3 minute read
CCMS AND PRE-K IMPACT
As noted in Table 13 above, 79% (31) of centers indicate that they would likely (or very likely) need to reduce teaching staff as a result of a reduction in full-day pre-k enrollment. For this analysis, statistical significance means that the percent of respondents reporting they would be likely to take an action is significantly more than what would be expected if responses were given at random. While significance demonstrates an area of specific concern, this should not diminish the relevance of non-significant responses. Reductions in teaching staff frequently do result in increased child-teacher ratios, even though only 46% of centers see this as a possibility. Though the survey does not specify the size of staff reductions, it is worth noting that these 31 centers employ more than 488 teaching staff. Additionally, though not statistically significant, 47% of centers are likely to reduce non-teaching staff, including positions included program coordinators as well as administrative staff. Losing non-teaching staff could result in increased burdens on teachers and reduced program quality. In addition to laying off teachers, survey comments suggest reductions in pay and benefits for teaching staff might be necessary as a result of reduced 4-year-old enrollment. One center already experiencing the impacts of FWISD universal pre-k comments, “This year we will lose $43,000 in income. I will not be able to offer additional benefits and pay increases to my staff this year.” As the competitiveness of the
market for quality teachers continues to increase, providers with low salaries may face difficulties recruiting and retaining quality early childhood teachers. This competitiveness may also extend beyond only low-salary employers, as the comparatively high salary for FWISD pre-k teachers may also attract qualified teachers from private preschools as well as Head Start programs.
Advertisement
For 8 of the 9 centers reporting that they would be “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to reduce their teaching staff, teacher retention correlates with an intention to maintain pre-k enrollment by transferring students from full-day to new or existing pre-k after-school programs. Focus group and site visit participants also discussed offsetting losses through expanded after-school care as well as growing holiday and summer programs for when school is not in session. Focus group participants also mentioned extending evening hours to attract and keep more children. The ninth center, a private school, anticipated very little impact overall related to public pre-k and thus reported they would be unlikely to make any changes as a result. As many of these providers do not have existing after-school care for older children, they may benefit from guidance and support in building and launching affective after-school programs.
CCMS and Pre-K Impact
Survey responses do not indicate a connection between a provider’s acceptance of CCMS and the real or anticipated impact of universal pre-k expansion on their costs, quality or financial stability. However, this could be because Focus group participants and some survey comments suggest having students with CCMS may help providers ensure stable enrollment and revenue levels. As one focus group participant commented: “The FWISD universal pre-k program is optional. Parents are getting CCMS subsidy anyway, so why move their child?” Other providers
serving CCMS-subsidized children express concern that economically disadvantaged families receiving CCMS will pursue the least-cost option available. Those parents that can provide or access transportation and care before and after public pre-k would then select the free pre-k option. Though providers might still have opportunities to receive CCMS funding for afterschool services to these children, the subsidy rates for after-school care are substantially less than for full-day care (as demonstrated in the economic analysis section below). Interestingly, Texas Rising Star providers (those receiving a higher CCMS rate for meeting increased standards) are the providers most likely to anticipate quality-impacting actions in response to decreased 4-year-old enrollment, as illustrated in Figure 19. With a maximum likelihood score of 3.0, Texas Rising Star Providers report higher likelihood than other providers for every measured quality-impacting action. Likelihood scores less than 1.5 (such as those for closing programs) indicate that an action is UNLIKELY, while scores greater than 1.5 indicate the action is LIKELY, with higher scores equating to higher likelihoods. Scores for TRS providers indicate they are likely to combine classrooms, reduce teaching staff, and increase tuition as a result of reductions in 4-year-old enrollment.
