places accountability for compliance solely on the gap funder
Creates financial risk from potential changes to other programs
Creates an incentive for providers to increase tuition levels
Difficult to gather timely data from other public funding sources
Operationalizing could lead to the over-use of data assumptions
APPENDIX D
48
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 8 of 13
Approach 3: Statistically Driven The Statistically Driven administrative approach for tuition credit distribution is a conceptual model for program design that combines elements of approaches 1 and 2. This approach also takes into account the notion of creating an efficient and pragmatic operating model, while acknowledging the impact of other public funding sources on an individual student’s ability to pay tuition.
Critical to the design of the Statistically Driven model is the assumption that the large majority of low income students (household income <125% of FPL) in Montgomery County are eligible for some form of currently available other public funding.7 The table below details the basis for this assumption:
Program ParticipantsECE Preschool 568
Subsidized Childcare 901
Head Start 875
Total 2,344
4 year-olds (<125% of FPL): 2,120
This table also highlights the fact that many students as capturing multiple funding streams to pay for preschool. Unfortunately, as each program is operated by a separate organization, there is no central clearing house for capturing system-wide student level funding information, so understanding the nuanced interrelationships at the student level is very difficult.
The Statistically Driven approach recognizes these limitations and program funding at the program level and bases its corresponding tuition scale on the presumption that children in income tiers 1 and 2 (household income <125% of FPL) have captured some level of other public funding and their relative need is lower that children in higher income brackets. Note that ECE Preschool does extend into Tier 3. However this report assumes this population is a very small portion of the ECE Preschool population.
Equally important to this assumption is a clear, efficient and defined process for families to demonstrate that they did not receive other public funding, and are thus eligible for a full tuition credit (for the purposes of this report, the de facto full credit would be the corresponding credit in the System Dependent scale).
CalculationThe Statistically Driven approach uses the same levels of OPF as the system dependent approach, but instead of attempting to calculate each month’s net payment to children after deducting monthly public funding, this approach uses a standard number for each public funding source accessed by the student.
The standard number utilized each year for every source of OPF would be calculated through a standard methodology developed in collaboration with the funding organizations and qualified policy experts. The approach would be reviewed annually and keep in place for the entire school year.
From the perspective of a participating family or provider, the corresponding scale (presented on page 13 of Appendix I) is easy to understand in that the listed amounts ‘are what you get’ in terms of program funding
7 As described in background information provided by Montgomery County and presented earlier in this report.
APPENDIX D
49
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 9 of 13
in the case that the student is receiving other public dollars. In the case where a low income family is not receiving OPF, a clearly communicated process would accompany the scale for families to follow that are eligible for a full tuition credit. Depending on the approach taken, this scale approach could likely be refined to account for children receiving low, medium, or high levels of other public funding.
Notably, the slope of the scale for the Statistically Driven approach is considerably different than what exists in the other two scales. The table below highlights this difference and also emphasizes that children in Income Tiers 1 and 2 are most likely receiving support from other public funding sources, so their corresponding support from the contemplated program in Montgomery County is lower.
ResultsThe table below captures the major benefits and challenges of the Statistically Driven approach.
Pros
Accounts for other public funding at the individual student level
Captures a “last dollar in” philosophy
Removes risk for changes to other funding sources
Incorporates efficient monthly tuition credit processing model
Families are incented to seek other sources of public funding
Does account for ability to pay in context of utilizing other sources of public funding
Con
s
Has not been implemented elsewhere
Would have to develop initial methodology for calculating the statistical model
The process for receiving full tuition credit could be difficult to implement
Without understanding the logic, at first glance the scale appears to favor higher income families over lower income families
$208 $198
$312
$250
$177$146
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Income Tier
$261$237 $225
$211$190
$166
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
Average Mthly Tuition Credit by Quality Rating
APPENDIX D
50
Montgomery County Preschool Promise Page 10 of 13
APPENDIX I
Representative Tuition Credit Scales
APPENDIX D
51
Montgomery County Universal PreschoolMonthly Tuition Credit Scale (Stand‐Alone approach)
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $281 $140 $3231 $321 $160 $369
2 $361 $170 $4153 $381 $190 $4384 $401 $200 $4615 $441 $220 $507
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $253 $126 $2901 $289 $144 $3322 $325 $153 $3733 $343 $171 $3944 $361 $180 $4155 $397 $198 $456
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $224 $112 $2581 $257 $128 $2952 $289 $136 $3323 $305 $152 $3504 $321 $160 $3695 $353 $176 $406
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $168 $84 $1941 $192 $96 $2212 $216 $102 $2493 $228 $114 $2634 $241 $120 $2775 $265 $132 $304
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $70 $35 $811 $80 $40 $922 $90 $43 $1043 $95 $48 $1094 $100 $50 $1155 $110 $55 $127
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $28 $14 $321 $32 $16 $372 $36 $17 $413 $38 $19 $444 $40 $20 $465 $44 $22 $51
* Minimum tuition credit offered. Assumes no income documentation submitted
FPL < 100%
FPL 100%
‐ 125%
FPL 125%
‐ 200%
FPL 200%
‐ 300%
FPL > 300%
Opt Out *
Montgomery County Preschool Promise 11 of 13
APPENDIX D
52
Montgomery County Universal PreschoolMonthly Tuition Credit Scale (System Dependent approach)
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $431 $216 $4961 $493 $246 $567
2 $554 $262 $6373 $585 $293 $6734 $616 $308 $7085 $678 $339 $779
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $388 $194 $4461 $443 $222 $5102 $499 $236 $5743 $527 $263 $6064 $554 $277 $6375 $610 $305 $701
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $345 $172 $3971 $394 $197 $4532 $443 $209 $5103 $468 $234 $5384 $493 $246 $5675 $542 $271 $623
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $259 $129 $2971 $296 $148 $3402 $333 $157 $3823 $351 $176 $4044 $370 $185 $4255 $407 $203 $467
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $108 $54 $1241 $123 $62 $1422 $139 $65 $1593 $146 $73 $1684 $154 $77 $1775 $169 $85 $195
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $43 $22 $501 $49 $25 $572 $55 $26 $643 $59 $29 $674 $62 $31 $715 $68 $34 $78
* Minimum tuition credit offered. Assumes no income documentation submitted
FPL < 100%
FPL 100%
‐ 125%
FPL 125%
‐ 200%
FPL 200%
‐ 300%
FPL > 300%
Opt Out *
Montgomery County Preschool Promise 12 of 13
APPENDIX D
53
Montgomery County Universal PreschoolMonthly Tuition Credit Scale (Statistically Driven approach)
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $182 $91 $2091 $208 $104 $239
2 $234 $111 $2693 $247 $124 $2844 $260 $130 $2995 $286 $143 $329
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $173 $86 $1991 $198 $99 $2272 $222 $105 $2563 $235 $117 $2704 $247 $124 $2845 $272 $136 $312
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $273 $137 $3141 $312 $156 $3592 $351 $166 $4043 $371 $185 $4264 $390 $195 $4495 $429 $215 $493
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $218 $109 $2511 $250 $125 $2872 $281 $133 $3233 $296 $148 $3414 $312 $156 $3595 $343 $172 $395
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $155 $77 $1781 $177 $88 $2032 $199 $94 $2293 $210 $105 $2414 $221 $111 $2545 $243 $122 $280
Quality Rating Full‐Day Tuition Credit Half‐Day Tuition Credit Extended‐Day Tuition Credit
0 $127 $64 $1471 $146 $73 $1672 $164 $77 $1883 $173 $86 $1994 $182 $91 $2095 $200 $100 $230
* Minimum tuition credit offered. Assumes no income documentation submitted
FPL < 10
0%FPL 10
0% ‐ 12
5%FPL 12
5% ‐ 20
0%FPL 20
0% ‐ 30
0%FPL > 30
0%Opt Out *
Montgomery County Preschool Promise 13 of 13
APPENDIX D
54
AP
PE
ND
IX E
: Gen
era
l A
ssu
mp
tion
s
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
Gen
eral
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
nsTh
ese
assu
mpt
ions
wer
e us
ed to
cal
cula
te th
e bu
dget
est
imat
es in
clud
ed in
the
repo
rt.
POPU
LATI
ON
ASS
UM
PTIO
NS
Tota
l num
ber o
f 4-y
ear-
olds
(ACS
dat
a)6,
500
Tota
l 4-y
ear-
olds
@75
% p
artic
ipat
ion
rate
75%
4,87
5
Num
ber o
f cla
ssro
oms (
assu
min
g 20
per
cla
ss)
2024
4
Num
ber o
f ODE
Pro
gram
s60
Num
ber o
f ODJ
FS P
rogr
ams (
>10
preK
enr
olle
d)15
6To
tal N
umbe
r Cen
ter-
base
d pr
ogra
ms s
ervi
ng P
reK
216
Num
ber o
f ODE
Pro
gram
s @ 9
0% p
artic
ipat
ion
rate
90%
54N
umbe
r of O
DJFS
Pro
gram
s @75
% p
artic
ipat
ion
rate
75%
117
2020
MAX
Tota
l ODE
and
ODJ
FS C
ente
r-ba
sed
Prog
ram
s Par
ticip
atin
g17
1Su
bsid
ized
CC b
y St
ar R
atin
g 20
20, 3
&4
year
s0
00
Num
ber o
f 4-y
ear-
olds
Pub
licly
Fun
ded
162
30
623
Head
Sta
rt80
02
1005
010
05EC
E pr
esch
ool
703
369
20
Spec
ial E
d pr
esch
ool (
66%
of 1
,052
tota
l 3-&
4-ye
ar-o
lds)
66%
694
495
0Su
bsid
ized
Child
care
1,29
25
115
2530
Tota
l rec
eivi
ng p
ublic
fund
s3,
489
654
54Gr
and
Tota
2584
2584
Estim
ates
by
Fede
ral P
over
ty L
evel
Tota
lU
nder
125
%12
6-20
0%20
1-30
0%>3
01%
Tota
lTo
tal 3
-yea
r-ol
ds a
nd 4
-yea
r-ol
ds (A
CS D
ata)
13,0
015,
339
2,47
31,
830
3,35
913
,001
41%
19%
14%
26%
100%
Tota
l 4-y
ear-
olds
(ACS
Dat
a)6,
500
2,66
91,
236
915
1,67
96,
500
Publ
icly
Fun
ded
4-ye
ar-o
lds b
y FP
LHe
ad S
tart
800
800
800
ECE
pres
choo
l70
348
022
370
3Sp
ecia
l Ed
pres
choo
l (66
% o
f 1,0
52 to
tal 3
-&4-
year
-old
s)69
428
513
298
179
694
Subs
idize
d Ch
ildca
re1,
292
883
409
1,29
2To
tal P
ublic
ly F
unde
d by
FPL
3,48
92,
449
764
9817
93,
489
Tota
lly P
ublic
ly F
unde
d by
FPL
acc
ount
ing
for 1
5% d
uplic
ates
15%
2,96
62,
081
649
8315
22,
966
Tota
l Not
Pub
licly
Fun
ded
by F
PL58
858
783
21,
527
3,53
4
55
AP
PE
ND
IX E
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
TUIT
ION
ASS
UM
PTIO
NS
Annu
al C
ost o
f Hig
h-qu
ality
Ful
l-tim
e, Y
ear R
ound
Pre
scho
ol$1
1,00
0An
nual
Cos
t of H
igh-
qual
ity P
art-t
ime,
Sch
ool Y
ear P
resc
hool
$5,5
00
% o
f Fed
eral
Pov
erty
Lev
elAv
erag
e %
of T
uitio
n Co
vere
d12
5% a
nd b
elow
80%
126-
200%
75
%20
1-30
0%50
%>3
00%
20%
Aver
age
Annu
al C
hild
care
Sub
sidy
Rece
ived
by
Prov
ider
Full-
time
Pres
choo
l7,
451.
40$
Part
-tim
e Pr
esch
ool
3,16
1.78
$
(b
ased
on
Mon
tgom
ery
Coun
ty d
ata
Janu
ary
2015
subs
idy
paym
ents
)
Diffe
renc
e be
twee
n Av
erag
e An
nual
Chi
ldca
re S
ubsid
y an
d Co
st o
f Hig
h Q
ualit
yFu
ll-tim
e Pr
esch
ool
$3,5
48.6
0Pa
rt-ti
me
Pres
choo
l$2
,338
.22
ASSU
MPT
ION
S AT
LAU
NCH
OF
PRO
GRA
MCu
rren
t Hig
h-qu
ality
Pre
scho
ol E
nrol
lmen
t - n
umbe
r of 3
- and
4-y
ear o
lds
4,62
250
% o
f est
imat
e to
acc
ount
for 4
-yea
r-ol
ds o
nly
2,31
1
Coun
ts o
f Cen
ters
by
Star
Rat
ings
by
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MAX
EDU
nrat
ed11
882
8268
680
01
3454
2539
3959
02
118
3535
3549
03
1130
3232
3232
04
77
77
77
05
1414
1414
1414
161
ODE
5959
5959
5959
59Gr
and
Tota
l25
425
425
425
425
422
022
0Hi
ghly
Rat
ed P
rogr
ams
9111
011
211
211
211
222
0
Tota
l Enr
ollm
ent M
inus
Sub
sidy
Enro
llmen
t20
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
20M
AXED
Unr
ated
2461
1510
1510
1246
1246
1246
01
475
562
185
449
449
185
02
285
224
601
601
601
865
03
111
1036
1036
1036
1036
1036
04
347
347
347
347
347
347
05
450
450
450
450
450
450
4129
ODE
1,83
41,
834
1,83
41,
834
1,83
41,
834
1834
Tota
l59
6359
6359
6359
6359
6359
6359
63
56
AP
PE
ND
IX E
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
TUIT
ION
ASS
UM
PTIO
NS
Annu
al C
ost o
f Hig
h-qu
ality
Ful
l-tim
e, Y
ear R
ound
Pre
scho
ol$1
1,00
0An
nual
Cos
t of H
igh-
qual
ity P
art-t
ime,
Sch
ool Y
ear P
resc
hool
$5,5
00
% o
f Fed
eral
Pov
erty
Lev
elAv
erag
e %
of T
uitio
n Co
vere
d12
5% a
nd b
elow
80%
126-
200%
75
%20
1-30
0%50
%>3
00%
20%
Aver
age
Annu
al C
hild
care
Sub
sidy
Rece
ived
by
Prov
ider
Full-
time
Pres
choo
l7,
451.
40$
Part
-tim
e Pr
esch
ool
3,16
1.78
$
(b
ased
on
Mon
tgom
ery
Coun
ty d
ata
Janu
ary
2015
subs
idy
paym
ents
)
Diffe
renc
e be
twee
n Av
erag
e An
nual
Chi
ldca
re S
ubsid
y an
d Co
st o
f Hig
h Q
ualit
yFu
ll-tim
e Pr
esch
ool
$3,5
48.6
0Pa
rt-ti
me
Pres
choo
l$2
,338
.22
ASSU
MPT
ION
S AT
LAU
NCH
OF
PRO
GRA
MCu
rren
t Hig
h-qu
ality
Pre
scho
ol E
nrol
lmen
t - n
umbe
r of 3
- and
4-y
ear o
lds
4,62
250
% o
f est
imat
e to
acc
ount
for 4
-yea
r-ol
ds o
nly
2,31
1
Coun
ts o
f Cen
ters
by
Star
Rat
ings
by
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MAX
EDU
nrat
ed11
882
8268
680
01
3454
2539
3959
02
118
3535
3549
03
1130
3232
3232
04
77
77
77
05
1414
1414
1414
161
ODE
5959
5959
5959
59Gr
and
Tota
l25
425
425
425
425
422
022
0Hi
ghly
Rat
ed P
rogr
ams
9111
011
211
211
211
222
0
Tota
l Enr
ollm
ent M
inus
Sub
sidy
Enro
llmen
t20
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
20M
AXED
Unr
ated
2461
1510
1510
1246
1246
1246
01
475
562
185
449
449
185
02
285
224
601
601
601
865
03
111
1036
1036
1036
1036
1036
04
347
347
347
347
347
347
05
450
450
450
450
450
450
4129
ODE
1,83
41,
834
1,83
41,
834
1,83
41,
834
1834
Tota
l59
6359
6359
6359
6359
6359
6359
63
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
Tota
l Enr
ollm
ent -
Sub
sidy
Enro
llmen
tAs
sum
ptio
ns o
f Enr
ollm
ent P
erce
nt b
y St
ar R
atin
g w
ith O
DE20
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
20M
AXU
nrat
ed41
.3%
25.3
%25
.3%
20.9
%20
.9%
20.9
%0.
0%1
8.0%
9.4%
3.1%
7.5%
7.5%
3.1%
0.0%
24.
8%3.
8%10
.1%
10.1
%10
.1%
14.5
%0.
0%3
1.9%
17.4
%17
.4%
17.4
%17
.4%
17.4
%0.
0%4
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
0.0%
57.
5%7.
5%7.
5%7.
5%7.
5%7.
5%69
.2%
ODE
30.8
%30
.8%
30.8
%30
.8%
30.8
%30
.8%
30.8
%
Not
es:
1) O
DE ra
tes n
eed
to b
e ne
gotia
ted
to d
eter
min
e th
e be
st w
ay P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
fund
ing
supp
lem
ents
cur
rent
dist
rict i
nves
tmen
ts (l
ocal
and
fede
ral (
Title
I) fu
ndin
g.
2) T
here
are
dup
licat
es in
the
enro
llmen
t rec
eive
d fr
om th
e st
ate;
a 1
5% d
uplic
atio
n ra
te w
as a
ccou
nted
for h
owev
er th
ere
may
still
be
addi
tiona
l dup
licat
ion.
57
APPENDIX F: Quality Improvement Cost Estimates
Copy of Preschool Promise Budget Assumptions for Recommendations Report Final
Quality Improvement Cost EstimatesThese estimates support Step Up To Quality (SUTQ) and beyond.
Year 1 Year 2/3Unrated Administrative Coaching to earn first Rating (for those who are ready) 5,200Licensing Coaching (for those with Serious Risk Non Compliances) 8,000
Total $8,000 $5,200
1-2 Star Programs (2-3 years to get to 3-Star)SUTQ Coaching to get to 3-Star 8,000 8,000Directors Institute ($30,000 per cohort of 10 programs, 2 people per program, Coaching 1x/month, 2 hours plus equipment/software) (YEAR ONE)
4,000Curriculum Coaching (YEAR TWO) 4,000Curriculum Credit - for purchase of curriculum per classroom and GOLD assessment ($2,200 per kit, plus $200 materials) YEAR TWO 2,400Assessment Credit - $20/child per year for 20 kids for TS GOLD 400 400Staff wages while in training (10 staff at $15/hour x 7 hours) 1,050 1,050Substitute Bank 500 500CDA (Child Development Associate) Credit 1,500 1,500AA Credit ($7,100 at Sinclair for AA) 3,500 3,600
Total $18,950 $21,450
Ongoing 3-5 Star Programs all receive CLASS/Equivalent*CLASS Overview Training 100CLASS Assessment per classroom, pre- and post- ($350 per assessment) 700CLASS Video Library annual subscription (12 month) 175CLASS Instructional Support online annual 100CLASS Dimensions guide one per teacher 20CLASS Coaching 2-3 hours a week for novice teacher 4,500
Total $5,595
3-Star ProgramsStipend/bonuses for staff to improve pay 10,000Coaching to move up/Coaching for intentional teaching 5,000
Total $15,000
4-5 Star ProgramsProfessional Development Credits per classroom (2 prek per building) 5,000Stipend/bonuses for staff to improve pay 10,000
Total $15,000
*Note to further explore "My Teaching Partner" - train experts in our area to support CLASS implementation http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/336169/MTPcoach-credentialing.pdf
58
59
AP
PE
ND
IX G
: Est
ima
ted
Bu
dg
et a
t S
cale
- i
n 2
02
0
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
Estim
ated
Bud
get a
t Sca
le -
in 2
020
This
budg
et a
ssum
es a
maj
ority
of P
resc
hool
s hav
e ea
rned
a 1
-Sta
r at 2
020.
Item
ized
Tota
l for
Cat
egor
y%
of t
otal
Educ
atio
n/Co
mm
unity
Aw
aren
ess
500,
000
500,
000
4%
Paid
mar
ketin
g
Prin
ted
mat
eria
lsFi
eld
wor
k/co
mm
unity
eve
nts
Soci
al m
edia
Assi
stin
g Fa
mili
es
Enro
llmen
t & c
usto
mer
serv
ice
300,
000
2%St
affin
g20
0,00
0Da
taba
se/t
echn
olog
y/ap
p de
velo
pmen
t40
,000
Data
base
upd
ates
with
pro
vide
rs10
,000
Prin
ting,
mai
ling,
com
mun
icat
ion
piec
es50
,000
Tuiti
on a
ssist
ance
5,26
4,66
143
%
Subs
idize
d Ch
ildca
re (1
292
stud
ents
diff
eren
ce) 2
020
Enro
llmen
tAm
ount
of S
ubsid
yAs
sum
ed
Perc
ent F
ullti
me
Unr
ated
00%
50%
01
Star
312
0%50
%0
2 St
ar50
30%
50%
03
star
346
80%
50%
814,
736
4 st
ar48
90%
50%
125,
831
5 st
ar58
100%
50%
169,
246
ODE
2710
0%50
%79
,472
ECE
Pres
choo
l (70
3 st
uden
ts @
$1,5
00)
703
1,50
01,
054,
500
Head
Sta
rt (8
00 st
uden
ts @
$0)
0
Not
Pub
lic F
unde
dAs
sum
ed P
artic
ipat
ion
Rate
Enro
lled
not P
ublic
Fu
nded
Assu
med
Pe
rcen
t Ful
ltim
e
Amou
nt o
f Su
bsid
y fo
r Q
ualit
y Ra
ting
Amou
nt b
ased
on
Inco
me
unde
r 125
% n
ot p
ublic
ly fu
nded
588
Unr
ated
50%
123
50%
0%0
1 St
ar50
%18
50%
0%0
2 St
ar50
%85
50%
0%0
3 st
ar50
%10
250
%80
%80
%26
9,71
14
star
50%
3450
%90
%80
%10
1,63
05
star
50%
4450
%10
0%80
%14
6,44
0O
DE10
0%18
115
0080
%21
6,99
012
5-20
0% n
ot p
ublic
ly fu
nded
587
Unr
ated
75%
123
50%
0%0
1 St
ar75
%18
50%
0%0
2 St
ar75
%85
50%
0%0
3 st
ar75
%10
250
%80
%75
%37
8,85
04
star
75%
3450
%90
%75
%14
2,75
45
star
75%
4450
%10
0%75
%20
5,69
8O
DE10
0%18
115
0075
%20
3,19
7
Assu
mpt
ions
60
AP
PE
ND
IX G
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
200-
300%
not
pub
licly
fund
ed83
2U
nrat
ed75
%17
450
%0%
01
Star
75%
2650
%0%
02
Star
75%
121
50%
0%0
3 st
ar75
%14
550
%80
%50
%35
7,72
04
star
75%
4850
%90
%50
%13
4,79
25
star
75%
6350
%10
0%50
%19
4,22
5O
DE10
0%25
615
0050
%19
1,86
430
0% a
nd h
ighe
r not
pub
licly
fund
ed1,
527
Unr
ated
50%
319
50%
0%0
1 St
ar50
%47
50%
0%0
2 St
ar50
%22
250
%0%
03
star
50%
265
50%
80%
20%
175,
094
4 st
ar50
%89
50%
90%
20%
65,9
775
star
50%
115
50%
100%
20%
95,0
68O
DE10
0%47
015
0020
%14
0,86
8
Expa
ndin
g Av
aila
bilit
y of
Hig
h Q
ualit
y4,
956,
000
40%
Inve
stm
ent
Prog
ram
sCl
assr
oom
s
Expa
nsio
n gr
ants
/Dev
elop
men
t to
help
Unr
ated
$20,
000
1020
0,00
0
Cont
inou
s im
prov
emen
t 3-5
Sta
r (e.
g. C
LASS
, Coa
chin
g)$5
,000
112
224
1,12
0,00
0
Qua
lity
cred
its fo
r Pre
scho
ols
$15,
000
220
3,30
0,00
0Q
ualit
y M
onito
ring
Initi
ativ
e/Re
sear
ch$3
,000
112
336,
000
Adm
in a
nd E
valu
atio
n70
0,00
06%
Ad
min
istra
tion
400,
000
Ev
alua
tion
300,
000
Rese
rves
586,
000
586,
000
5%
$12,
306,
661
$12,
306,
661
100%
Tota
l Chi
ldre
n Se
rved
3,97
7Av
erag
e Co
st p
er c
hild
3,09
5$
Child
ren
in 3
-5 S
tar P
resc
hool
s (Tu
ition
Ass
istan
ce)
3,35
4
61
AP
PE
ND
IX H
: Est
ima
ted
Bu
dg
et a
t S
cale
- M
ax
imu
m I
nv
estm
ent
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
Estim
ated
Bud
get a
t Sca
le -
"Max
imum
" In
vest
men
tTh
is bu
dget
ass
umes
all
Pres
choo
ls ar
e 5-
Star
, ear
ning
the
high
est t
uitio
n re
imbu
rsem
ent.
Item
ized
Tota
l for
Cat
egor
y%
of t
otal
Educ
atio
n/Co
mm
unity
Aw
aren
ess
500,
000
500,
000
3%
Paid
mar
ketin
g
Prin
ted
mat
eria
lsFi
eld
wor
k/co
mm
unity
eve
nts
Soci
al m
edia
Assi
stin
g Fa
mili
es
Enro
llmen
t & c
usto
mer
serv
ice
300,
000
2%St
affin
g20
0,00
0Da
taba
se/t
echn
olog
y/ap
p de
velo
pmen
t40
,000
Data
base
upd
ates
with
pro
vide
rs10
,000
Prin
ting,
mai
ling,
com
mun
icat
ion
piec
es50
,000
Tuiti
on a
ssist
ance
8,88
1,96
756
%
Subs
idize
d Ch
ildca
re (1
292
stud
ents
diff
eren
ce) 2
020
Enro
llmen
tAm
ount
of
Subs
idy
Assu
med
Pe
rcen
t Ful
ltim
eU
nrat
ed0
0%50
%0
1 St
ar31
20%
50%
02
Star
503
0%50
%0
3 st
ar34
680
%50
%81
4,73
64
star
4890
%50
%12
5,83
15
star
5810
0%50
%16
9,24
6O
DE27
100%
50%
79,4
72EC
E Pr
esch
ool (
703
stud
ents
@$1
,500
)70
31,
500
1,05
4,50
0He
ad S
tart
(800
stud
ents
@ $
0)0
Not
Pub
lic F
unde
dAs
sum
ed
Part
icip
atio
n Ra
teEn
rolle
d no
t Pu
blic
Fun
ded
Assu
med
Pe
rcen
t Ful
ltim
eAm
ount
of
Subs
idy
unde
r 125
% n
ot p
ublic
ly fu
nded
588
Unr
ated
50%
050
%0%
01
Star
50%
050
%0%
02
Star
50%
050
%0%
03
star
50%
050
%80
%80
%0
4 st
ar50
%0
50%
90%
80%
05
star
50%
407
50%
100%
80%
1,34
3,60
0O
DE10
0%18
115
0080
%21
7,01
612
5-20
0% n
ot p
ublic
ly fu
nded
587
Unr
ated
75%
050
%0%
01
Star
75%
050
%0%
02
Star
75%
050
%0%
03
star
75%
050
%80
%75
%0
Assu
mpt
ions
62
AP
PE
ND
IX H
Copy
of P
resc
hool
Pro
mise
Bud
get A
ssum
ptio
ns fo
r Rec
omm
enda
tions
Rep
ort F
inal
4 st
ar75
%0
50%
90%
75%
05
star
75%
407
50%
100%
75%
1,88
7,29
3O
DE10
0%18
115
0075
%20
3,22
220
0-30
0% n
ot p
ublic
ly fu
nded
832
Unr
ated
75%
050
%0%
01
Star
75%
050
%0%
02
Star
75%
050
%0%
03
star
75%
050
%80
%50
%0
4 st
ar75
%0
50%
90%
50%
05
star
75%
576
50%
100%
50%
1,78
2,02
8O
DE10
0%25
615
0050
%19
1,88
730
0% a
nd h
ighe
r not
pub
licly
fund
ed1,
527
Unr
ated
50%
050
%0%
01
Star
50%
050
%0%
02
Star
50%
050
%0%
03
star
50%
050
%80
%20
%0
4 st
ar50
%0
50%
90%
20%
05
star
50%
1,05
750
%10
0%20
%87
2,25
2O
DE10
0%47
015
0020
%14
0,88
5
Expa
ndin
g Av
aila
bilit
y of
Hig
h Q
ualit
y4,
620,
000
29%
Inve
stm
ent
Prog
ram
sCl
assr
oom
s
Expa
nsio
n gr
ants
/Dev
elop
men
t to
help
Unr
ated
$00
0
Cont
inou
s im
prov
emen
t 3-5
Sta
r (e.
g. C
LASS
, Coa
chin
g)$5
,000
220
1,10
0,00
0
Qua
lity
stip
end
$15,
000
220
3,30
0,00
0Q
ualit
y M
onito
ring
Initi
ativ
e/Re
sear
ch$1
,000
220
220,
000
Adm
in a
nd E
valu
atio
n70
0,00
04%
Ad
min
istra
tion
400,
000
Ev
alua
tion
300,
000
Rese
rves
750,
098
750,
098
5%
$15,
752,
065
$15,
752,
065
100%
Tota
l Chi
ldre
n Se
rved
5,52
9Av
erag
e Co
st p
er c
hild
2,84
9$
63
AP
PE
ND
IX I
: Pro
ject
ion
for
20
25
Goa
l
Proj
ectio
n to
Mee
t 202
5 G
oal
Scho
ol D
istric
t Jur
isdic
tion
Goa
l: 20
25
70%
of 3
to
4 ye
ar o
lds
Num
ber
Req
uire
d to
M
eet G
oal a
t Sc
hool
Perc
ent
Incr
ease
N
eede
d
Ann
ual
Stud
ent
Add
ition
s
per y
ear
(ass
umin
g 33
stud
ent
aver
age)
Num
ber o
f Pr
ogra
ms i
n Fi
rst 4
yea
rs
Con
vers
ion
Poss
ibili
ty
Perc
ent
Day
ton
Publ
ic S
choo
l Are
a (T
otal
)39
2213
7812
4427
4513
6799
%15
24.
6018
91.0
% D
ayto
n So
uthW
est (
S of
Wol
f Cre
ek)
658
295
225
461
166
56%
180.
562
135.
9% D
ayto
n N
orth
Wes
t (N
of W
olf C
reek
, W o
f Gre
at M
iam
i Riv
er)
1422
436
618
995
559
128%
621.
888
110.
5% D
ownt
own/
S. M
ain
Empl
oym
ent C
ente
rs31
6832
22 S
E D
ayto
n S
of W
ayne
, Eas
t of W
oodm
an, S
of 3
540
050
5328
023
046
0%26
0.77
323
.0%
E D
ayto
n N
of W
ayne
, S M
ad R
iver
1207
274
6384
557
120
8%63
1.92
811
.0%
NE
Day
ton,
N o
f Mad
Riv
er, E
of G
reat
Mia
mi
204
4212
414
310
124
0%11
0.34
112
3.0%
Day
ton
Publ
ic S
choo
ls (R
egio
n To
tal)
1165
1115
Day
ton
Publ
ic S
choo
ls (N
ot R
egio
n Ti
ed)
213
129
Broo
kvill
e20
073
7214
067
92%
70.
230.
910
7.5%
Cen
terv
ille
1054
396
930
738
342
86%
381.
154.
627
2.1%
Hub
er H
eigh
ts10
3243
729
472
228
565
%32
0.96
3.8
103.
0%Je
ffer
son
Twp
198
5036
139
8917
7%10
0.30
1.2
40.6
%K
ette
ring
1208
555
595
846
291
52%
320.
983.
920
4.7%
Mad
Riv
er70
925
621
149
624
094
%27
0.81
3.2
87.8
%M
iam
isbur
g10
1127
438
470
843
415
8%48
1.46
5.8
88.5
%N
ew L
eban
on21
846
8215
310
723
2%12
0.36
1.4
76.9
%N
orth
mon
t70
622
334
149
427
112
2%30
0.91
3.7
125.
7%N
orth
ridge
523
173
113
366
193
112%
210.
652.
658
.5%
Oak
woo
d19
020
519
613
30
0%Tr
otw
ood-
Mad
ison
420
170
249
294
124
73%
140.
421.
720
0.8%
Van
dalia
-But
ler
544
132
246
381
249
188%
280.
843.
498
.9%
Val
ley
Vie
w28
454
7019
914
526
8%16
0.49
2.0
48.3
%W
est C
arro
llton
868
200
257
608
408
204%
451.
375.
563
.1%
Tot
al13
087
4622
5320
9161
4539
98%
504
15.2
861
.111
7.2%
^ H
igh
Qua
lity
= 3
Star
and
UP
and
OD
E Li
cens
ed35
%41
%*
Am
eric
an C
omm
unity
Sur
vey
2013
5 y
ear e
stim
ates
4
year
old
s23
1122
69
Ass
ume
that
231
1 4
year
old
s cur
rent
ly in
hig
h qu
ality
pre
scho
ols g
ain
1 po
int r
elat
ive
to b
efor
e on
the
KR
A-L
A
ssum
e th
e 22
69 4
yea
r old
s who
go
from
low
qua
lity
to h
igh
qual
ity p
resc
hool
gai
n 2
addi
tiona
l poi
nts o
n K
RA
-LG
iven
the
6500
4 y
ear o
lds,
this
wou
ld in
crea
se th
e av
erag
e sc
ore
on th
e K
RA
by
1.05
poin
ts
Tabl
e 1:
Pre
scho
ol E
nrol
lmen
ts by
Qua
lity
Rel
ativ
e to
Pop
ulat
ion
Num
ber o
f 3
and
4 ye
ar
olds
*
Hig
h Q
ualit
y Pr
esch
ool
Enro
llmen
t ^
NO
T H
igh
Qua
lity
Pres
choo
l En
rollm
ent
64
AP
PE
ND
IX J
: Pre
sch
ool
En
roll
men
t T
all
y
Scho
ol D
istric
t Jur
isdic
tion
#%
#%
Day
ton
Publ
ic S
choo
l Are
a (T
otal
)39
2213
7612
4425
4665
%13
0233
% D
ayto
n So
uthW
est (
S of
Wol
f Cre
ek)
658
295
225
363
55%
138
21%
Day
ton
Nor
thW
est (
N o
f Wol
f Cre
ek, W
of G
reat
Mia
mi R
iver
)14
2243
661
898
669
%36
826
% D
ownt
own/
S. M
ain
Empl
oym
ent C
ente
rs31
6832
-37
-119
%-6
9-2
23%
SE
Day
ton
S of
Way
ne, E
ast o
f Woo
dman
, S o
f 35
400
5053
350
88%
297
74%
E D
ayto
n N
of W
ayne
, S M
ad R
iver
1207
274
6393
377
%87
072
% N
E D
ayto
n, N
of M
ad R
iver
, E o
f Gre
at M
iam
i20
442
124
162
79%
3819
%
D
ayto
n Pu
blic
Sch
ools
(Reg
ion
Tota
l)11
6511
15
D
ayto
n Pu
blic
Sch
ools
(Not
Reg
ion
Tied
)21
112
9B
rook
ville
200
7372
127
64%
5528
%C
ente
rvill
e10
5439
693
065
862
%-2
72-2
6%H
uber
Hei
ghts
1032
437
294
595
58%
301
29%
Jeffe
rson
Tw
p19
850
3614
875
%11
257
%K
ette
ring
1208
555
595
653
54%
585%
Mad
Riv
er70
925
621
145
364
%24
234
%M
iam
isbur
g10
1127
438
473
773
%35
335
%N
ew L
eban
on21
846
8217
279
%90
41%
Nor
thm
ont
706
223
342
483
68%
141
20%
Nor
thrid
ge52
328
311
424
046
%12
624
%O
akw
ood
190
205
196
-15
-8%
-211
-111
%Tr
otw
ood-
Mad
ison
420
6024
936
086
%11
126
%V
anda
lia-B
utle
r54
413
224
641
276
%16
631
%V
alle
y V
iew
284
5370
231
81%
161
57%
Wes
t Car
rollt
on86
820
025
666
877
%41
247
%T
otal
1308
746
1953
2184
6865
%31
4724
%^
Hig
h Q
ualit
y =
3 St
ar a
nd U
P an
d O
DE
Lice
nsed
* A
mer
ican
Com
mun
ity S
urve
y 20
13 5
yea
r esti
mat
es
Hig
h Q
ualit
y G
apPr
esch
ool G
ap
Tabl
e 1:
Pre
scho
ol E
nrol
lmen
ts by
Qua
lity
Rel
ativ
e to
Pop
ulat
ion
Num
ber o
f 3
and
4 ye
ar
olds
*
Hig
h Q
ualit
y Pr
esch
ool
Enro
llmen
t ^
NO
T H
igh
Qua
lity
Pres
choo
l En
rollm
ent
65
AP
PE
ND
IX K
: Pre
sch
ool
Ca
pa
city
Ta
ble
Scho
ol D
istric
t Jur
isdic
tion
#%
#%
Day
ton
Publ
ic S
choo
l Are
a (T
otal
)39
2216
7917
7922
4357
%46
412
% D
ayto
n So
uthW
est (
S of
Wol
f Cre
ek)
658
312
378
346
53%
-32
-5%
Day
ton
Nor
thW
est (
N o
f Wol
f Cre
ek, W
of G
reat
Mia
mi R
iver
)14
2252
984
289
363
%51
4% D
ownt
own/
S. M
ain
Empl
oym
ent C
ente
rs31
8937
-58
-187
%-9
5-3
06%
SE
Day
ton
S of
Way
ne, E
ast o
f Woo
dman
, S o
f 35
400
5162
349
87%
287
72%
E D
ayto
n N
of W
ayne
, S M
ad R
iver
1207
332
7687
572
%79
966
% N
E D
ayto
n, N
of M
ad R
iver
, E o
f Gre
at M
iam
i20
444
164
160
78%
-4-2
%
D
ayto
n Pu
blic
Sch
ools
(Reg
ion
Tota
l)13
5715
59
D
ayto
n Pu
blic
Sch
ools
(Not
Reg
ion
Tied
)32
222
0B
rook
ville
200
113
8987
44%
-2-1
%C
ente
rvill
e10
5451
511
6253
951
%-6
23-5
9%H
uber
Hei
ghts
1032
602
382
430
42%
485%
Jeffe
rson
Tw
p19
854
4314
473
%10
151
%K
ette
ring
1208
676
796
532
44%
-264
-22%
Mad
Riv
er70
930
627
040
357
%13
319
%M
iam
isbur
g10
1140
247
960
960
%13
013
%N
ew L
eban
on21
851
109
167
77%
5827
%N
orth
mon
t70
631
342
239
356
%-2
9-4
%N
orth
ridge
523
197
162
326
62%
164
31%
Oak
woo
d19
024
826
6-5
8-3
1%-3
24-1
71%
Trot
woo
d-M
adiso
n42
021
331
020
749
%-1
03-2
5%V
anda
lia-B
utle
r54
413
837
240
675
%34
6%V
alle
y V
iew
284
7280
212
75%
132
46%
Wes
t Car
rollt
on86
824
531
762
372
%30
635
%T
otal
1308
758
2470
3872
6355
%22
52%
^ H
igh
Qua
lity
= 3
Star
and
UP
and
OD
E Li
cens
ed45
%54
%*
Am
eric
an C
omm
unity
Sur
vey
2013
5 y
ear e
stim
ates
Hig
h Q
ualit
y C
apac
ity G
apPr
esch
ool C
apac
ity
Gap
Tabl
e 1:
Pre
scho
ol C
apac
ity b
y Q
ualit
y R
elat
ive
to P
opul
atio
n
Num
ber o
f 3
and
4 ye
ar
olds
*
Hig
h Q
ualit
y Pr
esch
ool
Cap
acity
^
NO
T H
igh
Qua
lity
Pres
choo
l C
apac
ity
66
