Why Would Students Who Were in City Pre-K Program Get More Attention Down the Line?

A quick aside - reader Amanda, who commented on the You CAN Say No to Tech in Seattle Schools post, another reader, a pediatrician would like to ask you about your comment. If you are willing to send me your email so that I can make that connection, please do so at   sss.westbrook@gmail.com.

It seems that the City's Families, Education, Preschool and Promise program is doing well and planning an expansion via their levy. 

Perusing this editorial in The Seattle Times, I was a bit taken aback by a couple of statements. I'm hoping some readers might have some additional information or insights. (I would ask Communications but they still will not acknowledge me as media. I guess I'll have to go up the food chain.) 

Beginning next month, many of Seattle’s 105 city-funded preschools will serve more children for more hours. Thirty-three sites will extend their calendars beyond the school year, offering early learning to 3- and 4-year-olds for 10 hours a day, year-round. Another 24 providers will operate on a six-hour day, year-round. (Until now, all sites have offered slots only for six hours, and only during the school year.) 

The expansion should be welcome news to working parents, highlighting an underrecognized benefit to subsidized early learning: It’s good not only for kids, but their families too, allowing more moms and dads to enter the workforce instead of staying home to provide childcare. In that sense, early learning can be viewed as a tool for economic development.

It's true that if more parents have childcare that covers their working hours, it helps parents who may need both to work. 

But "instead of staying home to provide childcare?" I read that as a demeaning statement to parents who make that choice because they want to be with their children. Like it's not a good thing and every parent should be out there working. 

The levy will expand childcare by 800 spots "to serve 1400 children each year."

On "academic outcomes:"

However, academic outcomes still have a ways to go.

Overall, more children citywide are starting kindergarten “ready to learn,” according to assessments that measure kids’ social-emotional maturity, physical abilities, cognitive strength, language, literacy and math skills.

But not all of them attended the Seattle Preschool Program. Among those kids, the results are mixed. More Black children were deemed “ready to learn” after attending the city’s program, compared with their peers. Yet among other ethnic groups, school-readiness rates have zigzagged up and down.

Okay so my first question would be that the City needs to investigate WHY, overall, more kids are starting kindergarten ready to learn. Great news but the why is a big question.

Also, I would gently point out that it's pre-school. This push towards academics - which doesn't necessarily work out developmentally - is not good.

But then we get to this paragraph (bold mine):

The city’s response to this perplexing pattern is encouraging: Rather than barreling ahead, the preschool program is increasing gradually and will start setting performance targets next year. 

 

In tandem, Seattle Public Schools is testing third graders who attended the program to ensure their gains are maintained. Any school that gets money from the levy will be expected to focus on preschool-program graduates who are slipping.

First, I thought there already WERE performance targets. I'll have to go back and look through my many blog posts on this program but I'm pretty sure the district had to meet some targets. There has always been a "holdback" of money from the City to SPS for targets. Did something change and I missed it? 

Here's what the folks at DEEL say:

DEEL’s contract structure for FEPP levy investments uses “performance-based agreements that clearly describe the investment’s intended outcomes and link the investment to strategy-level service standards and performance metrics” (page 10 of the FEPP Levy Implementation & Evaluation Plan). 

  

What you are referring to as “holdback money”, we refer to as “performance pay”. Grantees earn these additional funds over their base payment.  

  

Where the STEB states “will start setting performance targets next year”, this is in reference to the strategy goals listed in Table 2, page 5 of the Plan. For the Ready to Start Domain, the goals are:  

• “Children ready for kindergarten 

• Students achieve academically throughout elementary school 

• Opportunity gaps are closed…“ 

  

The Plan does not establish numerical targets for the overall Levy in terms of what percent of students we expect to be Kindergarten ready as a result of levy investments.  

So the City still holds back money for performance even as they get free space from the district. Make that make sense.  

Second, the district should give extra help to 3rd graders who were in the City's Pre-K program? Why would that be the focus? Here's what DEEL says (bold mine):

Beginning with the 2018 FEPP Levy, DEEL funds 20 SPS elementary schools through “School-Based Investment” grants; these contracts and school awardees were extended for SY 26-27. DEEL will be rebid these funds in Q4 2026 for new contracts to begin with the 27-28 School Year—the 2^nd year of the new FEPP Levy.  

 

With the new grants, Levy-funded elementary schools grants will continue to emphasize support for all students not meeting grade level standards—regardless of SPP participation or not.  

 

In addition, DEEL will now begin requiring Levy-funded elementary schools to better support the preschool-to-Kinder transition for new Kindergarten students. We will also ask Levy-funded elementary schools to articulate how they will leverage Levy funding to support students in maintaining academic achievement once they enter SPS. These new requirements speak to how our investments will intentionally sequencing learning and supports across grade levels to ensure that each year builds on the previous one and prepares students for the next step.  

 

This effort to integrate and align the impact of SPP and K-12 investments is new with the 2025 FEP.

On the one hand, DEEL seems to be saying that if a school gets these levy funds, the school needs to explain how it supports all students. 

They also say they want better support for Pre-K to kindergarten from these schools. Is that for all students who had any form of Pre-K or just the City's? That's also unclear. 

It sure sounds to me that the schools definitely have to track former City pre-K students more than other students.