Cincinnati Preschool Promise - Year 5 Evaluations & Insights (2022)

2021-2022

Promises Delivered Program Evaluation Report & Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights

Year Five Evaluation Cincinnati Preschool Promise Program Evaluation Report 2021-2022 Submitted by INNOVATIONS in Community Research and Program Evaluation Released to Cincinnati Preschool Promise August 2022

Table of Contents Mission and Vision ..................................................................................................................... 3 Commitment to Equity ................................................................................................................ 4 Parent, Teacher, and Provider Testimonials .............................................................................. 5 Report Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6 Kindergarten Readiness............................................................................................................10 Preschooler Progress................................................................................................................19 Reach and Access ....................................................................................................................20 Tuition Assistance and Enrollment ............................................................................................21 Quality Improvement .................................................................................................................26 Teacher and Provider Wage Analysis .......................................................................................28 Teacher and Provider Supports ................................................................................................28 Extended Learning Session ......................................................................................................29 CPP Plus: Supporting Learning Through Music in the Classroom .............................................33 Community Stakeholder Experiences .......................................................................................39 CPP Evaluation Advisory Panel ................................................................................................41 Looking Forward: Next Steps and Opportunities .......................................................................42 Appendices ...............................................................................................................................43 Appendix A: Additional KRA-R Outcomes for CPP TA Participants .......................................43 Appendix B: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Revised (KRA-R) Outcomes by Selected Characteristics for 2021-22....................................................................................................48 Appendix C: Demographics of Participants Enrolled in CPP TA Preschools (Prior Years) .....50 Appendix D: QI Providers Converted to TA Providers in 2021-22 ..........................................52 Appendix E: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Revised (KRA-R) Outcomes by Extended Learning Session (ELS) Participation ....................................................................................53

2

Mission and Vision

Mission The Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) makes it possible for families to have equitable access to high-quality preschool in private settings within the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) district boundary.

Vision Our region values preschool as an integral part of a child’s education and as an important support for working families. The community acknowledges that the best outcomes are possible with continuous access to high-quality education, beginning with preschool, and ongoing engagement throughout a child’s educational experience. This is especially true for preschoolers with the greatest need. Kindergarten readiness and third grade reading are short-term benefits of increased participation in preschool. The longer-term benefits, from middle school through high school, will produce a more qualified workforce and a community in which all residents have an opportunity to thrive.

3

Commitment to Equity The mission and vision of Cincinnati Preschool Promise are guided by its Equity Policy, which establishes equitable policies in the areas of workforce development and support, program design, Provider types and locations, and ensuring racial, ethnic, and gender diversity.

The Equity Policy states that: •

Cincinnati Preschool Promise will work to stabilize a skilled and qualified workforce, particularly in those classrooms serving Cincinnati’s most historically disadvantaged preschoolers.

•

Efforts to foster a highly skilled preschool teaching workforce will include support for historically disadvantaged teachers.

•

Program design will consider impacts on ethnic and racial diversity and maintain or expand it in any way possible.

•

Cincinnati Preschool Promise will work with a wide variety of Provider types (in home, parochial, public, and private or non-profit centers), that are geographically dispersed and culturally and linguistically relevant to the preschoolers in their care. These needs include, but are not limited to preschoolers: ▪ from non-English speaking backgrounds ▪ who have experienced trauma and adverse conditions (ACEs) ▪ with special education needs ▪ residing in quality gap neighborhoods

•

Cincinnati Preschool Promise will ensure that its work supports these Providers, and when possible, avoids increasing disparities among Providers of different types. For example, Cincinnati Preschool Promise recognizes that many family childcare Providers are women from underrepresented minority backgrounds (e.g., Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino).

While focusing on the needs of these partners and others with similar backgrounds, it is important to address challenges, inequities, and opportunities in the field, while providing a wide range of preschool options for young children and families in Cincinnati.

4

Parent, Teacher, and Provider Testimonials A goal of Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) is to expand access to high-quality preschool to more preschool age children within the Cincinnati Public Schools boundary. Parents and Providers shared how CPP and preschool has positively impacted their children and families: •

“For our family, it’s allowed us to work full time. Our son has grown so much, he is social, he has so many friends, and can write his name. He’s looking at cameras and practicing photography. I couldn’t provide that enrichment. We could not have afforded and given him that opportunity without CPP. My youngest is a baby and now I know he will be able to go to preschool.” – TA Parent

•

“[CPP] gives the parent ease, so they don’t have to worry about the money. They can go to a place they can trust.” – TA Teacher

•

“A lot of children would not have the opportunity to attend preschool without CPP. One example, [a family] needed a longer day program and would not have been able to continue at the program without CPP tuition assistance.” – TA Teacher

•

“Preschoolers receiving tuition assistance are more likely to attend preschool.”

– TA Provider

•

“Many families like having multiple preschool options that may better fit their needs.” – TA Provider

5

Report Summary Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) provides opportunities for preschoolers to benefit from local preschool programs through Tuition Assistance (TA) and Quality Improvement (QI) programs.

CPP makes it possible for preschoolers to have equitable access to high-quality preschool1 by providing supports, such as TA funding, to families. CPP also supports professional development for preschool teachers and Providers. This report examines the impact of CPP programs, including benefits for preschoolers and returns for the city of Cincinnati, through quantitative and qualitative evaluations conducted by CPP’s external program evaluator, INNOVATIONS in Community Research and Program Evaluation of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

The quantitative evaluation was based on agency-level and participation data provided by CPP and academic data provided by Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) and was designed to address the following key areas: Child Outcomes • Kindergarten Readiness of CPP Participants Compared to Non-CPP Participants • Preschooler Development and Progress as Measured by Preschool Assessments • Benefits of Extended Learning Session (ELS) Reach and Access • Enrollment of Preschoolers in CPP Programs • Preschool-Aged Children Not Enrolled in CPP • Providers Participating in CPP • Providers Not Engaged with CPP • Preschooler Access to High-Quality Preschool Because of CPP TA Funding • Utilization of TA Funding • Availability and Utilization of High-Quality Preschools • Cost and Affordability of Quality Rated Preschools Teacher and Provider Wages • Importance of CPP’s Teacher Grants for Recruitment and Retention • Satisfaction with Job Fit, Environment, Pay and Benefits New Aspects of the Year Five Evaluation • Results of Peanut Butter and Jam (PB&J) Program Pilot • Preschooler Experience Survey (Qualitative Report) • Student-Teacher Perspectives on Future Employment in Early Childhood Education (Qualitative Report) • Provider Marketing and Enrollment Support Needs (Qualitative Report) • Aspects of Parental Trust in Preschool Providers (Qualitative Report)

1

The CPP defines high-quality preschool as a preschool that has received three-, four-, or five-stars on Ohio’s Step Up To Quality (SUTQ) quality rating system for child care Providers. High-quality preschools within the CPS footprint who meet CPP’s Provider guidelines can participate in CPP’s TA program.

6

The qualitative evaluation included focus groups and surveys with parents, teachers, and Providers participating in TA and QI programs as well as prospective parents and Providers could participate in CPP in the future. Select findings from the qualitative evaluation are included in this report. The standalone qualitative evaluation report entitled Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights on Early Learning and Cincinnati Preschool Promise 2021-22 addresses the following key areas: • Awareness of CPP • Understanding of CPP Benefits • Barriers to Enrolling or Engaging with CPP • Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families • Parent Perspectives on Quality and Kindergarten Readiness • Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding • Stakeholder Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports • Effectiveness of Providers Communicating to Families about CPP • Teacher Recruitment, Retention, and Pay Key findings are summarized below. Additional results, details, and definitions about CPP programming and the evaluation methodology are described within the main sections of the report.

Key Findings from the Year 5 Evaluation: Kindergarten Readiness • •

CPP TA participants were more frequently (73.0%) Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R compared to Non-CPP participants (63.4%).

Language and Literacy subtest results revealed that the percentage of CPP TA participants On Track for literacy by third grade was 45.4% compared to 41.4% of Non-CPP participants.

Preschooler Progress •

In 2021-22, preschoolers assessed showed preschool progress (i.e., maintained proficiency or improved on the Teaching Strategies GOLD® (TS Gold®) from Fall to Spring) at high frequency within the Social Emotional (84.8%), Physical (93.0%), Language (87.3%), Cognitive (84.2%), Literacy (90.4%), and Math (82.5%) domains of measurement.

Reach and Access •

As of June 2022, there were 212 Providers in the CPP Community Provider network representing 3,622 quality and high-quality seats, which is an increase from the previous year.

Tuition Assistance and Enrollment • •

In 2021-22, 907 preschoolers received CPP TA and were enrolled in high-quality preschools, an increase of 19.3% from 2020-21 to 2021-22.

As of June 2022, there were 139 TA Provider sites, a net increase of 25 compared to June 2021.

The new TA Providers represent a net increase of 80 additional high-quality seats for preschoolers.

Quality Improvement • •

In 2021-22, 23 CPP QI Providers reached high-quality and converted to TA preschools.

As of June 2022, there were 87 QI Provider sites, 33 of which were in quality gap neighborhoods.

7

Extended Learning Session •

A total of 487 children enrolled in the ELS program which operated from June 2021 through August 2021. On average, ELS students attended 82.8% of their scheduled school days, with 50.6% having an attendance of 90% or higher.

Teacher and Provider Wage Analysis •

Data pending the release of the Wage Analysis Report

Teacher and Provider Supports • •

To date, CPP has supported 190 lead preschool teachers at 89 Providers with the Teacher Promise Grant. Lead preschool teachers can receive up to $4,000 per year.

To date, CPP has supported 95 staff positions at 46 QI preschools with a Staff Support Fund of up to $3,000 per lead teacher not to exceed $18,000 per site.

CPP Plus •

•

Preschoolers attending Peanut Butter and Jam sessions showed improvement in observed behavior across 10 domains of measurement according to 95% of Providers and teachers who provided feedback.

Preschoolers attending Peanut Butter and Jam sessions made improvements from Fall to Spring in five domains with complete data measured by the TS GOLD® preschool assessment.

Community Stakeholder Experiences • •

•

Parents, teachers, and Providers from more than 50 unique preschool locations participated in focus groups, key informant interviews, or surveys.

Parents receiving TA were asked “Would you have been able to afford preschool if you had not received CPP TA?” A total of 73.3% said “none of the cost” and 20.0% responded “some of the cost.”

Highly educated teachers were more highly ranked as meaningful aspects of quality preschool this year than in the previous two years when TA parents ranked kindergarten preparation, safety, and social skills development as the top three aspects of quality preschool.

CPP Community Advisory Panel •

•

The diverse panel met monthly and represented both TA and QI stakeholders. The panel included two (2) Providers, two (2) teachers, two (2) parents, one (1) community consultant, and CPP’s Data and Evaluation Manager.

Panel members shared feedback on the 2022 evaluation plan, preschooler survey items, preschool attendance, participant outreach strategies, Provider and teacher wages, parent engagement, and other related topics.

8

Recommendations, Next Steps, and Opportunities INNOVATIONS recommends that CPP consider the following next steps and opportunities to continue to ensure equitable access to quality preschool education in Cincinnati. Note that some of the recommendations and next steps may be implemented with existing resources and capacity while others will require long-term planning, funding strategies, and partnerships.

•

Continue to Offer Programs and Supports that Make a Positive Impact on Children, Teachers, and Providers: CPP should continue to increase access and enrollment in quality preschool. Children who enrolled in CPP have greater outcomes in kindergarten readiness (KRA-R in CPS) compared to those who are not enrolled in preschool. Teachers and Providers benefit from teacher grants and other supports that support recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

•

Support Pipeline Development and Succession Planning for Teachers: Feedback from Providers indicates difficulty in hiring and retaining quality staff. Feedback from 80% of TA parents surveyed indicated that parents believe that a quality preschool has welltrained teachers.

•

Expand the Peanut Butter and Jam Program: Preschoolers in select sites who attended Peanut Butter and Jam showed improvement in observed behavior across 10 domains of measurement according to 95% of Providers and teachers who provided feedback. In addition, preschoolers attending PB&J made improvements from Fall to Spring in five domains measured by the preschool assessment, TS GOLD®.

•

Focus on Equity: CPP’s Board Equity Policy states a strong commitment to ensuring preschoolers with the fewest resources benefit from CPP. To do this, CPP can further enhance parent resources and information, especially in quality gap neighborhoods as this was identified as a consistent barrier to enrollment.

•

Define Kindergarten Readiness to Include the Whole Child: Social Emotional, Physical, and Cognitive domains are critical to a child’s kindergarten readiness as well as academic preparedness. CPP should continue to examine preschool outcomes that address these domains to gauge program effectiveness.

•

Consider an Attendance Initiative Pilot: Early education literature and assessment data from local preschoolers associate regular preschool attendance with improved outcomes in kindergarten. CPP should consider piloting an attendance initiative to support parents in promoting regular attendance for all preschoolers. This initiative may be timely as COVID-19 may have impacted preschool attendance for some preschoolers.

9

Kindergarten Readiness Measure The Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Revised (KRA-R) was used to evaluate the impact of CPP TA participation on kindergarten readiness against Non-CPP participants. The KRA-R measures academic readiness and literacy skills as well as Social Foundations (socio-emotional development), Mathematics, and Physical Well-Being and Motor Development. The KRA-R is administered to all kindergartners in the state of Ohio, including those within the CPS district, beginning as early as July 1 and ending no later than the twentieth day of instruction during the academic year.

The following analysis focus on the KRA-R composite score (overall KRA-R score) and the Language and Literacy subtest score. The composite scaled score (overall score) on the KRA-R is determined by a kindergartener’s set of skills and behaviors across four subtests. The KRA-R measures readiness through performance levels: Emerging Readiness (Scores of 0-257), Approaching Readiness (Scores of 258-269), and Demonstrating Readiness (Scores at or above 270). A scaled score of 263 and above on the Language and Literacy subtest indicates that a kindergartener is On Track for literacy in third grade. The Social Foundations, Mathematics, and Physical Well-Being and Motor Development subtests do not have scaled scores that correspond to performance levels to assess a kindergartener’s skills and behaviors within these specific areas. Other KRA-R subtest scores may be examined in the future to evaluate the impact of CPP TA participation on the subtests.

Sample A cohort of CPP community and CPS preschool expansion participants funded by CPP TA (hereafter referred to as CPP TA participants) was examined to understand the status of kindergarten readiness as assessed by the KRA-R. A total of 1,658 children who attended a CPP TA Provider program during the 2019-20 and/or 2020-21 school year met the age cutoff for the 2021-22 kindergarten cohort (child reached age five by September 30, 2021). Parental consent for 1,627 (98.1%) CPP TA participants was obtained for matching with CPS KRA-R scores, if available. Fourteen CPP TA participants matched to incomplete KRA-R tests. Preschoolers with missing or incomplete KRA-R scores were excluded from the analyses. Reasons a child would not match to a KRA-R score include enrollment in a school outside of the CPS district and inconsistent identifying information (e.g., name spelling, date of birth, race) across data sources.

A total of 582 CPP TA participants with consent completed the KRA-R at a CPS kindergarten in 2021-22. CPP TA participant KRA-R scores were compared to 2021-22 KRA-R scores of 1,982 Non-CPP participants; a cohort of CPS kindergartners who did not attend a CPP community Provider or CPS preschool (hereafter Non-CPP kindergarteners).

Regarding QI participants, a total of 14 QI participants who were eligible for kindergarten in 202122 had parental consent for matching with CPS KRA-R scores. Seven QI participants matched to KRA-R scores; therefore, analysis of QI participant KRA-R scores were not performed due to the sample size being below the minimum reporting sample size of 10 (as determined by CPS and FERPA guidelines). Efforts to collect QI participant consent forms will continue in order to understand QI participant preparation for kindergarten.

SES Quartiles: The Geocoding Process Socioeconomic characteristics were determined for all CPS kindergarteners who were administered the KRA-R in 2021-22, including the CPP TA participants. Residential addresses of kindergarteners were geocoded to determine their census tract. Considering the changing socioeconomic landscape of Cincinnati over the past decade, socioeconomic status (SES) quartile ratings were used as a proxy for income. Social factors have also been updated to align with more current metrics. Five SES indicators from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 10

- 5 Year Estimates were used to rank census tracts by socioeconomic risk: (1) median family income; (2) percent of the population 25 years of age or older with less education than a high school diploma; (3) percent of workers in unskilled and semiskilled occupations; (4) percent of children (under the age of 18) living in married-couple, family households; and (5) percent of housing units with more than one person per room. SES characteristics for Cincinnati city and metropolitan area census tracts were estimated using the methodology detailed in The Social Areas of Cincinnati (5th Ed.; Maloney & Auffrey, 2013).2 Ranked census tracts were divided into quartiles (SES 1-4), where lower SES quartiles have a higher concentration of families with socioeconomic risk factors.3 Figure 1 contains 581 geocoded CPP TA participants that attended preschool between 2019-20 and 2020-21 and completed the KRA-R in 2021-22 within CPS. One CPP TA participant was not plotted due to a lack of SES data. Participants were plotted and color-coded by SES quartile. The plotted points represent the addresses of CPP TA participants at the time of kindergarten.

Figure 1. Geocoded CPP TA 2021-22 KRA-R Cohort by SES Quartile

Map Layer Source: 2020 Cincinnati Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNA) created by Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS).

2

SES estimates conducted by INNOVATIONS in Community Research and Program Evaluation.

SES quartiles defined in Maloney & Auffrey (2013), Executive Summary (pg. ix): http://www.socialareasofcincinnati.org/files/FifthEdition/SASBook.pdf.

3

11

Demographics The demographic characteristics of the 2021-22 KRA-R cohort are shown in Table 1. Notable differences can be seen in the distribution of race, where CPP TA participants are disproportionately Black/African American (75.8%) compared to Non-CPP kindergartners (52.2%). Other differences were present between cohorts within White and Hispanic kindergarteners. The remaining racial distributions were relatively similar. The distribution of SES quartiles varied where 66.9% of CPP TA participants lived in low SES (SES 1 or SES 2) communities compared to 58.5% of Non-CPP kindergartners. CPP TA participants were comprised of fewer children from SES 4 communities (9.3%) than Non-CPP kindergartners (15.3%).

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of 2021-22 KRA-R Cohort CPP TA Non-CPP Participants Kindergarteners Demographic Group (N=582) (N=1,982) Gender Female 51.4% 49.4% Male 48.6% 50.6% Race Black/African American 75.8% 52.2% White 10.8% 26.4% Hispanic 5.8% 10.0% Asian 0.3% 1.0% American Indian 0.0% 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.2% Multi-Racial 7.0% 10.0% SES Quartile SES 1 35.1% 32.3% SES 2 31.8% 26.2% SES 3 23.7% 25.9% SES 4 9.3% 15.3% SES Unknown 0.2% 0.4% Overview of 2021-22 KRA-R Performance KRA-R outcomes for 2021-22 kindergarteners are illustrated below in Figures 2 and 3. CPP TA (N = 582) participants outperformed Non-CPP (N = 1,982) kindergartners, where 73.0% of CPP TA participants were Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R in 2021-22 compared to 63.4% of Non-CPP kindergartners (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by CPP TA Participation (2021-22) 60% 50%

42.1% 36.6%

40% 30%

27.0%

30.9%

33.6%

29.8%

20% 10% 0% CPP TA Participants (N=582) Emerging

Non-CPP Kindergartners (N=1,982)

Approaching

12

Demonstrating

Language and Literacy subtest results revealed that the percentage of CPP TA participants On Track for literacy by the third grade was 45.4% compared to 41.4% of Non-CPP kindergartners (Figure 3). Social Foundations subtest results showed that CPP TA participants scored 2.3 points higher than Non-CPP kindergarteners and average CPP TA participant scores were 272.0 points compared to 269.8 points for Non-CPP kindergarteners (subtest range: 202-298 points).

Figure 3. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by CPP TA Participation (2021-22) 60% 45.4%

50%

41.4%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CPP TA Participants (N=582)

Non-CPP Kindergartners (N=1,982)

Figures 4-5 show that CPP TA benefitted Black/African American, Hispanic, and MultiRacial/Other kindergartners more than White kindergartners. CPP TA participants were more frequently Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R compared to Non-CPP kindergarteners by 13.9 percentage points among Black/African American kindergarteners, 16.9 percentage points among Hispanic kindergarteners, and 16.6 percentage points among MultiRacial/Other kindergarteners (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by Race and CPP TA Participation 100% 80%

30.6%

20.3% 38.1%

21.6% 55.6%

70%

32.0%

38.2%

37.8%

42.2% 41.3%

40%

26.6%

30%

69.8%

45.5%

52.9%

41.2%

20% 10%

40.9%

38.6%

60% 50%

8.5%

8.8%

90%

27.2%

30.2%

20.6%

17.8%

CPP TA

Non-CPP

13.6%

0% CPP TA

Non-CPP

Black/Afr-Am

White Emerging

CPP TA

Non-CPP

Hispanic Approaching

CPP TA

Non-CPP

Multi-Racial/ Other

Demonstrating

Note. Sample sizes for CPP TA participants are 441 Black/African American, 63 White, 34 Hispanic, and 44 MultiRacial/Other. Sample sizes for Non-CPP kindergartners are 1,035 Black/African American, 523 White, 199 Hispanic, and 225 Multi-Racial/Other.

13

Likewise, CPP TA participants were more frequently On Track on the KRA-R Language and Literacy subtest compared to Non-CPP kindergarteners by 11.5 percentage points among Black/African American kindergarteners, 7.5 percentage points among Hispanic kindergarteners, and 3.7 percentage points among Multi-Racial/Other kindergarteners (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by Race and CPP TA Participation 80% 66.7%

70%

57.1%

60% 50%

47.7%

45.6%

44.0%

34.1%

40% 30%

17.6%

20%

10.1%

10% 0% Black/Afr-Am

White

Hispanic

CPP TA Participants

Multi-Racial/Other

Non-CPP Kindergartners

Note. Sample sizes for CPP TA participants are 441 Black/African American, 63 White, 34 Hispanic, and 44 MultiRacial/Other. Sample sizes for Non-CPP kindergartners are 1,035 Black/African American, 523 White, 199 Hispanic, and 225 Multi-Racial/Other.

Figures 6-7 displays that CPP TA participation was linked to stronger KRA-R performance than no CPP participation, primarily within lower SES quartiles (SES 1-2). CPP TA participants who live in higher SES census tracts (most notably SES 4) did not exhibit the same advantage against their peers.

CPP TA participants were more frequently Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R compared to Non-CPP kindergarteners by 19.7 percentage points among SES 1 and 14.8 percentage points among SES 2 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by SES and CPP TA Participation 100% 90%

14.8%

24.5%

25.5% 36.8%

80% 70%

38.0% 56.4%

36.6%

60% 50%

25.9%

33.3%

33.7% 42.6%

45.6% 36.2%

40%

34.5%

44.2%

25.4%

30% 48.6%

20% 10%

28.9%

41.8% 27.0%

22.5%

27.5%

31.5%

CPP TA

Non-CPP

CPP TA

18.2%

0% CPP TA

Non-CPP SES 1

CPP TA

Non-CPP SES 2

Emerging

SES 3

Approaching

Non-CPP SES 4

Demonstrating

Note. Sample sizes for CPP TA participants are 204 SES 1, 185 SES 2, 138 SES 3, and 54 SES 4. Sample sizes for Non-CPP kindergartners are 640 SES 1, 519 SES 2, 513 SES 3, and 303 SES 4.

14

Similarly, CPP TA participants were more frequently On Track on the KRA-R Language and Literacy subtest compared to Non-CPP kindergarteners by 12.5 percentage points among SES 1 and 14.5 percentage points among SES 2 (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by SES and CPP TA Participation 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

68.6% 52.9% 51.3%

50.3% 37.7%

37.0%

35.8% 25.2%

SES 1

SES 2

SES 3

CPP TA Participants

SES 4

Non-CPP Kindergartners

Note. Sample sizes for CPP TA participants are 204 SES 1, 185 SES 2, 138 SES 3, and 54 SES 4. Sample sizes for Non-CPP kindergartners are 640 SES 1, 519 SES 2, 513 SES 3, and 303 SES 4.

KRA-R results were further evaluated by both race and SES (Figures 8-9). Due to small sample sizes (N<10) for select SES and race groups, some comparisons were not included in the figures below. Sample sizes for each group can be viewed in Table 2.

Among Black/African American kindergarteners, CPP TA participants were Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R at a higher percentage than Non-CPP kindergartners within all SES quartiles (Figure 8). Among White kindergarteners, CPP TA participants only outperformed Non-CPP kindergarteners within SES 1 and 2. Outcomes for Hispanic and Multi-Racial/Other kindergarteners were limited due to small sample sizes. SES 1 Hispanic kindergarteners with CPP TA participation showed an advantage over their Non-CPP peers as did Multi-Racial/Other kindergarteners with CPP TA participation within SES 1 and SES 3.

Figure 8. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by Race, SES, and CPP TA Participation

CPP TA Non-CPP CPP TA

28.9%

39.5% 36.8%

41.4% 22.7% 34.9%

CPP TA

35.0% 43.3%

27.6% 16.3% 34.2%

37.4% 43.3%

21.2% 34.0%

39.2% 45.0% 35.8%

SES 1

44.2%

Non-CPP

Non-CPP

46.1%

SES 2

Non-CPP

26.3%

SES 3

CPP TA

White

25.9% 20.0%

SES 4

SES 4

SES 3

SES 2

SES 1

Black/African-American

20.9%

CPP TA

25.0%

Non-CPP

38.5%

CPP TA 10.5% Non-CPP CPP TA

23.8%

25.0%

36.5%

36.8%

34.1%

Non-CPP 13.2% CPP TA

50.0%

25.0% 52.6%

25.0%

40.9%

42.9% 31.2%

27.3%

Non-CPP 9.3% 20.1%

33.3% 55.6%

36.4%

36.4% 70.6%

Note. Comparisons are omitted if CPP TA sample sizes (Ns) are less than 10. Sample sizes can be viewed in Table 2.

15

Figure 8 (Continued). Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by Race, SES, and CPP TA Participation

45.8%

Non-CPP

45.8%

70.5%

SES 1

CPP TA

Multi-Racial/Other

8.3%

23.0%

SES 2

6.6%

CPP TA Omitted Non-CPP

SES 3

CPP TA Omitted Non-CPP CPP TA

SES 4

SES 4

SES 3

SES 2

SES 1

Hispanic

Omitted Non-CPP

CPP TA

31.3%

Non-CPP

37.5%

42.6%

31.3% 44.3%

13.1%

CPP TA Omitted Non-CPP

6.3%

CPP TA Non-CPP

56.3% 28.8%

37.5%

31.5%

39.7%

CPP TA Omitted Non-CPP

Note. Comparisons are omitted if CPP TA sample sizes (Ns) are less than 10. Sample sizes can be viewed in Table 2.

KRA-R Language and Literacy subtest outcomes closely mirrored those of the overall KRA-R. Black/African American kindergarteners with CPP TA participation were On Track in Language and Literacy at a greater frequency than their Non-CPP peers within SES 1-3 but not SES 4.

(Figure 9). A higher percentage of White kindergarteners with CPP TA participation were On Track compared to Non-CPP participants within SES 1 and 2. Additional relationships in favor of CPP TA participants were found among Hispanic and Multi-Racial/Other kindergarteners within SES 1. For more data from the KRA-R analysis, see Appendix A-B Figure 9. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by Race, SES, and CPP TA Participation 90%

80.9%

80%

68.4%

70%

40% 30%

57.1%

55.7%

60% 50%

69.3%

48.7% 40.1%

35.3%

40.9%

37.3% 30.0%

28.6%

41.7% 36.5%

54.5%

47.7%

20% 10% 0% SES 1

SES 2

SES 3

SES 4

Black/African-American

SES 1

SES 2

SES 3

SES 4

White

Note. Comparisons are omitted if CPP TA sample sizes (Ns) are less than 10. Sample sizes can be viewed in Table 2.

16

Figure 9 (Continued). Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by Race, SES, and CPP TA Participation 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

49.3%

43.8%

37.5% 24.6% 16.7% 9.0% Omitted SES 1

Omitted

SES 2

SES 3

Omitted

Omitted

SES 4

SES 1

Hispanic

SES 2

Omitted SES 3

SES 4

Multi-Racial/Other

CPP TA Participants

Non-CPP Kindergartners

Note. Comparisons are omitted if CPP TA sample sizes (Ns) are less than 10. Sample sizes can be viewed in Table 2.

Table 2. KRA-R Cohort Sample Sizes for CPP TA Participants and Non-CPP Kindergartners by Race and SES

Race Black/African American White Hispanic Multi-Racial/Other Total

SES 1 152 12 24 16 204

CPP TA Participants SES 2 SES 3 SES 4 152 97 40 19 21 11 5 4 1 9 16 2 185 138 54

Non-CPP Kindergartners SES 1 SES 2 SES 3 SES 4 405 326 232 67 52 88 189 194 122 50 19 7 61 55 73 35 640 519 513 303

Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression analyses were used to predict KRA-R outcomes using gender, race, SES, and CPP TA participation. A sample of 2,556 CPS kindergarteners from the 2021-22 KRA-R cohort were included in the analyses, excluding cases with missing predictor data (i.e., missing SES).

Two models were created: one to predict kindergarteners Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R (i.e., composite scores at or above 270) and the other to predict kindergarteners On Track in Language and Literacy (i.e., Language and Literacy subtest scores at or above 263).

Results from the first model indicated that gender, race, SES, and CPP TA participation were all statistically significant predictors for Demonstrating readiness on the KRA-R. Most notably, CPP TA participation increased the odds of Demonstrating readiness by 38.8% when statistically controlling for the other predictors. The second model yielded similar results. Gender, race, SES, and CPP TA participation were all statistically significant predictors for being On Track in Language and Literacy. CPP TA participation increased the odds of being On Track by 41.9% when statistically controlling for the other predictors.

The logistic models showed that race is a strong predictor of KRA-R performance (Table 3).

Controlling for other predictors, the odds of White kindergarteners Demonstrating readiness were 208.4% higher than Black/African American kindergarteners, 705.4% higher than Hispanic kindergarteners, and 95.9% higher than Multi-racial/Other kindergarteners. Likewise, the odds of White kindergarteners being On Track in Language and Literacy were 157.5% higher than Black/African American kindergarteners, 914.8% higher than Hispanic kindergarteners, and 17

105.5% higher than Multi-racial/Other kindergarteners. The odds of Black/African American kindergarteners Demonstrating readiness and being On Track in Language and Literacy were 161.1% higher and 294.1% higher than Hispanic kindergarteners, respectively. Lastly, the odds of Multi-racial/Other kindergarteners Demonstrating readiness were 311.2% higher than Hispanic kindergarteners and 57.5% higher than Black/African American kindergarteners, while their odds of being On Track were 393.9% higher than Hispanic kindergarteners and 25.3% higher than Black/African American kindergarteners.

Table 3. Percentage Difference in Odds of Demonstrating Readiness on the KRA-R and Being On Track in Language and Literacy: Comparisons by Race

Calculation Odds for White Kindergarteners Odds for Black/African American Kindergarteners Odds for Hispanic Kindergarteners Odds for Multiracial/Other Kindergarteners

% Difference in Odds of Demonstrating Readiness 208.4% higher than 705.4% higher than 95.9% higher than 67.6% lower than 161.1% higher than 36.5% lower than 87.6% lower than 61.7% lower than 75.7% lower than

% Difference in Odds of being On Track in Language and Literacy 157.5% higher than 914.8% higher than 105.5% higher than 61.2% lower than 294.1% higher than 20.2% lower than 90.1% lower than 74.6% lower than 79.8% lower than

Comparison Black/African American Hispanic Multiracial/Other White Hispanic Multiracial/Other White Black/African American Multiracial/Other

48.9% lower than 57.5% higher than 311.2% higher than

51.3% lower than 25.3% higher than 393.9% higher than

White Black/African American Hispanic

The findings for SES demonstrated the impact of social and economic factors on kindergarten readiness (Table 4). Controlling for all other predictors, the odds of an SES 4 kindergartener Demonstrating readiness were 42.7% higher than SES 3, 82.1% higher than SES 2, and 184.6% higher than SES 1. Additionally, the odds of an SES 4 kindergartener being On Track were 33.8% higher than SES 3, 84.3% higher than SES 2, and 162.7% higher than SES 1 when controlling for other predictors.

Table 4. Percentage Difference in Odds of Demonstrating Readiness on the KRA-R and Being On Track in Language and Literacy: Comparisons by SES

Calculation Odds for SES 1 Kindergarteners Odds for SES 2 Kindergarteners Odds for SES 3 Kindergarteners Odds for SES 4 Kindergarteners

% Difference in Odds of Demonstrating Readiness 36.0% lower than 49.9% lower than 64.9% lower than 56.3% higher than 21.7% lower than 45.1% lower than 99.4% higher than 27.6% higher than 29.9% lower than 184.6% higher than 82.1% higher than 42.7% higher than

18

% Difference in Odds of being On Track in Language and Literacy 29.8% lower than 49.1% lower than 61.9% lower than 42.5% higher than 27.4% lower than 45.8% lower than 96.3% higher than 37.7% higher than 25.3% lower than 162.7% higher than 84.3% higher than 33.8% higher than

Comparison SES 2 SES 3 SES 4 SES 1 SES 3 SES 4 SES 1 SES 2 SES 4 SES 1 SES 2 SES 3

Preschooler Progress Evidence of the progress that preschoolers enrolled in CPP are making can be observed during their first years of early education. A preschool progress measure, the Teaching Strategies GOLD® (TS GOLD®), was incorporated into the evaluation to understand the impact of a highquality preschool experience on CPP preschoolers receiving TA. INNOVATIONS examined the overall pre- (fall) and post-assessment (spring) scores of CPP preschoolers assessed.4 TS GOLD® is a formative assessment administered multiple times per year through which teachers document observations of a preschooler’s developmental level and growth along multiple domains of learning. This assessment was selected due to its common administration to TA preschoolers attending CPS and Head Start Providers. TS GOLD® documents a preschooler’s development as Below, Meeting, or Exceeding expectations along six domains: Social-Emotional, Physical, Language, Cognitive, Literacy, and Mathematics.

Deidentified TS GOLD® scores were acquired for 2021-22 preschoolers. The cohort included preschoolers who attended select CPP community preschools or CPS preschools. TS GOLD® results were summarized by domain (Social-Emotional, Physical, Math, Language and Literacy).

Preschool progress was defined as when a preschooler maintained or exceeded expectations on TS GOLD® subtest(s) within the domain or improved on the TS GOLD® from Fall to Spring.

Measures of preschool progress are summarized below: Preschool Assessment Scores for 2020-21 Deidentified preschool assessment data were obtained from 33 CPP TA Providers representing 67 classrooms throughout the CPS footprint. Of these classrooms, 43.3% were within the CPP Community Provider network. As seen in Figure 10, preschoolers (N = 355) from CPP participating preschools showed universal improvement across all TS GOLD® domains from the Fall 2020 to Spring 2021. By Spring, preschoolers were Meeting or Exceeding expectations at a frequency of 82.5% or higher. Mathematics showed the largest amount of growth from Fall to Spring with an increase of 49.1 percentage points, followed by Literacy with an increase of 40.4 percentage points.

Figure 10. Percent of Preschoolers Meeting or Exceeding Expectations TS GOLD® - Fall to Spring 2021-22 (N = 355) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

93.0% 84.8%

87.3%

90.4% 82.5%

73.0% 56.6%

52.4%

46.7%

50.0% 33.4%

Social Emotional

Physical

Language Fall

4

84.2%

Cognitive

Literacy

Mathematics

Spring

https://teachingstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-Tech-Manual_GOLD.pdf

19

Reach and Access Cincinnati Preschool Promise Providers are located throughout the Cincinnati area with representation in quality gap neighborhoods. As defined in the RAND report5, quality gap neighborhoods are areas where the number or preschool-aged children exceeds the available high-quality seats by 100 seats or more. As of June 30, 2022, there were 212 Providers in the CPP network representing 3,622 quality and high-quality seats6 (Figure 11). There were a total of 110 Providers in quality gap neighborhoods (Table 5). Additional analyses of high-quality seat capacity are pending and will be updated in CPP’s Year 6 Evaluation.

Table 5. Total CPP Providers and Seats Funding Type QI TA

Current Number of Providers 73* 139

Number of Providers in Quality Gap Neighborhoods 33 76

Total Preschool Seats Reported on Provider CPP Application 611 3,011

Total

212

110

3,622

*Excludes QI Providers that converted to TA

Figure 11. CPP Tuition Assistance (TA) and Quality Improvement (QI) Preschools in 2021-22

Map Layer Source: 2020 Cincinnati Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNA) created by Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS).

5

Karoly, Lynn A., Anamarie Auger, Courtney Ann Kase, Robert C. McDaniel, and Eric W. Rademacher. "Options for investing in access to high-quality preschool in Cincinnati" (2016).

6 High-quality seats are seats in preschools that have a 3, 4, or 5 Ohio SUTQ star-rating. Quality seats are seats in preschools that are either unrated or have a 1 or 2 Ohio SUTQ star-rating.

20

Tuition Assistance and Enrollment CPP Providers who are 3, 4, or 5 star rated by Ohio’s Step Up To Quality (SUTQ) child care quality rating system are approved to receive Tuition Assistance (TA) reimbursements from CPP for eligible preschoolers enrolled in their programs. The number of CPP Providers that have been approved to receive TA reimbursements has increased each year of the program (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Number of Approved CPP TA Providers per Year 160 139 140 114 120 100 83 80 57 60 40 40 20 0 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

Preschoolers Receiving Tuition Assistance The number of preschoolers enrolled receiving CPP TA reimbursements increased from 2020-21 to 2021-22 by 19.3% (Figure 13). Enrollment experienced set-backs due to COVID-19 during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years but has recovered in 2021-22.

Figure 13. Number of Preschoolers Enrolled in CPP TA Preschools 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

951

839

907 760

622

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

Note. Preschoolers included in count if enrolled with at least 1 day of attendance. Enrollment may have been affected by COVID-19 during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school-years.

Preschooler Demographics Preschoolers enrolled in TA preschools were 50.9% female, mostly African American/Black (69.3%), and typically live in homes where English is the primary language (85.6% of 708 with spoken language data). The majority (93.5%) of preschool children reside in a permanent residence and many (68.4%) have a total of 4 or fewer household members. A group of preschoolers had their income requirement waived (33.6%). A preschooler may have their income requirement waived if they have already met the income requirements for the Ohio Department of Education (requiring 200% FPL or below), Publicly Funded Child Care (requiring 130% FPL or below), or Head Start (requiring 185% FPL or below). Of the 602 that did not have their income requirement waived, 61.0% were from households with an income that is less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (Table 6). Additional demographic data for prior years can be viewed in Appendix C. 21

Table 6. Demographics of Preschoolers Enrolled in CPP TA Preschools for 2021-22 Demographic Gender

Race

Language Spoken at Home

Housing Status

Group

Count

Percent

Valid Percent

Female

458

50.5%

51.5%

Male

432

47.6%

48.5%

Gender Unknown

17

1.9%

African American/Black

629

69.3%

White

67

7.4%

7.5%

Hispanic

136

15.0%

15.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

9

1.0%

1.0%

Asian or Pacific Islander

5

0.6%

0.6%

Other

49

5.4%

5.5%

Race Unknown

12

1.3%

English

606

66.8%

85.6%

Spanish

74

8.2%

10.5%

French

2

0.22%

0.3% 3.7%

Other

26

2.9%

Language Unknown Lives in a Permanent Residence

199

21.9%

846

93.3%

93.5%

Foster Care

10

1.1%

1.1%

Homeless

13

1.4%

1.4%

Unaccompanied Youth

0

0.0%

0.0%

Other

36

4.0%

4.0%

Housing Status Unknown Household Size

Eligibility Tier

70.3%

2

0.2%

2 Residents

153

16.9%

16.9%

3 Residents

224

24.7%

24.7%

4 Residents

243

26.8%

26.8%

5 Residents

147

16.2%

16.2%

More than 5 in Household

140

15.4%

15.4%

Household size Unknown

0

0.0%

<100

367

40.5%

61.0%

100-130

67

7.4%

11.1%

131-200

125

13.8%

20.8%

201-250

29

3.2%

4.8% 2.3%

251-300

14

1.5%

Income Requirement Waived

305

33.6%

22

Applications for Tuition Assistance In 2021-22, 78.7% of CPP TA preschool applications were approved (Figure 14). The approval rate remains similar to 2019-20 and 2020-21 rates. The reasons for application denial are presented in Figure 15. The figure indicates that the primary reasons for denial in 2021-22 were due to the child being too young for enrollment (35.5%) or their address was not located in the district (38.6%).

Figure 14. Number of Approved CPP TA Applications per Year 100%

88.9%

84.0%

76.7%

80%

78.7%

76.3%

60% 40%

23.3%

16.0%

20%

23.7%

21.3%

11.1%

0% 2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

Approved

2020-21

2021-22

Not Approved

Note. Applications that are “Not Approved” can refer to those that are denied, inactive, pending or referred to Cincinnati Public Schools.

Figure 15. Reason for Denied CPP TA Applications per Year 100% 90%

26.6%

29.6%

80% 70%

54.8%

4.9% 32.9%

18.5%

40%

12.1%

10%

12.0%

Too Old

13.3%

Provider Not a CPP TA Partner

0.6%

8.5% 17.2%

30% 20%

Too Young

2.5% 8.6%

60% 50%

35.5%

41.1% 7.6%

Income Too High

5.1% 30.4%

38.3%

38.6%

38.3% 22.9%

0%

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

23

2021-22

Address not in District

Preschooler Attendance Rates The average attendance rate (total days attended/total days scheduled) for 2021-22 CPP TA preschoolers was 85.4%. Figure 16 indicates that attendance rates have remained stable from year to year, apart from 2019-20 when COVID-19 shutdowns went into effect during the latter half of the school year.

Figure 16. CPP TA Preschooler Attendance Rates 100%

83.4%

86.0%

85.4%

2020-21

2021-22

83.9%

80%

65.4%

60% 40% 20% 0% 2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

Note. Attendance rates are calculated by dividing CPP TA preschoolers’ total days attended by their total days scheduled.

Tuition Assistance Spending The total amount of TA reimbursed to Providers in 2021-22 was $5.26 million (Figure 17). The average annual TA reimbursement per preschooler was $4,519 (Figure 18) and the average monthly TA reimbursement per preschooler was $600 (Figure 19).

Figure 18. Avg Annual CPP TA Figure 19. Avg Monthly CPP TA Dollars (per Preschooler) Dollars (per Preschooler)

1,000 500 0

0.0 Fiscal Year

442

400 300 200 100 0

Fiscal Year

24

Fiscal Year

21-22

1,500

535

20-21

2,000

509

491

19-20

21-22

20-21

19-20

18-19

1.0

2,500

500

18-19

2.16 2.0

Avg TA Dollars

3.0

3,000

20-21

3.70 3.71

3,489 3,595

18-19

3.41

600 600

3,863

3,500

17-18

4.0

Avg TA Dollars

4,000

17-18

TA Dollars (Millions)

5.0

700

4,519

4,387

4,500

19-20

5.26

17-18

5,000

6.0

21-22

Figure 17. Total CPP TA Dollars/Year (per School Year)

Geography and Reach Tuition Assistance Providers are located throughout the Cincinnati area with representation in quality gap areas. There were 114 Tuition Assistance Provider locations in 2020-21 and 139 in 2021-22, a net increase of 25 additional high-quality Providers added since last year (Table 7). The new TA Providers represent a net increase of 80 additional high-quality seats for preschoolers, according to data submitted by TA Providers on their most recent CPP application. There are now 76 TA Providers in quality gap areas representing 1,037 high-quality seats, an increase of 75 high-quality seats since 2020-21 (Figure 20).

Table 7. CPP TA Providers

Program Year Number of TA Providers as of 2017-18

Total Number of TA Providers 40

TA Providers in Quality Gap Neighborhoods 16

Net Increase in TA Providers -

Number of TA Providers as of 2018-19

57

26

17

Number of TA Providers as of 2019-20

83

42

26

Number of TA Providers as of 2020-21

114

63

31

Number of TA Providers as of 2021-22

139

76

25

Figure 20. CPP Tuition Assistance (TA) Providers Added in 2021-22

Map Layer Source: 2020 Cincinnati Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNA) created by Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS).

25

Quality Improvement Quality Improvement (QI) Providers are either unrated or have a 1 or 2 SUTQ star rating.

Through CPP, approved QI Providers received tangible support and coaching to improve quality and increase the number of high-quality preschool seats in the CPP network.

Quality Improvement Provider Network Growth CPP’s network of approved QI Providers included 87 preschools during the 2021-22 academic year (Figure 21).

Figure 21. Number of CPP QI Approved Providers per Year 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

135 119

106

87

26

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

Quality Improvement to Tuition Assistance Conversions CPP QI Providers can be converted to a TA Provider upon earning a three-, four-, or five-star SUTQ rating. QI Providers who are still working to reach a high-quality star rating are described as non-converted for the purpose of the following analysis. During fiscal year 2021-22, CPP converted a total of 23 Providers from QI preschools to TA preschools (Figure 22). Among the converted, 14 were Active QI Providers during the fiscal year and 9 were Inactive QI Providers from a prior fiscal year that returned as a TA approved Provider.

Figure 22. Number of CPP QI Providers Converted to TA Providers per Year 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Total 33

Total 25

3

Total 23

3

Total 10

9 30 2

22 14

8 2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

Fiscal Year Inactive QI Converted to TA During Fiscal Year Active QI Converted to TA During Fiscal Year Note. Active QI Providers converted to TA during the fiscal year refer to QI Approved Providers whose QI Inactive date and TA Approval date occurred in the same fiscal year. Inactive QI Providers refer to QI Approved Providers whose QI Inactive date occurred in an earlier fiscal year than their TA Approval date. To date, 91 QI Providers have converted to TA Providers. Names of converted Providers are listed in Appendix D.

26

Geography and Reach Quality Improvement (QI) Providers are located throughout the Cincinnati area with representation in quality gap neighborhoods. Figure 23 illustrates the 87 QI Providers in 2021-22, including those of which that converted to TA Providers during the school year.

As of June 30, 2022, there were 33 non-converted QI Providers in quality gap neighborhoods (Table 8).

Table 8. CPP QI Providers

Program Year

Total Number of QI Providers1

Active QI Converted to TA

Inactive QI Converted to TA2

Non-Converted QI Providers in Quality Gap Neighborhoods

2017-18

26

-

-

13

2018-19

106

8

2

53

2019-20

135

22

3

60

2020-21

119

30

3

45

87

14

9

33

2021-22 1

Total number includes QI Providers that converted to TA. 2 Not shown in map below (Figure 23).

Figure 23. CPP Quality Improvement (QI) Providers and Tuition Assistance (TA) Conversions in 2021-22

Map Layer Source: 2020 Cincinnati Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNA) created by Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS).

27

Teacher and Provider Wage Analysis INNOVATIONS examined factors that impact teacher recruitment, retention, and pay to understand opportunities for actions and policies that may improve access to high-quality preschool by ensuring teachers and Providers have adequate support and pay.

Teacher and Provider Supports Teacher Promise Grant CPP provides Teacher Promise Grants (TPG) of up to $4,000 directly to individual preschool teachers at TA preschools as a method to supplement teacher wages and support retention and recruitment. To date, CPP has supported 190 lead preschool teachers at 89 TA preschools. Of the 86 lead preschool teachers receiving TPG in 2021-22, 82 recipients completed 12 months of service – a retention rate of 95.3%.

Survey Results A total of 12 TA teacher survey respondents identified as lead teachers. Eight (66.7%) indicated that they had received a TPG. Of those receiving a TPG, seven (87.5%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the TPG had an impact on them staying with their employer.

Staff Support Fund CPP awards Staff Support Funds (SSF) to preschools, with the amount determined by the number of staff. This program aims to support staff wages, health benefits, and education. To date, CPP has supported 95 staff positions at 46 QI preschools with a SSF of up to $3,000 per lead teacher not to exceed $18,000 per site.

Survey Results Through focus groups and surveys, QI Providers who received SSF from CPP were asked to share how the funds were used in their preschools. Two of seven QI Provider participants reported that have received SSF and used them to increase wages for staff and provide staff benefits.

Other QI Provider participants shared that they haven’t applied or planned to apply for SSF soon.

Additional data are pending the release of the 2021-22 Wage Analysis Report.

28

Extended Learning Session Cincinnati Preschool Promise offered an Extended Learning Session (ELS) for preschoolers who were enrolled and active at a CPP TA Provider during the 2020-21 academic year to continue supporting the preschoolers’ education in preparation for kindergarten. Preschoolers who were not enrolled and active at a CPP TA Provider during the 2021-22 academic year were not eligible to participate. The ELS took place during the months of June 2021-August 2021. CPP recognized the importance of an ELS during 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted learning for most children. The ELS continued to be offered this year in response to positive parent feedback and demand for the ELS shown in 2020. A total of 84 CPP TA Providers participated in ELS in 2021.

A total of 487 preschoolers enrolled in an ELS program in the summer of 2021 (academic year 2020-21). On average, ELS preschoolers attended 82.8% of their scheduled school days, with 50.6% having an attendance of 90% or higher. Demographic characteristics of the ELS cohort were similar to those of the general sample (Table 9).

Table 9. Demographics of Preschoolers Enrolled in ELS Preschools for 2020-21 Demographic Gender

Group Female

Count 255

Percent 52.4%

Valid Percent 52.5%

231

47.4%

47.5%

1

0.2%

African American/Black

379

77.8%

78.8%

White

31

6.4%

6.4%

Hispanic

34

7.0%

7.1%

Asian or Pacific Islander

3

0.6%

0.6%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

2

0.4%

0.4%

Other

32

6.6%

6.7%

Race Unknown

6

1.2%

English

383

78.6%

89.7%

Spanish

34

7.0%

8.0%

Other

10

2.1%

2.3%

Language Unknown

60

12.3%

Lives in a Permanent Residence

Male Gender Unknown Race

Language Spoken at Home

Housing Status

Household Size

459

94.3%

94.3%

Foster Care

5

1.0%

1.0%

Homeless

5

1.0%

1.0%

Unaccompanied Youth

0

0.0%

0.0%

Other

18

3.7%

3.7%

Housing Status Unknown

0

0.0%

2 Residents

103

21.1%

21.1%

3 Residents

136

27.9%

27.9%

4 Residents

124

25.5%

25.5%

5 Residents

70

14.4%

14.4%

More than 5 in Household

54

11.1%

11.1%

Household size Unknown

0

0.0%

29

Table 9 (Continued). Demographics of Preschoolers Enrolled in ELS Preschools for 2020-21 Demographic Eligibility Tier

Group <100

Count 173

Percent 35.5%

Valid Percent 62.9%

100-130

22

4.5%

8.0%

131-200

63

12.9%

22.9%

201-250

10

2.1%

3.6%

7

1.4%

2.5%

212

43.5%

251-300 Income Requirement Waived

The total TA reimbursement paid to Providers between June 2021 and August 2021 was $767,509. From June through August 2021, the average TA reimbursement per student was $1,586 and the average monthly TA reimbursement per preschooler was $569. As of June 30, 2022, there have been 86 ELS Providers to date as highlighted in the map below, 84 of which were active in 2021 (Figure 24).

Figure 24. CPP Extended Learning Session (ELS) Preschools as of June 30, 2022

Map Layer Source: 2020 Cincinnati Statistical Neighborhood Approximations (SNA) created by Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS).

30

KRA-R Performance for ELS Participants A total of 110 CPP TA participants who participated in the ELS (hereafter ELS participants) had parental consent and matched to a complete KRA-R score at CPS in 2021-22. Assessment scores of ELS participants were compared to 2021-22 KRA-R scores of 472 Non-ELS participants; a cohort of CPP TA participants that did not participate in ELS in 2020-21.

ELS participants were less frequently Approaching or Demonstrating readiness on the overall KRA-R (69.4%) than Non-ELS participants (74.2%; Figure 25). Fewer ELS participants were On Track in Language and Literacy (34.3%) than Non-ELS participants (48.8%; Figure 26).

Figure 25. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by ELS Participation

Figure 26. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by ELS Participation 60%

60% 47.3%

50% 40% 30%

32.6%

40%

29.1%

26.5%

23.6%

20%

10%

10%

0%

Emerging

0%

ELS (N=110)

Approaching

34.5%

30%

20%

Non-ELS* (N=472)

47.9%

50%

40.9%

Non-ELS* (N=472)

ELS (N=110)

Demonstrating

*CPP TA participants that did not participate in ELS

The impact of ELS participation told a different story when viewed within the lens of dosage. That is, ELS participants who attended 90% or more of their scheduled days showed stronger performance in relation to those below 90% attendance (Figures 27-28). Furthermore, ELS participants with 90% attendance or higher were Approaching or Demonstrating readiness at a rate of 75.5% compared to 73.5% of Non-ELS students. The percentage of ELS participants with 90% attendance or higher On Track in Language and Literacy was 42.2% compared to 47.9% of Non-ELS students.

Figure 27. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by Figure 28. Percentage On Track in Language ELS Participation and Percent of Scheduled and Literacy by ELS Participation and Percent Days Attended of Scheduled Days Attended 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

60% 32.6%

23.1%

24.4%

50%

47.9% 42.2%

40% 40.9%

51.1%

44.6%

26.5%

24.4%

32.3%

Non-ELS (N=472)

ELS Attended 90% or More (N=45)

ELS Attended Less than 90% (N=65)

29.2%

30% 20%

Emerging

Approaching

10%

Demonstrating

31

0% Non-ELS* (N=472)

ELS ELS Attended 90% Attendance or More Less than 90% (N=45) (N=65)

Figures 29-30 display KRA-R performance within the context of SES, ELS participation, and dosage. A noticeable advantage was present among SES 1 ELS participants with 90% attendance or higher (89.5% Approaching or Demonstrating; 42.1% On Track) compared to NonELS (67.9% Approaching or Demonstrating; 38.2% On Track). A minor advantage was present among SES 2 ELS participants with 90% attendance or higher in Language and Literacy but not for KRA-R overall. Specifically, 53.8% of those with 90% attendance or higher were On Track compared to 52.7% of Non-ELS. Relationships for SES 3 and 4 were limited due to small sample sizes.

Figure 29. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels by SES, ELS Participation, and Percent of Scheduled Days Attended 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

25.5%

21.1%

30.0%

50.0%

36.5%

20.0%

24.3%

10.5%

33.3%

28.6%

43.8%

45.8%

45.2%

42.2% 46.2%

32.1%

36.2%

38.5%

15.4%

42.4% 68.4%

18.8%

20.8% 39.2%

37.5% 21.6%

Omitted

26.2%

Omitted Omitted

ELS ELS ELS ELS ELS ELS ELS ELS Non-ELS Attended Attended Non-ELS Attended Attended Non-ELS Attended Attended Non-ELS Attended Attended < 90% < 90% < 90% < 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90% ≥ 90% SES 1

SES 2 Emerging

SES 3 Approaching

SES 4

Demonstrating

Note. Data are omitted if sample size is below 10. Sample sizes for Non-ELS students were 165 SES 1, 148 SES 2, 116 SES 3, and 42 SES 4. Sample sizes for ELS Students with 90% attendance or higher were 19 SES 1, 13 SES 2, 6 SES 3, and 7 SES 4. Sample sizes for ELS Students less than 90% attendance were 20 SES 1, 24 SES 2, 16 SES 3, and 5 SES 4.

Figure 30. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy by SES, ELS Participation, and Percent of Scheduled Days Attended 70% 42.9%

42.1% 33.3%

30.0%

25.0%

30% 20% 10%

SES 3

SES 4

Omitted

38.2%

Omitted

40%

Omitted

50%

56.9%

52.7% 53.8%

60%

0% SES 1

SES 2 Non-ELS

ELS Attended ≥ 90%

ELS Attended < 90%

Note. Data are omitted if sample size is below 10. Sample sizes for Non-ELS students were 165 SES 1, 148 SES 2, 116 SES 3, and 42 SES 4. Sample sizes for ELS Students with 90% attendance or higher were 19 SES 1, 13 SES 2, 6 SES 3, and 7 SES 4. Sample sizes for ELS Students less than 90% attendance were 20 SES 1, 24 SES 2, 16 SES 3, and 5 SES 4.

KRA-R outcomes by Race, ELS participation and percent of scheduled days attended are not shown due to small ELS sample sizes for White, Hispanic, and Multi-Racial/Other students (N < 10). Additional findings can be viewed in Appendix E. The Year 6 Evaluation will report the updated total of ELS Providers that have participated since 2020 as well as KRA-R outcomes for ELS participants that participated June-August 2022 and completed a KRA-R at CPS during the 2022-22 academic year.

32

CPP Plus: Supporting Learning Through Music in the Classroom Peanut Butter & Jam In 2021, CPP held a Pitch Night event to identify a service that could impact one of four focus areas: kindergarten readiness, improving community schools, early childhood education workforce, and COVID-19 recovery. Peanut Butter & Jam (PB&J) was the winner of Pitch Night.

PB&J is an interactive music program designed for preschoolers to learn through singing classical nursery songs, dancing, and working with musical instruments. Research has shown that music programs can have a beneficial impact on the development of children’s executive functions (e.g., planning, working memory, inhibitory control) and academic skills and may influence academic performance outcomes.7 Research has also shown improvement of children’s behavior and social skills after participating in music and movement programming.8 PB&J provided special in-school programming to six preschools through the partnership with CPP. The program lasted for a duration of 30 weeks with one visit per week for a total of 30 hours of programming per classroom between October 2021 and May 2022.

The evaluation of PB&J consisted of two parts. First, 11 teachers and directors completed a survey regarding their observed behaviors of preschoolers who attended the sessions (Table 10).

Table 10. Peanut Butter and Jam Preschool Sites and Survey Participants

Preschool Site Corban Divine First Fruits Nanny’s Set for Success Little Treehouse

Survey Participants 2 Teachers, 1 Director 1 Teacher 1 Director 1 Director 1 Director 3 Teachers, 1 Director

7

Dumont, E., Syurina, E. V., Feron, F. J., & van Hooren, S. (2017). Music Interventions and Child Development: A critical Review and Further Development. Frontiers Psychology, 8(1694). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01694 8

Lobo, Y. B. & Winsler, A. (2006). The effects of a creative dance and movement program on the social competence of Head Start preschooelrs. Social Development, 15, 501-519.

33

Preschoolers attending PB&J showed improvement in observed behavior across all domains of measurement according to 95% of Providers and teachers who provided feedback (Table 11).

Survey items spanned 10 domains of measurement related to the TS GOLD© domains and responses were tallied across respondents. Participants were asked to endorse each item based on the question, “Please indicate if the PB&J program has made a positive impact on your preschoolers in the following domains.” Respondents could select “yes” or “no”. Results by item and domain are listed in Table 11. Summary scores by domain are: 1) Social Emotional 96.4%, 2) Physical 100.0%, 3) Language 98.4%, 4) Cognitive 95.8%, 5) Literacy 83.0%, 6) Mathematics 95.5%, 7) Science and Technology 100.0%, 8) Social Studies 96.7%, 9) The Arts 97.7%, 10) English Language Acquisition 100.0%.

Table 11. Peanut Butter and Jam Survey Scores by Domain Social-Emotional Manages feelings Follows limits and expectations Takes care of own needs appropriately Forms relationships with adults Responds to emotional cues Interacts with peers Makes friends Participates cooperatively and constructively in group settings Balances needs and rights of self and others Solves social problems

# of Yes Responses 10 11 10 11 11 11 11 11

90.91% 100.00% 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

10

90.91%

%

10 90.91% Average for Domain 10.6 96.36% # of Yes % Responses 11 100.00% 11 100.00%

Average for Domain Physical Demonstrates traveling skills Demonstrates balancing skills Demonstrates gross-motor manipulative skills

11

Demonstrates fine-motor strength Uses fingers and hands

100.00%

11 100.00% 11 100.00% Average for Domain 11 100.00% # of Yes % Responses

Average for Domain Language Listens to and understands increasingly complex language

11

100.00%

Comprehends language Follows directions Uses language to express thoughts and needs

10 11

90.91% 100.00%

11

100.00%

Uses an expanding expressive vocabulary

11

100.00%

Speaks clearly Uses conventional grammar Tells about another time or place

11 11 11

100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

34

Uses appropriate conversational and other communication skills Engages in conversation Uses social rules of language

10

90.91%

11 100.00% 11 100.00% Average for Domain 10.82 98.36% # of Yes % Responses

Average for Domain Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning

11

100.00%

Attends and engages Persists Solves Problems Shows curiosity and motivation Shows flexibility and motivation Remembers and connects experiences Recognizes and recalls Makes connections Uses classification skills Uses symbols and images to represent something not present

11 10 9 11 11 11 11 11 10

100.00% 90.91% 81.82% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 90.91%

9

81.82%

Thinks symbolically Engages in sociodramatic play

11 100.00% 11 100.00% Average for Domain 10.54 95.82% # of Yes % Responses

Average for Domain Literacy Demonstrates phonological awareness, phonics, word recognition

10

90.91%

Notices and discriminates rhyme Notices and discriminates alliteration

10 9

90.91% 81.82%

Notices and discriminates discrete units of sound

11

100.00%

Applies phonics to concepts and knowledge of word structure

8

72.73%

Demonstrates knowledge of the alphabet

9

81.82%

Identifies letter-sound correspondence

8

72.73%

Retells stories and recounts details from informational texts

8

72.73%

Average for Domain 9.13 83.00% # of Yes % Responses 10 90.91% 11 100.00% Average for Domain 10.5 95.45%

Average for Domain Mathematics Understands spatial relationships Demonstrates knowledge of patterns Average for Domain

35

Science and Technology Uses tools and other technology to perform tasks

# of Yes Responses

%

11

100.00%

Average for Domain 11 100.00% # of Yes % Responses 11 100.00%

Average for Domain Social Studies Demonstrates knowledge about self Shows basic understanding of people and how they live

11

100.00%

Explore changes related to familiar people or places

9

90.00%

Average for Domain The Arts Explores the visual arts Explores musical concepts and expression Explore dance and movement concepts Explores drama through actions and language Average for Domain English Language Acquisition

Average for Domain 10.33 96.67% # of Yes % Responses 10 90.91% 11 100.00% 11 100.00% 11 100.00% Average for Domain 10.75 97.73% # of Yes % Responses

Demonstrates progress in listening to and understanding English

11

100.00%

Demonstrates progress in speaking in English

11

100.00%

Average for Domain 11 100.00%

Average for Domain Domain Totals

10.47

95.36%

Survey participants also provided the following qualitative feedback about the program: “The exposure to music and song was amazing. They worked on patterns and rounds. The kids were so excited to see the teacher each week. One of the kids went to the end of the year performance and she said it was so much fun. The kids’ circle listening skills got better from the beginning to the end.” – CPP teacher “Peanut Butter and Jam exposes our children to a variety of music. The songs encourage repetition and help build memory. Children express themselves through dance and movement; there is an increase in confidence and imagination.” – CPP Provider

36

“PB & Jam Sessions mean a great deal to my class and provide a valuable service to the community as well. Children are offered an opportunity to engage with instruments and hear music that stimulates the brain for learning. Children love music and learn through movement.

This program is truly an asset to any early childhood education program. The children are always excited to see Ms. Elizabeth each week and practice musical skills that contribute to their development and kindergarten readiness.” – CPP teacher

“PB & Jam is a great way for our kids to explore music and movement. I believe the exposure to music has a wonderful impact on our community.” – CPP Provider 37

“The children have been listening, following directions, and working cooperatively through music and movement. The group performances impacted the community by inviting families to experience what the children are learning. I am pleased and impressed with Ms. Elizabeth and the program she provides.” – CPP teacher “Peanut Butter and Jam Sessions have brought joy to the children’s faces, [provided] opportunities for the children to learn to follow multi-step directions using songs and movement in nontraditional ways. It also has helped to calm children and they learn to work with other children by sharing and taking turns. We absolutely love it. It also helps the teachers to incorporate more music and learning.” - CPP Provider

The second part of the PB&J evaluation examined 26 program participants’ progress in six domains of the TS GOLD® preschool assessment. These preschoolers made improvements from Fall to Spring in five domains of measurement according to the TS GOLD® preschool assessment (Table 12).

Table 12. Peanut Butter and Jam TS GOLD® Assessment Outcomes (N=26) Pre-Test

Post-Test

Meeting or Exceeding

Meeting or Exceeding

% Improved

Social-Emotional

84.6%

100.0%

15.4%

Physical

84.6%

80.8%

-3.8%

Language

84.6%

96.2%

11.6%

Cognitive

69.2%

92.3%

23.1%

Domain

Literacy 80.7% 92.3% 11.6% Mathematics 73.0% 92.3% 19.3% Note: A Fall test was unavailable for seven participants. Their Winter test was used as the Pre-Test.

38

Community Stakeholder Experiences INNOVATIONS conducted focus groups with 60 preschool parents, teachers, and Providers during the spring of 2022. An additional 185 surveys were collected from these stakeholder groups. Focus group and survey participants included individuals from Tuition Assistance (TA) and Quality Improvement (QI) preschools in the CPP Community Provider network. Prospective parents and Providers who were not formally connected to CPP, but the majority of whom work/reside within the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) District geographic footprint, also participated in focus groups and surveys. Participants represented more than 50 unique preschool programs.

Impact of Tuition Assistance Parents were asked, “Would you have been able to afford preschool if you had not received CPP tuition assistance?” and 73.3% said, “none of the cost” and 20.0% responded, “some of the cost” (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Would You Have Been Able To Afford Preschool If You Had Not Received CPP Tuition Assistance? (N=15) 6.7%

20.0%

73.3%

All of the cost

Most of the cost

Some of the cost

None of the cost

Parents, teachers, and Providers made the following comments about the impact of receiving TA: • •

• • •

“I wouldn't have been able to afford a quality preschool program.” – TA Parent “It lets us choose which preschool is best for us. [My son] has a late birthday, so we could not use public preschool. CPP allowed us to enroll him in a center before public preschool would accept him, so this closed a gap for us.” – TA Parent “It was very expensive, with the tuition assistance, we can afford it.” – TA Parent “TA children are more apt to attend preschool.” – TA Provider “Some families like having multiple options that may better fit their needs.” – TA Provider

39

Prospective Stakeholder Perspectives Prospective parents identified “social skill development” (89.0%), “safe environment” (84.0%), and “motor skill development” (83.0%) as the top three aspects of a quality early educational experience (Figure 32). Parents commented that quality means “the teachers are prepared, and they have the credentials to do the job,” “they are following some sort of curriculum,” and “curriculum, schedule, and structure.”

Figure 32. Prospective Stakeholders Perspectives about Quality Preschool 100%

95.2% 89.0%

84.0%

90.5% 85.7% 82.0%

83.0%

80%

81.0%

81.0% 69.0% 61.9%

60% 48.0% 40%

20%

0% Safe Environment

Social Skill Development

Kindergarten Readiness

Prospective Parent (N=100)

Motor Skill Development

Credentialed Teachers

SUTQ Star Rated

Prospective Provider (N=21)

Meaning of Quality Preschool Kindergarten preparation, safety, and social skills development have been ranked within the top three aspects of quality preschool since 2020; however, highly educated teachers were more highly ranked as meaningful aspects of quality preschool this year than in the previous two years.

Figure 33. TA Parents on Meaning of Quality Preschool (N=15)

Before Enrolling in CPP

Rank Order

After Enrolling in CPP

Kindergarten Preparation

73.3%

1

80.0%

Kindergarten Preparation

Highly Educated Teachers

66.7%

2

80.0%

Highly Educated Teachers

Safe Environment

60.0%

3

80.0%

Child Learning Social Skills

3, 4, or 5-Star Rated Provider

53.3%

4

73.3%

Safe Environment

Child Learning Social Skills

53.3%

5

66.7%

3, 4, or 5-Star Rated Provider

Child Learning Motor Skills

46.7%

6

53.3%

Child Learning Motor Skills

Help with Fees

13.3%

7

53.3%

Help with Fees

Additional community stakeholder feedback can be found in the 2021-22 qualitative report, “Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights on Early Learning and Cincinnati Preschool Promise”.

40

CPP Evaluation Advisory Panel INNOVATIONS continued to receive input on the external evaluation process this year by engaging CPP stakeholders in an Evaluation Advisory Panel. Six new panel members were invited to participate in monthly virtual meetings held from February through June 2022. The CPP Evaluation Advisory Panel consisted of two Providers, two teachers, and two parents connected to TA and QI preschools. One community consultant and CPP’s Data and Evaluation Manager, both of whom served on the Evaluation Advisory Panel in 2021, also participated on the panel.

Participants were compensated for their time and expertise.

Many topics were discussed including the following: • 2021 evaluation reports • 2022 evaluation plan • Survey administration and outreach strategies • Preschooler survey items • Preschool attendance, barriers, and supports • Provider and teacher wages and benefits • Parent engagement in learning outside of the classroom Preschool Attendance: Panel members who were part of the CPP Evaluation Advisory Panel reported that most parents they knew send their children to preschool on a consistent basis; children rarely miss but those who do usually miss because of health reasons or family vacations.

Panel members were not sure if an incentive program would help motivate parents of preschoolers. Some panelists suggested that positive personal stories about children making academic and social-emotional gains from attending preschool regularly may help encourage parents to send their children regularly.

Wages and Benefits: Panelists shared their perspectives that inadequate wages and benefits are two of the top issues impacting teacher recruitment and retention. Participants stated that the pay and benefits discrepancies between home-based and center-based preschools are “wide and unfair.” There were also discussions about the barriers that home Providers face with being able to afford to grow their preschools and pay their staff a living wage (i.e., at least $15/hour) with benefits due to low voucher and tuition payments for their preschool programs. Providers and teachers shared that wage incentives such as the Teacher Promise Grant and Staff Support Fund are important to their retention and preschool program sustainability; however, they thought that the additional paperwork could be a barrier for some teachers and Providers, especially those who do not know how to navigate a computer well. One participant suggested that expanding direct teacher cash incentives to QI teachers to grow individually could help push the preschool forward to become high-quality.

Participant Input and Ideas: Panel members also reviewed evaluation materials such as the preschooler survey. Their ideas informed the development of the final items and survey administration. The experiences shared and knowledge learned from the Evaluation Advisory Panel were invaluable and will have an ongoing impact on INNOVATIONS’ evaluation efforts and strategies.

41

Looking Forward: Next Steps and Opportunities INNOVATIONS recommends that CPP consider the following next steps and opportunities to continue to ensure equitable access to quality preschool education in Cincinnati. Note that some of the recommendations and next steps may be implemented with existing resources and capacity while others will require long-term planning, funding strategies, and partnerships.

•

Continue to Offer Programs and Supports that Make a Positive Impact on Children, Teachers, and Providers: CPP should continue to increase access and enrollment in quality preschool. Children who enrolled in CPP have greater outcomes in kindergarten readiness (KRA-R in CPS) compared to those who are not enrolled in preschool. Teachers and Providers benefit from teacher grants and other supports that support recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

•

Support Pipeline Development and Succession Planning for Teachers: Feedback from Providers indicates difficulty in hiring and retaining quality staff. Feedback from 80% of TA parents surveyed indicated that parents believe that a quality preschool has welltrained teachers.

•

Expand the Peanut Butter and Jam Program: Preschoolers in select sites who attended PB&J showed improvement in observed behavior across 10 domains of measurement according to 95% of Providers and teachers who provided feedback. In addition, preschoolers attending PB&J made improvements from Fall to Spring in five domains measured by the preschool assessment, TS GOLD®.

•

Focus on Equity: CPP’s Board Equity Policy states a strong commitment to ensuring preschoolers with the fewest resources benefit from CPP. To do this, CPP can further enhance parent resources and information, especially in quality gap neighborhoods as this was identified as a consistent barrier to enrollment.

•

Define Kindergarten Readiness to Include the Whole Child: Social-Emotional, Physical, and Cognitive domains are critical to a child’s kindergarten readiness as well as academic preparedness. CPP should continue to examine preschool outcomes that address these domains to gauge program effectiveness.

•

Consider an Attendance Initiative Pilot: Early education literature and assessment data from local preschoolers associate regular preschool attendance with improved outcomes in kindergarten. CPP should consider piloting an attendance initiative to support parents in promoting regular attendance for all preschoolers. This initiative may be timely as COVID-19 may have impacted preschool attendance for some preschoolers.

42

Appendices Appendix A: Additional KRA-R Outcomes for CPP TA Participants

Additional KRA-R analyses were conducted on a cohort of 233 CPP preschoolers with parental consent using data obtained from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ. SugarCRM is the database that stores information collected by CPP. Relationships were examined between KRAR and preschool attendance, eligibility tier, parent/guardian employment status, Provider quality rating, and Provider pandemic site status.

Preschool attendance rates (total days attended/total days scheduled) were calculated for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years. Figures A1-A2 illustrate higher performance on the KRAR for kindergartners with preschool attendance rates of 90% or higher in 2020-21 (during 4-yearold preschool) but not 2019-20 (during 3-year-old preschool). CPP preschoolers with attendance rates at or above 90 percent in 2020-21 more frequently Demonstrated readiness (26.9%) and were On Track in Language and Literacy (37.2%) compared to those with attendance rates below 90 percent (25.0% and 19.3%, respectively).

The analysis of preschool attendance data also indicated that attendance rates were generally lower when members of the KRA-R cohort were in 3-year-old preschool (2019-20). During 3-yearold preschool, the average attendance rate was 62.7% (SD=19.2%) with only 9.1% having an attendance rate at or above 90%. In contrast, the average attendance rate during 4-year-old preschool was 84.8% (SD=15.5%) with 48.4% with attendance rates at or above 90%.

Figure A1. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels of CPP Participants by Preschool Attendance* 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

12.5%

19.3%

25.2%

26.9%

45.3%

39.7%

53.0%

29.6%

33.3%

27.7%

Attendance < 90% (N=159)

Attendance ≥ 90% (N=78)

Attendance < 90% (N=83)

50.0%

37.5%

Attendance ≥ 90% (N=16)

3-Year Old Preschool (2019-20)

4-Year Old Preschool (2020-21)

Preschool Attendance of KRA-R Cohort by Year Emerging

Approaching

Demonstrating

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

43

Figure A2. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy of CPP Participants by Preschool Attendance* 60% 50%

41.5%

40%

37.2%

31.3% 25.0%

30% 20% 10% 0% Attendance ≥ 90% (N=16)

Attendance < 90% (N=159)

Attendance ≥ 90% (N=78)

3-Year Old Preschool (2019-20)

Attendance < 90% (N=83)

4-Year Old Preschool (2020-21)

Preschool Attendance of KRA-R Cohort by Year *Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

Eligibility tiers were calculated using family income data collected by CPP. Kindergarteners of families greater than or equal to 100% FPL were Demonstrating readiness (Figure A3) at a frequency of 31.1% and were On Track in Language and Literacy (Figure A4) at a frequency of 46.7% compared to 24.6% and 30.8% of kindergarteners of families less than 100% FPL, respectively.

Figure A3. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels of CPP Participants by Eligibility Tier* 60% 44.6%

50% 40%

44.4% 31.1%

30.8% 24.6%

30%

24.4%

20% 10% 0% <100% FPL (N=65) Emerging Approaching

≥100% FPL (N=45) Demonstrating

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

Figure A4. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy of CPP Participants by Eligibility Tier* 60% 46.7%

50% 40%

30.8%

30% 20% 10% 0% <100% FPL ≥100% FPL (N=65) (N=45) *Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

44

Employment data were examined to determine the work status of parents and guardians. Data showed that kindergarteners with at least one employed guardian were Demonstrating readiness at a rate of 25.4% (Figure A5) and were On Track in Language and Literacy at a rate of 34.3% (Figure A6) compared to 22.9% and 37.1% of those with unemployed guardians, respectively.

Figure A5. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels of CPP Participants by Guardian Employment Status* 60% 45.7%

50% 40%

41.8% 32.8%

31.4%

30%

25.4%

22.9%

20% 10% 0% Unemployed (N=35) Emerging

At Least 1 Employed Guardian (N=134) Approaching

Demonstrating

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

Figure A6. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy of CPP Participants by Guardian Employment Status* 60% 50% 40%

37.1%

34.3%

30% 20% 10% 0% Unemployed (N=35)

At Least 1 Employed Guardian (N=134)

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

45

All TA Providers have obtained SUTQ ratings between 3 and 5 stars. KRA-R performance was compared between kindergarteners by the star rating of their most recently attended CPP Provider. Due to small sample sizes, 3 and 4-Star Provider attendees were combined into one group (N=39). Results indicated that KRA-R performance levels (Figure A7) differed unexpectedly between 5-star Provider attendees (22.2% Demonstrating) and 3 and 4-Star Provider attendees (33.3% Demonstrating). However, the combined percentages of Approaching and Demonstrating did not differ (69.6% for of 5-Star Provider attendees and 69.2% for 3 and 4-Star Provider attendees). Furthermore, On Track percentages (Figure A8) showed a minimal difference between 5-Star Provider attendees (36.1%) and 3 and 4-Star Providers attendees (35.9%). The sample examined below was extremely homogeneous with 83.3% most recently attending a 5star Provider. Thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Figure A7. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels of CPP Participants by Star Rating* (2021-22) 60% 47.4%

50% 40%

35.9% 30.8%

33.3%

30.4%

30%

22.2%

20% 10% 0% Attended 3 or 4 Star Provider (N=39) Emerging

Attended 5 Star Provider (N=194)

Approaching

Demonstrating

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

Figure A8. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy of CPP Participants by Star Rating* (2021-22) 60% 50% 40%

35.9%

36.1%

Attended 3 or 4 Star Provider (N=39)

Attended 5 Star Provider (N=194)

30% 20% 10% 0%

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

46

To date, 49 TA Providers have provided instruction without extended closure during the pandemic (i.e., pandemic sites). Pandemic sites were required to obtain a special state license, maintain a reduced classroom size, and extended cleaning protocols, etc. CPP preschoolers that attended a pandemic site performed better (27.5% Demonstrating and 39.6% On Track) than preschoolers that did not attend a pandemic site (21.8%% Demonstrating and 33.8% On Track; Figures A9A10). These findings illustrate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 2019-20 and 2020-21 preschoolers whose instruction was interrupted, consequently affecting their assessment scores upon entry into kindergarten in 2021-22.

Figure A9. Overall KRA-R Performance Levels of CPP Participants by Pandemic Site Status* 60% 47.2%

50% 40%

42.9% 31.0%

29.7%

30%

27.5%

21.8%

20% 10% 0% Not a Pandemic Site (N=142) Emerging

Is a Pandemic Site (N=91)

Approaching

Demonstrating

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

Figure A10. Percentage On Track in Language and Literacy of CPP Participants by Pandemic Site Status* 60% 50% 39.6% 40%

33.8%

30% 20% 10% 0% Not a Pandemic Site (N=142)

Is a Pandemic Site (N=91)

*Comprised of CPP preschooler data collected from the SugarCRM database owned by MetrixIQ.

47

Appendix B: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Revised (KRA-R) Outcomes by Selected Characteristics for 2021-22

48

49

Appendix C: Demographics of Participants Enrolled in CPP TA Preschools (Prior Years)

50

51

Appendix D: QI Providers Converted to TA Providers in 2021-22 Name of Converted Provider

TA Approval Date

3T Learning Academy LLC 11 Darlene Hill Donna Davis Funsize Imagination Childcare LLC Generation Hope Childcare and Preschool Gingerbread House Childcare LLC Gray's Creative Learning Daycare Happy Hearts & Bright Minds Child Care Center Imaginations at Work Jasmine Davis Kimberly Satcher Little Promises (Operated by Cincinnati Urban Promise) Maria Bradley Romero Academy at Resurrection Family Services, LLC Shannon Browner Sheila Solomon Sheree Williams Shining Stars Learning Center of Cincinnati Teefah's Learning Center Tender Tots Daycare These Precious Hands Child Development Center Tracy Savage Youthland Academy of Cheviot

52

1/12/2022 10/20/2021 2/1/2022 3/16/2022 11/9/2021 8/11/2021 8/10/2021 3/15/2022 8/26/2021 10/4/2021 9/16/2021 8/12/2021 2/25/2022 2/22/2022 5/9/2022 12/10/2021 2/3/2022 12/6/2021 1/28/2022 9/27/2021 1/30/2022 6/30/2022 2/22/2022

Appendix E: Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Revised (KRA-R) Outcomes by Extended Learning Session (ELS) Participation

53

Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights on Early Learning and Cincinnati Preschool Promise

Table of Contents Report Summary

4

Full Report

6

Prospective Stakeholders - Evaluation and Results

7

Parent and Provider Awareness of CPP

10

Understanding of CPP Benefits

10

Perspectives on Preschool Quality

12

Barriers to Preschool Enrollment and CPP Engagement

15

Strategies to Engage Prospective Stakeholders

21

Parent and Provider Feedback for CPP

21

Impact of COVID-19 on Parents and Providers

22

Tuition Assistance Stakeholders – Evaluation and Results

24

Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families

27

Perspectives on Preschool Enrollment, Quality, and Attendance

28

Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding

32

Satisfaction with CPP Communication and Experience

35

Feedback for CPP

39

Impact of COVID-19

40

Quality Improvement Stakeholders – Evaluation and Results

41

Perspectives on Preschool Enrollment, Quality, and Attendance

42

Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding

45

Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports

46

Impact of Statewide SUTQ Changes on Providers

47

Impact of COVID-19

48

Preschooler Survey Results

49

Teacher and Provider Recruitment, Retention, and Pay

50

Work Environment Satisfaction

50

Job Fit Satisfaction

52

Pay and Benefits Satisfaction

52

Influence of Wages on Teacher Recruitment

55

Barriers to Paying Teachers Higher Wages

56

Ways to Recruit Quality Teachers

56

Ways to Retain Quality Teachers

56

Teacher Wage Changes in Response to Labor Shortages and Inflation

57

Emerging Teacher Perspectives on Early Childhood Education Profession

57

2

Key Findings, Next Steps, and Opportunities

59

Appendices

62

Appendix A. Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families

62

Appendix B. Parent Understanding of Quality Preschool

63

Appendix C. Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding

65

Appendix D. Barriers to Daily Preschool Attendance

67

Appendix E. Steps to Improve Student Attendance

69

Appendix F. Ways to Support Providers with Preschooler Recruitment

70

Appendix G. Stakeholder Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports

71

Appendix H. Effectiveness of Providers Communicating with Families about CPP

75

Appendix I. Opportunities for Improvement

76

Appendix J. Ways CPP Could Expand Supports During COVID-19

78

Appendix K. Supports to Increase Teacher Retention

80

Appendix L. Impact of Stabilization Grants

81

Appendix M: Stakeholder Needs and Expectations

82

Appendix N. Stakeholders’ CPP Experience

84

3

Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights on Early Learning and Cincinnati Preschool Promise 2021-2022 Report Summary Ensuring that Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) is improving access to high-quality preschools and putting more preschoolers on a path to success requires having data to evaluate progress and impact. This report examines preschool parent, teacher, and Provider perspectives and experiences with CPP and early education and offers CPP, as well as the Greater Cincinnati community, insight into the ways in which the initiative could expand and enhance its supports and efforts in our region.

Evaluation and Results The CPP external evaluator, INNOVATIONS in Community Research and Program Evaluation (INNOVATIONS), conducted focus groups with 60 preschool parents, teachers, and Providers during the spring of 2022. An additional 185 surveys were collected from these stakeholder groups. Focus group and survey participants included individuals from Tuition Assistance (TA) and Quality Improvement (QI) preschools in the CPP Community Provider network.

Prospective parents and Providers who were not formally connected to CPP, but most of whom reside within the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) District geographic footprint, also participated in focus groups and surveys. Participants represented more than 50 unique preschool programs.

All participants in the evaluation were asked to share their experiences with early learning and preschool, barriers to preschool enrollment, perspectives on high-quality early learning and preschool, and ways in which CPP could further support early learning within their family or preschool. Other topics addressed included preschool attendance; teacher recruitment, retention, and pay; student-teacher perspectives on future employment in early childhood education; aspects of parental trust in Providers; transportation to preschool; Provider marketing and enrollment support needs; preschoolers’ experience in preschool; satisfaction with CPP; and the impact of COVID-19. Focus group and survey data were analyzed and summarized.

Key Findings Parents •

• • • •

•

Tuition Assistance is Key to High-Quality Preschool Access and Affordability Safety and Transparency are Crucial to Parental Trust in Providers Parents Value Highly Educated Teachers Parents Need More Information about the Impact of Regular Preschool Attendance on Kindergarten Readiness Prospective Parents Need More Information about CPP Parents are Highly Satisfied with Their CPP Experience 4

Teachers and Providers • • •

CPP Funds Impact Preschool Quality and Teacher Recruitment and Retention Marketing and Advertising Support Would Help Providers with Preschooler Recruitment and Enrollment Teachers Desire Direct Communication from CPP

Recruitment, Retention, and Pay •

Inadequate Pay and Benefits Negatively Impact the Field

Impact of COVID-19 •

COVID-19 Continued to Negatively Impact Stakeholders This Year

Recommendations INNOVATIONS recommends that CPP consider the following next steps and opportunities to continue to ensure equitable access to quality preschool education in Cincinnati. Note that some of the recommendations may be implemented with existing resources and capacity while others will require long-term planning, funding strategies, and partnerships.

Next Steps and Opportunities for CPP •

Educational Opportunities for Prospective Parents: Help parents of preschool-age children who are not yet enrolled in preschool select a quality preschool that meets their needs. Increase awareness of when and how to apply to preschool and the relationship between preschool, academic achievement, and later life success.

•

Provider-Parent Communication Support: Provide Providers with practical strategies and recommendations to support effective parent communication. Providers could benefit from resources, tools, technology, and information to enhance their communication with parents.

•

Develop Resources for Providers to Recruit Teachers and Families: Providers would benefit from teacher recruitment resources that highlight valued CPP supports for recruiting and retaining teachers (e.g., teacher grants, professional development, etc.).

Resources and supports to help Providers recruit new children into preschool are also desired (e.g., advertising, online Provider application, etc.).

•

Consider New Ways to Engage Stakeholders Throughout the Year: It will benefit CPP to regularly engage stakeholders to inform them about new supports and programs. CPP will also get feedback about challenges in the field and have real time responsiveness to issues central to CPP’s mission.

Additional Considerations for CPP and Early Education Partners • • • •

Advocate for the Unique Needs of Family Child Care Providers Continue Advocating for Preschool Teacher Wages and Benefits Consider Building Capacity for Inclusion of Future CPS Students Enrolled in Preschools Located Outside the CPS Footprint Expand Professional Development and Educational Opportunities for Stakeholders 5

Parent, Teacher, and Provider Insights on Early Learning and Cincinnati Preschool Promise 2021-2022 Full Report The Cincinnati Preschool Promise (CPP) is a non-profit organization working to ensure equitable access to high-quality preschools so that all children in Cincinnati are prepared for kindergarten. To assist CPP with gaining a deeper understanding of its stakeholders’ needs, the initiative’s impact, and opportunities to enhance the impact, the CPP external evaluator, INNOVATIONS in Community Research and Program Evaluation (INNOVATIONS), conducted a mixed methods evaluation. The evaluation included focus groups and surveys to collect information from eight stakeholder groups about their experiences and perspectives with early learning and CPP. Participants were preschool parents, teachers, and Providers enrolled in Tuition Assistance (TA) and Quality Improvement (QI) preschools within the CPP Community Provider network as well as prospective parents and Providers located within or near the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) footprint who are not members of the CPP Community Provider network or enrolled in preschool.

The prospective stakeholder focus group and survey items were designed to address the following key evaluation areas: • Awareness of CPP • Understanding of CPP Benefits • Barriers to Enrolling or Engaging with CPP The TA and QI focus group and survey items focused on evaluating CPP in the following key evaluation areas: • Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families • Parent Perspectives on Quality and Kindergarten Readiness • Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding • Stakeholder Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports • Effectiveness of Providers Communicating to Families about CPP Additional questions were asked to understand factors that impact teacher recruitment, retention, and pay; student-teacher perspectives on future employment in early childhood education; aspects of parental trust in Providers; transportation to preschool; Provider marketing and enrollment support needs; and preschoolers’ experience in preschool.

Focus group and survey responses were compiled into this report which reflects the perspectives of the participant sample. Results for prospective, TA, and QI stakeholders were reported separately, as each group received different supports and had different levels of engagement with CPP. Trend data were reported where available. Findings were used to make recommendations for CPP and its early childhood education community partners.

6

Prospective Stakeholders - Evaluation and Results Learning and understanding prospective stakeholders’ views and experiences with early learning will help CPP make informed decisions that are congruent with prospective stakeholders’ values and needs. The knowledge may also help CPP increase prospective stakeholders’ trust and engagement with the initiative, which will allow CPP to expand its Provider network and access to quality preschool. Throughout the prospective stakeholders’ section of the report, prospective parents will be referred to as “parents” and prospective Providers will be referred to as “Providers.” A total of 12 parents and 11 Providers participated in focus groups. Surveys were completed by 100 parents and 21 Providers. The results of the focus groups and surveys are summarized below.

Half (51.0%) of parents were Black/African American and 33.0% were white. Most (75.0%) parents had one or two children with an average age of 4.8 years. Nearly three out of five (62.0%) parents reported a household income below $50,000 (Table 1). Among Providers, 76.2% reported five or more years working at their current preschool (Table 2). Nine (42.8%) Providers reported a three-, four-, or five-star Step Up To Quality (SUTQ) rating through Ohio’s Child Care Quality Rating System, and 13 (61.9%) Providers had seat vacancy for 3 to 4-year-olds. Additional preschool characteristics are reported in Table 3.

Table 1. Prospective Parent Demographics (N=100) Survey Item

Response

Primary Language

Count

Percentage

English

97

97.0%

Other

3

3.0%

Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian Hispanic/Latino Multiracial/Other

33 51 4 3 9

33.0% 51.0% 4.0% 3.0% 9.0%

Household Education Level

Less Than High school High School/GED Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctorate/PhD/JD/MD Other

1 28 25 10 12 14 9 1

1.0% 28.0% 25.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 9.0% 1.0%

Employment Status

Full-time Part-time Stay Home Parent Student

51 9 22 5

51.0% 9.0% 22.0% 5.0%

7

Furloughed/Laid off Unemployed Other

0 12 1

0.0% 12.0% 1.0%

Household Income

Less than $20,000 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more

34 14 14 13 7 18

34.0% 14.0% 14.0% 13.0% 7.0% 18.0%

Number of Children

One Two Three or More

40 35 25

40.0% 35.0% 25.0%

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations.

Table 2. Prospective Provider Demographics (N=21)* Survey Item

Response

Count

Percentage

Years as a Teacher

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

0 4 2 3 12

0.0% 19.0% 9.5% 14.3% 57.1%

Years at Current Preschool

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

0 4 1 5 11

0.0% 19.0% 4.8% 23.8% 52.4%

Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Do Not Wish To Report

6 14 1 0

28.6% 66.7% 4.8% 0.0%

Education Level

High School/GED Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Other – CDA

2 5 1 11 1 1

9.5% 23.8% 4.8% 52.4% 4.8% 4.8%

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations. *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size.

8

Table 3. Prospective Provider Preschool Demographics (N= 21)* Survey Item

Count

Percentage

Type A Type B Single Site Center Multi-Site Center

4 11 4 2

19.0% 52.4% 19.0% 9.5%

SUTQ Star Ratingb

Unrated 1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars

3 8 1 4 0 5

14.3% 38.1% 4.8% 19.0% 0.0% 23.8%

Staff Education

High School/GED Some College Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

6 4 5 5 1

28.6% 19.0% 23.8% 23.8% 4.8%

Majority of Preschool Children’s Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American Multiracial

7 13 1

33.3% 61.9% 4.8%

Financial Assistance Attendees Receive (Select All That Applye)

Head Start PFCCc ODEd None Other

1 18 0 2 2

4.8% 85.7% 0.0% 9.5% 9.5%

Seat Vacancy for 3-4 Year Old Children

0 Seats 1-2 Seats 3-4 Seats 5+ Seats Not Reported

7 5 2 6 1

33.3% 23.8% 9.5% 28.6% 4.8%

Preschool

Typea

Response

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations. *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size. aType A and Type B Providers are Family Child Care Providers who serve children in their homes. bStep Up To Quality (SUTQ) is a five-star quality rating system for child care Providers in Ohio. cPublicly Funded Child Care (PFCC) is a childcare voucher program for parents in Ohio. dOhio Department of Education (ODE) is responsible for licensing early care and education programs. eRespondents could select more than one choice. Cumulative total may exceed 100%.

9

Parent and Provider Awareness of CPP Less than half (46.8%) of parents had heard of CPP prior to completing the survey. Results were similar to 2021 findings where 47.3% of parent were aware of CPP. Parents who were familiar with CPP first learned about the initiative through “family and friends” (11.7%) or a “CPP staff member or other Provider” (11.7%) (Figure 1). “Other” (6.4%) ways parents reported first learning about CPP were through the “newspaper”, “Cincinnati Children’s Hospital”, and “email”.

Most (81.0%) Providers had heard about CPP prior to completing the survey. This is a slight decrease from 2021 when 85.7% of participating Providers had heard about CPP. The top two ways Providers first heard about CPP were by “word of mouth” (38.1%) and “CPP staff member” (9.5%). “Other” (19.0%) ways Providers reported first learning about CPP were “4C for Children” and “email”.

Figure 1. How Prospective Parents First Learned About CPP (n=94) 50% 40%

40.4%

30% 20% 10%

11.7% 11.7% 10.6%

6.4%

0%

5.3%

5.3%

3.2%

1.1%

1.1%

Understanding of CPP Benefits Feedback from parents suggested that parents need more information about the beneficial programs and services that CPP provides to families. Parents made the following comments: • “I found out about it from a friend, but she didn’t give me much information and I just never looked into it.”

• “I care about education but knew nothing of this.”

• “How do I get assistance?”

Although most Providers were aware of CPP before they participated in an evaluation activity, only 10 (47.6%) reported that they knew the steps to take to join the CPP network. Comments indicated that some Providers aren’t fully aware of CPP’s benefits and how to receive them.

Related comments from Providers included: • “I am unsure of where CPP is now and what it provides.”

• “Do they have mentors to help Providers?”

• “Do they have meetings that are open to the public?”

10

Four (19.0%) Providers reported that they have received resources, training, or information from CPP through 4C for Children and the CPP Provider application. Providers attended trainings for SUTQ and received supplies from CPP. Many Providers were connected with or receiving information, training, or programming from other local early learning initiatives and organizations including “4C for Children” (95.2%) and “The Children’s Home” (28.6%) (Figure 2). The CPP supports that would benefit Providers who are experiencing challenges at their preschools are described in the Stakeholders’ Barriers to Enrolling or Engaging with CPP section.

100%

Figure 2. Prospective Providers' Connections to Other Local Initiatives and Organizations (N=21) 95.2%

80% 60% 40% 20%

28.6%

23.8%

19.0%

19.0%

9.5%

4.8%

4.8%

0%

Increasing Awareness of CPP Benefits Parents were asked, “What should CPP do to inform parents about CPP preschools and encourage them to consider a CPP Provider for their child?” Parents reported that CPP should “offer preschool site visits during school hours” (68.0%) and let parents “meet teachers and other staff” (68.0%) (Table 4). Parents also made the following comments about increasing awareness of CPP benefits: • “Send out mailers or find some other way to make parents know that this even exists.”

• “Partner with elementary schools. Parents have different age children. Sending flyers or paperwork with the older school age children.”

• “Social media or somewhere on the website to opt in for automatic emails with updates about what they have been doing or what they are offering.”

11

Table 4. What Should CPP Do to Inform Parents About CPP Preschools and Encourage Them to Consider a CPP Provider for Their Child? (N=100) Item

Percent

Offer Preschool Site Visits During School Hours

68.0%

Meet Teachers and Other Staff

68.0%

Information Session About Tuition Assistance

59.0%

Opportunity to Review Curriculum

50.0%

Opportunity to Review Safety Protocols

50.0%

Meet Families Current Enrolled in a CPP Preschool

43.0%

Table 5 shows the ways in which CPP can promote and connect Providers with the supports and programs it offers. The top two responses were “information about grant opportunities” (76.2%) and “virtual trainings” (61.9%).

Table 5. Ways CPP Can Promote and Connect Prospective Providers with Supports and Programs Offered (N=21) Item

Percent

Information about Grant Opportunities

76.2%

Virtual Trainings

61.9%

Virtual Information Sessions about CPP

47.6%

Support to Maintain SUTQ Rating

42.9%

Opportunity to Meet CPP Providers

42.9%

Coaching/Mentoring

33.3%

Support Applying for Licensing

33.3%

Opportunity to Meet CPP Staff

28.6%

Perspectives on Preschool Quality INNOVATIONS asked parents about their families’ early learning and preschool experiences, values, and preferences to better understand the reasons they have not enrolled their preschooler in preschool. Almost all (99.0%) parents said a quality early educational experience is “important” or “very important” for their child(ren) and 73.0% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their child’s(ren’s) early learning and preschool experiences thus far (see Appendix for related comments). Only 54.6% of parents were aware of the research that shows that preschoolers who attended preschool regularly were 149.0% more likely to be ready for kindergarten compared to preschoolers who were absent more than 10.0% of days1.

Parents identified “social skill development” (89.0%), “safe environment” (84.0%), and “motor skill development” (83.0%) as the top three aspects of a quality early educational 1

Kindergarten Readiness, Preschool Attendance, and Academic Achievement: Comprehensive and Longitudinal Outcomes. UWGC_kindergarten-longitudinal-evaluation-final-1-29-20.pdf

12

experience (Figure 3). Parents commented that quality means “the teachers are prepared, and they have the credentials to do the job”, “they are following some sort of curriculum”, and “curriculum, schedule, and structure”.

100% 80%

Figure 3. Prospective Stakeholders Perspectives about Quality Preschool 95.2% 90.5% 89.0% 85.7% 84.0% 83.0% 81.0% 82.0% 81.0% 69.0%

61.9% 48.0%

60% 40% 20% 0% Safe Social Skill Kindergarten Motor Skill Credentialed Environment Development Readiness Development Teachers Prospective Parent (N=100)

SUTQ Star Rated

Prospective Provider (N=21)

Like their perspectives on quality, parents reported “social emotional growth” (95.0%) and “safe and positive learning environment” (91.0%) as the top two aspects of early learning and preschool that they value (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Aspects of Early Learning and Preschool Valued by Prospective Parents (N=100) Social Emotional Growth

95.0%

Safe and Positive Learning Environment

91.0%

Academics

85.0%

Motor Skill Develop

82.0%

Well-Qualified Teachers

81.0%

Outdoor Play Learning

75.0%

Diverse and Inclusive Environment

73.0%

Meaningful Family Engagement

65.0%

Half (50.5%) of parents preferred “public preschool” for their preschool-aged child while 37.1% preferred “private preschool”, 5.2% preferred “church-based preschool”, and 6.2% preferred “home” for early learning. The “other” (1.0%) respondent indicated that they did not have a preference (Figure 5). The majority (70.4%) of parents preferred a “full-day program” rather than a “part-day program” (29.6%) and 69.4% desired a program that offers

13

extended hours. Two out of five (41.8%) parents reported that preschoolers need two years of preschool to be prepared for kindergarten (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Preferred Place for Early Learning (n=97) 6.2%

1.0%

5.2%

Figure 6. Years of Preschool Needed to Be Kindergarten Ready (n=98)

Public Preschool

8.2% 4.1%

Private Preschool

37.1%

50.5%

1 Year

Church Preschool

45.9%

Home

41.8%

2 Years 3 Years None

Other

When asked about their preschool-aged child’s current early learning environment, 32.3% of parents indicated that their child receives “family member care” while 30.3% are enrolled in “full-day preschool”. Other types of early learning environments that parents reported included “playgrounds and museums”, “home”, “daycare”, and “speech and occupational therapy” (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Current Early Learning Environment of Prospective Parents' Children (n=99) Family Member Care

32.3%

Full-Day Preschool

30.3%

Part-Day Preschool

13.1%

Other

13.1%

Babysitter

11.1%

The top three reasons parents enrolled their preschool-aged child in their current early learning environment were “education is important” (62.0%) “safe and nurturing environment” (48.0%), and “need to work” (48.0%) (Figure 8). Other reasons were that “the program aligns with my parenting and teaching style” and “allows for both of my children to attend the same program”.

14

Figure 8. Prospective Parent Reasons for Current Enrollment Program or Arrangement (N=100) 80%

62.0% 60%

48.0%

48.0%

46.0%

46.0%

40%

40.0%

30.0% 16.0%

20%

10.0%

0%

Consistent with findings from 2021, the top two reasons Providers believe that families enroll in their preschools are because they offer a “safe and nurturing environment” (90.5%) and parents “trust in the Provider” (85.7%) (Figure 9).

100% 80%

Figure 9. Prospective Provider Reasons Families Enroll at Their Preschool (N=21) 90.5% 85.7% 81.0% 81.0% 61.9%

60%

57.1%

57.1%

52.4%

42.9%

40% 20% 0%

Barriers to Preschool Enrollment and CPP Engagement Parent Concerns and Barriers to Enrollment Looking to the future, almost half (49.0%) of parents have selected a preschool for their preschool-age child to attend starting in the fall of 2022. Of the 50 parents who have not 15

selected a preschool, the top factor preventing them from selecting a preschool was they are “on a waitlist for their program of choice” (38.0%) (Figure 10). “Other” (26.0%) reasons parents have not selected a preschool included “cost”, “we don’t know where to look and programs contacted haven’t called back”, “need IEP”, “need help enrolling”, “child is autistic”, and “the preschool she could attend gets out before I get off work and does not have transportation available”.

Figure 10. Factors Preventing Prospective Parents From Selecting a Preschool for Their Child to Attend in the Fall of 2022 (n=98) Wait-List For Program of Choice

38.0%

COVID-19

26.0%

Other

26.0%

Child Stays Home w/ Family

24.0%

Child is Going to Kindergarten

16.0%

Available Seats Do Not Align…

Child is Going to Babysitter

14.0% 6.0%

Parents reported a variety of concerns and barriers to enrolling their preschool-age child in preschool with “COVID-19” (63.0%) being the top concern followed by “safety” (59.0%) (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Prospective Parent Concerns About Enrolling Their Child in Preschool (N=100) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

63.0%

59.0%

52.0%

43.0%

41.0%

39.0% 17.0%

9.0%

Forty percent (40.0%) of parents identified “financial/cost of tuition” as the top barrier to preschool enrollment (Figure 12). Providers (76.2%) also believed that “financial/cost of tuition” hinders families’ ability to enroll their preschool-aged child in preschool followed by “work and other caregiver’s schedules” (42.9%), “lack of trust or safety concerns” (38.1%), and “transportation” (38.1%). During focus groups, two Providers commented that “language barriers prevent parents from enrolling” and one Provider shared that “parents don’t realize 16

they have to register early and then can’t get in”. In addition, parents reported that “preschool operating hours” (35.0%), “transportation” (26.0%), and “preschool location” (23.0%) were barriers to enrollment. One in three (33.0%) parents reported “no barriers” to preschool enrollment for their family (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Prospective Parent Barriers to Preschool Enrollment (N=100) 60% 50% 40% 30%

40.0%

35.0%

33.0% 26.0%

23.0%

20%

17.0%

17.0% 6.0%

10%

6.0%

0%

To increase parental trust in preschool Providers, many (69.0%) parents shared that meeting one-on-one with their preschooler’s teacher or director would be helpful (Figure 13). Parents provided additional feedback on ways in which Providers can gain their trust in preschool programs: • “Open house” • “Being able to visit the classroom to see how my child is doing at any time” • “A live video feed” • “Transparency, certifications, open-door policy” • “Safety, communication, fenced playground, low child-teacher ratio”

Figure 13. Prospective Parent Reported Ways Providers Can Gain Parental Trust in Preschool (N=100) Meet One-on-One with Teacher/Director

69.0%

Secure Building

66.0%

Safety Policies

64.0%

Classroom Observation

62.0%

Background Checks

62.0%

Provider Has Years of Experience

61.0%

Meet Families Enrolled in the Preschool

43.0%

17

Seventy-five percent (75.0%) of parents reported that TA would help resolve the “financial/cost of tuition” barriers to preschool enrollment (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Barriers TA Would Help Resolve Among Prospective Parents (N=100) Financial/Cost of Tuition

75.0%

Access to Desired Preschool

46.0%

Convenient Location of Preschool

33.0%

Support Obtaining Documentation for Enrollment

18.0%

Provider Challenges and Barriers Engaging with CPP Providers reported a variety of challenges including “space for 3-4 year olds” (38.1%), “staff training and education” (33.3%), and “enrollment/filling open seats” (28.6%) (Figure 15).

These challenges align with the top three areas Providers indicated CPP supports would be most helpful in meeting their needs in order to join the CPP network (Figures 16). In addition, Providers were asked, “If CPP could provide financial support to you, what type of financial support would be most helpful” and “teacher wage grants” (71.4%) was the top most helpful financial support selected (Figure 17). These findings align with focus group comments from Providers about challenges with “finding staff with experience”.

Figure 15. Prospective Provider Challenges (N=21) Space for 3-4 Year Olds

38.1%

Staff Training/Education

33.3%

Enrollment/Filling Open Seats

28.6%

Staffing Capacity

23.8%

Licensure and Compliance

14.3%

Parent Engagement

14.3%

Finance Management/Reporting

14.3%

Enrollment Documentation from Parents

9.5%

Administering Child Assessments

9.5%

Ability to Meet SUTQ Criteria

4.8%

18

Figure 16. CPP Supports Helpful in Meeting Prospective Providers' Needs (N=21) Teacher Educational Resources

66.7%

Professional Development Opportunities

66.7%

Tuition Assistance Enrollment Help

66.7%

Learning Materials

57.1%

Technology Training/Access

57.1%

Quality Improvement Coaching

47.6%

Step up to Quality

38.1%

Budgeting/Financial Training

38.1%

Licensing Compliance/Compliance Issues

19.0%

Banking/Electronic Funds Transfers

19.0%

Figure 17. Most Helpful Financial Supports for Prospective Providers (N=21) Teacher Wage Grants

71.4%

Quality Assistance Grants

66.7%

Technology and Software

61.9%

Teaching Materials

52.4%

Substitute Teacher Support

52.4%

Outdoor/Gross Motor Equipment

47.6%

Staff Training

47.6%

Rent/Utilities

42.9%

To understand how CPP could support Providers with their enrollment challenges, Providers were asked, “If CPP could provide support to drive recruitment and enrollment in your preschool, what supports would be most helpful?” Table 6 summarizes Providers’ responses to various types of support. Providers also estimated how much time they might need CPP’s support for recruitment activities and stated the following: • “A day” • “A month” • “2-3 hours per week initially” • “2 hours a day” • “6 hours” • “Two weeks”

19

Table 6. Prospective Providers' Reported Most Helpful Recruitment and Enrollment Supports

Co-branded materials (n=18) CPP hosted recruitment fair at preschool (n=17) Door-to-door recruitment material distribution by CPP (n=17) Assistance developing a preschool website (n=18) Assistance creating a Facebook page (n=15) Development of an online application (n=17) Using smartphones and QR codes for recruitment (n=16) Advertising (n=17)

Extremely helpful

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

Slightly helpful

Not at all helpful

Not applicable

16.7%

33.3%

5.6%

16.7%

11.1%

16.7%

11.8%

29.4%

23.5%

5.9%

17.6%

11.8%

5.9%

47.1%

17.6%

5.9%

11.8%

11.8%

22.2%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

22.2%

22.2%

13.3%

13.3%

6.7%

0.0%

40.0%

26.7%

23.5%

29.4%

17.6%

0.0%

11.8%

17.6%

18.8%

6.3%

6.3%

25.0%

25.0%

18.8%

17.6%

29.4%

17.6%

17.6%

11.8%

5.9%

Providers offered additional ideas about ways in which CPP could help them with recruiting new preschoolers: • “Reaching those families who don't know where to find quality child care options to meet the needs of working parents.”

• “Send us families that have expressed interest in quality care.”

• “Help with ideas to recruit new families.”

• “We have full enrollment. We need more space.”

Providers made the following comments when asked, “What is the top thing that impacts your participation or stops you from applying to be a CPP Provider?”

• “The time it would take to enroll in the program to only help a few children.”

• “I did not want to go through the process, it felt overwhelming.”

• “I do not have enough information about what’s true and not true to make a decision.”

20

Strategies to Engage Prospective Stakeholders Addressing Barriers to Enrollment and Engagement Through Communication Results showed the best way for CPP to communicate information to parents (72.8%) and Providers (85.7%) is through “email”. When asked, “Where should CPP share information to reach more families with young children who are not currently enrolled in preschool?” parents reported “social media” (69.0%), “doctor’s office” (55.0%), and “library” (48.0%) (Figure 18). Providers reported “flyers” (66.7%) and “webinars” (47.6%) as the top two places where CPP should share information to reach more Providers not currently involved with CPP (Figure 19). Additional ways that Providers have had success with sharing information about their preschools included “KinderCare app”, “Facebook”, “Brightwheel”, “word of mouth”, and “daily take home folders”.

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 18. Where Should CPP Share Information to Reach More Families (N=100) 69.0% 55.0%

48.0%

41.0%

33.0% 32.0% 31.0% 28.0%

19.0% 19.0% 15.0%

Providers gave the following feedback about how CPP can improve its communication efforts with them and other preschool Providers: • • • • •

“Provide information on black radio stations and local news.”

“Send newsletters to our emails.”

“Hold open forum meetings, like a focus group, through Teams.”

“Use social media and get providers involved in spreading the word.”

“Have a phone tree to get providers involved, share how it can benefit programs.”

Parent and Provider Feedback for CPP Parents made these comments when asked, “What is the most important thing(s) CPP should know about your child and family's needs and expectations about early learning and preschool?”:

21

•

• • • •

“I think all parents are very passionate about their kids and want the best for them, especially being so young. So just getting the information out there and helping us know what resources are available will be helpful for our kids to be successful and productive in society.”

“I have a child that is autistic, nonverbal, and has sensory integration dysfunction. It has been so hard finding a school to trust and cater to his needs like I do. It’s scary.”

“It’s important to know every family. Circumstances are different and having flexibility may help attract more families.”

“Making it feel just as important as kindergarten. Feeling involved and investing in the experience, similar to elementary school.”

“Transparency. Having clear and concise information so we can make a decision on our own.”

Providers were asked, “What is the most important thing(s) CPP should know about your preschool (i.e., needs, future plans, experience with CPP, etc.)?” and offered the following feedback: • “I would like support with the improvement of my center and future needs to help grow my preschool.”

• “It is likely that we would not participate because the CPP process for application and reporting is time consuming and because we would not have many children who qualify.”

• “We have a three-year waiting list. We need more space.”

• “We are a quality program with long term staff that should be compensated better for their hard work and dedication to our field.”

Impact of COVID-19 on Parents and Providers Figure 19. Where Should CPP Share Information to Reach More Providers (N=21) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

66.7% 47.6%

42.9% 28.6%

28.6% 14.3%

14.3%

14.3%

9.5%

COVID-19 was reported as a concern that 63.0% of parents had about enrolling their preschool-age child in preschool. This represents an increase compared to 2021, when 40.9% of parents indicated that COVID-19 was a concern for enrollment. COVID-19 also prevented 13.0% of parents from selecting a preschool for their child to attend in the fall of 2022 which 22

is a decrease from results in 2021 when 20.5% of parents indicated COVID-19 prevented them from selecting a preschool.

Parents also made the following comments regarding COVID-19: • “With COVID, there were concerns. Like do we send them, are they safe, are they going to do everything they say they are going to do. I just worry.”

• “I think one of the barriers I faced was COVID-19. I would sometimes see kids that were sick.

I worried about the handwashing and the masks. Those types of things really made me hesitant to continue to bring my child to a daycare.”

• “COVID and my son being too young to be vaccinated is the number one barrier for us.”

• “I want my child to be vaccinated for COVID-19 before I send them to school.”

For Providers, the pandemic impacted operating hours with 47.6% reporting their preschool operating hours had changed over the past year due to COVID-19. Few Providers (28.6%) reported having trouble filling open seats; however, 13 (61.9%) Providers stated that they had vacant seats for 3-4 year olds at the time of survey administration. Nearly one in four (23.8%) Providers reported challenges with staffing capacity and finding staff with experience.

23

Tuition Assistance Stakeholders – Evaluation and Results INNOVATIONS conducted focus groups with eight parents, eight teachers, and 10 Providers receiving TA from CPP. INNOVATIONS also collected surveys from 15 TA parents, 13 TA teachers, and 21 TA Providers. Providers that participate in CPP’s TA program are highquality and have received a three, four, or five-star rating from Ohio’s SUTQ system. The results from the TA focus groups and surveys are summarized below.

More than half (55.1%) of all TA participants were Black/African American and 44.9% were white. Almost all (93.3%) TA parents reported having just one preschool aged child (Table 7).

The most common education level of TA teachers and Providers was a bachelor’s degree (44.1%). Twenty-one (61.8%) teachers and Providers also reported that they have obtained an early childhood education certification (Tables 8-9). Teachers and Providers represented all types of child care programs with 32.3% from Family Child Care Providers (previously Type A and Type B Home Providers), 29.4% from Single Site Centers, 35.3% from Multi-Site Centers, and 2.9% from School-Based Parochial Centers.

Table 7. Tuition Assistance Parent Demographics (N=15) Survey Item

Response

Race

Count

Percentage

White/Caucasian

4

26.7

Black/African American

11

73.3

Multiracial/Other

0

0.0

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino Not Hispanic/Latino

3 12

20.0 80.0

Household Education Level

Less Than High school High School/GED Some College Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctorate/PhD/JD/MD

1 2 3 2 4 3 0

6.7 13.3 20.0 13.3 26.7 20.0 0.0

Employment Status

Full-time Part-time Stay Home Parent Student Furloughed/Laid off Unemployed

9 2 2 1 0 1

60.0 13.3 13.3 6.7 0.0 6.7

Number of Children

One Two Three or More

14 1 0

93.3 0.07 0.0

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations.

*Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size.

24

Table 8. Tuition Assistance Teacher Demographics (N=13) Survey Item

Response

Years of Experience

Count

Percentage

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

0 2 4 1 6

0.0 15.4 30.8 7.7 46.2

Years at Current Preschool

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

2 0 2 5 4

15.4 0.0 15.4 38.5 30.8

Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American Multiracial/Other

9 4 0

69.2 30.8 0.0

Education Level

High School/GED Some College Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Other

2 3 0 8 0 0

15.4 23.1 0.0 61.5 0.0 0.0

Early Childhood Certifications

CDA CPL Other

5 0 2

38.5 0.0 15.4

Employment Status

Full-time Part-time

12 1

92.3 7.7

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations. *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size.

25

Table 9. Tuition Assistance Provider Demographics (N=21)* Survey Item

Response

Count

Percentage

Years of Experience

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

3 3 1 4 10

14.3 14.3 4.8 19.0 47.6

Years at Current Preschool

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

2 4 1 4 10

9.5 19.0 4.8 19.0 47.6

Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American Multiracial/Other

9 12 0

42.9 57.1 0.0

Education Level

High School/GED Some College Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Other

1 4 5 7 3 1

4.8 19.0 23.8 33.3 14.3 4.8

Early Childhood Certifications

CDA CPL Other

11 4 2

52.4 19.0 9.5

Employment Status

Full-time Part-time Furloughed/Laid Off

20 1 0

95.2 4.8 0.0

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations. *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size.

26

Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families Parents were asked, “Would you have been able to afford preschool if you had not received CPP TA?” and 73.3% said, “none of the cost” and 20.0% responded, “some of the cost” (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Would You Have Been Able To Afford Preschool If You Had Not Received CPP Tuition Assistance? (N=15) 6.7%

20.0% 73.3%

All of the cost

Most of the cost

Some of the cost

None of the cost

Parents, teachers, and Providers made the following comments about the impact of receiving TA: • “For our family, it’s allowed us to work full time. Our son has grown so much, he is social, he has so many friends, and can write his name. He’s looking at cameras and practicing photography. I couldn’t provide that enrichment. We could not have afforded and given him that opportunity without CPP. My youngest is a baby and now I know he will be able to go to preschool.” – TA Parent • “I wouldn't have been able to afford a quality preschool program.” – TA Parent • “It lets us choose which preschool is best for us. [My son] has a late birthday, so we could not use public preschool. CPP allowed us to enroll him in a center before public preschool would accept him, so this closed a gap for us.” – TA Parent • “It was very expensive, with the tuition assistance, we can afford it.” – TA Parent • “[CPP] gives the parent ease, so they don’t have to worry about the money. They can go to a place they can trust.” – TA Teacher • “A lot of children would not have the opportunity to attend preschool without CPP. One example, [a family] needed a longer day program and would not have been able to continue at the program without CPP TA.” – TA Teacher • “TA children are more apt to attend preschool.” – TA Provider • “Some families like having multiple options that may better fit their needs.” – TA Provider

27

Perspectives on Preschool Enrollment, Quality, and Attendance Preschool Enrollment Parents’ knowledge and opinions about what makes a preschool program high-quality and the importance of a preschool education for kindergarten readiness can influence their decision to enroll their preschooler in preschool and to prioritize daily preschool attendance.

Since 2020, TA parents have reported kindergarten preparation and a safe, nurturing environment as the top two reasons for preschool enrollment (Figure 21). Parent comments indicated other reasons they decided to enroll their preschooler in a preschool in the CPP Community Provider network (or preschool in general): • “I believe children can learn as early as possible; we believe that in our family. Fortunately, CPP offers tuition assistance, and we have a preschool close to our home. It helps us send our child to school.”

• “For me, I let him join the preschool, I want him to learn English more and communicate with children and know how to play. He was very shy.”

• “I wouldn’t have been able to afford a quality preschool program without the tuition assistance. My child is safe and learning.”

• “I wanted my daughter to be able to learn skills before kindergarten and learn social skills and be with other kids her age, not just family.”

20% 0%

2020 (N=93)

2021 (N=48)

28

2022 (N=15)

48.0% 31.30% 53.3%

39.0% 39.60% 26.7%

55.0% 62.50% 40.0%

40%

63.0% 62.50% 53.3%

33.3%

60%

62.0% 64.60%

80%

66.0% 70.80% 66.7%

100%

82.0% 77.10% 80.0%

Figure 21. TA Parent Reasons for Enrollment 2020-2022

Provider Recruitment and Enrollment Supports Table 10 shows the supports that Providers believe would be most helpful in driving recruitment and enrollment at their preschools. Providers also estimated how much time they might need CPP’s support for recruitment activities and stated the following: • 1 hour per week • 8 hours per month • 1-2 hours • I'd appreciate any amount of time.

• 2 days per week • Any time, we are short of help • 2 hours • Once or twice about two or three hours.

• 2-3 days in August • When preschool placements are needed • 5 hours/week Table 10. TA Providers' Reported Most Helpful Recruitment and Enrollment Supports Extremely Very Somewhat Slightly Not at all helpful helpful helpful helpful helpful Co-branded materials (n=18) CPP hosted recruitment fair at preschool (n=18) Door-to-door recruitment material distribution by CPP (n=19) Assistance developing a preschool website (n=19) Assistance creating a Facebook page (n=19) Development of an online application (n=19) Using smartphones and QR codes for recruitment (n=19) Advertising (n=19)

Not applicable

38.9%

33.3%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

11.1%

33.3%

33.3%

22.2%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

31.6%

26.3%

21.1%

10.5%

10.5%

0.0%

42.1%

10.5%

5.3%

5.3%

5.3%

31.6%

42.1%

10.5%

0.0%

10.5%

5.3%

31.6%

42.1%

31.6%

5.3%

5.3%

0.0%

15.8%

42.1%

26.3%

10.5%

5.3%

5.3%

10.5%

63.2%

15.8%

5.3%

10.5%

5.3%

0.0%

Preschool Quality All (100%) TA parents reported that a high-quality early educational experience was “important” or “very important” for their child. Kindergarten preparation and highly 29

educated teachers were the top two aspects of quality preschool reported by parents both before and after enrolling their child in a preschool within the CPP Community Provider network. The percentage of parents reporting help with fees and social skills development as meaningful aspects of quality preschool after enrolling in CPP increased by 40.0% and 26.7%, respectively (Table 11). Kindergarten preparation, safety, and social skills development have been ranked within the top three aspects of quality preschool since 2020; however, highly educated teachers were more highly ranked as meaningful aspects of quality preschool this year than in the previous two years.

Table 11. TA Parents on Meaning of Quality Preschool (N=15)

Kindergarten Preparation

73.3%

Rank Order 1

Highly Educated Teachers

66.7%

2

80.0%

Highly Educated Teachers

Safe Environment

60.0%

3

80.0%

Child Learning Social Skills

3, 4, or 5-Star Rated Provider

53.3%

4

73.3%

Safe Environment

Child Learning Social Skills

53.3%

5

66.7%

3, 4, or 5-Star Rated Provider

Child Learning Motor Skills

46.7%

6

53.3%

Child Learning Motor Skills

Help with Fees

13.3%

7

53.3%

Help with Fees

Before Enrolling in CPP

After Enrolling in CPP 80.0%

Kindergarten Preparation

Preschool Attendance All (100%) TA teachers and Providers were aware that preschoolers who attend preschool regularly are significantly more likely to be ready for kindergarten and have much greater success later in life compared to preschoolers who do not attend regularly. However, only half (53.3%) of TA parents were aware of this connection. All (100%) parents reported that this knowledge makes them more likely to send their preschooler to preschool every day.

Statements made during focus groups indicated that the majority of Providers have few issues with regular attendance and 58.1% reported that they take steps to improve attendance including offering incentives like gift card raffles, calling parents when a child misses school, offering transportation, and reminding parents of the importance of preschool attendance for kindergarten readiness. According to parents, 92.9% “agree” or “strongly agree” that their preschooler’s preschool encourages them to have their preschoolers attend preschool every day.

All (100%) parents reported that having their preschooler attend preschool daily is important with 40.0% reporting their preschooler misses an average of “zero days” each month and 20.0% reporting their preschooler misses an average of “1-2 days” each month. Teachers and Providers reported 15.2% and 60.6% of preschoolers miss an average of “zero days” or “1-2 days” each month, respectively. These findings are similar to results reported last year.

Participants were asked to identify the barriers that prevent preschoolers from attending daily. More than half (66.7%) of parents reported between one to four barriers to preschool attendance (mean = 1.7). Over the past three years, “health related issues” were reported as the top barrier to daily preschool attendance (Figures 22 and 23). Regarding transportation 30

as a barrier to regular preschool attendance, 93.3% of parents reported that they drive their own car to drop their preschooler off at preschool. One in five (20.0%) parents also reported that they walk their preschooler to preschool. On average, it takes parents 12.1 minutes to take their preschooler to preschool. Regarding the impact of COVID-19 on preschool attendance, 40.0% of parents reported COVID-19 as a barrier that prevented their preschooler from attending preschool daily. Other comments from parents indicated that some preschoolers miss school because their family is “travelling”

2020 (N=93)

2021 (N=48)

2.0% 0.0% 6.7%

0%

2.0% 2.1% 0.0%

20% 10%

2.0% 2.1% 0.0%

30%

5.0% 10.4% 13.3%

40%

10.0% 12.5% 13.3%

50%

14.0% 14.6% 0.0%

60%

27.0% 20.8% 40.0%

Figure 22. TA Parent Barriers to Daily Attendance 2020-2022

2022 (N=15)

2020 (N=48)

2021 (N=59)

31

2022 (N=34)

17.0% 5.1% 26.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

20.0% 3.4% 11.8%

31.0% 44.1% 41.2%

42.0% 37.3% 41.2%

40.0% 30.5% 17.6%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

56.0% 44.1% 50.0%

Figure 23. TA Teachers & Providers Barriers to Daily Attendance 2020-2022

Preschool Attendance Supports When asked, “What could CPP do to help your family (or other families) attend preschool every day” TA parents participating in the focus groups suggested transportation supports such as gas cards and bus passes; however, some Providers shared that they have not experienced much success with improved attendance when parents received these supports in the past. One parent suggested “covering more schools with the CPP program so that families can find a preschool close to their home.” Teachers and Providers also shared ideas for improving preschooler attendance: • “Some kind of incentive or a gift card. A little incentive can go a long way. Helping parents know what schools are closest to their house. [Provide] an umbrella or raincoat.”

• “Provide gift cards.”

• “Deliver boxes of food to parents.”

Surveys also asked respondents to select the supports that they felt would help increase daily preschool attendance. Trend data show that the top responses from 2020-2022 were “financial incentive for attendance” and “transportation” (Figures 24 and 25).

Figure 24. TA Parent Reported Supports that Would Help Increase Preschool Attendance 2020-2022

20.0%

16.7%

6.7%

10%

6.3%

9.0%

20%

24.0%

33.3%

29.2% 12.0%

22.9%

30%

22.0%

40%

33.3%

50%

0% Transportation

Financial Incentive Childcare Flexible Start Time for Attendance Assistance for Other Children

2020 (N=93)

2021 (N=48)

2022 (N=15)

Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding General Barriers to Accessing Preschool Parents were asked, “What barriers have you faced when accessing preschool?” One in four (26.7%) said they have not personally faced any barriers to preschool access. For TA parents who have faced barriers, the inability to afford preschool has been the top trending barrier to preschool access since 2020 (Figure 26). Parents were also asked, “What barriers have you heard that other parents with preschool-aged children have faced when accessing preschool” and “could not afford preschool” (66.7%) was to biggest barrier followed by “lack of trust” 32

(40.0%). Parents reported “opportunities for classroom observations” (66.7%), “opportunities to meet one-on-one with their child’s teacher or preschool director” (60.0%), and “Provider has years of experience” (60.0%) as the top three ways that Providers can build parental trust in their preschool program (Figure 27). Parents also reported additional factors that create trust in a Provider: • “I watch the teachers engage with them and cameras.”

• “At the beginning I was afraid, but after monitoring using ClassDojo app, I trust the Provider.”

• “Let families know everything that happens at school. Hold parent teacher conferences.”

0% Transportation

0.0%

10%

11.9%

20%

15.0%

30%

23.5%

45.0%

58.8%

52.0%

27.1%

40%

47.5%

50%

38.2%

60%

35.6%

70%

58.0%

Figure 25. TA Teachers & Providers Reported Supports that Would Help Increase Preschool Attendance 2020-2022

Financial Incentives Childcare Flexible Start Time for Attendance Assistance for Other Children

2020 (N=48)

2021 (N=59)

2022 (N=34)

Parents also offered their thoughts regarding preschool-age children who have not been enrolled in preschool and potential concerns that their parents may have about preschool: • “It might be trust or it might be the distance or teacher qualifications or the reputation of the center or the hours.”

• “Because they have to pay money. It’s not like public school.”

• “I don’t think [CPP] is widely advertised and people think they are over the income and won’t qualify to get assistance. It’s also hard to ask for help. I want to be able to afford this amazing preschool, but I don’t want to admit that I need help or that it’s going to be a hard process to apply.”

33

2020 (N=93)

2021 (N=48)

2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

6.0% 6.3% 0.0%

10%

12.0% 12.5% 20.0%

20%

16.0% 16.7% 26.7%

30%

13.0% 18.8% 0.0%

40%

31.0% 31.3% 26.7%

50%

42.0% 35.4% 46.7%

60%

29.0% 37.5% 26.7%

Figure 26. TA Parent Barriers to Accessing Preschool 2020-2022

2022 (N=15)

Figure 27. Ways TA Providers Can Gain Parental Trust (N=15) Classroom observation Meet one-on-one with teacher/director Provider has years of experience Secure building Meet families enrolled in the preschool Safety policies Background checks

66.7% 60.0% 60.0% 53.3% 46.7% 46.7% 46.7%

Barriers to Accessing CPP Funding - Parents The majority (73.3%) of parent survey respondents reported that they have not experienced any barriers to accessing CPP TA. Low percentages of parents facing barriers to accessing CPP TA is a positive trend that has been documented since 2020 (Figure 28).

34

11.0%

Too Much Paperwork

2020 (N=93)

Provider Location /Distance

2021 (N=48)

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

6.7%

0% Preferred Insufficient Provider Support Not Accepting

13.3%

18.8%

18.8%

16.7% 10.0%

16.7% 6.7%

8.3%

8.0%

10%

13.3%

20%

13.0%

30%

27.1%

26.0%

Figure 28. Barriers to Accessing CPP Funding Reported by TA Parents 2020-2022

Lack of Lack of Transportation Information

2022 (N=15)

Barriers to Accessing CPP Funding – Teachers and Providers CPP continued to offer a variety of services and programs to support teachers and Providers with professional development, continuing education, coaching, wage supplements, and COVID-19 cleaning supplies. A total of 12 TA teachers identified themselves as lead teachers on the survey, making them eligible to receive the Teacher Promise Grant (TPG). Of this total, 66.7% lead teachers reported having received the TPG while 25.0% had not and another 8.3% were unsure. TA teachers who reported “no” were asked, “What prevented you from applying for the TPG” and their reasons included “I just received the information”, “never heard of it”, and “it’s in the works right now”. Eleven TA Providers also reported that they are lead teachers and have received the TPG. Teachers and Providers expressed great satisfaction with the TPG process and support provided. Other areas in which Providers reported challenges with accessing CPP services and programs were “communication about ReadyRosie” and “delays in receiving classroom supplies from their wish list”.

Satisfaction with CPP Communication and Experience CPP Communication Parents’, teachers’, and Providers’ satisfaction with “phone”, “email”, “in-person”, and “newsletters/flyers” communication has remained steady over the past three years. Figures 29 and 30 show the results for TA stakeholders who responded “satisfied” or “very satisfied” about each type of communication. Parents rated their satisfaction with their Provider’s communication regarding CPP while teachers and Providers rated their satisfaction communicating with CPP staff. Missing and “not applicable” responses were excluded from analyses.

35

Parents gave overwhelmingly positive feedback about their Provider’s communication with multiple parents saying that their Provider is “doing an excellent job”. Survey results showed that 73.3% of parents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their Provider’s communication.

Providers reported that they share information about CPP with parents on their preschool application and through emails, flyers, phone calls, text messages, social media, newsletters, and in-person communication. Parents were asked about the effectiveness of teachers’ and Providers’ communication about CPP as well as the types of information they wish to receive from their preschool or CPP. They offered the following feedback: • “Their communication is very effective. I get reports from the center about my child. They give me resources, books, and activities.”

• “I just get the information at the beginning when I registered my son there. They told me about the feedback session. That’s it. No other information.”

• “For summer programs, I think CPP provides something. I’d like to know about it. Are there any other services provided? I know there is a website, but is there more information? This would be helpful for families.”

• “Better communication about the changes in payment amount.”

• “We use an app. I get pictures daily. The teacher will text a picture and show her during the day. CPP will send postcards in the mail, birthday cards, events, workshops. I love the communication both from the school and CPP.”

100%

Figure 29. TA Parents Responding "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with Providers' Communication about CPP 100.0% 92.9% 86.7%

80% 64.3% 60% 40% 20% 0% In-Person

Email

Phone

Parents (N=15)

36

Newsletter/Flyers

There was a consensus during focus groups that CPP’s communication with teachers and Providers has been satisfactory. Teachers and Providers shared the following statements about ways that CPP could improve its communication efforts: • “CPP gives too much information to parents about TA dollar amounts that Providers receive.

Parents have made inappropriate comments about how much money I’m getting because of their child.”

• “I tell parents about CPP sponsored programs, but it’s hard to communicate to parents because Providers don’t receive information from CPP to share with parents.”

• “At the time for signing back up, there was not enough advanced notice.”

• “Key information like required classes should be called out at the beginning of the newsletter.”

• “What about other agencies and services that [CPP] works with that our parents may need help from? I’d like to know what other things they offer other than money. Do they help educate parents or have supports for parents that might have a struggling child? Is there support in other ways to help parents get their child ready for school?”

94.7% 61.5%

36.4%

40%

53.8%

60%

36.4%

80%

56.3%

100%

72.2%

94.7%

Figure 30. TA Stakeholders Responding "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with CPP Communication

20% 0% In-Person

Email

Phone

Teachers (N=13)

Newsletter/Flyers

Providers (N=21)

Parent Satisfaction with CPP Experience All (100%) TA parents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their preschoolers’ CPP preschool. Parents also reported being highly satisfied with their experience with the CPP “application process”, “tuition assistance”, and “preschool center options” since 2020 (Figure 31).

37

Figure 31. TA Parent Satisfaction with CPP Experience 2020-2022 100%

92.7% 89.0% 86.7%

97.0% 92.1% 92.0%90.7% 90.7% 86.7% 86.7% 89.0% 73.3%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Preschool Center Tuition Assistance Application Process Provider Options Communication 2020 (N=93) 2021 (N=48) 2022 (N=15)

Teacher and Provider Satisfaction with CPP Experience Teachers’ and Providers’ satisfaction with the supports they have received from CPP has increased over the past three years. Satisfaction with “SUTQ support” increased by 31.4% between 2020 and 2022 while satisfaction with “staff incentives” increased by 24.1% across those years. Providers were also “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the “staff support” received from CPP which increased by 32.7%. Satisfaction ratings for “professional development opportunities” also remained consistent with the previous year (Figure 32).

Stakeholders shared that they desire more flexible training opportunities (e.g., on-demand, self-paced, virtual, and in-person) and new topics such as mental health, stress management, and child development for parents. When asked how CPP supports were beneficial, one Provider said, “I love the free resources. They add quality to my program. I feel like I can support my staff better by providing them with bonuses and trainings and then we’re able to provide better quality education for my students.” See the Appendix for additional comments.

38

100% 80% 60%

Figure 32. TA Teachers and Providers Responding "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied" with CPP Supports 2020-2022 94.7% 89.7% 84.4% 82.4% 78.2% 78.1% 78.1% 70.2% 64.0%62.0% 53.0%54.0%

40% 20% 0%

2020 (N=48) Professional Development

2021 (N=59) Staff Support*

2022 (N=34)

SUTQ Support

Staff Incentives

*Staff support data were collected from Providers only (N=21). “Not applicable” responses were excluded from analysis.

Feedback for CPP Results showed that TA stakeholders have had overall positive experiences with CPP and stakeholders feel that they have greatly benefited from the initiative’s programs and services.

Many (75.8%) teachers and Providers see CPP as a partner and have been satisfied with their CPP partnership. Suggestions about ways that CPP could be a better partner included more frequent check-ins, emailing teachers directly, assistance with explaining the TA application and absence policy to parents, and clear communication about training and funding opportunities and requirements (see the Appendix for quotes). Additionally, survey trends suggest that parents are generally pleased with the amount of TA received as a low percentage of parents reported “increased tuition assistance” as an area in which CPP could improve (Figure 33).

Figure 33. TA Parent Reported Areas of Improvement for CPP 20202022 60% 40%

44.0% 40.0%

39.6%41.7% 27.1%

25.0%22.0%

46.7%

40.0%40.0% 33.3%

14.6%

20% 0% 2020 (N=93)

Communication

2021 (N=48)

Increased Tuition Assistance

39

2022 (N=15)

More Centers in Area

Advertising

Impact of COVID-19 Nearly one in two (46.7%) TA parents reported feeling hesitant to send their child to preschool due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, parents felt supported by CPP throughout the pandemic: • “Yes, [we received] Books Alive, ABC Mouse, free internet, and ReadyRosie.”

• “A book every month.”

• “My son went last year. I don’t know how the funding works, but we were able to get a spot even though the class size was cut in half. They provided supplemental things we could do at home, daily Facetime/Zoom with the kids.”

• “I’m thankful that they still had the funding during the pandemic.”

• “Coat drive, laptop information, and food. I’m not sure if this was from the preschool or CPP.” In response to the financial challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated for preschools, grants and stabilization funds for operating costs and workforce recruitment and retention were made available from ODJFS and other sources. Almost all (90.5%) TA Providers applied for these funds in the past year with 16 (88.9%) reporting that the grant funds supplemented their CPP funds. Only two (11.1%) TA Providers said the grant funds supplanted their CPP funds, likely because they did not have any TA eligible preschoolers enrolled during that time which was mentioned during the focus groups. The grant funds helped Providers remain open due to decreased enrollment, purchase COVID-19 tests and protective supplies, fund their payrolls, improve their preschools with new classroom materials, among other benefits (See the Appendix for quotes).

40

Quality Improvement Stakeholders – Evaluation and Results INNOVATIONS engaged stakeholders from QI preschools in the CPP Community Provider network. The QI preschools are unrated, one, or two-star rated preschools that receive SUTQ supports and coaching through CPP and its partners to improve the preschools’ quality rating.

High-quality rated Providers are eligible to enroll CPP preschoolers and accept CPP TA funding. Understanding QI stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with early childhood education and CPP is important because there are many QI Providers in the Cincinnati community that enroll numerous preschoolers in their programs. As CPP’s vision is to make equitable, high-quality preschool accessible for all children, QI Providers are an integral part to achieving that vision as they partner with CPP to improve their quality rating.

Focus group and survey invitations and reminders were sent via email, phone calls, flyers, and the CPP Provider newsletter. Even though few QI stakeholders registered to participate, small focus groups and interviews were held with those who accepted the invitation including two parents, three teachers, and six Providers. Surveys were completed by five parents, three teachers, and seven Providers. Results from the focus groups and surveys are summarized below. Since participation was voluntary, participants could refuse to respond to the questions. Missing data were excluded from calculations. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.

All (100%) 10 QI teachers and Providers were employed full-time and six reported that they have worked at their current preschool for five or more years. Nine QI teachers and Providers have completed some college or obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree and six have 10 or more years of experience (Table 12). Six QI teachers and Providers were Type A or Type B Family Child Care Providers, three were at Single Site Centers, and one was at a School-Based Parochial Center. Parent demographics were excluded to protect participant confidentiality.

Table 12. Quality Improvement Teacher and Provider Demographics (N=10)* Survey Item

Response

Years of Experience

Count

Percentage

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

0 1 2 1 6

0.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 60.0

Years at Current Preschool

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10+ years

0 2 1 3 3

0.0 20.0 11.1 33.3 33.3

Race

White/Caucasian Black/African American

1 9

10.0 90.0

41

Education Level

High School/GED Some College Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

1 6 0 2 1

10.0 60.0 0.0 20.0 10.0

Early Childhood Certifications

CDA CPL

5 0

50.0 0.0

Employment Status

Full-time

10

100.0

Incomplete responses and/or missing data excluded from calculations. *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given small sample size.

Perspectives on Preschool Enrollment, Quality, and Attendance Preschool Enrollment INNOVATIONS surveyed QI parents to understand the reasons why they enrolled their preschooler in preschool. All (100%) five QI parents said they enrolled their preschooler in preschool because they “need to work”. Three (60.0%) parents selected their preschooler’s current preschool because it’s “located close to their home or job”. One parent reported that the preschool’s alignment with their religious beliefs was a deciding factor in their enrollment choice. Four (80.0%) QI parents were aware that their preschool Provider partners with CPP. Providers made the following comments about the reasons they have heard from families about why they decided to enroll in a preschool in the CPP Community Provider network or preschool in general: • “Parents want a smaller, more intimate environment.”

• “Parents enrolled children in order to prepare them for kindergarten.”

• “Being around other children helps them grow. Also, just getting them ready for kindergarten.”

• “They just feel more comfortable with the surroundings, with the atmosphere, with being at home with the more one-on-one type of help that they need.”

• “Most of my placements I’ve had since they were babies, so as they grew and the parents saw the progress that they were having with me, they kept them here.”

Provider Recruitment and Enrollment Supports Table 13 shows the supports that QI Providers believe would be most helpful in driving recruitment and enrollment at their preschools. Providers voiced their interest in having CPP support them with marketing and recruiting new preschoolers to their preschool and estimated the amount of time that they might need CPP’s support: • “2 hours” • “Weekly” • “Ongoing” • “5 hours per week” • “2 times a month”

42

Table 13. QI Providers' Reported Most Helpful Recruitment and Enrollment Supports Extremely helpful

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

Slightly helpful

Not at all helpful

Not applicable

50.0%

33.3%

16.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

16.7%

50.0%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

50.0%

16.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

50.0%

16.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

66.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

50.0%

16.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Co-branded materials (n=6) CPP hosted recruitment fair at preschool (n=6) Door-to-door recruitment material distribution by CPP (n=6) Assistance developing a preschool website (n=6) Assistance creating a Facebook page (n=6) Development of an online application (n=6) Using smartphones and QR codes for recruitment (n=6) Advertising (n=6)

Preschool Quality A high-quality early educational experience was “very important” to all (100%) five QI parent respondents. A “safe environment” was the top aspect of quality preschool reported by five (100%) QI parents followed by “child learning social skills” (80.0%). Focus group feedback about what quality preschool means to parents aligned with the survey results: • “Since enrolling my child in preschool, academics are less of a priority. A warm, safe environment comes first.”

• “Safety. Teachers have proper education about training.”

• “My kids are school ready. Learning through play. Building social skills that they will need later.”

• Making sure that they daycare is not only SUTQ on paper, but they are actually doing what they say they are doing.”

43

Preschool Attendance and Related Barriers All (100%) QI teachers and Providers were aware that preschoolers who attend preschool regularly have greater success in life than those who do not attend regularly; however, only two of five (40.0%) QI parents were aware of this connection. When asked, “Does this knowledge make you more likely to send your child to preschool every day?”, four (80.0%) QI parents responded “yes”. Four (40.0%) teachers and Providers reported that their preschools are taking steps to improve attendance including communication about the importance of daily attendance for kindergarten readiness, sharing children’s progress, calling parents when their child misses preschool, and working with parents’ work schedules.

All (100%) QI parents “agree” or “strongly agree” that their preschooler’s preschool encourages daily preschool attendance.

Daily preschool attendance was important to all five (100%) parents with one (20.0%) reporting their preschooler misses an average of “0 days”, three (60.0%) reporting their preschooler misses an average of “1-2 days”, and one (20.0%) reporting their preschooler misses an average of “3-4 days” each month. Similarly, teachers and Providers reported that 10.0% of preschoolers miss “zero days” while 80.0% of preschoolers miss “1-2 days” on average each month. Half (50.0%) of the teachers and Providers believed that “health related issues” and “child stays home with family” were barriers preventing preschoolers from attending preschool daily. Only one (20.0%) QI parent reported a barrier to daily preschool attendance which was COVID-19.

Preschool Attendance Supports Parents, teachers, and Providers identified supports for addressing the barriers to daily preschool attendance. Two QI parents suggested “gas cards” could help make transportation less of a barrier to preschool attendance. Given that QI parents said that their preschoolers attend most days, “flexible start times”, financial incentives for daily attendance”, and “childcare assistance for other children” were not reported as supports that would help increase their preschoolers’ preschool attendance. Furthermore, all (100%) five parents reported that they drive their preschooler to preschool in their own vehicle with travel time ranging between three to 15 minutes (mean = 7.6 minutes). According to 80.0% of QI teachers and Providers, “financial incentives for attendance” could help increase daily preschool attendance (Figure 34). Other ideas about ways in which CPP could help preschoolers attend every day included: • “Transportation is the biggest issue for a lot of people.”

• “CPP could provide training on child development and how it’s important for parents to make sure their kids are hitting those milestones.”

• “If their basic needs are not met, preschool is not a priority.”

• “Explain why it’s important. What if my child attends only two times per week?”

44

Figure 34. QI Teacher and Provider Reported Supports to Help Increase Attendance (N=10) Childcare Assistance for Other Children

30.0%

Flexible Start Times

20.0%

Financial Incentives for Attendance

80.0%

Transportation

30.0%

Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding General Barriers to Accessing Preschool Three of five (60.0%) QI parents reported that they have not faced any barriers to accessing (i.e., enrolling) a preschool for their preschooler. “Could not afford preschool”, “lack of quality options”, and “lack of trust” were barriers that two parents experienced when trying to access a preschool for their preschooler. When asked, “What barriers have you heard that other parents have faced when accessing preschool?”, the top response was “could not afford preschool” (80.0%). Providers also shared their perspectives on barriers that make accessing preschool a challenge for families: • “COVID-19. Either family members have it or vaccine reluctance.”

• “Non-traditional work hours don’t fit into the hours of the preschool.”

• “Need to have preschool with hours after 5pm.”

• “Language can be a barrier. Providers need translators for non-English speaking parents and children.”

• “Parents who work from home end up keeping the children home with them.”

Regarding trust in Providers, four (80.0%) QI parents said that a “secure building”, “safety policies”, and “opportunities for classroom observations” would help parents gain trust in Providers. Additional parent feedback on factors that create trust in a preschool Provider included: • “Holding a parent open houses and education nights for potential new parents and preschoolers to see the preschool. Classroom observations to get a feel for the class and teachers.”

• “Strong communication between school and parents. Teachers who create a loving environment and understand my child’s needs.”

Barriers to Accessing CPP Funding – Teachers and Providers CPP offers a variety of programs and services that support QI teachers and Providers as professionals and with program quality improvement. Of the 10 QI teacher and Provider respondents, 90.0% identified as their preschool’s director/owner with 50.0% also identifying as lead teachers. Two (33.3%) QI Providers reported that they have received staff support 45

funds (SSF) from CPP, using the funds to “increase wages” (28.6%) and “provide benefits” (14.3%) for staff. Reasons QI Providers have not received SSF were because they were not aware that the funds were available, haven’t applied, or plan to apply soon.

Figure 35 shows QI teachers’ and Providers’ general awareness of CPP programs and services. Focus group participants initially reported no issues with accessing CPP supports and benefits. However, through discussion, one Provider shared that “some Providers are not aware” of the CPP Provisional TA program and “paperwork is a slight barrier” of the program.

This Provider also said that she found the program to be “very beneficial”. Another Provider expressed a challenge with “three-star classes are only during the day when I have kids. It’s not feasible to attend. The paperwork and meetings are too much to get to three-stars.”

Figure 35. QI Teachers and Providers Awareness of CPP Programs/Services (N=10) Professional Development

60.0%

Coaching Support

60.0%

Learning Materials

50.0%

Provisional Tuition Assistance…

50.0%

Outdoor/Gross Motor Equipment

30.0%

Teacher/Educational Resources Substitute Teacher

20.0% 0.0%

Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports CPP Communication with Teachers and Providers Most (90.0%) QI teachers and Providers “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement, “I view CPP as a partner.” The best ways for CPP to get information to QI teachers and Providers is through “email” followed by “paper mail” and “text messages”. A teacher commented that they would like CPP to “check in every so often” and a Provider said, “I still would like to receive written communication by mail. Sometimes I receive so many emails that I miss communication.”

Provider Communication with Families Three (60.0%) QI parents reported first learning about CPP through their teacher or Provider and one (20.0%) learned about CPP from family and friends. One (20.0%) QI parent had not heard about CPP before participating in the survey. Providers indicated that they share information about CPP through printer flyers, text messages, and in-person communication with parents.

All (100%) five QI parents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their preschooler’s preschool and teachers. Parents liked that the preschool offers a safe, caring environment in which their preschooler can learn. They also liked that the teachers are warm, attentive, and 46

good communicators. One parent stated that they would like “daily or weekly communication about their preschooler’s behavior”.

CPP Benefits and Supports When asked to describe the benefits of being part of the CPP Community Provider network, QI teachers and Providers said: • “Having more access to coaching than when I was not in the program.”

• “I appreciate the staff support, coaching, and supplies.”

• “The biggest benefit was new furniture and supplies. It changed the environment and focus.

The new curriculum has been an amazing tool to have. It has helped our kids.”

• “Resources, SUTQ support, CDA classes.”

The highest rated area of satisfaction for QI teachers and Providers was “professional development opportunities” with 88.9% responding “satisfied” or “very satisfied” (Figure 36). Six of nine (66.6%) teachers and Providers were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the “coaching support” they have received. Five of six (83.3%) QI Providers also rated their interactions with their CPP coach as “satisfied” or “very satisfied” for “following up”, “frequency of contact”, “level of expertise”, and “responsiveness”. Awareness of CPP programs and services could have impacted satisfaction ratings even though a “not applicable” response option was listed for respondents who were not knowledgeable about every area.

Figure 36. QI Teachers and Providers Responding "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with CPP Experience (n=9) 88.9%

Professional Development

77.8%

Learning Materials Coaching Support

66.7%

Teacher/Educational Resources

66.7% 44.4%

Communicatiaon with CPP Staff Support Funds

22.2%

Outdoor Gross Motor Equipment

22.2%

Substitute Teacher Support

0.0%

Impact of Statewide SUTQ Changes on Providers In early 2022, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) announced changes to Ohio’s SUTQ program aimed at reducing paperwork and making the renewal of a Provider’s star rating easier through “continuous ratings” for existing Providers as well as “pre-star payments” for new, unrated Providers that accept Publicly Funded Child Care (PFCC). Discussions about suspending SUTQ statewide have also occurred. Providers made

47

the following comments about the impact that these discussions have had on them and the services they provide: • “Some reluctance on going beyond the first star. I’m waiting for the requirements to stabilize.”

• “I’m concerned about having staff leave and losing stars due to the loss. You have to replace the staff member with someone who has similar credentials or you lose your stars.”

• “We halted because we’re not sure if there will be new forms.”

Impact of COVID-19 COVID-19 was a factor that affected preschool attendance as indicated by focus group and survey comments related to health and safety concerns and quarantining. COVID-19 made one QI parent hesitant to send their preschooler to preschool. Providers were very appreciative of CPP’s supports (e.g., cleaning supplies, learning supplies, safety posters) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents and Providers also suggested other ideas for supporting stakeholders should a crisis event like the COVID-19 pandemic occur in the future: • “Trainings on how to handle the changes.”

• “Grief counseling for children who have lost relatives.”

• “Extra devices and headsets for online learning.”

• “Offer some sort of financial assistance or offer human help in the form of filling out paperwork or substitutes.”

• “Making sure that centers can still pay their staff when closed. Cleaning and safety supplies.”

48

Preschooler Survey Results Teachers were asked to administer a 10-item survey to preschoolers in their 3- and 4-yearold classrooms. Preschoolers were instructed to raise their hand if they agreed with the statement about their preschool experience. Three practice questions about siblings were asked to help the preschoolers understand how to respond and to show them that they may respond differently than their classmates. The survey items and administration process were developed in collaboration with the CPP Evaluation Advisory Panel, which was a group of CPP stakeholders that provided input on the external evaluation process. Data entry and summary were supported by CPP summer interns.

A total of 249 preschoolers responded to the survey. Respondents were from 13 preschools comprised of 23 TA classrooms and one QI classroom. Given the preschoolers’ ages, some of them may not have fully understood the questions or responded to every question.

However, it was important to have their voices included in this report. Survey responses are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14. Preschoolers Showing Agreement with Aspects of Preschool Experience (N=249) Survey Item Count (%) I have a sister.

156 (62.7%) I have a brother.

154 (61.8%) I do not have a sister or brother.

42 (16.9%) I like playing with friends at school.

233 (93.6%) I like to play outside at school.

234 (94.0%) I feel safe at school.

234 (94.0%) School teaches me to be nice (or kind).

222 (89.2%) School teaches me to “take turns”.

223 (89.6%) Coming to school makes me happy.

222 (89.2%)

Teachers asked preschoolers to tell them, “What is your favorite thing about coming to school?” Select responses are listed below.

• “Playing with bubble machine and singing, songs at circle time, playing with toys, dancing with Ms. Q” • “Playing with magnets, playing in the kitchen area, playing with blocks and toys, going to school, drawing” • “Playground, playing with friends, getting a Minnie Mouse Band-Aid, writing in my journal” • “Doing work, playing with friends, going outside, reading books together” • “Playing with friends, science experiments, gym, playing block building, Legos, kitchen, outside playground, making art for family, writing in my journal” • “Reading, playing with friends, going outside, going to the park, Easter Egg Hunt, playing outside with friends” • “Food, toys, drawing, playing in the water, painting clouds, playing with friends”

49

Teacher and Provider Recruitment, Retention, and Pay Given the concerns with staffing shortages and turnover voiced by many Providers, TA and QI teachers and Providers were asked to share their perspectives and experiences with teacher recruitment, retention, pay, and benefits. Focus group and survey data related to these topics as well as stakeholders’ satisfaction with their work environment, job fit, pay, and benefits give insight into the current staffing challenges in early childhood education and ways in which teachers and Providers could be better supported to recruit and retain them.

Stakeholders responded to survey items by selecting a response option on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Scores were averaged for each item with an average value greater than three indicating satisfaction and a value below three indicating dissatisfaction. Results are presented below by Provider program type.

Missing data were excluded from analyses.

Stakeholders represented Single Site Centers, Multi-Site Centers, Type A, Type B, and SchoolBased Parochial preschools (Table 15). Due to the low response rate from QI teachers in 2022, their responses from 2021 and 2022 were combined and reported in Tables 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22.

Table 15. Preschool Types Represented by Stakeholders SchoolStakeholder Based Group Single Multi-Site Type A Type B Parochial TA (N=34) 10 (29.4%) 12 (35.3%) 5 (14.7%) 6 (17.6%) 1 (2.9%) QI (N=16)* 4 (25.0%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) 6 (37.5%) 1 (6.3)% Total (N=50) 14 (28.0%) 14 (28.0%) 8 (16.0%) 12 (24.0%) 2 (4.0%) *Data interpretation and generalizability is limited given the small sample size. Data include six QI teachers who participated in 2021, representing one Single Site Center, two Multi-Site Centers, one Type A, and two Type B preschools.

Work Environment Satisfaction Results showed that on average, teachers and Providers are satisfied with their work environment (Tables 16 and 17). However, both TA and QI teachers and Providers had an average score below three in the area of work-related stress, indicating that they are dissatisfied with amount of work-related stress they have experienced. Dissatisfaction with work-related stress was also reported in 2021 by TA and QI Providers. These findings are important because results revealed that work environment satisfaction impacts teachers’ and Providers’ decision to stay with their current employer.

50

Table 16. Average Satisfaction of Teacher Work Environment TA Teacher Average Rating N=13 3.85

QI Teacher Average Rating N=9 4.25

The children I teach are well behaved

3.31

3.56

I have little work-related stress

2.77

2.89

I am happy at work

4.08

4.44

I receive effective coaching

3.77

3.89

I receive on-going professional development I have a strong relationship with my preschool director My facility is adequate

4.23

4.00

3.92

4.50

4.15

4.38

I have time for lesson planning

3.46

4.00

I am comfortable with the student-teacher ratio

4.15

3.86

My work environment is pleasant

3.77

4.63

I am satisfied with my work environment My satisfaction with my work environment impacts my decision to stay with my employer

3.85

4.63

3.85

4.50

Survey Item My workload is manageable

Table 17. Average Satisfaction of Provider Work Environment TA Provider Average Rating N=21 4.16

QI Provider Average Rating N=7 3.71

The children I teach are well behaved

3.48

3.86

I have little work-related stress

2.95

2.57

I am happy at work

4.33

4.29

-

4.43

I receive on-going professional development I have a strong relationship with my preschool director My facility is adequate

4.60

4.29

4.48

3.86

4.52

4.14

I have time for lesson planning

3.55

2.71

I am comfortable with the student-teacher ratio

4.19

3.71

My work environment is pleasant

4.57

4.43

I am satisfied with my work environment My satisfaction with my work environment impacts my decision to stay with my employer

4.33

4.17

4.38

4.00

Survey Item My workload is manageable

I receive effective coaching

51

Job Fit Satisfaction On average, all respondents were satisfied with their job fit which is notable because results indicated that job fit satisfaction impacts retention (Tables 18-19).

Table 18. Average Satisfaction of Teacher Job Fit

Survey Item I want to continue working in early childhood education My actual job duties match my job expectations I have the education and training needed to do my job well I have a positive impact on children in my preschool I am satisfied with my job fit My satisfaction with my job fit impacts my decision to stay with my current employer

TA Teacher Average Rating N=13

QI Teacher Average Rating N=9

4.31

4.75

4.00

4.44

4.23

4.75

4.31

4.89

3.85

4.56

4.00

4.11

Table 19. Average Satisfaction of Provider Job Fit

Survey Item I want to continue working in early childhood education My actual job duties match my job expectations I have the education and training needed to do my job well I have a positive impact on children in my preschool I am satisfied with my job fit My satisfaction with my job fit impacts my decision to stay with my current employer

TA Provider Average Rating N=21

QI Provider Average Rating N=7

4.65

4.14

4.50

4.00

4.45

4.14

4.60

4.43

4.53

4.14

4.68

4.00

Pay and Benefits Satisfaction Teachers’ and Providers’ focus group feedback and survey data revealed that they are not satisfied with their pay and benefits (Tables 20-21). Anecdotal evidence suggested that teachers and Providers strongly believe that they are well-deserving of higher pay, whether earned through vouchers or direct parent payments.

52

Table 20. Average Satisfaction of Teacher Pay and Benefits

Survey Item I receive an adequate salary I receive adequate benefits (medical, retirement, other) I am satisfied with my pay and benefits My satisfaction with my pay and benefits impacts my decision to stay with my employer

TA Teacher QI Teacher Average Average Rating/Salary Rating/Salary N=13 N=9 3.08a 3.44b 3.54

-c-

2.85

3.00

3.69

3.78

Respondents reported that a salary between $15.00-25.00 per hour or $35,000-55,000 per year would be considered as a living wage for teachers, which equates to approximately $20.00 per hour on average. b Only two respondents indicated that their salary was not adequate and reported that they consider $15.00 and $17.75 per hour to be a living wage. c Data excluded due to low sample size. a

Table 21. Average Satisfaction of Provider Pay and Benefits

Survey Item I receive an adequate salary I receive adequate benefits (medical, retirement, other) I am satisfied with my pay and benefits My satisfaction with my pay and benefits impacts my decision to stay with my employer

TA Provider Average Rating/Salary N=21 3.10a

QI Provider Average Rating/Salary N=7 2.50b

2.80

2.17

3.15

2.17

3.63

3.17

Respondents reported that a salary between $15.00-20.00 per hour or $45,000-60,000 per year would be a satisfactory wage, which equates to approximately $20.00 per hour on average. b Respondents reported that $12.00-45.00 per hour (mean = $22.33) would be a satisfactory wage. a

Teachers and Providers were also asked about the types of benefits they receive. Results showed that QI teachers and Providers are less likely to receive benefits compared to TA teachers and Providers, a finding that was documented in 2021 as well. For example, seven (53.8%) TA teachers reported that they receive medical and dental benefits while two (22.2%) QI teachers reported that they receive these same benefits (Table 22).

53

Table 22. Benefits Received by Teachers and Providers

Benefit Medical Dental Retirement

% TA % QI % TA % QI Teacher Teacher Provider Provider Receiving Receiving Receiving Receiving Benefit Benefit Benefit Benefit (N=13) (N=9) (N=21) (N=7) 7 (53.8%) 2 (22.2%) 7 (33.3%) 1 (14.3%) 7 (53.8%) 2 (22.2%) 6 (28.6%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (61.5%) 2 (22.2%) 10 (47.6%) 0 (0.0%)

Paid time off

12 (92.3%)

5 (55.6%)

10 (47.6%)

2 (28.6%)

Performance Bonus Other

3 (23.1%) 1 (7.7%)

3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%)

6 (28.6%) 4 (19.0%)

1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%)

Teacher Promise Grant Funds Impact Teachers were asked if they had received a TPG. Of the 12 lead teachers who responded, eight (66.7%) indicated that they had received a TPG. Of those receiving a TPG, seven (87.5%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the TPG had an impact on them staying with their employer. Teachers reported using TPG funds to pay for classroom supplies, activities, toys, and bills.

Providers were asked if they have reduced or adjusted wages for teachers who receive the TPG and the majority reported that they have not because they view the TPG as additional funds to increase teachers’ income and assist them with continuing their education. Five (62.5%) teachers said they view the TPG as a wage supplement, but 75.0% said the TPG is not enough to retain teachers. Other supports teachers would like in addition to the TPG to help retain them included parent support, bonuses, classroom supply stipends, time off, help with difficult behaviors and cognitive delays, and more pay (See Appendix for quotes).

Nearly half (46.2%) of Providers have used the TPG as a promotional or recruitment tool for hiring or retaining teachers as described by the following quotes: • “While interviewing for Lead Preschool teachers I share the information regarding the TPG and let them know trainings must be completed as part of the grant.”

• “We have used it for retention.”

• “TPG money helps our program pay higher wages. This includes self-payments to Type B Family Childcare Providers such as myself that does multiple duty roles (Administrator/Lead Teacher) and make payment increases to substitute caregivers.”

• “My employee was contemplating obtaining additional employment, but the grant was able to supplement their income.”

• “Helps with retention.”

• “By using it as an incentive.”

54

Staff Support Funds Impact Two of seven QI Providers stated that they have received SSF. As described above in the QI Barriers to Accessing CPP Funding section, QI Providers reported using SSF to “increase wages for staff” (28.6%) and “provide staff benefits” (14.3%). Reasons QI Providers have not received SSF were because they were not aware that the funds were available, haven’t applied, or plan to apply soon.

Tuition Assistance Funds Impact Tuition assistance has continued to have a positive impact on preschool quality and access.

Providers receiving TA reported that they used the funds for “classroom materials” (66.7%), “SUTQ requirements” (66.7%), “improve their facility” (57.1%), “supplement teacher wages” (57.1%), “professional development opportunities” (57.1%), “durable outdoor equipment” (38.1%), and “hire more teachers/staff” (23.8%).

Focus Group Findings Inadequate pay and benefits for teachers and Providers continue to be key issues in the field of early childhood education. These issues affect staff recruitment and retention, preschool quality, access, expansion, professionalizing the field, work environment culture, and stability, which ultimately impacts preschoolers, families, and the broader community.

Teachers and Providers strongly expressed that the pay and benefits available to most preschool teachers and Providers do not align with their job responsibilities or the importance of their service. Findings from focus groups indicated that $15 per hour is not a sufficient wage for Family Child Care Providers. Type B Family Child Care Providers also felt that the distribution of Ohio’s stabilization grants was “unfair and needs to change” because Type A Providers received “$16,000 grants but Type B only received $4,000”. Moreover, teachers and Providers believed that higher wages would be helpful for recruiting and retaining teachers; however, Providers said that they “can’t pay what they don’t have”. One Provider stated that “CPP should lobby for more money for subsidized programs”. With almost all other employers offering higher wages than in the past to attract new employees, some Providers have lost staff and others are concerned that they will lose staff or not be able to hire new staff because they cannot compete with the higher paying employers. Looking forward to the upcoming year, TA Providers’ greatest concerns are with “staffing” (52.4%), “home or site repairs” (19.0%), “Publicly Funded Child Care (PFCC) amounts” (14.3%), and “other reasons” (14.3%) which include staff and parent mood and enrollment of TA qualified students. Quotes related to the key evaluation questions are documented below by stakeholder type. Most quotes are from Providers as they typically have the greatest influence on or understanding of teacher recruitment, retention, and pay within their preschools.

Influence of Wages on Teacher Recruitment Teachers •

“Wages that are not just comparable to early childhood education but also what's offered in other types of positions/jobs like restaurants, grocery, etc.”

55

Providers • • • •

“$15 is not enough for family childcare Providers.” “$15 is entry level.” “$15 would be helpful, but we also need wage increases for the Providers who are paying the teachers.” “$15 maybe enough to recruit, but maybe not quality [teachers].”

Barriers to Paying Teachers Higher Wages Providers • • • •

“You can’t pay what you don’t have.”

“Increases in teacher pay hurts the entire payroll because then I have to increase all other staff pay.”

“Can’t afford right now.”

“Help with pay if parents drop out unexpectedly.”

Ways to Recruit Quality Teachers Teachers and Providers were asked, “What is the best way to recruit quality teachers?” and provided the following suggestions: • “More publicity, why it’s beneficial to join a school that works with CPP.” • “Sign-on bonuses” • “Recruit from high school” • “Attach more information with postcards for Providers and families” • “CPP should lobby for more money for subsidized programs” • “Interactive video about what it’s like to be a teacher and what’s expected.”

• “I think getting out into the community and providing the information about the grants and trainings.”

• “Promoting at colleges/universities, provide an understanding of how important preschool education is, it’s not babysitting, encouraging teachers to get into the field.”

Ways to Retain Quality Teachers Teachers and Providers were asked, “What is the best way to retain preschool teachers?” and shared the following ideas: • “Making sure our mental state is ok, self-care days. Some sort of financial incentives would be helpful, even if the school doesn’t have 3 stars, would help incentivize teachers to help the centers earn those 3 stars.”

• “Need to be able to provide guaranteed benefits and childcare supports for teachers.”

• “I think the grant helps because a lot of salaries are minimal and helps get people to stay.

The grant makes you feel appreciated.”

• “More support in classrooms. Contacts from other disciplines (medical, behavioral, social work, etc.) to provide resources and guidance for difficult situations or behaviors.”

• “Ensure that the atmosphere is pleasant and positive and that the teachers are not overburdened.”

56

Teacher Wage Changes in Response to Labor Shortages and Inflation Twelve (57.1%) TA Providers raised teacher wages in response to labor shortages or inflation.

Reasons for raising teacher wages included: • “We received grants in response to Covid-19 and have adjusted wages/bonuses accordingly.”

• “We needed to hire aides and be competitive with the job market.”

• “We have found it necessary to increase wages in order to keep the quality employees we currently have and also to attract others looking to get into early childhood education.”

• “Using the (stimulus) grants helped us raise teacher wages. [We’re] so very thankful.”

• “Trying to increase enrollment for preschool.”

• “To retain staff and to get teachers to apply and work for the agency.”

• “It was made by our upper management department.”

• “It was impossible to hire anyone at $12/hr. We did have more interest at $13.”

• “I spoke with the Preschool Board. We offered retention bonuses too.”

• “Due to labor shortages and inflation, I offer monthly bonuses as well as benefits such as 401K, vacation, sick, and COVID pay.”

• “When grant money is received, it helps promote higher wages across the board.”

• “$15 per hour is now becoming customary.”

• “We made this decision because the state is not paying enough to up the pay.”

Reasons for not raising teacher wages included: • “We are giving them a retention bonus.”

• “Waiting on my employee to finish her CDA process, then I will give a raise.”

• “That is up to the agency, not the link individual site.”

• “I give a bonus.”

• “Grants have been provided through the state of Ohio.”

Emerging Teacher Perspectives on Early Childhood Education Profession Two students enrolled in the Cincinnati State early childhood education student-teaching placement program were interviewed about their perspectives and experiences as emerging early childhood education teachers. Their feedback is useful to helping CPP understand the ways in which they can support the early childhood education to preschool teacher employment pipeline.

57

Student-Teaching Placement Experience and Satisfaction • • • •

•

Both students were attracted to the early education field as a career choice because of their positive experiences engaging with children in their youth.

Students were satisfied with their student-teaching placement experiences and believed they made a positive impact on the children in their preschool placement.

They reported that they had the education, training, and support to do their job well and received strong mentorship from program and placement staff.

They received limited information about the CPP stipend that was available to early childhood student-teachers at Cincinnati State. They also were unsure how the stipend was applied (e.g., to their tuition).

They agreed that the stipend amount, $2,000, was good amount to support them through their student-teaching placement.

Preparing Teachers for Teaching Preschoolers •

•

Suggestions for improving the student-teaching placement program and how to better prepare emerging teachers for teaching in a preschool setting included: o training on how to navigate conflicts with co-workers and parents, o effective communication about developmental delays or learning challenges, o managing difficult child behaviors, o clarity of expectations between the program and preschools that hold different accreditations, and o resources for transitioning into the field.

One interviewee reported that they plan to continue their education to become a preschool through fifth grade educator while the other aspires to continue working in early childhood and eventually become an in-home preschool Provider.

Student-Teachers’ Perspectives on Preschool Teacher Recruitment and Retention • • • •

Pay and benefits are imperative to recruiting and retaining teachers.

There are challenges with heavy workloads and resource availability in different work environments (i.e., learning centers vs. public schools).

Adequate staffing, center organization, and staff supports are important to recruiting new teachers to preschool education.

Role playing during the interview process may help identify quality teachers.

58

Key Findings, Next Steps, and Opportunities Key Findings Parents •

Tuition Assistance is Key to High-Quality Preschool Access and Affordability: 73.3% of TA parents would not be able to afford preschool at all without TA. Other parents said they could not afford to enroll their preschooler in a high-quality program without TA. Cost of tuition was a barrier to enrollment for 40% of prospective parents.

•

Safety and Transparency are Crucial to Parental Trust in Providers: One-on-one meetings with teachers/directors, classroom observations, secure buildings, and safety policies would help increase parent trust in Providers. Parents have identified a safe environment as a top aspect of a quality early educational experience since 2020.

•

Parents Value Highly Educated Teachers: Highly educated teachers emerged as a top aspect of quality for which 69.0% of prospective and 80.0% of TA parents value in a preschool.

•

Parents Need More Information about the Impact of Regular Preschool Attendance on Kindergarten Readiness: Only 54.6% of prospective parents, 53.3% of TA parents, and two of five (40.0%) QI parents were aware of the connection between regular preschool attendance and kindergarten readiness.

•

Prospective Parents Need More Information about CPP: Less than half (46.8%) of prospective parents had heard of CPP prior to completing the survey and 38.0% reported that they are on a waitlist to enroll their preschooler in the fall of 2022.

•

Parents are Highly Satisfied with Their CPP Experience: Parents expressed high satisfaction with their preschooler’s Provider and teacher. Most parents have strong communication with their Provider with many receiving daily or weekly updates through text messages, preschooler reports, and virtual communication applications.

Teachers and Providers •

CPP Funds Impact Preschool Quality and Teacher Recruitment and Retention: 66.7% of Providers use TA funds to maintain and improve their SUTQ star rating. 87.5% of teachers receiving TPG said the grant had an impact on them staying with their employer.

46.2% of Providers have used the TPG as a promotional or recruitment tool for hiring or retaining teachers.

•

Marketing and Advertising Support Would Help Providers with Preschooler Recruitment and Enrollment: All Providers ranked “developing an online application” in their top three ways CPP could help Providers with recruitment and enrollment.

59

•

Teachers Desire Direct Communication from CPP: Pertinent information that’s typically communicated directly to Providers is sometimes not relayed to teachers.

Recruitment, Retention, and Pay •

Inadequate Pay and Benefits Negatively Impact the Field: Teachers and Providers are dissatisfied with their pay and benefits, which has a negative impact on retention and recruitment among other important aspects of preschool education. The top concern for TA Providers in the coming year is “staffing” (52.4%).

Impact of COVID-19 •

COVID-19 Continued to Negatively Impact Stakeholders This Year: Parents reported that COVID-19 made them hesitant to send their child to preschool. Providers continued to experience challenges with hiring teachers, although less than reported in 2021.

Recommendations and Next Steps Recommendations and next steps are provided based on this qualitative evaluation and the major themes that emerged from the discussions with parents, teachers, and Providers. Some recommendations may be implemented in the short-term with existing resources and capacity while others may require expanded resources and supports to be implemented over the long-term.

Next Steps and Opportunities for CPP •

Educational Opportunities for Prospective Parents: Help parents of preschool-age children who are not yet enrolled in preschool select a quality preschool that meets their needs. Increase awareness of when and how to apply to preschool and the relationship between preschool, academic achievement, and later life success.

•

Provider-Parent Communication Support: Provide Providers with practical strategies and recommendations to support effective parent communication. Providers could benefit from resources, tools, technology, and information to enhance their communication with parents.

•

Develop Resources for Providers to Recruit Teachers and Families: Providers would benefit from teacher recruitment resources that highlight valued CPP supports for recruiting and retaining teachers (e.g., teacher grants, professional development, etc.).

Resources and supports to help Providers recruit new children into preschool are also desired (e.g., advertising, online Provider application, etc.).

•

Consider New Ways to Engage Stakeholders Throughout the Year: It will benefit CPP to regularly engage stakeholders to inform them about new supports and programs. CPP will also get feedback about challenges in the field and have real time responsiveness to issues central to CPP’s mission.

Additional Considerations for CPP and Early Education Partners •

Advocate for the Unique Needs of Family Child Care Providers: Family Child Care Providers expressed unique needs and challenges with operating a small business and 60

low fees. Family Child Care Providers also want to be recognized for the quality standards they meet as SUTQ star-rated Providers and the value they bring to the field of early childhood education.

•

Continue Advocating for Preschool Teacher Wages and Benefits: State-level policy change is still needed to help preschool teachers and Providers earn a living wage with adequate benefits. Communicate advocacy efforts and progress being made at the local, state, and federal levels.

•

Consider Building Capacity for Inclusion of Future CPS Students Enrolled in Preschools Located Outside the CPS Footprint: Some Providers reported that their location (outside of the CPS footprint) prevents them from participating in CPP, but the students they serve enroll in CPS kindergarten. A first step to building capacity for preschools outside of the CPS footprint is to track which preschools serve a large contingent of students who attend CPS after preschool.

•

Expand Professional Development and Educational Opportunities for Parents, Teachers, and Providers: Parents may benefit from educational opportunities to learn more about SUTQ. Teachers and Providers reported that they would like to receive more information about navigating tough conversations with parents (e.g., child development delays, behavioral challenges, attendance issues, safety concerns, etc.), and managing preschooler’s health and behavioral needs.

61

Appendices The Appendices provide additional stakeholder quotes that were not included in the main report.

Appendix A. Impact of Tuition Assistance on Families TA Parents • •

•

• • •

“I wouldn't have been able to afford a quality preschool program.”

“For me it's helped me a lot because the school where my child is very expensive, and since it's close to our home, we prefer to put our child there. But because it's too expensive, I cannot afford it since I'm also student, I can't work like full time job, so it helps me a lot.”

“It lets us choose which preschool is best for us. [My son] has a late birthday, so we could not use CPS preschool. CPP allowed us to enroll him in a center before CPS would accept him, so this closed a gap for us.”

“It made preschool affordable – it opened up a door for them and to do other activities.”

“It was very expensive, with the tuition assistance, we can afford it.”

“For our family, it’s allowed us to work full time. Our son has grown so much, he is social, he has so many friends, and can write his name. He’s looking at cameras and practicing photography. I couldn’t provide that enrichment. We could not have afforded and given him that opportunity without CPP. My youngest is a baby and now I know he will be able to go to preschool.”

TA Teachers • • • •

“Huge Impact. Parents have a great place to send their kids without worrying about the cost. Our center provides food, so they don’t have to worry about food.”

“Gives the parent an ease so they don’t have to worry about the money, they can go into a place they can trust.”

“Diversity – Preschool Promise connection let us be more diverse, rather than just saying it, we are diverse.”

“A lot of children would not have the opportunity to attend preschool without CPP. One example, needed a longer day program, would not have been able to continue at the program without CPP TA.”

TA Providers • • • •

“TA children are more apt to attend preschool.”

“Some families like having multiple options that may better fit their needs.”

“Without CPP children would not be in preschool.”

“The details provided to parents provide them with a sense of security of knowing the kids were in a quality school.”

62

Appendix B. Parent Understanding of Quality Preschool TA Parents • •

•

“I just don’t want a babysitter; I want him to learn and use his brain. I want to spend quality time with him at the end of the day and not just focus on teaching.”

“When I thought about quality, I just thought they would be on top of what they are giving to my child and when she goes to the kindergarten evaluation, she would know what she needed to know.”

“Educating the parent is most valuable to me. I learned that social emotional learning is key to kindergarten readiness.”

QI Parents • • • •

“Safety, teachers have proper education and training.”

“Actually making sure that the daycare is not only step up to quality on paper, but they are actually doing what they say are doing.”

“My kids are school ready – learning through play. Building social skills that they will need later.”

“Academic is less of a priority. A warm, safe environment comes first.”

Prospective Parents • • • • • •

“The teachers are prepared. They have the credentials to do a good job.”

“The ratio impacts quality a lot. They are following some sort of curriculum or plan. Like how are they putting things together and that they are actually using it.”

Curriculum, schedule, or structure. A plan for the day.”

“Having children learn to deal with people in society at a young age and understanding right and wrong as a student and child.”

“Emotional well-being and regulation skills.”

“I homeschool.”

TA Teachers •

•

“Families see the opportunities that we give the children, open ended art and exploring outside, daily communication (photos/texts/daily notes or discussion) providing a way to communicate, Validating their concerns.”

“The care that we give to the children, they can tell by the child’s reaction when they come to school – hesitant or they don’t want to go home."

QI Teachers • •

“Defined by how the kids react - are they safe, are they playful, are they happy?”

“Most of the parents care if their kids are in a safe environment and happy, academics is a second.”

Prospective Providers • •

“Longevity of staff.”

“Most of my families do not ask about the rating.”

63

• • • • • • • •

“Nurturing environment, strengths-based curriculum.”

“Parents want their child to know ABCs, counting, writing, and sounds.”

“Academic, social interaction with children their age, learning to share, manners, taking turns, and social-emotional development.”

“Teacher qualifications, certifications, environment, curriculum, reputation. I piloted SUTQ 15 years ago.”

“It means a lot to families. They want their children to learn and be safe.”

“Assessments, conferences, engagement with curriculum, and learning through play.”

“A developmentally appropriate curriculum.”

“Individualized curriculum, understanding how children learn best, and hands on play based learning.”

64

Appendix C. Barriers to Accessing Preschool and CPP Funding TA Parents • •

•

“Sickness (asthma)” “I think with getting to know a new school, it’s helpful to have a parent group to meet you.

You literally go in with blind trust. A current parent to guide you and help you through the process. Lack of connection with the parent community can be a barrier.”

“Preschools that are only half day – who can pick up their child during the middle of the day. 3 hours is not very long.”

QI Parents • •

“I don’t think there have been any barriers.”

“None.”

Prospective Parents • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

•

“Location. They don’t have any locations outside of the Cincinnati area.”

“Finding a preschool to accommodate child’s healthcare needs.”

“Lack of staffing. It was so low at one point, they could only accept so many kids because of the ratio of teachers to kids.”

“In the past, I’ve had problems with waiting lists.”

“Transportation is not an issue for me, it’s the hours with work. So I either need the school to have transportation if it’s only a half day program or have longer hours.”

“Transportation and the time. The school starts at 8 a.m. but I have to work at 7 a.m. I work from home but it’s just me, so I have to get him there and pick him up. They also close a lot. They have teacher and staff development days and he has to be home with me while I am working and it’s hard sometimes.”

“School and work.”

“Timeframe of enrollment.”

“Waitlists/space available in part time inclusive programs.”

“Bus services” “If bus transportation would wait for the child to come outside or at least go to the center and physically get the child because daycare teachers need to stay inside with the other children.”

“For instance, most private preschools by us didn't offer transportation. The public school does but it is only to 3 and I cannot leave work in the middle of the day to pick up/drop off my child. So, if the hours were different or if the school offered more options for bussing, that would be ideal. We currently do an all-day private preschool so we can transport ourselves with their hours.”

“Bus system or extended hours that align with the work day.”

TA Teachers

65

• • •

“The main one from my parents is transportation, not being able to make it to certain centers – 5 star centers are too far away.”

“Separated parents sharing custody, child is with one parent for a long time and miss going to childcare.”

“Some parents are not aware that there is assistance available and wait until there is an issue.”

TA Providers • • •

“Parents sleep in and don’t care.”

“Children outside the CPS footprint can’t participate. It would be beneficial to accept other children.”

“Transportation, clean clothes, stays home with older siblings, attendance policy.”

QI Providers • • • • • • •

“COVID-19. Either family members have it or vaccine reluctance.”

“Non-traditional work hours don’t fit into the hours of the preschool.”

“Need to have preschool with hours after 5pm.”

“Language can be a barrier. Providers need translators for non-English speaking parents and children.”

“Parents who work from home end up keeping the children home with them.”

“Parents can’t afford to pay with hours getting cut or getting laid off.”

“Transportation.”

Prospective Providers • • • • • • • •

“Families can’t afford preschool.”

“Language barriers prevent parents from enrolling and finding employment.”

“Parents don’t realize they have to register early and then can’t get in.”

“Deadlines, potty training, and affordability.”

“Parents don’t know about Preschool Promise.”

“Hours of operation and costs,” “Availability.”

“Lack of options.”

66

Appendix D. Barriers to Daily Preschool Attendance TA Parents • • •

• • •

“Stay at home mom, if she’s acting like she doesn’t want to get up, sometimes I just say forget it and keep her home, especially if I don’t have something else to do.”

“Transportation. My schedule starts at 6:45 in the morning, so I have someone that has to take her to school.”

“No issue right now, but if I did, I’d be struggling. I don’t want him to have that burden of missing because of me. Transportation is a consideration I didn’t have before my personal health issues. I would advocate for however it works, our parents do need that support.”

“My daughter has chronic asthma and allergies. Some days I have to keep her home when she has trouble with coughing and breathing – she can’t go to school like that.”

“Apart from normal absence, I don’t think I have any barriers. The school is close to my house, we can walk.”

“No barriers other than just an appointment or something.”

QI Parents • • •

“For other families, transportation issues or not being able to afford it.”

“I haven’t had any barriers.”

“None. We only miss if sick or because of COVID.”

TA Teachers • •

• • •

“Family caring about education and not a 'sitter' as they call us.”

“CPP children are there more than Head Start or voucher children, the need is stronger – maybe [miss] one or two days a month, because of illness or the parent happened to get the day off and they wanted to spend time with their child.”

“Spring break – older children are out of school, so they keep the younger child home, too expensive to bring everyone to drop off if coming by bus.”

“Transportation and weather, if it rains and they take the bus, they are less likely to come to school.”

“COVID restrictions.”

QI Teachers • •

“Sickness or not getting enough sleep.”

“Family vacation or something like that.”

TA Providers •

“Parents understanding how important early childhood education is."

67

QI Providers • • •

“A lot of parents work from home and keep their child at home.”

“I have one parent who doesn’t bring her kids on Fridays.”

“The only time my kids won’t show is if they’re sick.”

Prospective Providers • • • •

“Attendance is consistent.”

“Children scheduled to attend, attend.”

“Only if the child is sick.”

“Some parents lose vouchers and can’t send their child.”

68

Appendix E. Steps to Improve Student Attendance TA Teachers • • • • • •

“We call and check on the students when they are out and express the benefits of school.

We ask what we can do to help.”

“We are talking to the parents.”

“Opening transportation possibilities.”

“Encourage parents to bring their kids to school, having special activities planned for the children.”

“Communicating directly with families.”

“Calling and checking up on families.”

QI Teachers • •

“We try to make sure they are washing their hands, keep them healthy and safe, not spreading germs.”

“I always ask if there’s anything that I can help with.”

TA Providers • • • • • • • •

“We offer transportation, and we encourage our families on the importance of education and how it's preparing them for when they enter as a kindergartner.”

“We encourage parents to bring their children and tell them how beneficial attendance is.”

“We are having face to face conversations with parents.”

“Speaking with parents about the benefits of attendance.”

“Offer incentives like raffles.”

“I remind my parents of the importance of preschool. That children that attend preschool are more successful later in life.”

“I have gas card drawings for good student attendance.”

“Continue to remind our parents that great attendance makes a difference. Calling and asking if the child is okay.”

QI Providers • • • •

“Calls to parents.”

“If we see a child’s attendance declining, we send out letters that says attendance is important and it lists why we need them there.”

“I have an interview process. I let them know what is required of them to continue to be in my care.”

“We do a courtesy call. We don’t do it at our cutoff time, but we do it if we know the child hasn’t been there for two days. We call and ask what’s going on.”

Prospective Providers •

“No problem with attendance, but the program is part time. I offer extended day for working parents. There are a lot of grandparents that watch the children.”

69

Appendix F. Ways to Support Providers with Preschooler Recruitment TA Providers • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

“Advertisement. Encouraging the positives of family childcare like low [teacher-student] ratio, especially as we compete with the public school system.”

“Childcare dictionary and partnering with CPS.” “Create a flyer, so we can put it with our enrollment packet.”

“Don't really know.”

“Families who have 5 year olds who aren't ready to attend kindergarten need financial support to stay one more year.”

“Have somebody come on site and help parents fill out paperwork. Advertise openings for us.”

“Help us with advertising, not just applying CPP flyers and signs but maybe add program names to the signs, newsletters, and flyers.”

“If they sponsored a day for onsite enrollment where the family could speak directly with a CPP representative.”

“Incentives and transportation.”

“Market community programs.”

“More publicity, handouts, and brochures.”

“Provide marketing materials and events.”

“Right now we are getting plenty of calls, but we don’t have enough staff.”

“The biggest problem I have with enrollment is that there are children outside the Cincinnati Public district that are needing preschool assistance. I know recruiting is my biggest issue but outside of the limited district, I have no new ideas.”

QI Providers •

•

•

“I feel like a lot of times because we are in home, they feel like, “Oh well, that's daycare”.

They don't really see the value lately. We've been letting the parents come in, like if they have a day off or something, to see what their kids are doing. They see they're not just playing here; we have a structured time where we're doing preschool. I think having someone from CPP support that would be helpful.”

“I think the way CPP has been marketed that it’s like free childcare for some and that’s just not the case. I think if they could market family childcare Providers so parents understand they will receive the same benefits as they would at Cincinnati Public, it would be easier for us to advertise for preschoolers.”

“Continue with advertising and possibly splitting up advertising by area.”

70

Appendix G. Stakeholder Satisfaction with CPP Interactions and Supports Parent satisfaction with their preschooler’s preschool and teacher TA Parents •

•

• • • • • •

• • •

• •

• •

• •

“Everything. The teachers care, the principal cares, there's opportunities for parents/guardians to have events at school and see where our kids are learning and there's conferences to go over what our children are learning and how they're doing.”

“Good communication with parents, teaching quality is very great, knows and talk to kids 1 on 1 and the children love the teachers. Very good on keeping things organized, safe, clean, and feels like a family.”

“I am able to go into the school and meet people that are with my child all day also they keep me informed about my child's day.”

“I love the Open Door Policy for the parents.”

“I love the quality of education that my child received during her 2 years at Artlitt, safe and nurturing environment.”

“Secure building and great communication.”

“They are extremely nice and well educated. My daughter loves her school and peers.

Always excited to learn and I can see a difference in her education.”

“They go outside every day, despite the weather! They follow the children's interests-they don't push 'academic' subjects. They have a gross motor space in the building and a natural playground they visit twice a week. Huge emphasis on getting the preschoolers moving.

Very low student to teacher ratios.”

“Very caring, very professional, and safety.”

“Willingness to talk to me about my child.”

“So kind, calm, encouraging. Always paying attention to what the children are currently interested in. Follows their interests to spark things found in the classroom. Pays close attention to what is happening in the classroom at all times. Helps children explore social emotional health and navigate social situations.”

“She is very easy to talk to and gives me feedback that shows she really cares.”

“She is patient and communicative about how our daughter is doing and what she's learning/working on getting better. She is also accessible if there's ever a question or concern on our end.”

“She always lets me know how my child is doing. She stays on top of concerns or issues. I trust she takes care of my daughter.”

“Love the interaction with my child and other children, very wise, organized, experienced, communication is great. Understand my child very well, great mentor, goes out the way to help out parents in need, and part of my support system.”

“I like how engaged my child’s teachers are in her learning and growth process.”

“The attention given to my son is very appreciated and well received by him. More direction will help him to be more focus. He trusts her and the feedback.”

QI Parents 71

• • • • • • • •

“The teachers are warm and nurturing, my children have friends, and they love to learn new things.”

“They truly care about my child and her growth.”

“Safe environment.”

“Safe environment, fun, and resourceful.”

“I really like the family-oriented environment, very welcoming. I like that the staff are knowledgeable and can teach my child the things needed to prepare for kindergarten.”

“She is warm and attentive to their individual needs and provides a loving and stable environment for my children.”

“She so caring and loving.”

“I really like that my child's Provider communicates thoroughly with me. I like that the staff are patient with my child. My child has learned so much in so little time.”

Prospective Parents •

•

• •

“I’m satisfied because I know what is going on there. I would go somewhere better but I’m just in a whole process with him right now. He doesn’t really talk much. He’s very different from the other kids I see, so sending him to certain places or environments, I don’t think he would be ready yet.”

“I would definitely prefer somewhere else. Cost is a barrier. This is our third daycare. I liked the other one better. It’s really the communication. We drop our kids off at the door, I don’t actually interact with any teacher. I just feel like I never know what’s going on unless something bad happens. Then you get a call from the director.”

“I actually like it because they are a part of Step Up To Quality.”

“I’m comfortable with where my child is now and I think he is as well since he has been there since he was eight weeks old. But I also think with him being there so long that he might be a little too comfortable so maybe it’s time to make an adjustment so that he can continue growing socially and adapting to new things.”

TA Teachers • • • •

“They help me get more training, so I can be a better teacher to my students.”

“CPP shows that we are appreciated.”

“Supports help me grow as a teacher.”

“CPP allows us to grow as a teacher and supports our professional development needs.”

QI Teachers • •

“My coach is very knowledgeable and professional.”

“My coaching has been exceptional.”

TA Providers • • • •

“Whenever I have any questions on any level regarding SUTQ staff are very responsive.”

“They help to keep the program at a quality standard.”

“The SUTQ coaching has been invaluable as we navigate a new curriculum. The training offered is helpful as well.”

“The professional development opportunities offered support early childhood. I always receive support when needed.”

72

• •

• • • • • •

• • • •

• •

“The coaching is a great opportunity for our teachers to receive support outside of the program with someone who helps with looking at the classroom or situation differently.”

“The benefits include personal coaching, updates on policies, help with enrollment, free Professional development courses, assistance with SUTQ, also great incentives for the teachers, and help with marketing.”

“The benefits have been endless!”

“Staff incentives.”

“Offering of free trainings & coaching.”

“Love the trainings!”

“It helps maintain a good teaching and working environment with my daycare.”

“I love the free resources. They add quality to my program. I feel like I can support my staff better by providing them with bonuses and trainings to then be able to provide better quality education for my students.”

“Helpful when you have a reliable coach.”

“CPP helps teachers provide quality care & education to our children.”

“CPP provides coaching and free training. CPP helps improve my program with quality improvement, tuition assistance, and coaching.”

“CPP has provided many opportunities for my program to be beneficial in many ways.

They offer TA funding and TPG that help supplement income, help purchase needed materials and improvement opportunities needed through resources that help students succeed in learning. CPP has coaching opportunities and provides incentives for staff.

Also, they provide access to programs that promote quality such as 4C's for Children.”

“Coaching is so important for teachers to be able to help the children with social/emotional issues!”

“Coaching has been helpful since I am a new Director.”

Prospective Providers • •

“I did not finish the application because I had to get insurance information together. No communication with CPP staff.”

“If I needed to communicate with them, they were there.”

Ways CPP could better support Providers: TA Providers • • •

• • • •

“To be honest, CPP is the best and if there is anything lacking or missing it is not because of a lack of support on their end but lack of time on mine.”

“Still in my first year, so I'm learning about CPP from my Business Manager.”

“Self-paced, online trainings. More administrator trainings. Trainings that assist (especially) white teachers on how to teach their black students better. Communication/ culture/values/behavior management/kindergarten readiness beyond academics.”

“Need in person learning. Zoom has to go.”

“More incentives.”

“Help with pay if parents drop out unexpectedly.”

“Funding for hiring coaches or teachers for the children who need extra support throughout the day.”

73

• •

“CPP could support me better by helping me find CPP eligible children. One suggestion would be to offer opportunities for other children outside the CPS district to participate.”

“Continue tuition pay and TPG during the summer months if we're still providing care for preschoolers approved by CPP.”

QI Providers •

• • • •

“I love the support I have from my coach. I have had some tough situations come up and she is always a text, call, or email away. I am excited about the materials my program will be getting from Lakeshore. Materials can be expensive so being able to have access to things for free for my preschoolers is priceless!”

“The professional development is always important. I need to better about staying informed and checking the website more for information pertaining to.”

“CPP helps and encourages me to continue teaching.”

“The supports have always come through when I needed them.”

“The only thing I was not aware of is the substitute pool. I would like more information on that service.”

Prospective Providers • • •

“I heard a great deal about CPP in the beginning, but I have not heard much recently. I’m not really sure what could be done other than more communication.”

“I thought CPP was only for schools in the city of Cincinnati. I would not qualify or has this changed?”

“I would like to know exactly what I would be signing up for. Are there penalties or paperwork required? I would like them to be open and upfront.”

74

Appendix H. Effectiveness of Providers Communicating with Families about CPP TA Parents • • • •

• •

“I say very effective, I get reports from the center about my child. They give me resources, books, activities.”

“I just get the information at the beginning when I registered my son there. They told me about the feedback session. That’s it, no other information.”

“Yes, they gave me information in the beginning.”

“We use an app, pictures daily, teacher will text a picture and show her during the day.

Preschool Promise will send postcards in the mail/birthday card, events, and workshops.

I love the communication. Great communication throughout the day. Both from the school and Preschool Promise.”

“The payment amount – better communication about the changes in payments.”

“For the summer program, I think CPP provides something. I’d like to know about. Are there any other services that are provided? I know there is a website but is there more information? This would be helpful for families.”

QI Parents • • • • • •

“I believe very effective. They had the flyer for this focus group printed out and told her how to sign up.”

“Using different types of ways to communicate.”

“More on Preschool Promise: how do they pick out the daycares that they work with? Stuff like that will be helpful.”

“Not enough communication at all. Parents need more information coming from the director.”

“Need to be informed about expectations.”

“Other parents don’t understand star ratings, so they don’t mean anything to them.”

75

Appendix I. Opportunities for Improvement TA Parents •

•

“Cover more schools with the Preschool Promise program – so that families can find a preschool close to their home, providing transportation could help, every family should be able to get their child into preschool.”

“Funding ends for the summer. I was shocked. Is there a way to support it throughout the summer?”

QI Parents • • • • •

“Not sure. Emails are good but when there are too many of them then they get ignored.”

“Daily or weekly behavior sheets.”

“No improvement needed.”

“I have no problems with communication.”

“Continue to share more information about who they are and what they stand for to show how it can benefit families.”

TA Teachers • •

• • • • • • •

“You are doing a great job at being a great partner.”

“I went to take a training that was emailed to me and at the last minute was canceled. They stated it would be rescheduled for March and it never was or any communication that it was going to be.”

“Have better communication with the teachers that are in the CPP by emailing or mailing them information.”

“Find ways to make sure teachers know more about CPP and what they do to help families.

I know of teachers that know nothing about it.”

“Communication with the teachers and not just our director because she doesn't communicate with us on anything.”

“Being easy to access.”

“Email [teachers] not just directors.”

“All good. Just continue.”

“Nothing more.”

QI Teachers • “Advertising and more information to share with families about CPP.” • It’s actually good.”

TA Providers • • •

“Monthly check-ins but otherwise you do a great job!

“Help with clear communication regarding student applications and what are considered excused absences.”

“CPP is the best. I am not sure exactly how the market is on their end for enrollment. I believe they are getting the information out there because they provide the programs with enrolment information. But if there could be anything done to boost enrollment that would be great.”

76

• •

Cincinnati Preschool Promise can help be a better partner by continuing to communicate to find out about my preschool needs.”

“Everything is great with your communication with me.”

QI Providers • •

“Keep asking for our feedback. Make sure to really use the information gathered.”

“Keep supporting the Providers.”

77

Appendix J. Ways CPP Could Expand Supports During COVID-19 TA Parents • • •

• • •

“Provide a place for respite for child and family. Call and check on family when absent from school and community.”

“Online learning.”

“More activities and books sent to children, zoom meetings for parents with more information, help with after-school projects. Health plans to keep kids safe while away but still connected and learning and having fun.”

“Homework for children missing school.”

“Have school Monday through Friday.”

“Care packages, phone calls to kids to keep morale up, and constant/consistent communication with parents of what's happening and why.”

QI Parents • •

“Support group for parents, monthly zoom meetings.”

“CPP should reach out to individual families to understand their needs. Some families may need extra devices or headsets for online learning.”

TA Teachers • • • •

“Virtual meetings.”

“Provide materials.”

“Cleaning supplies and classroom supplies. During COVID-19, our art supplies were depleted.”

“Continue the push to get children registered for preschool promise and extend the program during the summer months.”

QI Teachers • • •

“Check in on us and see what's going on and what we can probably do as a team to improve where we need to improve at.”

“Offer some sort of financial assistance or offer human help in the form of filling out paperwork or substitutes.”

“Remember we are human. Give out incentives.”

TA Providers • • • • • • •

“Call, check in on us, PPP supplies, food boxes.”

“Continue to give incentives to the parents on keeping the children enrolled.”

“Continue to offer supplies that are in demand such as masks, thermometers, gloves, sanitizer, paper towels, toilet paper, etc. This was a blessing in my preschool program.”

“Continue with the extension of funding.”

“Access to funding.”

“How to find qualified teachers!”

“I can't think of anything everyone was very helpful as they could've been.”

78

• •

•

“I felt very supported by CPP during COVID.” “Provide webinars and follow-up calls to support us in understanding and implementing the rapidly changing rules. Provide hard to get supplies such as sanitizer, masks, and cleaning wipes.”

“Very helpful each summer when the parents do not have to pay the full fee. Each year CPP has been so stupendous in getting those funds to reduce children staying home alone.”

QI Providers • •

“Making sure that Providers know where to access supplies such as safety and food supplies.”

“Making sure that centers can still pay their staff when closed. Cleaning and safety supplies.”

79

Appendix K. Supports to Increase Teacher Retention TA Teachers • •

• • •

• • • • •

“Wages that are not just comparable to early childhood education but also what's offered in other types of positions/jobs like restaurants, grocery, etc.”

“Preschool teachers love what they do or they wouldn't do it because the pay is horrible and if you are a single mother, you will never be able to support yourself or your children even with the preschool promise grant. A mandatory pay hike for preschool teachers is the only way employers are going to cough up the money they say they don't have.”

“Pay and more support in the classroom. More support for the challenging behaviors.”

“More support in classrooms. Contacts from other disciplines (medical, behavioral, social work, etc.) to provide resources and guidance for difficult situations or behaviors.”

“More support in the classroom with social and emotional needs for the children. Lower the teacher to student ratio. Having more time off throughout the year. This job is hard, and your mind needs breaks, and vacations just as though you’re in a public school setting.

We can’t take a vacation when others are out. Being shorthanded makes it even more difficult to take time off. When you want a vacation it's almost harder to leave than to just stay and teach because you need to make sure the lessons are understandable for the substitute teacher, if you’re lucky enough to get one. We have to make sure all lessons are ready for when we return or the classroom will be in better or worse shape than when you left. We need mental breaks too.”

“More money and more help with children that have issues.”

“I feel well supported.”

“Improve how we are talked to by directors.”

“Change our hourly wage.”

“Pay, materials, and feeling appreciated. A lot of times we aren't included in teacher discounts because we don't have school IDs.”

QI Teachers • •

“Better pay, more trainings, a learning ear, and mental health days.”

“Ensure that the atmosphere is pleasant and positive and that the teachers are not overburdened.”

80

Appendix L. Impact of Stabilization Grants TA Providers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

“We paid for payroll, which freed up funds for other experiences like hatching 10 out of 12 chicken eggs with our students.”

“To pay overhead operating cost.”

“The grant funds helped my preschool with financial opportunities, resources, and materials, outdoor play equipment, music equipment, electronics for children, etc.”

“Technology & staff retention.”

“SUTQ requirements.”

“Purchase materials and provide bonuses.”

“The majority of the funds have been used or allocated towards staff retention along with COVID testing and prevention equipment.”

“It helps in so many ways for both staff and materials used for the preschool.”

“It helped us cover costs for trainings and salary when we had smaller class sizes.”

“I was able to purchase more materials and equipment for childcare.”

“I was able to expand my playground, pay myself, and buy more supplies for the children.”

“Helped with operation costs and retention bonuses.”

“Helped keep it open. I had decreases in enrollments due to COVID. Trying to keep numbers low to not spread the virus. I got three infants that keep a runny nose and cough.”

“Defray costs of PPE and testing supplies, sign on bonuses, and premium pay.”

“Buying new materials, increasing wages, outside improvements/repairs, family engagement.”

81

Appendix M: Stakeholder Needs and Expectations Prospective Parents •

• • • • • • • •

•

“Because of the pandemic, a lot of kids will probably have social anxiety so maybe doing an introduction class with the parents and teachers that they kids will be with during the day might help,” “Continue to inform parents about all the resources and services they offer.”

“Cost is a big factor, but we are willing to pay more for preschool programs that are tailored to our child’s unique learning needs and abilities.”

“A lack of preschool options that accommodate attachment parenting styles.”

“Her first year of school so I want to make sure the environment is a place she will be comfortable.”

“How long the waiting time will be? How diverse the class is? How much is tuition? How far the preschool is from my location? Is there a summer program?”

“I don’t qualify for assistance, and it should be free to all who want their child to attend the program.”

“I expect my children to want to go to class every day. If my child starts coming home and not overall enjoying the day, then there is a problem in the classroom.”

“I think since they are fragile of growing emotionally, socially, and even physically.

Bringing in doctors, dentists, nutritionists, and therapists to support them and their families or offering services or resources while young can go a long way to produce children who will be successful and productive to society.”

“I am concerned about my child’s safety. There have been a lot of childcare centers on the news for abuse of children. Her safety is my number one priority.”

TA Parents •

• •

“For me personally, your child is going to learn more than just the basic things that you think of preschool. STEM, things that get your creative juices flowing. There’s so much more to learn than just numbers and colors.”

“Funding ends for the summer. I was shocked. Is there a way to support it throughout the summer?”

“The expectation of what they will learn in school. How to deal with certain behaviors of children in schools.”

TA Providers •

• • • • • •

“Some kids are not socially ready for kindergarten, but we don’t get funding for them to continue preschool so parents are forced to send them to kindergarten and end up repeating kindergarten or first grade.”

“I need trainings during daytime or self-paced options.”

“It would be beneficial to have funding for children starting at 2.5 years.”

“Parents need training about child development.”

“Expand access to non-CPS families.”

“Create a Provider Directory for the public.”

“The CPP site is difficult to navigate.”

82

•

“Host neighborhood parent events so parents can network with other parents. For example, a carnival or book bag giveaway.”

Prospective Providers • • • •

• •

“We need time for self-care, doctors’ appointments, and training.”

“They can’t just give materials and money to get quality.”

“I would like support with the improvement of my center and any future needs to grow my preschool.”

“It is likely that because the CPP process for application and reporting is time consuming and because we would not have many children who would qualify, it is likely that we would not participate.”

“Too many hoops to join.”

“We have a three year waiting list. We need more space.”

83

Appendix N. Stakeholders’ CPP Experience Prospective Parents •

“Do you think they will be expanding beyond the centers that they have? I looked at their website and there are none that are close to me. Something to consider would be offering it outside of Cincinnati Public Schools. We were in the district but had to relocate due to a housing situation. We could really benefit from it but based on where I live, I can’t drive that far, so having a center closer would be helpful.”

TA Parents • • •

“I’m so grateful for Preschool Promise. Without this funding, my child would not be in preschool, much less one of the best preschools in the area!”

“Preschool is very supportive of getting kindergarten ready. Would appreciate more support in finding a kindergarten school.”

“Absolutely loved it thank you for supporting my child and our first year as preschool parents.”

TA Teachers • • • • • •

“I am so happy and grateful to be a part of the program.”

“I hate that no taxes come out of it, then I owe a bunch at tax time. I would rather it be taken out and just get a lower amount.”

“I love the extra income. It pays for my work shoes and clothes along with classroom supplies and toys.”

“It's has been such a blessing to be part of this program and my children also benefit from the grant funds when needed. Thanks again!”

“Preschool Promise really helps me out with getting things for my classroom. Without it I might night be able to afford the things for my classroom.”

“Thank you for the assistance money we do receive; it does help.”

TA Providers • • • • •

• • •

•

“I appreciate the monthly training classes for the teachers.”

“Can CPP help out with tuition applications, copying paper, and ink?”

“CPP has been a valuable asset to my program.”

“Everyone I spoke to has been very open and helpful considering I didn't join the CPP team until COVID-19.”

“I have enjoyed my partnership with Cincinnati Preschool Promise. CPP has helped my program in many ways to be successful. I look forward to continuing my partnership with CPP.” “I love working with Brandy who is always responsive.”

“It has exceeded my expectations!”

“My experience with CPP and the staff has been nothing but great. As a Provider, I feel that it is CPP that has recognized our worth in early education and has supported that value in many ways. Thank you for ALL you do, have done, and are willing to do.”

“We have loved seeing how happy parents were with realizing they could afford to send their children to preschool.”

84

QI Providers • •

“I love working with my children watching each one grow and learn.”

“So far the experience has been fine.”

85