Study of the I mpact of Pre-Kindergarten Experiences on FCPS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Study of the I mpact of Pre-Kindergarten Experiences

• n FCPS Students

Final Report June 2016

Office of Program Evaluation

Purpose of the Presentation to the School Board

• For information only, no action required,
• Present major findings, evidence, and

conclusions about the impact of pre- kindergarten experiences on FCPS students,

• Provide recommendations based on the

study’s findings and research, and

• Address questions about the study.

2

I ntroduction

• FCPS strategic commitment to “provide quality

early childhood experiences…to prepare students to enter Kindergarten successfully” (FCPS’ Ignite, p.18)

• FCPS offers:

 Family Early Childhood Education Program/ Head Start (FECEP),  Bridge to Kindergarten (B2K),  Special Education Preschool Program, and  Home Instruction to Parents of Pre-Kindergarten Youngsters (HIPPY).

3 Pages 2-5

Study Purpose and Scope

• Study purpose:

 Identify extent of differences in academic and behavioral outcomes for students with and without formal pre-kindergarten experiences  Investigate costs, funding, and Return on Investment (ROI) for the FECEP program

• Study scope:

 Focus on outcomes and costs, but not:

• quality of pre-kindergarten experiences
• student outcomes during pre-kindergarten
• instructional quality/content during K-12

4 Page 11

Student Outcomes

Outcomes Over Time

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K 2 Yrs. FECEP vs. 1 Yr. FECEP Formal Pre-K vs. No Pre-K

Achievement

• Reading and Math Standardized Achievements Tests
• On-Time Graduation

Support Services

• ESOL
• Special Education

Participation in Advanced Opportunities

• Advanced Math Placement
• AAP Placement
• Algebra I in Middle School
• Course Beyond Algebra II
• AP/IB Course Enrollment

Behaviors and Habits

• Attendance
• Work Habit Ratings from Elementary Progress Report
• Discipline Offenses (for MS and HS)

Student Outcomes

6

Former FECEP vs. Matched Students with No Formal Pre-K

7

Demographics of

Former FECEP Students

SY 2015-16 Kindergartners

8

Pre-Kindergarten Experience Type Students with Disabilities (SWD) English Learner (EL) Free/ Reduced Price Meals (FRM)

FECEP (n=1,410)

11% of Kindergartners

8% (118) 72% (1,018) 95% (1,337)

All Students Entering K (n=12,953**) 8% (1,044) 36% (4,698) 31% (4,024)

Page 8 *Percent (n) **Includes students whose parents responded “Licensed Family Daycare Provider” (n=316)

• r “Other” (n=324) on the Pre-Kindergarten Experience form or who did not have

information provided on the form (n=1,118).

Former FECEP Participants by Pyramid

SY 2015-16 Kindergartners

9 Page 9

Three-year-olds (n=39) Four-year-olds (n=262)

FECEP Waitlist, SY 2014-15

(1,711 Students Attended FECEP)

10

Number of Students on County-wide FECEP Waitlist in SY 2014-15*

Page 10

*Waitlist for three-year-olds has capacity limits because the FECEP program has limited spaces for these students. Thus, some three-year-olds whose parent/guardian inquired about FECEP are not added to the waitlist and, consequently, not included in this figure.

Three-year-olds (n=43) Four-year-olds (n=243)

FECEP Waitlist, SY 2015-16

(1,755 Students Attended FECEP)

11

Number of Students on County-wide FECEP Waitlist in SY 2015-16*

*Waitlists for three-year-olds has capacity limits because the FECEP program has limited spaces for these students. Thus, some three-year-olds whose parent/guardian inquired about FECEP are not added to the waitlist and, consequently, not included in this figure.

Question 1a Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

(Findings 1-6) 6)

To what extent does participation in FECEP benefit students once they enter Kindergarten and progress through school?

12 Pages 15-26

Measuring Differences in Outcomes

(Effect Size)

13 Pages 13-15

Large Advantage Large Advantage

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

Achievement Findings

• Former FECEP students demonstrated

stronger early reading skills upon entering Kindergarten than those who had no formal experience.

• Reading skill differences that favored former

FECEP students were evident through the end

• f Grade 1.
• Former FECEP students had a consistent small

advantage in math achievement.

• FECEP program participation had a small

positive effect on high school graduation rates.

14 Pages 15-18

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

Reading and Math Achievement Evidence

15 Pages 15-17

Kindergarten Entry End of Kindergarten End of Grade 1 End of Grade 2 End of Grade 3 End of Grade 5 End of Grade 8

Reading Math

End of Grade 3 End of Grade 5 End of Grade 8

About Diminishing Achievement Advantages

• National phenomenon found in many studies of

preschool impact.

• Diminishing advantages mean a reduction in the

difference between those with and without preschool; not the same as reduction in achievement for those with preschool.

• Potential explanations of the phenomenon:

 Focus on closing achievement gaps,  Instruction does not maximize initial advantages.

• FCPS participating in UVA study in Fall 2016 that

will investigate this phenomenon in-depth.

16

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

Achievement Evidence

17 Pages 17-18

Federal Definition State Definition

On-Time High School Graduation

• Former FECEP students required fewer

Special Education services in elementary and middle school.

18 Pages 19-20

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

Need for Support Services Finding

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K

Need for Support Services Evidence

19 Pages 19-20

Grade 2 Grade 12 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Need for Fewer Special Education Services

2 Years of FECEP

• vs. 1 Year of FECEP

20

Question 1b 2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

(Finding 7 7)

To what extent does participation in FECEP benefit students once they enter Kindergarten and progress through school?

21 Pages 24-26

2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

Achievement, Need for Support Services, and Advanced Opportunities Findings

• When differences emerged, they favored

students attending the FECEP program for two years, rather than one:  higher achievement in some grades and greater on-time high school graduation rates,  lower need for ESOL services,  greater participation in some advanced

• pportunities during high school.

22 Pages 24-26

2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

Achievement Evidence

23 Pages 24-26

Reading Kindergarten Entry End of Kindergarten End of Grade 2 End of Grade 3 End of Grade 8 End of Grade 1 End of Grade 5 Math End of Grade 3 End of Grade 8 End of Grade 5

2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

Achievement Evidence

24 Page 25

Federal Definition State Definition

On-Time High School Graduation

2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

Need for Support Services Evidence

25 Pages 24-26

Grade 2 Grade 12 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8

Need for Fewer ESOL Services

2 Years of FECEP vs. 1 Year of FECEP

Advanced Opportunities Evidence

26 Pages 24-26

Passed 1 AP/IB Course Algebra I in Middle School Course Beyond Algebra II Passed 3 AP/IB Courses Advanced Coursework in Middle and High School

Outcomes Over Time

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K 2 Yrs. FECEP vs. 1 Yr. FECEP Formal Pre-K vs. No Pre-K

Achievement

Higher Reading until end of Grade 1 Higher Grad Rate Higher Reading until end of Kindergarten Higher Grad Rate

Support Services

Fewer SPED Services Fewer ESOL Services

Participation in Advanced Opportunities

No Reliable Differences Higher Participation in High School

Behaviors and Habits

No Reliable Differences No Reliable Differences

Summary Student Outcomes

27

Formal Pre-K

• vs. No Formal Pre-K

28

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Background

29

Pre-K Experience FCPS Parents Indicated: SY 2015-16 (n=12,953)*

*Excludes Licensed Family Daycare Provider (316), Other (324), No Information (1,118). Pages 3-6

Demographics of

Formal Pre-K and No Formal Pre-K

SY 2015-16 Kindergartners

30

Pre-Kindergarten Experience Type Students with Disabilities (SWD) English Learner (EL) Free/ Reduced Price Meals (FRM) Formal Pre-K (n=9,766)

75% of Kindergartners

10% (999) 28% (2,739) 24% (2,350) No Formal Pre-K (n=1,429)

11% of Kindergartners

1% (15) 67% (957) 60% (857) All Students Entering K (n=12,953**) 8% (1,044) 36% (4,698) 31% (4,024)

*Percent (n) **Includes students whose parents responded “Licensed Family Daycare Provider” (n=316) or “Other” (n=324) on the Pre-Kindergarten Experience form or who did not have information provided on the form (n=1,118). Pages 3-6

No Formal Pre-K by Pyramid

SY 2015-16 Kindergartners

31 Pages 3-6

Question 2 Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

(Findings 8-11) 11)

To what extent do students with and without formal pre-kindergarten experience differ

• nce they enter Kindergarten and

progress through school?

32 Pages 27-35

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Achievement Finding

• A reading achievement advantage for

students with formal pre-k experience was highest upon Kindergarten entry and continued through the end of Grade 2.

• Students with formal pre-k experience

demonstrated higher math performance at

• ne grade but not the other.

33 Pages 28-29

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Achievement Evidence

34 Pages 28-29

Kindergarten Entry End of Kindergarten End of Grade 1 End of Grade 2

Reading Math

End of Grade 3 End of Grade 5 End of Grade 5 End of Grade 3

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Need for Support Services Finding

• Throughout elementary school, students

who had attended formal pre-kindergarten required fewer ESOL services than students with no formal pre-kindergarten experience.

35 Pages 30-32

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Need for Support Services Evidence

36 Pages 30-32

Need Fewer ESOL Services

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 5

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Advanced Opportunities Finding

• Students who participated in formal pre-

kindergarten experiences received more advanced academic opportunities than students without formal pre-kindergarten.

37 Pages 32-33

Formal Pre-K vs. No Formal Pre-K

Advanced Opportunities Evidence

38 Pages 32-33

Grade 3 Grade 5

Advanced Math

Grade 3 Grade 5

AAP Eligibility

Outcomes Over Time

Former FECEP vs. Matched/ No Pre-K 2 Yrs. FECEP vs. 1 Yr. FECEP Formal Pre-K vs. No Pre-K

Achievement

Higher Reading until end of Grade 1 Higher Grad Rate Higher Reading until end of Kindergarten Higher Grad Rate Higher Reading until Grade 2

Support Services

Fewer SPED Services Fewer ESOL Services Fewer ESOL Services

Participation in Advanced Opportunities

No Reliable Differences Higher Participation in High School Higher Participation in

• Elem. School

Behaviors and Habits

No Reliable Differences No Reliable Differences No Reliable Differences

Summary Student Outcomes

39

Program Costs, Funding, and Return on I nvestment (ROI )

Question 3 Program Costs

(Finding 1 12)

What program costs and funding sources are associated with FECEP, FCPS’ preschool offering?

41 Pages 35-38

Program Costs

Finding

• The total direct cost to operate the

FECEP/Head Start program is $22.8 million in FY 2016, approximately $9.7 million of which was funded by FCPS.

• The other funding came from the county,

state and federal governments.

42 Pages 35-37

Program Costs

Evidence

43 Pages 38

Source Type FY2016 % of FECEP Funding

FCPS VPI Match $7,959,645 35% State VPI $4,044,000 18% County FECEP Contribution $3,943,407 17% Federal Head Start $1,536,984 7% Federal USDA Food Program $1,310,669 6% Federal Title I $1,303,594 6% FCPS Head Start Supplement $968,237 4% State VPI+ $929,687 4% FCPS Project Momentum (PSI) $765,765 3% County Head Start Supplement $82,699 <1%

Total Program Costs

$22,844,687

FCPS Costs

$9,693,647

Question 4 Program Funding

(Findings 13 13-14) 14)

To what extent is FCPS’ approach to funding pre-kindergarten programs similar to other jurisdictions?

44 Page 39-40

Program Funding

Evidence

45

Division Funding Streams Fairfax County Public Schools 99 classrooms

• all braided (HS, VPI, VPI+,

Title I) Prince William County 27 classrooms

• 17 HS
• 2 VPI
• 8 VPI+

Chesterfield County 34 classrooms

• 11 HS
• 7 Title I
• 7 VPI
• 9 VPI+

Page 39

Program Funding

Finding

• Similar to many divisions across Virginia,

FCPS is unable to take full advantage of state preschool funding.

46 Page 40

Program Funding

Evidence

47

• FCPS accepts (and matches) roughly 60

percent of the seats allocated and funded by VPI, leaving 40 percent of available VPI funding unused every year (unused slots approximately 1,100).

• The division ranks second behind Prince

William County in the total number of VPI- funded seats it does not accept.

Page 40

Question 5 Program ROI

(Finding 15) 15)

What is the Return on Investment (ROI) for FCPS’ FECEP program?

48

ROI in the context of this study equates to cost avoidance – reducing the likelihood that future funds need to be spent – rather than actual profit or dollars earned.

Pages 41-42

Program ROI

Finding

• The FECEP program contributes to a

significant cost avoidance for FCPS ($6.4 million from the decreased need for Special Education and ESOL services).

• Additional potential cost avoidances (e.g.,

reading intervention, on-time high school graduation) were not monetized.*

49 Pages 41-42

*Study only calculated cost avoidances related to services already monetized by the school division (Special Education, ESOL services).

• Found FECEP participants

require fewer costly services (SPED, ESOL).

• Estimated the future costs

avoided by fewer students needing services in Kindergarten through Grade 12.

• Compared the estimated

costs avoided to FCPS’ FECEP funding.

Program ROI

Computing FECEP ROI (Cost Avoidance)

50 Pages 41-42

Current Kindergartners’ Projected Differences in Need for Special Education

Program ROI

Evidence

• For a typical FECEP cohort, FCPS avoids

potential costs for student services of $6.4 million:  Special Education costs of $5.6 million (K-12), which represents approximately 58 percent of FCPS’ total FECEP program cost;  ESOL costs of $.8 million among two- year participants (K-12), which represents approximately 94 percent of FCPS’ cost

• f providing FECEP to students for an

additional year (i.e., starting at age 3).

52 Pages 41-42

Conclusions

Conclusions

• Participating in FECEP provides achievement

advantages over not participating.

• Participating in FECEP for two years, rather

than one, further advantages students.

• Students who come to FCPS having attended

any type of formal pre-kindergarten experience usually perform better than students who have had no formal pre-k experience.

54 Pages 42-43

Conclusions

• Diminishing achievement advantages over time

among students with formal pre-kindergarten experience mirror national findings.

• Additional academic-related benefits of formal

pre-kindergarten (such as FECEP) include reduced need for support services (Special Education or ESOL) and increased participation in advanced academic opportunities.

55 Page 43

Conclusions

• Cost avoidance extends the value of the FECEP

program beyond academic benefits for students to financial benefits for FCPS.

• FCPS’ ability to expand the number of students

served by FECEP is limited by the current state funding structures.

• FCPS’ understanding of the pre-kindergarten

experiences of its students is limited by the way in which information is gathered during the student registration process.

56 Page 44

Recommendations

Recommendations for the Superintendent

• Continue to provide FECEP as a two-year

experience as recommended by current federal law for funding.

• Continue efforts to decrease the four- and three-

year-old waitlists to meet the needs of more Fairfax County’s preschoolers.

• Continue collaborative efforts with the county to

expand access to preschool services for all eligible children in the county.

58 Page 45

Recommendations for the School Board

• Support the reduction of the waitlists for three-

and four-year-old children eligible for FECEP participation, through:  Advocacy to the state for modifications to funding procedures that promote greater access by FCPS to Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) funds, and  Inclusion of local funds for expansion of FECEP in future budgets.

59 Page 45

Questions

Data Sources

62 Slide # Data Source Data Steward for Source Office/Department 8 SY 2015-16 Fall student membership (includes Pre- Kindergarten Experiences Form data) Decision Support/DIT (DIT) 9 FECEP records Early Childhood Curriculum and Grant Management/ISD (ECCGM) 10 SY 2015-16 Fall student membership (includes Pre- Kindergarten Experiences Form data) DIT 11 FECEP records ECCGM 15 Fall and Spring DRA-WA (Gr K); Spring DRA2 (Gr1 and Gr2); SOL (Gr3 and Gr5) Office of Student Testing (OST) 16 On-time Graduation data DIT 18 Student Membership; DIT 22 Fall and Spring DRA-WA (Gr K); Spring DRA2 (Gr1 and Gr2); SOL (Gr3 and Gr5) OST 23 On-time Graduation data DIT 24 Student Membership; DIT 25 SAG Passing Course above Algebra II; SAG Passing AP/IB Courses; SAG Algebra by 8th grade OST 28 SY 2015-16 Fall student membership (includes Pre- Kindergarten Experiences Form data) DIT 29 SY 2015-16 Fall student membership (includes Pre- Kindergarten Experiences Form data) DIT 30 SY 2015-16 Fall student membership (includes Pre- Kindergarten Experiences Form data) DIT 33 Fall and Spring DRA-WA (Gr K); Spring DRA2 (Gr1 and Gr2); SOL (Gr3 and Gr5) OST

63 Slide # Data Source Steward for Source Data (Office/Department) 35 Student Membership DIT 37 Student Membership DIT 42 Policy Committee Annual Report 2015-2016, Early Head Start/FECEP/Head Start, Fairfax County Public Schools, 2016 ECCGM 45 Interviews with Coordinators of Early Childhood programs in FCPS and other counties; Program websites OPE 47 Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI): Program Information, Presentation to the Joint Subcommittee on the Virginia Preschool Initiative. (2015, Aug. 25). Virginia Department of

• Education. Retrieved from

http://hac.virginia.gov/subcommittee/Jt_Preschool_Initiative_S ub/8-25-15/No5_VPI.pdf Virginia Department of Education 50 Student Membership; Long-Term Impact of Early Childhood Study Findings; Program Staff; FY 2016 Approved Budget Book, Fairfax County Public Schools, 2016 DIT; OPE; ECCGM; Financial Services