兰德-Cost-Analysis-of-the-South-Carolina-Child-Early-Reading-and-Development-Education-Program_143页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program (CERDEP) Cost Analysis

Core Content

This report presents a cost analysis of the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program (CERDEP), a state-funded full-day pre-kindergarten (4K) program for four-year-old children at risk of not being kindergarten-ready. The analysis focuses on per-pupil costs for delivering CERDEP in both public and private settings, and compares these estimates with the current reimbursement rate of $4,422 per pupil for the 2017–2018 academic year.

Main Questions Addressed

What are the key resources and cost components required to deliver CERDEP?
What is the estimated per-pupil cost, and does it vary by provider type, teacher qualifications, class size, and geographic location?
How does the per-pupil cost compare to the reimbursement rate?

Key Findings

Cost Ingredients and Sources of Variation

Cost Components: CERDEP delivery involves multiple cost categories, including personnel (salaries and benefits for staff), classroom materials and instructional supports, food service, transportation, occupancy (rent, utilities, repairs), and administrative costs.
Variation Sources: Key sources of variation in cost include staff compensation levels, transportation provision, rental costs, class size, and program size.

Per-Pupil Costs and Provider Context

Public School Districts: The estimated annual per-pupil cost for a public school-based CERDEP program, using traditional settings (6.5 hours/day, 180 days/year, 20 pupils/classroom, and state median salaries), was about $11,000 in 2017 dollars. If no rental costs are incurred, the cost drops to just over $10,000.
Private Centers: The estimated per-pupil cost for private centers with similar program features (including teacher qualifications and parity with public salaries) was also about $11,000.
Lower Compensation: If private centers operate with lower wages and benefits consistent with other private childcare programs, the per-pupil cost drops to $7,000, with the $4,000 difference attributed to the public-private compensation gap.
Geographic Variation: In higher-cost areas (75th percentile of salaries), per-pupil costs were 18% higher, while in lower-cost areas (25th percentile), they were 11–14% lower, with differences ranging from $2,000 to $3,500 depending on the provider context.
Class Size: Costs increased by 10% when class size was reduced to 18 pupils, and by 27% when reduced to 20 pupils. This variation may reflect intentional reductions or underenrollment.

CERDEP Cost vs. Reimbursement

Reimbursement Gap: The total reimbursement for the traditional CERDEP option, including transportation and subsidized food, falls short of provider costs by up to 50%.
Extended-Day/Year Options: Similar gaps exist for these options, based on hourly and daily reimbursement rates.
Reimbursement Differential: The gap varies significantly across providers based on their compensation schedules, geographic location, class size, and other cost drivers.

Policy Considerations and Recommendations

The current reimbursement rate does not fully cover the costs of delivering CERDEP, especially for programs with higher operational expenses.
Reimbursement rates should be adjusted to reflect the true cost of program delivery, particularly for private centers, which often have lower salaries and benefits compared to public schools.
States should consider the cost structure of 4K programs and ensure that reimbursement mechanisms are aligned with the actual expenses to maintain program quality and sustainability.
Policymakers and program administrators should explore ways to improve cost transparency and ensure equitable funding across different types of providers.

Conclusion

The study highlights the importance of accurate cost estimation for CERDEP and other state-funded preschool programs. It underscores the need for more comprehensive and realistic reimbursement policies that account for variations in provider type, geographic location, and operational features to support the long-term viability and quality of early childhood education programs.

Structure of the Report

Preface: Introduces the purpose and background of the study.
Approach and Limitations: Describes the two methods used for cost estimation—provider-based data and a cost model—and their respective limitations.
Key Findings: Summarizes the main results of the cost analysis.
Appendices: Provide additional details on CERDEP history, reimbursement mechanisms, cost model methods, and data collection instruments.

Tables Highlighted

Table S.1: Key assumptions for four provider types in the CERDEP cost model.
Table S.2: Baseline model-based estimated CERDEP unit costs by provider type.
Table S.3: Per-pupil cost estimates under alternative scenarios.
Table S.4: Reimbursement features of state-funded 4K programs in other states.
Table 1.1: CERDEP features in public and private providers, compared with NIEER quality benchmarks.
Table 1.2: Historical CERDEP reimbursement rates from 2006–2007 to 2018–2019.
Table 1.3: Reimbursement rates for CERDEP expansion service options.
Table 1.4: Features of state-funded 4K academic-year programs in selected states.
Table 1.5: Reimbursement features of state-funded 4K programs in selected states for the most recent academic year.
Table 2.1: Features of ten CERDEP providers interviewed in 2017–2018.
Table 2.2: Expenditure categories and items for cost analysis.
Table 2.3: Program structure of ten CERDEP providers.
Table 2.4: Staffing models, supports, and fringe benefits for ten CERDEP providers.
Table 2.5: Estimated per-pupil cost for ten CERDEP providers.
Table 2.6: Adjusted estimated per-pupil cost for ten CERDEP providers.
Table 2.7: Sources of revenue for ten CERDEP providers.
Table 3.1: Sources of per-pupil cost variation in baseline and sensitivity analysis.
Table 3.2: Baseline assumptions for four provider types.
Table 3.3: Model-based estimated per-pupil costs and components by provider type.
Table 3.4: Per-pupil cost estimates under alternative scenarios.
Table 3.5: Comparison of per-pupil cost and reimbursement by provider type under alternative scenarios.
Table A.1: CERDEP service options for participating districts and private providers in 2017–2018.
Table A.2: Funded CERDEP slots in 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 by provider type.
Table B.1: Sources of 4K reimbursement mechanisms.
Table C.1: Assumed baseline FTE staffing structure for CERDEP cost model.
Table C.2: Assumed occupational salaries for CERDEP cost model.
Table C.3: Assumed unit prices for CERDEP cost model.

Additional Notes

The study was conducted by RAND Education and Labor, funded by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee.
It is part of a broader project examining CERDEP, with a second report focusing on teacher credentials and professional development.
The findings are relevant for policymakers and practitioners involved in early childhood education and for those interested in the broader implications of preschool program funding.

展开完整摘要