The City Schools of Decatur has only raised the tuition at its 0-3 year-old program at the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center by $20/month since it was acquired by CSD back in 2011, according to a note to the School Board from College Heights Principal Suzanne Kennedy.
At Tuesday night’s meeting, the Decatur School Board approved phasing in a much larger tuition increase at the ECLC over the next three school years.
Principal Kennedy stated in her note to the Board that the ECLC’s tuition rates are “significantly lower than current market value” according to a review of the tuition levels at 10 comparable childhood learning centers around Atlanta. Principal Kennedy also noted that CSD currently supplements the ECLC to the tune of $1,350,000 a year.
And of course one can’t consider this without first reflecting on CSD’s ever-top-of-mind K-12 student enrollment bulge.
Principal Kennedy stated “College Heights funding may become a larger challenge than it is today given the significant increases in student enrollment across the district and CSD’s primary mandate to serve the K-12 program. After reviewing this information, the council agreed that it was time to adjust tuition rates to be more aligned to other centers and to become more financially sustainable.”
After a “significant amount of deliberation and discussion” including three ECLC Advisory Council Meetings, discussions with Council Members, and “informal Hallway/cocktail/coffee conversations”, CSD staff recommended a gradual increase in ECLC monthly tuition over the next three school years.
As shown in the chart above from the presentation attached to the recommendation, in 2015-2016, tuition will rise $100 from the current level of $1000/month for infants and $900/month for 2-3 year olds. In both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the tuition rate will rise again for both age groups by $150/month each school year. CSD will also offer a “family discount” of 10% for oldest child if 2 or more enrolled in 0-3.
After all is said and done, monthly tuition is rising from $1,000/month to $1,400 for infants and from $900/month to $1,300/month for 2-3 year-olds by the 2017-2018 school year.
These tuition increases will bring in an additional $543,000 per year (as shown in the chart below), helping to close the $1,350,000 gap that currently exists in the program’s costs and its tuition revenue.
Charts and tables courtesy of ECLC presentation to School Board
Unless early childhood education is rethought many, many Decatur children will suffer. There is a perception that before Pre-K early childhood education is an unnecessary luxury, and therefore any family who chooses to enroll their child in it should pay, now upwards of $1,400 a month, to have College Heights become “more financially sustainable.” However, the idea of charging parents to send their children to K-12 is unacceptable. Early childhood education is not a luxury. It is as, if not more, important than K-12. CSD should be making it easier, not more difficult, for families to have their children at College Heights. This news reflects unfounded, biased decision making, and does not reflect what educators have been learning for the last few decades – the earlier children are exposed to high quality education the more successful they will be. Very disappointing.
I am not sure I am understanding you. Are you saying there should not be tuition increases?
Aaron, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the School Board, or Dr. Edwards, for not valuing early childhood education. After all, they’re the ones who made the decision to establish an early childhood program at College Heights. There is nothing comparable in the DeKalb or Atlanta school systems, and in fact, our program stands out on a national level, which is one reason President Obama came to visit College Heights. Far from reflecting a devaluing of early childhood education, this tuition increase was an effort to save early childhood education in Decatur.
No matter how much we Decaturites recognize the importance of early childhood education, the State and Federal governments do not prioritize early childhood education by providing funding for it. (In fact, my understanding is that even the “state-funded” pre-K is not fully state funded and requires some amount of subsidy from local property tax dollars.) The Board has kept College Heights tuition very low — substantially below market — for a long time, but they have been able to do that only by using property taxes to fund about half the cost of the 0-3 program. Now, regular k-12 enrollment projections for CSD are higher than they’ve been in decades, and the district badly needs new school facilities to serve all the new k-12 students. The Board was faced with a very tough choice: either raise tuition at College Heights to bring it closer to being self-sustaining, or close the early childhood program and free up more than a million dollars to help pay for new k-12 school facilities. The College Heights administration and School Advisory Council went through a lengthy deliberation process (including soliciting comments from other current College Heights parents) and ultimately decided that it was necessary to ask the Board to raise tuition rather than risk losing the early childhood program altogether.
I attended the Board meeting, and I was deeply impressed that every single member of the Board demonstrated their commitment to keeping the early childhood program open. They know how important it is, and so does Dr. Edwards. The Board also expressed concern (and so did the College Heights delegation) about how to keep the program affordable and accessible for families with more limited financial resources. The proposal that was adopted phases in the tuition increase over a three-year period, and provides that a family with two kids at College Heights will receive a 10% discount on the lower-paying child. Other options that were discussed, and should still be considered, include soliciting private scholarship funding (Decatur Education Foundation already provides one scholarship, I believe) and possibly adopting a sliding-scale tuition system (although that option presents some pretty significant administrative costs).
There is more we can do as a community to ensure that we continue to have a strong early childhood learning center in Decatur, and that everyone gets an opportunity to benefit from it. But seriously, unless we voters pass the upcoming school bond initiative, there won’t be money to sustain that program, and a huge number of our k-12 students will be in trailers. Even with the tuition increase, early childhood education is still a net cost, not a net gain, in pure budgetary terms. As a community, we think it’s a cost worth paying, because it’s an investment in our kids. And from what I saw at the meeting, the Board members agree with that. With the huge financial pressures on the system right now from the k-12 program, the fact that the Board is taking steps like this to keep the early learning center viable shows how highly they value it, not the opposite.
CSD is NOT proposing to charge parents to send their children to k-12. This tuition is for essentially a top-quality childcare center. Decatur children may attend pre-K – 12 at no additional cost to their parents other than what they may pay in taxes.
Diane, College Heights is not a “top-quality childcare center.” It is an early childhood education center. There is a curriculum for every grade. There are measured, tested goals for every grade. Unfortunately it is commonly misunderstood that College Heights is in the business of “watching” people’s children. That is not the case. The students there are exposed to, and taught, a high quality, methodologically sound education. It amazes me that CSD does not reference the available data showing how beneficial early childhood education is to students for the rest of their academic careers.
“It amazes me that CSD does not reference the available data showing how beneficial early childhood education is to students..”
There are references to this in the presentation linked in the OP.
A discussion of public funded 0 to pre-K would take the discussion of lack of space, need for new schools, CoD taxes to a whole new level.
I do agree that early childhood education is important. But the public funding of childcare for 0-3 is a much larger question that we, as a society, have not discussed. I know there are Head Start programs for younger children in need, but I’m not sure how accessible these are. I’m also not sure whether low-income children are eligible for subsidies to the 0-3 program at College Heights.
There are always plenty of headstart spots in the 2,3 and prek rooms. It is hard to fill them. I know this first hand. There is no tuition scale for low income people- they have to fit the headstart guidelines.
By 2016, I will have had children at CH for 8 years. I have never been pleased with leadership there (the principal is married to the former director of special ed for the district- nepotism, anyone?). The turn over is huge among the para staff. I am fully behind the idea of easing our overcrowding for prek-3 by utilizing College Heights. It is a nice experiment, but should we really make it a priority?
My concern is for lower-income families who might struggle with the tuition increase. (And early ed is indeed very, very important. But it must be play-based, rather than academic-based.)
My other issue with College Hghts is that there are not nearly enough 0-3 slots available to meet the demand. It feels like we are only dipping our toe into early ed. If we are going to offer it, we should expand the program so ppl aren’t on the wait list for *yrs.*
And I know the response to that – there’s not physically room to house early ed since we have so darned many kids in CSD (and we know ppl will keep moving here – some from two miles away – for the school system). I don’t know the answer, but we should be creative and keep trying to think of a solution.
CH –
Agree with your post. One of the things that has bothered me for years regarding College Heights is the funding and space problem. As a taxpayer, I don’t understand how tax dollars can subsidize early childhood education only for those lucky enough to get in. I think this problem is compounded by the fact that — from what I understand — those in the early education program (0-3) are guaranteed spots in the pre-k program, while other families that either did not need or did not get into the 0-3 program have to enter a lottery for the remaining pre-k spots. I think this is incredibly unfair if the programs receive funding from decatur property taxes. The city is basically providing a public program that only some kids are able to participate in and is giving a preference to kids that pay for the 0-3 program.
This may not be the most coherent post, and I may have my facts wrong, but this is what I have gathered from people with connections to the school board. Bottom line, pre-k receives funding from my property taxes, then it ought to be able to accommodate all of the kids within Decatur that want to attend.
Hey BDT, I may also not have all of my facts straight, but here’s what I “know” (and someone pls correct me if I’m wrong!). Pre-k (not 0-3) is paid for with different money than k-12 — I think the state lottery. Your property tax dollars are not subsidizing public pre-k. “Ppl who decide things” are just now starting to learn how important early ed is, so they’re putting money towards it – but not enough, which is why there aren’t enough pre-k spots for every kid in the city.
I don’t know much about the 0-3 program in terms of finances. People do pay for it, so maybe the tuition revenue covers all of the costs. Maybe not, and if not, do property taxes come into play? I don’t know. I think the program ought to support itself. There’s also the issue of the space in the building that is currently allocated to 0-3 (which could house elementary, for example).
You are right in the kids who are in the 0-3 program automatically get a spot in pre-k, before the lottery is open to the rest of the kids in the city. I don’t like it. I spoke with the principal a few years ago when that decision was made. She said they checked around and “that’s what all of the other schools do” if they have lottery-funded pre-k. She mentioned the Phoenix School, for one, but I don’t think that comparison makes sense bc Phoenix is a private institution, and our 0-3 and pre-k are not, given that they are a part of the school system.
You are right that the 0-3 “automatic pipeline” to pre-k isn’t fair/right. It disadvantages ppl with a stay-at-home parents whose kids don’t need full-day care. It disadvantages those who are newer to the city, bc they have to get on the waitlist for 0-3, which really can take years. Heck, it disadvantages those who were unlucky enough to be on the wait list longer than others. It disadvantages the families for whom paying the 0-3 tuition is cost-prohibitive. (There are some Head Start kids, I do know that, but I’m not sure about lower-income ppl whose kids don’t quality for Head Start.)
The automatic pipeline is what really bothers me. While I agree that early childhood education is important, I don’t think it is fair that families who pay to attend the 0-3 program get an automatic spot in pre-K. There are several reasons why a family might not utilize the 0-3 program (most of which you hit on). By the time the 0-3 kids enroll in pre-k, there are very few spots left. We have now had two kids go through the pre-k lottery, and have been unsuccessful both times. Who knows, maybe the third time we will get lucky, but it is incredibly frustrating.
I’m sorry you have not been able to get a spot in pre-k for your children in the past however it is a misconception that the majority of the spots are taken by those enrolled in the 0-3 program. There are 4 3 year old classes and 9 pre-k classes. Also, as you can imagine the pre-k classes are larger than the 3 year old classes.
Okay, but I want to see real numbers. I assume almost all of those in the 0-3 program matriculate to the pre-k. Assuming similar class sizes, that accounts for 4 of the 9 classes (taking almost half the classes). I guess what I don’t understand is the reason kids in the 0-3 program have priority over pre-K slots in our school system when, based on the Pre-K waitlist numbers, there are far more families in the city that would like to take advantage of the pre-k program than spots available.
The 0-3 parents do most of the heavy lifting with fundraising and PTA and in terms of making the school work for all kids, including the preK. Those kids are there often from birth. It is not fair to pull them away for year because of a lottery, either. Plus, headstart kids are guaranteed in since Bright from the Start subsidizes part of their preK. So they and lottery kids should get in and people who have paid $36,000 per child over three years should not?
There are 4 three year old classrooms. Each room has 15 kids. 15 of those 60 kids are headstart, which is paid for through Bright from the Start. So 45 long-term daycare kids get into preK automatically. There are 216 preK spots. 24 are designated headstart and paid for by Bright from the Start. That leaves 147 preK slots for the lottery.
Nelliebelle1197,
You write, “Those kids are there often from birth. It is not fair to pull them away for year because of a lottery, either.”
Why not? Just bc their families were lucky enough to get their kids a very coveted 0-3 spot should not entitle those families/kids to move to the front of the line for a public school program that cannot serve all of the city’s 4yos bc there aren’t enough available spots.
You could also look at it this way: those whose kids were able to get a 0-3 spot were lucky. They should go through the same lottery and see if they get lucky again. If not, the it means that another family is finally able to get lucky. We should spread the luck around a bit.
Here is my solution to the pre-k problem – make it means-tested. Head Start/lower-income and special ed kids should be the ones in the “pipeline.” I’m sorry, but if you can afford private pre-k tuition, go that route and save the CH spots for those for whom that is the only option. (That’s what we did – although I assure you we are not “rich”).
Of course it is unfair to the families that have supported the school for years to suddenly tell them they are out. The solution is either to move preK to the elementary schools, thus increasing daycare slots or make CH all preK.
Or my favorite, making CH and all the other elementary schools/FAVE prek-5, saving a few rooms at one school for early headstart programs.
I wonder if early Head Start and 3 year old special ed could somehow be combined with the Frazier (or is it Frasier?) Center at DHS?
We will have agree to disagree on what is “fair” in this situation.
If your kid is in the “pipeline,” the “pipeline policy” seems fair. If your kid is not, then it seens incredibly unfair. People with kids in the “pipeline” just don’t get it.
My kid wasn’t in the “pipeline” the first time around, so I have been in the lottery boat as well. His preK year was the first year of the lottery when all kids could not be accommodated. I get it but I don’t agree.
I also don’t think Suzanne should have included that “pipeline” as an advantage in her presentation. It is sort of a slap in the face to people in your boat.
I get that parents in the 0-3 program support the school, but my issue is that the 0-3 and pre-K are, in my view, separate programs. Pre-K is a free program, paid for in party by property tax dollars. No one should have an inside track. If the city does not provide tax dollars to the pre-K program, then I would have less of an issue. But if my tax dollars are helping to pay for a free pre-K program, then everyone should enter the lottery. I understand some kids in 0-3 may not get in, and that’s disruptive, but it’s no less disruptive to families that have to compete for fewer spots because families that “pay to play” get in first.
As for the children that benefit from bright from the start/head start, I have no issue with them having a guarantee spot. That, i think, is a great policy and provides early education to children who might not otherwise have the opportunity. I also understand that funding is set aside for those children. As for the remainder of the spots, it should be an open lottery for everyone.
@ BDT – “But if my tax dollars are helping to pay for a free pre-K program, then everyone should enter the lottery…..As for the children that benefit from bright from the start/head start, I have no issue with them having a guarantee spot. That, i think, is a great policy”
I get what you are saying, but both programs are paid for by tax dollars so why should the admission process be different?
@M1
This may be where I don’t have all the facts, but the bright from the start/head start money comes from the state, which then creates allocated spots for those children who qualify. Plus, I think that is a good policy decision.
As for everyone else, it should be an equal playing field — whether your kids are coming from the 0-3 program, some other “daycare”, or from home.
I like the idea of “if you can afford it send your kids to private school” If we expanded that to k-12 then we have solved all the overcrowding problems for CoD schools.
I would love to see the numbers too. Our daughter never made it off of the 0-3 wait list (after years) and did not make the Pre-K lottery. Our son is now on the 0-3 wait list but I doubt he will ever make it off (I was basically told as much) so again, in a few years we will be holding our breath for the Pre-K lottery. I would love to be one of the parents doing heavy lifting and making College Heights great. But we can’t even get our foot in the door. And it sounds like our taxes that go to CSD are in fact subsidizing the lucky few, while the rest of us pay higher tuition at the daycares that we are able to get into. I’m not interested in what other lower-resourced, lower-performing districts do. That should never be the bar to which we compare ourselves. It seems like we could figure out a way to do better.
sounds like the CSD dollars that are subsidizing the non-Head Start 0-3 should instead be put towards expanding Pre-K so it is available to all (or at the very least, many more) that want it. I’d also be in favor of limiting the 0-3 to the Head Start and the special needs kids.
Does the lottery money for Pre-K get allocated to certain groups, or is it more “here’s money for Pre-K, you CSD decide how far you can stretch it and if you want to put special qualifiers on who gets in”?
There is a misperception among a lot of commenters that the “state-funded” pre-K program doesn’t operate at a loss, while the 0-3 program does. In fact, the state funds don’t cover the per-pupil expenditure of running the pre-K program, and CSD can’t cover the gap by charging tuition for the pre-K students. So the pre-K program will always lose money because of the way the state structures the program. That’s not necessarily true for 0-3. Either way, it’s an investment that pays dividends in the form of better-prepared kids.
And BTW, the “automatic pipeline” came in when a number of tuition kids who had been at CH since birth did not get in the first year of the lottery. The tuition paying parents were really upset. I would have been. I agree with scrapping the 0-3- I have been in it for years and don’t think we can afford the resources anymore.
I’m sure the parents of the 0-3 “tuition kids” were upset when their kids did not get a pre-k spot. Just like the parents whose kids never got off of the 0-3 wait list and *also* didn’t get a pre-k spot through the lottery.
But they were not there paying money, serving on boards, donating time and treasure, or integrated into a school community for 3-4 years before, now were they? The tuition families were doing all this and paying property taxes. I was not in that unlucky group but I saw the point. Another classroom was added to accommodate and the rules were changed. That was the first year the school could not handle all the kids.
I can assure you, we were upset. The plan for next time around is not to get our hopes up and be prepared for our son not to get in (I assume his odds of not making it in will be greater than his sister’s were, given the baby boom). Then if he does, bonus.
Not to take anything away, but I have a feeling your disappointment in not having a number drawn when you knew there was a chance you would not get in was not equal to the people whose kids had literally grown up in those classrooms and were already plugged in and connected to the school and its people and who had expected to get in since every class before them had. That was my son’s preK year and it was bad; the year before had been bad as well due to other factors. Several families left before the 3 year old session began. It was a mess.
I think what it also not understood is that the 0-3 started out run by the Y. The Y screwed up royally and lost some NAEYC certifications. An open bidding process was begun and it was determined that CSD could run this more cheaply than contractors. A point of the whole business of the 0-3 was to have the special ed and low income classrooms provided by Bright from the Start integrated with the rest of the school and to be able to provide early intervention for kids who need it most. The point has always been the headstart classroom and early intervention, not to provide daycare for people who can afford it elsewhere. Our kids were there to provide an integrated environment for the other kids and to start assessing the value of early childhood education
Again, it is a great experiment that was working before the population boom even with the indecisive leadership. CH is a victim of the unfettered growth promoted by the city.
“CH is a victim of the unfettered growth promoted by the city.”
Just how did they do that? It’s realtors and developers who put out the For Sale signs.
The realtors and developers were given the permits, despite the fact that CSD has warned the city for at least a decade that the schools can’t handle the growth. Talk to Judd Owen about the growth committee he headed for CSD 4 or 5 years ago and what the committee recommended. Actually, you could probably search Judd’s posts here and find it.
Brianc, I was just thinking the same thing!
Who do you think plans and permits growth? Developers and real estate agents?
“The realtors and developers were given the permits”
On what legal basis would the permits have been denied?
It is easy to say scrap the 0-3 if/when your kids are already at 3 and headed to pre k next year.
Keep the 0-3. Just don’t make us “unlucky ones” subsidize it (pay full price for your kids childcare like the rest of us) and make it a level playing field when it’s time for PreK. Then I have no qualms.
Except then we’d have to level a bond to pay for a building. It just isn’t feasible to devote 1/2 a school building to 0-3 anymore.
DM – can you find out if the 0-3 program is entirely self-funded through tuition? Also, b/c I know ppl will want to know, does the 0-3 program pay “rent” to CSD for the space? In other words, is a building that could be used for elementary students instead being used for 0-3, with taxpayers essentially subsidizing the 0-3 program bc it is run inside a CSD building?
The article says it’s not. Even after the tuition increases, CSD will be kicking in something on the order of $750k annually.
“These tuition increases will bring in an additional $543,000 per year (as shown in the chart below), helping to close the $1,350,000 gap that currently exists in the program’s costs and its tuition revenue”
King Tommen, thank you for pointing out to me what was right in front of my face!! 🙂
While I’m all for early childhood ed, I do agree with those who have said that their property taxes should not help subsidize a 0-3 program – for which the parents using it are supposed to pay – especially when the program is so small that so few Decatur families are to access it. And also especially when we have such enrollment growth happening every single year.
I’d love to find a way to expand the program to more families and also figure out how to “subsidize” it without using property taxes. I suppose the general model is private schools, which charge a lot of tuition and are then able to offer lower-income families scholarships. In essence, the families with more money are helping to subsidize those with less. But right now, CSD dollars are supporting a program that ought to be self-funded and that only helps a handful of families.
Hey yo. Before y’all advocate shutting down College Height’s 0-3 program, we need a better idea of what that $1,350,000 number includes (does it include pre-k expenses not covered by lottery funds for instance?) and folks should be aware of the very specialized rooms in CH for which CSD is still paying off a loan.
The infant and toddler rooms are small and have built in adult sinks, mini-fridges for bottles, diapering areas, and other necessities for the care of small humans. Classrooms adjoining student bathrooms (necessary for kids learning the potty ropes) are only available for older kids. If CH were converted to serve only 3-yr-old Head Start and 4 yr-old-pre-k, half the building would have to be torn up to accommodate the older students and bathrooms.
Additionally, though spots at CH are frustratingly few, we shouldn’t throw out a good 0-3 program that does a terrific job educating some of Decatur’s tiniest residents, particularly special education students. One of my kids is in a special ed pre-k classroom now. She is not a sp ed student but went through the 0-3 program at CH. I continue to be super impressed by how CH serves sp ed students in all age groups, integrating the students into a great cohort that will sustain them k-12.
You know, I was just looking at those numbers. So there are around 100 tuition paying kids at CH. It takes over $2.5 million a year to keep them in the classrooms?? That does not add up. That is $2500 per month per kid! Something is wrong with those numbers. They cannot reflect just the daycare. The Frazier Center (not the DH one) charges what, $1200 per month? These figures don’t make a lot of sense. What is CSD subsidizing?? Bright from the Start pays for headstart, so that money is taken right off the top.
I don’t know the complete answer to your question, but I do know that head start costs the district money, net, because the state funding per pupil is less than the district spends to serve each kid. But that’s not very many kids. Also, I believe the $1.3 mm shortfall includes the shortfall for pre-k, which is pretty substantial, so you would need to add all the pre-k kids into your per-student calculation to make it come out right. There may be other factors that I’m not aware of, as well.
As a parent of a special education student at CH, I couldn’t agree more with this. The early intervention has a lifetime impact and makes special ed students better equipped to start kindergarten closer to their peers. Especially for kids with language development issues, 0-3 is the best developmental window to catch them up. And the thought of having 0-3 for just “Head Start and special ed,” as some people have suggested, makes me very sad. That’s the kind of segregation of special needs students that education policy has been working against since the 1970s. Inclusive classrooms are better for everybody.
I agree immersion is best for everyone- but when I mentioned that CSD might need to focus its efforts on Head Start and special needs, it was only due to budgetary constraints. I wish, and feel we should, do a lot more for all in the 0-Pre-K, but with limited resources, we have very hard choices.
Well, as I’ve commented elsewhere on this thread, the 0-3 program has more potential to be self-sustaining than the pre-k program, if we raise 0-3 tuition and scale up the program to bring in more tuition-paying kids. Parents love the “state-funded” pre-k because there’s no tuition, but it’s a money-loser for the CSD. The shortfall is made up out of property tax revenues, currently.
Also, one of the reasons to invest in at-risk kids in early childhood is because if you do that, it ends up costing a lot less to provide them with (federally mandated) special education services later in their lives. This is not speculative, it’s been measured. A stitch in time saves nine in this area.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if tuition were paid for every child attending the 0-3 program, then College Heights would not operate at a “loss”. The loss is a result of children from lower income families who attend College Heights but do not pay tuition.
Uh, where’d you come up with that? There are 8 slots in the 2 year old program for low income and disabled kids and 15 in the 3 year old program. Everyone else pays full price. The school is required under federal law to provide educational services after a disabled child turns 3. If anything is being paid from headstart by the school, then it is because the school is mandated to provide educational intervention services and would have to do that regardless of whether CH is there or not. There are no low income kids there getting subsidies for daycare from the school.
Aaron – the infant program is childcare because there is no curriculum for a 6 month old.
With tightening budgets we need to be smart about our tax dollars and I think we need to rethink the childcare portion of this public facility.
Cutting out the 0-2 age group we can focus on HeadStart and expand the pre-K program.
We have to be smarter about how we invest our limited funds & resources
There is curriculum for a six month old. Both Aaron and I have multiple kids that have had curriculum in the 0-6 room.
I’d love to know how many spots are available for 0-3 there. I don’t think it’s many. I know the infant class there is very small. Our son has been on the waiting list to get into College Heights since he was about 3 months old, and he’ll be getting into the pre-k next year, which will be just before he turns 4.
Rob may have a good point, in that it may be time to actually do away with the infants or 0-3, if there really aren’t that many spots available, and open it up to more pre-k kids.
0-12 16 slots
12-2 24 slots
2-3 24 slots
3-4 60 slots
I think the idea of reducing 0-3 and providing truly universal Pre-K is at least worth a discussion in Decatur. My impression is that the state decides how many lottery Pre-K spots it will give a school district. But certainly we could aim for more, now that we need them.
I do agree with you. I think it a waste of a resource to keep the 0-3 at this point and not even consider turning into a full prek or some other model that serves more people.
Agreed, although, as I mentioned in response to one of your earlier posts, I do think there is a benefit to providing early learning to low income families who can’t afford it elsewhere. Of course, there is the issue of space, funding, etc. A tough issue without an easy solution.
Yes. I do agree with you on that BDT. Devote far fewer space to 0-3 and make it only for low income kids (while we still have any, as Arwan points out below) and give them the needed pipeline to PreK. Have more rooms for PreK so it’s universal. Or, again, level the playing field for all 4 year olds regardless of what their previous childcare was. At the Clifton School’s new lottery-funded Pre-K, current students have to enter the lottery along with everyone else, so it’s not unheard of.
There was discussion at the Board meeting of expanding the 0-3 program, because up to a point, you gain economies of scale by adding tuition revenue without increasing fixed costs of operation. Expanding “lottery-funded” pre-K while cutting 0-3 would cause the system to lose more money, not gain more money, because there’s no tuition and the State doesn’t pay the full cost of the program. Many systems in Georgia are stopping their pre-K programs because of that.
That’s really unfortunate. I looked at the state’s PreK site and according to the application for providers, DeKalb County (not the school district but the geographical area) is one of the priority areas targeted for providing additional classrooms. So it seems like CSD could easily get a request for additional slots approved. I wonder if the $750k CSD spends on 0-3 (or at least the portion spent on kids who can afford to go elsewhere) is enough to cover the costs to make up for the PreK shortfall, if CSD were to expand it. Personally that’s where I’d prefer that money go.
There isn’t going to be a $750k shortfall for 0-3, with the tuition increase. It will be more like $250k, and even that gap could be closed further by expanding the program. By contrast, with pre-k you can’t close the gap because you can’t charge tuition. It’s like the guy who started a business buying widgets for two dollars and selling them for a dollar. People asked him how he planned to make money at that, and he said, “Volume!” I think we should keep investing in the pre-k program, but shutting down 0-3 isn’t the way to fund it.
And for the record, my youngest will be in pre-k next year, so I don’t have a vested interest in 0-3 except as somebody who has seen personally how effective it is.
Rob,
With all due respect, you’re wrong. The curriculum, listed here, is in fact quite rigorous. So is the research showing how effective early childhood education is on students’ later academic career.
http://eclc.csdecatur.net/curriculum/
I do agree with you, however, that we need to be smarter about how we invest our limited funds & resources.
Regards
This thread makes me sad. I thought that the enrollment projections and configuration choice of the 2004 reconfiguration were bungled. The one bright spot was College Heights which seemed like a much more positive way to address the achievement gap than the rest of the reconfiguration. The one year we were there in the ECLC preK, there weren’t a lot of low income children and the special ed services were almost non-existent but I hoped that that was because it was so early in the life of the ECLC and all the programs hadn’t revved up yet. It seems to me that, over the years, we haven’t addressed the achievement gap so much as watch it move out of COD to another jurisdiction.
This discussion is an awesome example of the kind of issues we have the privilege of examining carefully, discussing around town and yes experimenting with progressive options.
I’m afraid that our community would loose these types of opportunities under the annexation options considered over the years. We’re having a hard time with the organic growth as it is.
+ a kabillion
Don’t worry, its highly doubtful that there will be any “lower income” families left in CSD ny 2018. And by “lower income”, I mean middle class families that can’t afford 800k+ for a home in Decatur. So much for diversity.
*by