兰德-Options-for-Investing-in-Access-to-High_153页_2mb

Summary of "Options for Investing in Access to High-Quality Preschool in Cincinnati"

Core Content

This research report evaluates options for expanding access to high-quality preschool programs in Cincinnati, Ohio, focusing on programs that serve children one or two years before entering kindergarten. It is part of a broader initiative by the Cincinnati Business Committee and the United Way of Greater Cincinnati to inform local investment in early learning. The report is based on a portfolio of interrelated research activities, including a literature review, an assessment of the current preschool landscape, stakeholder interviews, a review of preschool models from other U.S. cities, and financial and economic modeling of policy options.

The central goal is to understand the need for expanding access to high-quality preschool and to examine policy options that could make such programs more widely available, either targeted or universal, while addressing challenges and risks.

Main Findings

1. Preschool Landscape in Cincinnati

• Demographics: As of 2014, there were approximately 9,150 three- and four-year-olds in Cincinnati, with about 4,300 living in families below the federal poverty line.
• Program Supply: In the 2015–2016 academic year, there were 174 school- and center-based programs offering around 7,215 preschool slots.
• Quality: Only 45% of the available slots were considered high quality (SUTQ ratings of three, four, or five stars). The remaining 55% were either of unknown quality or lower quality.
• Access Gaps: There is a significant gap between the number of preschool-age children who could benefit from high-quality programs and the number actually served. The gap is most pronounced in low-income neighborhoods.

2. Funding Streams

• Federal and State Subsidies: Cincinnati has several funding sources for preschool, including the federal Head Start program, federal Title I funds, and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) Early Childhood Education grant program.
• Local Subsidies: The Ohio Publicly Funded Child Care (PFCC) program provides subsidies for families with incomes up to 130% of the poverty line, allowing access to care for work or job search.
• Total Funding: In 2015–2016, approximately $34 million in federal, state, and local funds supported preschool programs for three- and four-year-olds.
• Quality Funding: About half of the funds are tied to high-quality programs, indicating a need for better alignment of funding with quality outcomes.

3. Stakeholder Perspectives

• Current System: Stakeholders do not view the current preschool system as having shared goals or a unified vision.
• Quality Challenges: The SUTQ rating system is seen as a valuable tool for improving quality, but the process is costly and time-consuming.
• Key Needs: Stakeholders emphasize the need for a pipeline of qualified teachers, competitive salaries and benefits, affordable and effective curricula, and transportation to programs.
• Funding Complexity: While multiple funding streams exist, integrating them (braiding and blending) is complicated for most providers.

4. Preschool Models from Other U.S. Cities

• Access Models: Most cities have implemented one-year programs for four-year-olds, with some offering two-year programs. Universal programs are common, though not all cities have fully funded them.
• Delivery Models: Programs typically use a mixed-delivery approach involving both public and private providers.
• Reimbursement: Cities use various reimbursement mechanisms, including per-pupil funding formulas, sliding-scale tuition credits, and cost reimbursement.
• Quality Requirements: Most programs require a minimum quality rating (typically top three tiers on a five-tier system) to ensure program standards.
• Wage Parity: Some cities have moved toward or achieved wage parity between community-based preschool teachers and public school teachers.

Key Policy Implications

• Funding Gaps: Current federal and state subsidies are insufficient to meet the needs of all income-eligible children, particularly in low-income neighborhoods.
• Quality Focus: Ensuring access to high-quality programs is critical for long-term academic and social-emotional benefits.
• System Integration: There is a need for better coordination of funding, data, and program delivery to create a more cohesive early learning system.
• Targeted vs. Universal: While universal programs are more common, targeted programs may also be necessary to address specific needs of lower-income families.
• Data and Monitoring: A robust data system is essential for tracking enrollment and child development across the preschool to K-12 continuum.

Conclusion

The report highlights the importance of high-quality preschool in preparing children for academic success and long-term outcomes. It outlines the current preschool landscape, identifies key challenges in access and quality, and provides insights from other cities on how Cincinnati can design and implement effective preschool policies. The ultimate aim is to guide local stakeholders in making informed decisions about expanding access to high-quality preschool programs.