1 of 72

1

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

2 of 72

A COLLABORATION OF

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

2

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

3 of 72

WORKSHOP FORMAT

This workshop is designed to be a working session for LEA teams.

WORKING SESSIONS

You will spend about half your time in breakout sessions with your LEA team.

VIRTUAL TOOLS

Virtual TA tools and resources designed by SCCOE will help guide teams through exercises.

COACHES

Each team has been assigned a coach who will help you utilize the tools and guiding questions. Some coaches may be working with 2 teams.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

4 of 72

4

AGENDA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Welcome & Defining UPK

The “Why” of Blending, Braiding, and Layering

Best Practice Testimonials

UPK Resource Hub

Breakout # 1 & Share Out

Defining Blending, Braiding, and Layering & Examples

8

9

10

11

12

Breakout # 2

10 Minute Break

UPK Online TA Tool

Breakout # 3

Breakout # 4

Wrap-Up & Next Steps

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

5 of 72

VISION FOR UNIVERSAL

PRE-KINDERGARTEN (UPK)

California’s vision for “Universal Pre-K” for all 3 and 4 year-olds will be accomplished by utilizing the existing early learning and care (ELC) mixed delivery system. Expanded TK is not intended to replace this system.

TK alone cannot meet the care needs of all families.

Blending, braiding, and layering, and collaborative partnerships, are necessary to meet the care and early learning needs of all children and families.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

6 of 72

6

TRANSITIONAL KINDERGARTEN (TK)

STATE PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

HEAD START

EXPANDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

AFTER SCHOOL EDUCATION & SAFETY PROGRAM (ASES)

TITLE 22 FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME (FCCH)

TITLE 22 CHILDCARE CENTER

LICENSED PRIVATE CHILDCARE

TITLE I PRESCHOOL

SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESCHOOL

GENERAL CHILDCARE (CCTR)

MIGRANT PRESCHOOL

FAMILY, FRIEND & NEIGHBOR (FFN)

TITLE 22 FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME NETWORK (FCCHN)

21^ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

UPK is an expansion of the state’s current mixed delivery system that meets the early learning and care needs of 3 and 4-year-old children and their families. It includes all existing state and federal subsidized early learning and childcare programs, private childcare, and expanded learning.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

7 of 72

BLENDING, BRAIDING, AND LAYERING

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional and/or care time of one classroom of students during one time period.

BLENDING

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional and/or care time of multiple classrooms during more than one time-period (usually AM/PM).

BRAIDING

One or more supplemental funding sources pay for added services and student supports such as additional support staff, staff training, equipment, supplies, or IEP services.

LAYERING

DEFINITION:

The use and management of two or more funding sources to support operation of UPK programs and support services.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

8 of 72

WHY?

BLENDING, BRAIDING AND LAYERING IS A KEY STRATEGY FOR:

FISCAL

SUSTAINABILITY

Maximizing funding and ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability of UPK programs.

ENROLLMENT

Ensuring UPK programs are attractive to parents and enrollment goals are met.

MEETING

PARENT NEEDS

Meeting the needs of parents. 87% of parents report that they need 9 or more hours of care for their 4-year-old children, but no single UPK program funds a 9 hour day.

PROGRAM

QUALITY

Increasing program quality and services by aligning and expanding, rather than duplicating, programs and resources.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

9 of 72

FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maximizing funding and ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability of UPK programs.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

10 of 72

10

TK: 24 KIDS

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:24

Adult:Child Ratio 1:12

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 Instructional Aide

TK

REVENUE

COST

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$107,371	$39,708	$147,079
Instructional Aide	$38,165	$24,427	$62,592
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$18,838
TOTAL	$228,509

Program	Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	Ratio	S&C	ADA
TK	24	20%	$242,856	$67,512	$9,714	90%
TOTAL	$288,037

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

11 of 72

11

TK: 16 KIDS

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:16

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 Instructional Aide

TK

REVENUE

COST

Program	Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	Ratio	S&C	ADA
TK	16	20%	$161,904	$45,008	$6,476	80%
TOTAL	$181,007

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$107,371	$39,708	$147,079
Instructional Aide	$38,165	$24,427	$62,592
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$18,838
TOTAL	$228,509

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Alicia

However, for many LEAs, when a TK classroom is not at max capacity, the LEA can quickly fall into the red. For example, in this TK classroom with only 16 TK students generating ADA is in the red by about $40,000. Underenrollment is not the only thing that can cause an LEA to fall into the red, for instance, enrolling a high need student who requires a paraprofessional, high rates of absenteeism, implementing early TK by enrolling children that don’t yet meet the TK age requirement, increases in salaries or overhead, can all push costs to exceed revenue when a program is operating alone.

Note: our examples include the current ratio in that example, not necessarily the required ratio for the programs being braided. For example, here the required ratio would be 1:12 but this example has an actual ratio of 1:8.

12 of 72

12

BLENDING: TK & PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

Children 24

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

2 CDP Ast. Teachers

Revenue $324,421

Cost $291,101

Children 16

Staff 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 Instructional Aide

Revenue $181,007

Cost $228,509

Children 8

Staff 1 CDP Master Teacher

Revenue $54,982

Cost $132,282

TK

CSPP

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Alicia

- But when LEAs blend, stack, braid and layer, they are much more likely to be fiscally sustainable. This is especially true in small and rural LEAs that struggle to find enough children to fully enroll their UPK programs. The example on the left is a TK/preschool blended or stacked program that generates about $30k more in revenue. This fiscal leeway helps insulate the LEA from increases in cost, but there is also a benefit to the teachers and children in the form of a lower adult:child ratio of 1:8 (in compliance with preschool requirements). On the right of our slide is a less attractive option and has the LEA operating TK and CSPP as separate programs; you can see that both the TK and the preschool classrooms are not generating enough revenue to cover the costs. An LEA choosing this option incurs an annual deficit of almost $30,000 which is not sustainable and leaves the LEA with few options when COLA increases or a high needs student enrolls.

13 of 72

13

BLENDING: TK & PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

TK REVENUE

CSPP	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
CDP Master Teacher	$79,820	$33,624	$113,444
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$18,838
TOTAL	$132,282

TK COST

Program	Pupils	Base Rate	Attendance
CSPP	8	$68,728	80%
TOTAL	$54,982

CSPP REVENUE

CSPP COST

Program	Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	Ratio	S&C	ADA
TK	16	20%	$161,904	$45,008	$6,476	80%
TOTAL	$181,007

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$107,371	$39,708	$147,079
Instructional Aide	$38,165	$24,427	$62,592
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$18,838
TOTAL	$228,509

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

14 of 72

MEETING PARENT NEEDS

Meeting the needs of parents. 87% of parents report that they need 9 or more hours of care for their 4-year-old children, but no single UPK program funds a 9 hour day.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

15 of 72

15

WHAT FAMILIES SAY THEY

NEED

SAFETY

Safety is also a consistent priority. For infants/toddlers, families tend to express preference for smaller facilities and providers that they know or are recommended by a friend.

04

COST

Affordability of care is always a top priority for families. Free care is obviously preferred but many middle class working families will forego free options in lieu of a UPK provider that meets their hourly and location needs.

03

LOCATION

Families consistently list location as a top consideration when choosing a UPK provider. Families prioritize locations near their home and work and at the school site where siblings attend K-12.

02

FULL-TIME CARE

Every year families are surveyed about their needs for childcare and every year about 85% say they need full-time (9 hours or more) of care. However, no single UPK program fully funds 9 hours of care.

01

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

16 of 72

16

WHAT FAMILIES SAY THEY

WANT

EARLY LEARNING

Families have a growing understanding of the importance of early learning in the first 5 years and, when possible, choose providers that incorporate early learning frameworks.

*

SUPPORT SERVICES

Wrap services, like transportation, meals, and connection to social services, are a preference for many, especially low-income families.

*

DUAL LANGUAGE

A growing number of families, both English learners and those who are not, express interest in dual language UPK providers.

*

CULTURAL COMPETENCY

Families of color in particular express a preference for UPK providers that are culturally competent or from the same background as the family.

*

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

17 of 72

17

MEETING PARENT NEEDS

LOCATION

Co-locating blended and braided programs at an LEA site is an effective way to meet parent needs.

Providing UPK for younger children at K-12 sites has been shown to increase enrollment of both UPK programs and K-12.

01

02

03

FULL-TIME CARE

Blending and braiding is a fiscally sustainable way to offer a 9-hour program that meets families needs.

LEAs only offering part-day TK (with no blended/braided wrap) are seeing under enrollment in TK.

COST

LEAs can provide wrap/extended hours for free to all families, even those not eligible for ELOP, if they strategically blend, braid, or layer programs.

Free options like TK are attractive to families, but keep in mind that CSPP and CCTR are also free or very low cost for low-income families and offer full-day options.

04

SAFETY

Blending, braiding, and layering can fund additional staff, lower adult:child ratios, and increase program safety.

Parents have expressed concerns that the TK ratio requirements (1:12) are high in comparison to other UPK programs serving 3- and 4-year-olds. Blending/braiding/layering can reduce ratios.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

18 of 72

ENROLLMENT

Ensuring UPK programs are attractive to parents and enrollment goals are met.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

19 of 72

INCREASE DEMAND

Operate a program that meets parents top needs. High demand programs are those that are: 9 hours or more per day, free or low cost, close to families’ home or work, and demonstrate a safe environment.

A

B

INCREASE ELIGIBILITY

Programs that blend can significantly increase eligibility to fill a UPK classroom.

Not age-eligible for TK but below 100% SMI -> CSPP
Not age-eligible for TK but special needs -> Head Start or CSPP
Not income-eligible for Head Start but below 100% SMI -> CSPP
Not income-eligible for CSPP but below 85% SMI -> CCTR or APP
Not eligible for other programs -> Title I preschool

ENROLLMENT

2 BLENDING, BRAIDING AND LAYERING STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING ENROLLMENT

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

20 of 72

PROGRAM QUALITY

Increasing program quality and services by aligning and expanding, rather than duplicating, programs and resources.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

21 of 72

PROGRAM QUALITY

SERVICES

Mental health consultation & support
Special education staff & supports
Case management

SCREENINGS

Dental screening
Developmental and behavioral health screening
Hearing & vision screenings

INSTRUCTION & PD

Teacher coaching & PD
High quality frameworks & curriculum
Training

ASSESSMENTS

Developmental assessments
Quality teaching and classroom assessments

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT

Family workshops
Family partnership plans
Family assessments

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

22 of 72

PROGRAM QUALITY

3 programs with the greatest wrap/quality benefits

STATE PRESCHOOL

Special education services & supports
Early mental health consultation
Staff professional development & training
High-quality early learning framework and foundations
Developmental assessments

HEAD START

Mental health supports
Dental & behavioral health screening
Staff professional development & training
Case management
Family engagement & workshops
Developmental, teacher, and classroom environment assessments
Curriculum fidelity tools

GENERAL CHILDCARE

Special education services & supports
Early mental health consultation
Staff professional development & training
Developmental assessments

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

23 of 72

3 BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLES

BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

29,256

CSPP, ELO-P, ASES, Special Education Preschool, TK

Creating partnerships and agreements around sharing resources, services, and referrals. Navigating boundaries and helping families choose programs.

PANAMA BUENA VISTA USD

18,785

CSPP, Prekindergarten & Family Literacy Support. QRIS Block Grant

Conflicting staffing, ratio, & facilities requirements between programs that makes seamless integration difficult. Meeting family need for full-day options.

LAMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT

2,802

CSPP, Prekindergarten & Family Literacy Support, Title I, general fund, other grants

Remaining fully staffed, retaining staff that have the opportunity to move into other teaching positions. Resources to increase program offerings.

Increased services to families, integration of community partnerships and resources.

More supports for families, parent education and engagement, increased kindergarten readiness.

Multi-agency collaborative coming together to access grants and create a workforce pipeline.

CHALLENGES

ADVANTAGES

ADA

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

24 of 72

24

UPK WORKSHOP WEBSITE

http://upktool.ccee-ca.org/

UPK TA Tool
Resource Hub

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

25 of 72

25

CURATED UPK RESOURCE HUB

Filter by topic or resource type
Explore each folder
Summaries, visuals, infographics, tables, and powerpoints

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

26 of 72

26

KEY TOPIC

AREAS

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

27 of 72

27

CROSSWALK,

LAWS, AND REGULATIONS

FOLDER

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

28 of 72

28

PLANNING

TOOLS

FOLDER

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

29 of 72

29

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOLDER

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

30 of 72

BREAKOUT

#1

HYPOTHETICAL

RBG Elementary is an LEA with just 30 children enrolled in TK. RBG is located in a rural area with a 50% UPP rate and a number of migrant families. They have a Head Start contract for 20 children. RBG has had difficulty implementing TK and ELOP because they are too small to create an economy of scale and funding is insufficient.

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM & DISCUSS

What blending, braiding, and layering solutions should RBG Elementary consider implementing? What additional information do you want to know about the LEA? What barriers would RBG have to overcome to implement the solutions your team is suggesting?

10 MINUTES

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

31 of 72

SHARE OUT

RBG Elementary is an LEA with just 30 children who are enrolled in TK. RBG is located in a rural area with a 50% UPP rate and a number of migrant families. They have a Head Start contract for 20 children. RBG has had difficulty implementing TK and ELOP because they are too small to create an economy of scale and funding is insufficient.

What blending, braiding, and layering solutions should RBG Elementary consider implementing?
What additional information do you want to know about RBG Elementary to help you make recommendations for blending, braiding, and layering?
What barriers would RBG have to overcome to implement the solutions your team is suggesting?

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

32 of 72

BLENDING, BRAIDING, AND LAYERING

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional and/or care time of one classroom of students during one time period.

BLENDING

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional and/or care time of multiple classrooms during more than one time-period (usually AM/PM).

BRAIDING

One or more supplemental funding sources pay for added services and student supports such as additional support staff, staff training, equipment, supplies, or IEP services.

LAYERING

DEFINITION:

The use and management of two or more funding sources to support operation of UPK programs and support services.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

33 of 72

33

IS IT BLENDING, BRAIDING, OR LAYERING?

How many funding sources are paying for the slots in a classroom during a particular time period or session (e.g. 8am to 12pm)?

JUST ONE

TWO OR MORE

BLENDING/STACKING

NOT BLENDING/STACKING

Is there another funding source being utilized to help the program pay for PD, wrap services, or higher standards (eg adult:child ratio)?

NO

YES

LAYERING

NOT LAYERING

Is there a second session (e.g. AM/PM) with some or all of the same children that is being paid for with a different funding source?

NO

YES

BRAIDING

NOT BRAIDING

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

34 of 72

GENERAL RULES

3 general rules govern blending, braiding, and layering

RULE 1

DOUBLE DIPPING

LEAs cannot use two funding sources to pay for the same child’s instructional time during the same time period/session.

RULE 2

RULE 3

TRACK & REPORT

Absent a waiver or local plan option, LEAs must separately track and report each funding source, even when running blended programs.

PROGRAM STANDARDS

The funding source dictates program requirements. LEAs must meet the highest requirements of the program(s) funding each session.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

35 of 72

35

1

01

PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Community based providers have expertise providing early and expanded learning and existing infrastructure, and existing staff and facilities.

2

02

MAXIMIZING EXISTING FACILITIES/ SPACE

Are classrooms being under-utilized as storage? Only operating 1 part-time program each day? Can K-6 classrooms be utilized after school hours for ELO-P?

3

03

BUILDING A WORKFORCE PIPELINE

Blended, braided and layered staffing models can facilitate creation of career pathways and apprenticeship opportunities for staff.

4

04

WORKING WITH LABOR

Severe staffing shortages and program braiding/ blending/layering may require negotiations and partnerships with the local bargaining unit.

5

05

MEETING PARENTS NEEDS

Parents overwhelmingly indicate a need for affordability and programs that operate 9 hours or more per day. Part-day programs will have difficulty competing with blended/braided options that offer 9 hours a day.

6

06

HIRING VERSUS CONTRACTING

Some programs cannot be contracted out by the LEA (e.g. TK) while others can be contracted out (e.g. CSPP, ELO-P). When blending, braiding, and layering, LEAs may want to utilize both hired employees and contracted staff.

7

07

PRE-K TO 3^RD GRADE ALIGNMENT

Districts should select aligned curriculum and assessments and create professional development opportunities for Pre-K to 3^rd grade teachers as programs are blended, braided and layered.

BLENDING, BRAIDING, & LAYERING CONSIDERATIONS

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

36 of 72

partnerships

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

37 of 72

37

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:24

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

2 CDP Assistant Teachers

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional/care time of one classroom of students during one time period. The LEA meets the highest program requirements (ie adult:child ratios and staff education requirements) of both programs during the entire session.

DEFINITION

TOTAL

16 students generating TK funding. 8 students generating preschool funding.
1 classroom
1 Credentialed Teacher
2 Child Development Permit (CDP) Assistant Teachers
If all children are 4, could access the LEA licensing exemption.

BLENDING: TK & PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

This is the example that we discussed before during the “why” section. It is a blended TK and preschool classroom in which 12 kids are generating TK funding and 8 are generating preschool funding.

This scenario option could be attractive for a lot of LEAs, but would most likely be helpful in LEAs that are small or rural, those who are underenrolled in TK, and those that have implemented early TK. An LEA who has implemented early TK wouldn’t be generating any TK dollars for the children in blue but if the children who are not age-eligible for TK are income eligible for state preschool then the LEA could generate CSPP funds for these kids. Since CSPP income eligibility was recently increased to $112,105 for a family of 4, most children who are not age-eligible for TK would be income eligible for preschool.

38 of 72

38

BRAIDING: TK & EXPANDED LEARNING (ELOP)

Adult:Child Ratio 1:10

Staffing 1.5 Instructional Aides

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional/care time of more than one class during more than one time-period (usually AM/PM). The LEA must meet the highest requirements of the program that is funding the instructional time of that particular session.

DEFINITION

TOTAL

24 students generating TK funding. 12 students generating ELOP.
2 classrooms
1 Credentialed Teacher
2 Instructional Aides

TK AM

ELOP PM

Adult:Child Ratio 1:12

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

.5 Instructional Aide

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

39 of 72

39

REVENUE

Program	# of Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	S&C	ADA/ Attendance	Ratio Add-On	Subtotal
TK	24	50%	$242,856	$19,428	80%	$67,512	$281,224
ELOP	12	N/A	$2,027	N/A	N/A	N/A	$24,324
TOTAL	$305,548

COST

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$107,371	$39,708	$147,079
Instructional Aide (x 2)	$38,165	$24,427	$125,184
Overhead (Facilities, Maintenance, Administration) (x 2)	N/A	N/A	$37,676
TOTAL	$309,939

BRAIDING: TK & EXPANDED LEARNING (ELOP)

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

40 of 72

40

BRAIDING: TK & PART-DAY PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:24

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8 for CSPP & 1:12 for TK

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1.5 CDP Assistant Teachers

Multiple funding sources pay for the instructional time of more than one classroom during more than one time-period (usually AM/PM). The LEA must meet the highest requirements of the program that is funding the instructional time of that particular session.

DEFINITION

TOTAL

48 students generating TK funding. 48 students generating part-day CSPP funding.
2 classrooms
2 Credentialed Teachers
3 CDP Assistant Teachers

Part-Day CSPP AM/TK PM

TK AM/Part-Day CSPP PM

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:24

Adult:Child Ratio 1:12 for TK & 1:8 for CSPP

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1. 5 CDP Assistant Teachers

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Let’s look at another example of braiding that is more fiscally sound. In this example we have two classrooms and an AM/PM approach. In the first classroom on your left, CSPP pays for students in the AM and TK pays for their slots in the PM. In the classroom on the right, it’s the opposite- TK pays for the kids in the AM, CSPP pays for them in the PM.

During the time when CSPP is paying for each classroom, the LEA must meet the lower ratio of 1:8 and they do that by having one CDP assistant teacher who switches classes in the middle of day from the CSPP AM class to the CSPP PM class (see the arrow).

You can see that in this scenario that each group of 24 kids generates both TK funding and part-day CSPP funding, thus maximizing revenue. This scenario also maximizes classroom space and staffing. Instead of utilizing 4 classrooms, 2 for TK and 2 for CSPP, this LEA needs only 2 classrooms. And instead of needing 4 CDP assistant teachers, it only needs 3.

- Would work best in a larger LEA with 80%+ UPP rate (because then all children would be eligible for CSPP)

TK doesn’t require that the second adult have a CDP assistant teacher permit, but CSPP does.

41 of 72

41

REVENUE

Program	# of Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	S&C/ Adjustment Factor	ADA/ Attendance	Ratio	Subtotal
TK	48	30%	$485,712	$23,314	80%	$135,024	$546,908
CSPP	48	N/A	$412,368	N/A	80%	N/A	$329,894
TOTAL	$876,802

COST

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher (x 2)	$107,371	$39,708	$294,158
CDP Assistant Teacher (x 3)	$38,165	$24,427	$187,776
Overhead (Facilities, Maintenance, Administration) (x 2)	N/A	N/A	$37,676
TOTAL	$519,610

BRAIDING: TK & PART-DAY PRESCHOOL (CSPP)

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Here are the numbers. You can see that by braiding TK and part-day preschool, the LEA generates a budget surplus of more than $300,000. That funding could be used to decrease the TK ratio to 1:8 by hiring 1 additional CDE assistant teacher and the LEA would still have a surplus of more than $200,000. Or the funds could be used to add a paraprofessional in each classroom to facilitate operating an inclusive program. Or it could be used to increase the professional development and education of staff. The LEA suddenly has lots of options when it braids TK and part-day preschool in an AM/PM model.

Of course this example assumes that all children in the classroom are CSPP eligible, but with the increase to CSPP eligibility to 100% of SMI, most children would be eligible so long as the LEA is not in a very high cost region.

42 of 72

42

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:24

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 Instructional Aide

1 Paraprofessional

In addition to instructional/care time, one or more supplemental funds pay for supplemental services and student needs such as additional support staff, staff training, equipment and/or supplies, or IEP services.

DEFINITION

TOTAL

24 students generating TK funding.
1 classroom
1 Credentialed Teacher
1 Education Specialist
1 Paraprofessional

LAYERING: TK + IEP/AB 602 + EARLY INTERVENTION

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Now let’s look at a common example of layering. In this example the LEA is utilizing TK as the funding for slots and layering it with AB 602 dollars and the new special education early intervention funds in order to create an inclusive environment for students with disabilities and those at risk of being identified.

You can see that this is a co-teaching model with both a TK teacher and an education specialist. And for additional support, the LEA has hired a paraprofessional, which brings down the adult:child ratio to 1:8 which is below the minimum requirement of 1:12. So this is truly a best practice example that has a low adult:child ratio and an expert in UDL and other accessible teaching models.

The student with an IEP only has a .25 paraprofessional, but the district decides to keep the para with the class and pay for the other .75 with early intervention funds because other children in the class are at risk of being identified for a disability.
Normal TK ratio would be 1:12 but the para works with the entire class, thus bringing down the ratio to 1:8

43 of 72

43

LAYERING: TK + IEP/AB 602 + EARLY INTERVENTION

REVENUE

Program	# of Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	S&C/ Adjustment Factor	ADA/ Enrollment	Ratio Add-On	Subtotal
TK	24	50%	$214,440	$19,428	80%	$67,512	$247,032
AB 602	N/A	N/A	$19,680	N/A	N/A	N/A	$19,680
Early Intervention	2	N/A	$6,898	N/A	N/A	N/A	$13,796
TOTAL	$280,508

COST

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$69,606	$27,369	$96,975
Education Specialist	$48,270	$22,658	$70,928
Paraprofessional	$35,920	$19,931	$55,851
Overhead (Facilities, Maintenance, Administration)	N/A	N/A	$13,187
TOTAL	$236,941

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

44 of 72

44

Teacher:Child Ratio 1:12

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 Early Education Specialist Teacher

1 CDP Assistant Teacher

.2 Speech & Language Pathologist

TK and CSPP are blended in one classroom for a full day of early learning and care
AB 602 and IDEA special education preschool funds are layered on top to increase quality and facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities.

DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

12 students generating TK funding. 12 students generating preschool funding. 24 students generating AB 602. 3 students with special needs generating IDEA special education preschool funds to support supplementary services.

BLENDING & LAYERING: TK & CSPP + AB 602 & SPECIAL ED PRESCHOOL

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Now let’s explore some more advanced examples where an LEA is both blending and layering. In this example TK and CSPP are blended in one classroom for a full day of early learning and care and AB 602 and IDEA special education preschool funds are layered on top to increase quality and facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities. An LEA might blend TK and CSPP like this because it is small and cannot enroll enough TK age-eligible children, so it uses CSPP which has broader age-eligibility, to create a full classroom.

In this example there are 12 students generating TK funding and 12 generating CSPP funds, and then the AB 602 and IDEA dollars are added on top.

We see that the LEA has implemented a co-teaching model with a credential TK teacher and an early education specialist, and to lower the ratio and comply with CSPP requirements, they also have a paraprofessional. Finally, to address the special education needs of this classroom, they have speech and language pathologist who is in the classroom 20% of the time.

45 of 72

45

Program	# of Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	S&C/ Adjustment Factors	ADA/ Attendance	Ratio Add-on	Subtotal
TK	12	40%	$121,428	$7,771	80%	$28,130	$131,489
CSPP	12	N/A	$159,180	N/A	80%	N/A	$127,344
Special Ed Preschool	3	N/A	$9,432	N/A	N/A	N/A	$9,432
AB 602	24	N/A	$15,580	N/A	80%	N/A	$15,580
TOTAL	$283,845

Staff/Cost	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$69,606	$27,369	$96,975
Early Education Specialist	$48,270	$22,658	$70,928
CDP Assistant Teacher	$35,920	$19,931	$55,851
.2 Speech & Language Pathologist	$16,200	$7,000	$23,000
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$13,187
TOTAL	$259,941

REVENUE

COST

BLENDING & LAYERING: TK & CSPP + AB 602 & SPECIAL ED PRESCHOOL

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

46 of 72

46

Adult:Child Ratio 1:10

Staffing 1 CDP Master Teacher

1 CDP Assistant Teacher

TK AM

HEAD START/ELOP PM

Adult:Child Ratio 1:10

Staffing 1 Credentialed Teacher

1 CDP Assistant Teacher

BLENDING & BRAIDING: TK AM + HEAD START & ELOP PM

TK pays for the AM session (5.5 hours).
CSPP and ELOP pay for the PM session (3.5 hours) for the same group of children.

DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

20 students generating TK funding. 8 students generating CSPP funding. 10 students generating ELOP funding.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Many LEAs have pointed out that ELOP funding really isn’t sufficient to cover costs, and as we saw in an earlier example, it is hard to make ELOP pencil. So let’s explore an example where we blend Head Start and ELOP in the PM and braid that with a TK AM session.

In this example all 20 kids are age eligible for TK so the LEA receives funding for them to add a 5.5 hour AM TK session.

For the PM session, the LEA needs to offer another 3.5 hours of instruction and care, pursuant to ELOP requirements. The LEA’s UPP rate is 50%, so only 10 of the children from the AM session generate ELOP funds and funding is low at just $2,054 per child. So in this example, the LEA blends the ELOP with Head Start and uses 8 Head Start slots to pay for children to the PM session who are Head Start eligible.

47 of 72

47

Program	# of Pupils	UPP%	Base Rate	S&C/ Adjustment Factors	ADA/ Attendance	Ratio Add-on	Subtotal
TK AM	20	50%	$202,380	$16,190	80%	$56,260	$274,830
Head Start PM	8	N/A	$87,200	N/A	N/A	N/A	$87,200
ELOP PM	20	50%	$20,540	N/A	N/A	N/A	$20,540
TOTAL	$384,570

BLENDING & BRAIDING: TK AM + HEAD START & ELOP PM

Staff/Cost	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$69,606	$27,369	$96,975
CDP Master Teacher	$44,842	$21,901	$66,743
CDP Assistant Teacher (x2)	$35,920	$19,931	$111,702
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$13,187
TOTAL	$288,607

�

REVENUE

COST

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

You can see that again, by blending Head Start and ELOP in the PM, and then braiding that with TK in the AM, the LEA has almost $100,000 of wiggle room in their budget. If the LEA used ELOP funding alone, without Head Start, it would only be about $5,000 in the black.

The LEA could use that additional $100,000 to increase program quality by adding an instructional aide to the classrooms or providing specialized PD on learning through play, or pay staff for collaboration and planning time.

It is worth mentioning here, that for this example to work the LEA would need to be high poverty because the income eligibility threshold for Head Start is still the lowest of all programs at about $36,000 for a family of 4. Also, the classroom used during the Head Start funded hours would need to meet Title 22 requirements.

48 of 72

48

CSPP & SPECIAL ED PRESCHOOL AM

HEAD START PM

Adult:Child Ratio 3:20

Staffing .5 CDP Master Teacher

1 CDP Associate Teacher

. .5 CDP Assistant Teacher

BRAIDING & LAYERING: CSPP & SPECIAL ED PRESCHOOL AM

+ HEAD START PM

CSPP pays for the slots of all 20 children in the AM (3 hours) and is layered with IDEA special education preschool funding to help provide supplemental services to 4 children with IEPs.
Head Start pays for all 20 of the slots in the PM (6 hours).

DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

20 students generating CSPP part-day funding. 4 students also generating special education preschool funding for supplemental services. 20 students generating Head Start funding in the PM.

Adult:Child Ratio 3:20

Staffing .5 CDP Master Teacher

1 CDP Associate Teacher

.5 CDP Assistant Teacher

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Let’s do just two more complex examples.

This one is braiding and layering Head Start, CSPP and IDEA special education preschool. Part-day CSPP pays for the student slots in the AM and is layered with special education preschool funds to help provide supplemental educational services for the 4 children in the classroom who have an IEP. The LEA utilizes this funding to hire an additional associate teacher to bring down the ratio from the minimum requirement of 1:10 to a lower ratio of 3:20.

Head Start pays for the PM instruction and care of children and is braided with the layered CSPP/special education program to create a full 9 hour day.

In this example, the LEA utilizes just one 1 CDP master teacher who is lead in both AM and PM. The1 assistant teacher who moves with the class from AM to PM, thus keeping the ratio at 3:20 all day.

For purposes of simplicity, the visual of this examples looks like the LEA is utilizing two classrooms, but it would actually probably utilize the same classroom for both the AM and PM sessions, thus maximizing facility space.

This is a good option to consider because CSPP recently aligned with Head Start by adding a requirement that the program set aside up to 10% of slots for students with disabilities. So both Head Start and CSPP now require providers to set aside slots for students with disabilities and both have built in funding mechanisms to help compensate for the additional cost of serving children with IEPs.

49 of 72

Program	# of Pupils	Base Rate	ADA/ Attendance	Subtotal
Part-Day CSPP AM	20	$123,220	80%	$98,576
Head Start PM	20	$218,000	N/A	$218,000
Special Education Preschool AM	4	$20,540	N/A	$12,576
TOTAL	$329,152

Staff/Cost	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
CDP Master Teacher	$79,820	$33,624	$113,444
CDP Associate Teacher (x2)	$38,664	$20,537	$118,402
CDP Assistant Teacher	$35,920	$19,931	$55,851
Overhead (x2)	N/A	N/A	$26,374
TOTAL	$314,071

REVENUE

COST

BRAIDING & LAYERING: CSPP & SPECIAL ED PRESCHOOL AM

+ HEAD START PM

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

50 of 72

50

BLENDING: INCREASE ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY

To fill an entire classroom with students and generate enough revenue to be fiscally sustainable, this small LEA blends TK, CSPP, Head Start and Title I preschool.

DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

10 students generate TK funding, 2 generate Head Start, 8 generate full-day CSPP dollars, and the LEA uses a portion of its Title I funds to provide Title I preschool to the remaining 4 students in the classroom.

Adult:Child Ratio 1:8

Staffing 1 Credentialed TK Teacher

1 CDP Associate Teacher

1 Instructional Aide

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Here’s our last example for the day: it looks simple because it is only a single classroom using blending, and in some ways it is, but in this example the LEA utilizes sever different funding streams , which is most likely to be utilized by a very small and rural LEA,

This last example is a reminder that for LEAs struggling with enrollment or not being able to fill an entire TK classroom, nearly all children are eligible for one or more of the other early learning and care programs that fall under the UPK umbrella. If you can’t fill a TK classroom with age-eligible children, blend it with other programs that have broader eligibility categories like CCTR or CSPP. While a child might not fall within the narrow age eligibility for TK, they likely fall within the new CSPP income eligibility threshold which is now $112,150 for a family of 4.

51 of 72

51

REVENUE

COST

BLENDING: INCREASE ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY

Program	Pupils	Subtotal
TK	10	$92,673
FULL DAY CSPP	8	$101,916
HEAD START	2	$23,248
TITLE I PRESCHOOL	4	$34,664
TOTAL	$252,501

	Salary	Benefits	Subtotal
TK Teacher	$83,985	$18,476	$102,461
CDP Associate Teacher	$29,160	$18,476	$47,636
CDP Assistant Teacher	$38,880	$18,476	$57,356
Overhead	N/A	N/A	$16,381
TOTAL	$223,834

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

52 of 72

52


TK	Children born in a 5 month period. (Turn 5 between Sept 2 and Feb 2)	No income eligibility threshold; all children eligible.
ELOP	Children enrolled in TK to 6th grade	Free to homeless, foster, and FRPM eligible ($49,025 for family of 4). May charge sliding scale fees for those above income.
ASES	Children enrolled in TK to 9th grade	Free to homeless, foster, and FRPM eligible ($49,025 for family of 4). May charge sliding scale fees for those above income.
CSPP	Children ages 2.9 to 4 years old	Homeless, foster, at risk, and children from families making less than 100% of State Median Income (SMI). ($112,105 for family of 4.)
CCTR	Children ages 0 to 12 years old	Homeless, foster, at risk, and children from families making less than 85% of SMI. ($89,297 for family of 4). Must also meet "need."
APP	Children ages 0 to 12 years old	Children from families enrolled in CalWORKs or those making less than 85% of SMI. ($89,297 for family of 4.) Must also meet “need.”
HEAD START & EARLY HEAD START	Children ages 0 to 5 years old	Children from families making less than the federal poverty line or qualify for SNAP. ($36,075 for family of 4.) 10% set aside for students with IEPs/IFSPs.
TITLE I PRESCHOOL	Children under the age of 6 years old	Schoolwide Title I programs: All preschool age children residing in the attendance area. Targeted Assistance Title I programs: LEA must create objective criteria to target children most at risk of failing to meet standards.
SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESCHOOL	Children ages 3 and 4 years old	No income eligibility threshold; all children with an IEP are eligible.

AGE ELIGIBILITY

INCOME ELIGIBILITY

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

53 of 72

BREAKOUT

#2

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM

Identify 1 person to take notes and 1 person to share screen
Review & discuss your LEA’s Pre-Workshop tool: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R1KvlMdRycFugiZLfOQjDXLnPYhC04yS?usp=share_link

GUIDING QUESTIONS

Is this the first time that some of the LEA team members have seen data from the UPK Plan? If so, how was the UPK Plan shared across your LEA and how can you increase collaboration between departments?
Reflect on each section. What stands out to you?
What are the biggest issues your LEA is facing or will face with UPK implementation in the next 5 years? (e.g facilities, staffing, inadequate revenue, low enrollment, PD/expertise, other)

20 MINUTES

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

54 of 72

54

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

55 of 72

EXAMPLE - MANDELLA ELEMENTARY

	2022-23 PROJECTED	2022-23 ACTUAL	2023-24 PROJECTED	2024-25 PROJECTED	2025-26 PROJECTED
TK Age-Eligible	87	66	101	117	140
Early TK	0	0	0	0	0
TK ELOP	69	15	80	93	112
Title I Preschool	0	0	0	0	0
CSPP	166	166	190	190	190
CCTR	0	0	0	0	0
Head Start	0	0	0	0	0
ASES	30	15	60	80	100
Special Ed Preschool	10	10	6	6	6

TK enrollment is at 75% of initial projections.

ELOP enrollment is at just 22% of what we projected.

CSPP enrollment is strong.

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

TK enrollment is 75% below what was projected. Why? Is there declining ADA in the district? Did the LEA not reduce their projection using the CDE guidance? Are parents still keeping kids at home due to COVID? Or is it because the program is part day and working parents can’t take advantage of it?

ELOP enrollment is at 22% of what the LEA projected. With only 15 kids enrolled, and the fact that ELOP is one of the lowest funded programs, this is a big concern because there is no way that their ELOP program is fiscally sustainable. It’s probably running an annual deficit of $50k to $100k dollars. What should this LEA be thinking about to address this issue?

CSPP enrollment is strong and is are meeting projected enrollment targets which tells us that parents need care. What is it that the CSPP program is doing that TK isn’t? Could CSPP be blended or braided with TK to make up for TK’s enrollment shortfalls?

56 of 72

	2022-23 PROJECTED	2022-23 ACTUAL	2023-24 PROJECTED	2024-25 PROJECTED	2025-26 PROJECTED
TK Age-Eligible	3	3	4	4	5
TK ELOP	3	3	4	4	5
CSPP	6	6	7	7	7
ASES	3	3	4	4	4
Special Ed Preschool	2	2	2	2	2

Need 5 additional classrooms by 25-26. Do we have the space?

With just 10 kids in special ed preschool and declining enrollment, could it be layered with TK or CSPP to free up those 2 classrooms?

We have 3 classroom set aside for just 15 ELOP students. Can the other classrooms be utilized for TK or CSPP estimated increase in need? What modifications would be needed?

EXAMPLE - MANDELA ELEMENTARY

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

57 of 72

BREAKOUT

#2

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM

Identify 1 person to take notes and 1 person to share screen
Review & discuss your LEA’s Pre-Workshop tool: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R1KvlMdRycFugiZLfOQjDXLnPYhC04yS?usp=share_link

GUIDING QUESTIONS

Is this the first time that some of the LEA team members have seen data from the UPK Plan? If so, how was the UPK Plan shared across your LEA and how can you increase collaboration between departments?
Reflect on each section. What stands out to you?
What are the biggest issues your LEA is facing or will face with UPK implementation in the next 5 years? (e.g facilities, staffing, inadequate revenue, low enrollment, PD/expertise, other)

20 MINUTES

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

58 of 72

BREAK

10 MINUTES

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

59 of 72

UPK ONLINE TA TOOL

PROGRAMS

What programs does the LEA operate or hold a contract for?

3

60 DAYS

UPP %

What is the LEA’s UPP %?

2

1

TK ADA

What is the LEA’s TK ADA?

4

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

What are the implementation issues the LEA is facing?

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

60 of 72

EXAMPLE - MANDELA ELEMENTARY

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17EajWlf-o8pSWi5cyGinGJsMMWBwZLr5/view?usp=sharing

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

Let’s run through an example using the same elementary school district we looked at for breakout session 2. Mandela Elementary has a TK ADA of 66 (with projections to go to 101 next year), a UPP% of 80%, it operates TK, state preschool, special ed preschool, ELOP and ASES, and is has identified the following barriers to UPK implementation over the next 5 years: it needs 5 more classrooms, TK is underenrolled, ELOP is underenrolled and revenues are not sufficient to cover costs.

We put all that into the UPK online TA tool, and it generates about a dozen different solutions that Mandela Elementary should consider implementing to address the barriers it has identified. The results are going to be uniquely tailored to Mandela’s circumstances, it’s higher UPP rate, its small size, the programs it operates, and the issues it is facing.

Let’s look through a couple of the solutions that the tool presents for Mandela Elementary to consider.

61 of 72

BREAKOUT

#3

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM

Choose someone to share screen. Complete the Online TA tool as a team
http://upktool.ccee-ca.org/

GUIDING QUESTIONS

Go through each section of the TA tool results and discuss the proposed solutions.
Would this solution work in your LEA?
What would be needed for the proposed solution to work (eg staff, funding, bargaining, etc) ?
Which solution(s) are most cost effective and do the most to address the identified barrier?
What partnerships and MOUs would be needed to implement the proposed solution?

20 MINUTES

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

62 of 72

TEST THE TA OPTIONS

Choose 1 of the identified issues (staffing, facilities, cost, or enrollment) and test the options offered by the TA tool

PRE-WORKSHOP TOOL

Analyze projected v. actual enrollment, facilities, and staffing for implementation of UPK programs

IDENTIFY BARRIERS

UPK ONLINE TA TOOL

Input information about ADA, UPP %, programs operated, and implementation issues

GENERATE SOLUTIONS

BRING IT TOGETHER

Choose one of the issues to focus on and select the corresponding tool. Could the proposed options help?

TEST SOLUTIONS

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

You used the pre-workshop tool to identify your barriers and opportunities with UPK implementation

You used the online TA tool to identify solutions to these barriers and opportunities for blending, braiding, and layering
Now let’s explore implementation of the best solutions your team identified. How much would implementation of the solution help? How much would it cost? How much would it save across your programs?
Start by pulling up your UPK Pre-Workshop tool again and looking at sections 2B and 3B
If your team is ready to explore how a solution would impact your LEA’s fiscal sustainability, consider using this budgeting worksheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qxZRs_JjuNfpVnbtX3HnVybD48UHE5FKU62atGmIhII/edit?usp=sharing

If you didn’t complete the pre-workshop revenues and costs tool, feel free to use this template to create estimates of your program costs and revenues

63 of 72

CHOOSE 1 OF YOUR IDENTIFIED ISSUES

& Select the corresponding tool

PRE-WORKSHOP TOOL

2B

PRE-WORKSHOP TOOL

3B

BUDGETING

WORKSHEET

BUDGETING

WORKSHEET

STAFFING

FACILITIES

COST

ENROLLMENT

64 of 72

64

PRE-WORKSHOP

TOOL

2B

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

65 of 72

65

PRE-WORKSHOP

TOOL

3B

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

66 of 72

66

BUDGETING

WORKSHEET

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

If you identified cost, insufficient revenue, or under enrollment as a barrier to UPK implementation, and your team feels ready to explore some of the solutions proposed by the TA tool, pull up the UPK budgeting worksheet and start plugging in numbers. If you didn’t complete the pre-workshop revenues and costs tool, feel free to use this template to estimate your program costs and revenues: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GRsdBxgLFo95MbcukSe5fmlXFip-pp3r1pOgFPvsFpo/edit?usp=sharing

Your team has 20 minutes for this breakout session, so you’ll only have time to complete one of these options – discussing 2b, 3b, or using the budget worksheet. However, you now have all of the tools, and you know how to use them, so our hope is that you’ll continue conversations in your team beyond the workshop.

67 of 72

BREAKOUT

#4

20 MINUTES

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM

LEA’s Pre-Workshop tool: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R1KvlMdRycFugiZLfOQjDXLnPYhC04yS?usp=share_link
Budgeting Worksheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qxZRs_JjuNfpVnbtX3HnVybD48UHE5FKU62atGmIhII/edit?usp=sharing

GUIDING QUESTIONS

Choose one of your identified barriers/concerns to discuss and pull up the appropriate tool (2B, 3B, or the budget worksheet)
Which options suggested by the TA tool seem most likely to address the LEA’s identified issue? Can it be implemented easily or will it take time?
What other suggestions from the TA tool do you want to explore with your LEA team?

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

68 of 72

EXAMPLE - MANDELA ELEMENTARY

Special Education Preschool
Revenue (6 kids)	$25,012
Cost (2 classes)	$168,230
Difference	$143,218

TK
Revenue (66 kids)	$762,682
Cost (3 classes)	$553,890
Difference	$208,792

ELOP
Revenue (15 kids)	$30,810
Cost (3 classes)	$335,106
Difference	$304,296

Total Annual Deficit : $238,722

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

69 of 72

EXAMPLE - MANDELA ELEMENTARY

TK/Special Education Preschool AM/PM
Revenue (24 kids x 3 classes)	$815,352
Cost (3 classes)	$710,823
Difference	$104,529

Part-Day CSPP AM/PM
Revenue (24 kids x 3 classes)	$443,592
Cost (3 classes)	$509,470
Difference	$65,878

*Co teaching model

Enroll kids in CSPP instead of ELOP

Lower ratio, higher staff qualifications

Total annual surplus: $38,651

Stand Alone Programs: $238,722 Deficit

Blended and Braided Programs: $38,651 Surplus

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

Amanda

As you may recall, the UPK TA tool suggested that Mandela explore the idea of combining their special education preschool and their TK program to save classroom space and help with costs. The tool also reminded Mandela that a blended TK/special education preschool class wouldn’t need to be licensed because special education preschool is exempt from Title 22. Mandela elementary uses the budget worksheet to run the numbers and discovered that if it were to blend TK and special education preschool, it would turn its deficit of $143,000 into a surplus of $104,529. In this example, we include funding for a co-teaching model in which there is both a TK teacher and an education specialist, plus a paraprofessional, which brings down the ratio to 1:8 in the classroom.

The TA tool also suggested that Mandela consider blending or substituting its CSPP program its current ELOP program which is under enrolled and isn’t bringing in enough revenue to cover costs. After using the budget worksheet to run different scenarios, Mandela Elementary discovers that its best choice is enroll their ELOP eligible children in CSPP instead of operating a ELOP program for TK students. Since CSPP eligibility is now 100% of SMI, almost all children who are eligible for ELOP will also be eligible for CSPP. In this case, CSPP funding will substitute for ELOP but Mandela will still meet the ELOP requirement to provide 9 hours of learning and care by using CSPP funding to do so. Mandela will still receive the funding for ELOP but can now use that funding to serve older children in ELOP.

Because the reimbursement rate in Mandela’s region is low, there is still a deficit in the CSPP program but it is only $65,878, and when combined with the surplus from blending TK and special education preschool, the LEA’s total surplus revenue is $38, 651.

Keep in mind that this approach is also good for kids- it offers a lower adult:student ratio than ELOP and higher staff qualifications.

To summarize, the first approach of operating stand alone programs creates an annual deficit of $238,722. But by blending and braiding TK, special education, CSPP and ELOP, Mandela elementary can eliminate that deficit and generate a $38,651 annual surplus.

70 of 72

BREAKOUT

#4

20 MINUTES

JOIN YOUR LEA’S BREAKOUT ROOM

LEA’s Pre-Workshop tool: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R1KvlMdRycFugiZLfOQjDXLnPYhC04yS?usp=share_link
Budgeting Worksheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qxZRs_JjuNfpVnbtX3HnVybD48UHE5FKU62atGmIhII/edit?usp=sharing

GUIDING QUESTIONS

Choose one of your identified barriers/concerns to discuss and pull up the appropriate tool (2B, 3B, or the budget worksheet)
Which options suggested by the TA tool do you want to explore? How would implementing that suggestion address your LEA’s identified concern?
What other suggestions from the TA tool do you want to explore with your LEA team?

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

71 of 72

wrap up and next steps

use the tools we gave you, go back and spend more time with your team reviewing the online TA tool results

apply to attend Carla’s workshop

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership

72 of 72

72

QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU!

Equity • Diversity • Inclusion • Partnership