! "!

University of California, Berkeley

Preschool For All: Increasing Access and Quality in California

By Daniel Sparks

Senior Honors Thesis

Political Economy

! #!

Table of Contents Introduction 3 Methodology 6 Literature Review 8 The Mixed Market for Preschool 22 San Francisco’s Preschool For All Program 34 Policy Recommendations and Limitations 63 Conclusion 72

List of Acronyms

ASQ Ages and Stages Questionnaire CSPP California State Preschool Program DRDP Desired Results Developmental Profile ECE Early Childhood Education ERS Environment Rating Scale FCCH Family Child Care Home NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research PFA Preschool For All PKFLP Prekindergarten and Family Literacy Program QRIS Quality Rating and Improvement System RTELC Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge SFUSD San Francisco Unified School District SPP State Preschool Program Special thanks to Professors David Kirp and Alan Karras for their guidance on this project and

their commitment to teaching

! $!

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.” ! John Rawls, A Theory of Justice This story begins with Max Vasilio, a four year old enrolled at Capp Street Head Start

Center. Located in the heart of the Mission District in San Francisco, Max’s preschool is one of

nine child development centers operated by Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc. The

organization was established in 1959 as a means of consolidating local community centers and

has since specialized in child development and youth services. These centers throughout the

Mission serve as delegate agencies for San Francisco Head Start, offering services to more than

380 economically disadvantaged children and their families. Max’s preschool also partners with

the city’s Preschool For All (PFA) program, a citywide initiative that aims to provide all of San

Francisco’s four year olds with a quality preschool education.

Max is finishing his final months of preschool as he prepares to transition to kindergarten

next year. Mrs. Vasilio had nothing but praise for the program. “It’s good for the kids, and Max

gets to learn English,” she said. 85% of the families at Max’s school are recent US immigrant

families whose primary language is Spanish.1 Through a bilingual curriculum, Max is able to

build on his native language and learn English as a second language. Like many preschools

throughout San Francisco, Mission Neighborhood Centers’ partnership with the PFA program

has enabled it to provide quality and affordable preschool to hundreds of children. PFA’s

financial support and quality improvements to Mission Neighborhood Centers have opened the

door for Max and many others to receive a quality preschool education. Mrs. Vasilio pays no !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 "Mission Head Start." Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.2014. www.mncsf.org.

! %!

cost for her son’s preschool, and the center even provides her with various family services and

bimonthly food distribution. “San Francisco is expensive, but Max’s school helps us stay in the

city,” Mrs. Vasilio said as she collected her free produce. Without subsidized early education,

many families cannot afford to live in the city let alone send their children to quality preschool.

Preschool policy impacts thousands of children like Max throughout the state of

California. In the absence of affordable and quality preschool programs, many families either

forego sending their child to preschool or settle for schools that fail to meet acceptable quality

standards. The inequities in access to quality preschool result in alarming gaps in school

readiness between children from low and high-income families. By kindergarten and first grade,

a disproportionate number of children from low-income families, the majority of whom are

Black and Hispanic, are already behind their wealthier peers.

Access to quality preschool is critical in ensuring that all children are prepared for their

primary education. The benefits of preschool are extensive and well documented: children who

receive a high quality preschool education have higher high school and college graduation rates,

are less likely to be held back or become involved in crime, and even earn higher salaries in their

careers.2 By developing and refining key social and academic skills for three and four year olds,

preschool prepares children for future development and learning; in the absence of preschool

learning, children forego numerous benefits and begin their academic careers well behind their

peers.

In spite of extensive research on the benefits of preschool, access to quality programs

remains limited for California’s three and four year olds, especially for children from low-

income families. Preschool policy is extremely political, and there are a number of arguments

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 "Research Shows: The Benefits of High Quality Learning." Early Edge California. 2015. http://www.earlyedgecalifornia.org/resources/research--studies/making-the-case.html.

! &!

both for and against state preschool expansion. This paper provides an introduction to the

different viewpoints on preschool expansion in California that ultimately shape the preschool

policy debate. These arguments are broken down into the economic and political framing of

preschool policy in California. This includes but is not limited to discussions of preschool as an

economic investment and the role of government in expanding access to quality preschool

programs. The paper then offers an overview of the current mixed market for preschool in

California, which includes a variety of public and private programs. The overview and analysis

of the market for preschool offers an outline of the different programs families can send their

children to as well as insight into the supply and demand for public and private options. This

section argues that the current mixed market for preschool is of mixed quality; there are key

areas of market failure that require government to fix, namely increasing access to quality

preschool for low-income families.

Using this overview of preschool policy framing and the mixed market for preschool, the

paper then provides a case study of San Francisco’s Preschool For All initiative. PFA is one

example of a universal preschool policy that has focused explicitly on increasing access to

quality preschool programs for all four year olds in the city, but especially children from low-

income families. The analysis of PFA and its impact over the past decade concentrates on

funding, quality, access, and potential areas for improvement, such as expanding the program to

incorporate three year olds. By providing an in depth analysis of PFA, this paper offers one

policy model for increasing preschool access and quality for all children but particularly for

those most in need and who stand to benefit the greatest. The benefits of preschool are too great

and the stakes too high for any child to miss out on a quality preschool education. Access to

quality preschool is a right, not a privilege. The state has an obligation to fill the gaps in access

! '!

to preschool that exist in the current market and ensure all children’s right to a fair start to their

education. This paper analyzes the policy frameworks and market for preschool to see how the

state of California can increase access to quality preschool for all of its three and four year olds.

The PFA initiative in San Francisco shows the potential for policy to increase access to

preschool without jeopardizing quality and serves as one possible model for creating a more just

and inclusive preschool system in California.

Methodology

The methodologies employed in this paper include interviews, text analysis of media

discourse, and quantitative and qualitative data analysis. These research methodologies were

used to support the central goal of this paper: to provide insight into preschool policy in

California and to point out the potential for policy to increase access to quality preschool for all

children, but especially those from low-income families. Interviews cited throughout this paper

include personal interviews with policy officials, members of the Preschool For All program in

San Francisco, and families who currently send their children to a PFA partner preschool. The

interviews directly cited in the paper were all conducted through an informal interview process;

conversations with policy advisors, officials, and families were intended to generate a dialogue

regarding preschool policy in California, paying close attention to the topics of access and

quality. Accordingly, there was no formal questionnaire used in interviews with Scott Moore,

Chief Policy Advisor at Early Edge California, Matthew Rector, Program Administrator for

PFA, Xavier Morales, Data Analyst for PFA, and families currently participating in the PFA

program in San Francisco, which are cited throughout the paper.

! (!

In order to observe trends in media discourse surrounding preschool policy in California,

I used data mining and text analysis. I collected a sample of 203 newspaper articles related to

preschool education in California. These articles were selected on the basis of relevance and

newspaper source. Each article selected is tagged by its respective newspaper source in the

“preschool education” category and was published between 2005 and present. Articles were not

discriminated on the basis of preschool policy level, meaning that the sample of articles includes

topics ranging from local to national preschool policy. All articles were sourced from the top ten

newspapers in California based on subscription rates, a list that includes the San Francisco

Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, San Diego Union-Tribune, Fresno Bee, Orange

County Register, San Francisco Examiner, and the San Jose Mercury.3 Article content was then

mined on the basis of three criteria: most frequently used words, bigrams, and trigrams. This

criteria excludes stock words, such as articles and prepositions, which were removed in the data

mining process. Bigrams and trigrams refer to two and three word phrases, respectively, used in

the sample of articles. A full list of most frequently used words, bigrams and trigrams from the

sample can be found in the appendix.

Last, this paper uses qualitative and quantitative data analysis of both original and cited

data sets. Qualitative data analysis of cited sources includes more in depth exploration of data

sets in the chapter on the mixed market for preschool in California. The qualitative analysis of

cited sources such as the Rand Corporations series of reports on the nature and quality of

preschool and the National Institute for Early Education Research’s annual yearbooks offers

valuable data on the breakdown of the preschool market in California and state spending. Data

specific to PFA in San Francisco was prepared by First 5 SF and the PFA program and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 "Top 10 Daily California Newspapers." Cision. March 3, 2010. !

! )!

forwarded to me for the purposes of this project. This includes tables that detail the enrollment of

four year olds in PFA programs versus Proposition H funding allocation, percent of children

enrolled in PFA preschools compared to non-PFA preschools based on family income, San

Francisco Quality Rating and Improvement System ratings by neighborhood, program funding

type, and the number of children enrolled in PFA preschools by neighborhood. Analysis of this

data provides essential information for better understanding the effectiveness of PFA as

measured through quality and access.

The chapter on San Francisco PFA also includes quantitative and qualitative analysis of

original data sets. Using the most recent Census data, I was able to break down San Francisco

neighborhoods with participating PFA preschools by median household income. I then compared

this data with tables on PFA preschool quality and child enrollment provided by First 5 and the

PFA program to see if a correlation exists between median household income and access to

quality preschool. Tables displaying the highest and lowest five neighborhoods by median

household income along with the number and percentage of children enrolled in PFA preschools

offer useful information on who the program is serving and the quality of preschools these

children are attending. Interviews, text analysis of media discourse, and data analysis comprise

the primary research methodologies employed in this paper and offer both qualitative and

quantitative data for better understanding the market for preschool, its gaps, and potential

policies for improving access to quality preschool for three and four year olds in California.

I. Literature Review The changing dynamics of policy framing in California by both scholars and government

can be broken down into several categories, namely economics, the role of government, and

recent policy innovations. Within each of these categories are sometimes nuanced arguments in

! *!

support of or against preschool expansion initiatives. Within some of these categories, arguments

and scholarly works offer diametrically opposed views of Early Childhood Education (ECE). In

both cases, the following literature review presents the various opinions, arguments and

theoretical foundations of early education that very much shape the way in which preschool is

framed in policy debates throughout California. The literature included is meant to highlight the

predominant arguments for and against preschool expansion and to provide a foundation for

better understanding preschool policy in California.

An Economic Perspective

The issue of early education is often framed in economic terms. Economists use

cost/benefit analysis to assess whether or not various early education initiatives are sound policy.

While there is extensive literature and research on the matter, there is no consensus on the issue.

Economic perspectives on early education shape its framing by defining preschool as either a

positive or negative net investment. A number of scholars, journalists, and other professionals

offer the compelling argument that greater access to preschool will lead to long-term economic

growth, thereby framing preschool initiatives as a sound investment in California’s future.

For instance, Lynn Karoly argues in “Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California”

that quality preschool is a necessary investment in California’s children and in ensuring

economic growth moving forward. The author argues throughout that “benefits to government or

society will exceed program costs” with regard to quality preschool programs because said

initiatives will increase investment in human capital for children in families of all income levels.4

The Packard Foundation draws on previous Rand research reports in its support for initiatives

that expand access to preschool in California: $2.50 to every dollar would go back to the state if !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 Karoly, Lynn. "Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California." RAND Corporation, 2009.

! "+!

universal preschool became policy.5 This is a conservative estimate for economic Nobel laureate

James Heckman, who argues that every dollar spent on preschool offers a return of seven dollars

to society.6 Their framing of the issue is straightforward – preschool benefits the state economy

and represents a positive investment opportunity in California’s future.

Karoly and Bigelow expand on the economic framing of preschool in California. The

authors again suggest that preschool offers the state a positive net investment. More specifically,

they argue the previous estimates of economic return to the state are undervalued because they

fail to incorporate other social benefits that result from attending preschool. Increased access to

high-quality preschool reduces crime and dependence on public welfare as well as increases

health and labor force participation.7 In turn, these benefits offer positive returns to the state and

support calls to expand access to quality preschool programs.

Scott Moore, the former executive director of the California Early Learning Advisory

Council and current chief policy advisor at Early Edge California, offers a direct and transparent

explanation of his support for state-sponsored preschool. Much like the aforementioned authors,

Moore frames preschool as an economic investment, but goes a step further in suggesting that

not investing in it is equivalent to “mortgaging our future.”8 Moore addresses opponents of

preschool expansion, namely those who bring up fiscal constraints and economic instability as

counterarguments, by arguing that early education is in fact the best area for state investment in

terms of improving the economy moving forward. In emphasizing that “the best return on our

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 "Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California: Issues, Policy Options, and Recommendations." The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. January 1, 2009. 6!Kirp, David. "California Should Give All Kids the Pre-K Advantage." Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2014.!7 Karoly, Lynn, and James Bigelow. "The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool in California." RAND Corporation, 2005. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG349z1.html. 8 Mongeau, Lillian. "Not Investing in Preschool Is 'Mortgaging Our Future'"EdSource, March 11, 2013.

! ""!

investment is early education,” Moore offers a very basic economic framework for better

understanding the potential benefits of expanding quality preschool programs.9

While numerous articles and reports tout the economic benefits of investing in preschool,

there is a tremendous amount of dissent that also uses economics to justify their viewpoints. As

with almost any policy involving taxes and additional state spending, the issue has become quite

contentious, especially after the Great Recession when California was struggling to manage its

budget. It should already be apparent that, because spending and taxes are highly sensitive

political issues, the economics and politics of preschool expansion do not always coincide and

point in the same policy direction.

Those against state expansion of preschool use their own economic data in framing

policy. Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University, labels preschool

expansion initiatives as pet projects for state government. He states that increased state spending

on preschool and, specifically, universal pre-K is poor spending and tax policy.10 Instead of

focusing on the investment in human capital, as the aforementioned authors in favor of preschool

expansion do, Boskin argues that the likely increase in sales or income tax (or both) will further

detract from the California economy and discourage business investment. From a conservative

economic perspective, Boskin points out that increased spending on preschool is fiscally

irresponsible and unsustainable. By reducing the incentives for businesses and firms to operate in

California, increased taxes and spending will result in capital flight from the state economy.11

In her piece “Is Universal Preschool beneficial,” Lisa Snell evokes similar economic

concern in her framing of ECE and preschool in California. Snell contrasts sharply with the view

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 Ibid. 10 Boskin, Michael. "Quit Taxing the Rich to Fund Your Pet Projects." Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2006. Note: pre-K is different from preschool in that all pre-K programs have program standards and focus specifically on school readiness. Pre-K programs serve three and four year olds, which is usually the case for preschool programs but not always. In general, pre-K programs are associated with higher quality learning environments than preschool, although this is not always the case. 11 Ibid.

! "#!

that increased state investment in preschool will actually promise a return on investment. Snell

argues that it is will cost taxpayers billions of dollars to expand preschool, and adds that many of

its benefits are overestimated by think-tanks like Rand.12 Furthermore, the author’s work

suggests that optimistic economic forecasts leave out the state’s track record in maintaining a

fiscally responsible budget. As such, the potential economic benefits of preschool are heavily

outweighed by the economic impacts of increased taxes and state spending.

Still, the economic framing of preschool policy in California is not limited to the

traditional liberal and conservative viewpoints just mentioned. While cost/benefit analyses play a

crucial role in the framing of early education, calls for greater efficiency and proper management

of programs already in place also have a significant role in the framing of preschool policy. For

instance, Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek argue that “the ways in which the available resources” are

used matter most in increasing the return on the investment in early education (as well as primary

education).13 The authors suggest that in framing the debate on preschool expansion, policy-

makers should focus less on investment or divestment and more on using resources efficiently

for programs already in place. They further contend that preschool programs “spend money as

the regulations demand, not necessarily to meet the needs of their students.”14 Focusing solely on

the return on investment can detract from efficiency. Accordingly, any economic justification for

preschool expansion must first address the proper allocation of resources and efficient use of

these resources already supporting programs.

Role of Government

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12 Burke, Lindsey, and Lisa Snell. "Universal Pre-K May Not Be as Good as It Sounds." Reason Foundation, 2014. http://reason.org/news/show/universal-pre-k-may-not-be-as-good. 13 Loeb, Susanna, Anthony Bryk, and Eric Hanushek. Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and Governance in California. Stanford University, 2007: 7. 14 Ibid.

! "$!

The scope of preschool policy depends on what is considered to be the proper role of the

state: is access to quality preschool a responsibility of the state, and what role should government

play in the market for preschool? Much of the literature regarding this topic is highly political

and draws on theoretical foundations of the role of the state. The existing body of research and

literature highlights the fact that ideology, specifically on the role of government, is inseparable

from the issue of increasing access to quality preschool.

“Preschool For All” and several other articles published by the Goldwater Institute, a

libertarian policy think tank, address supporters of preschool expansion in California as “nanny-

statists.”15 The authors borrow the term “nanny-statism” from previous political debates (such as

Head Start in the 1960s), in which conservatives felt the role of government was extending too

far into the realm of personal choice. The authors do not reject the notion that early education has

the potential to help many children, but rather that the means of creating such a system would

result in the largest “expansion of government into education since the creation of public

schools.”16 While preschool may indeed benefit children, the authors suggest that the magnitude

of government expansion is not justified for a problem that the current mixed market and

programs already in place can solve. Families and the current preschool system should account

for child development and school readiness, as the Goldwater Institute claims, not additional

government expansion.

In a similar fashion, Olsen and Snell characterize the expansion of preschool and ultimate

adoption of universal preschool in California as “de facto institutionalization” and an

“entitlement program that subsidizes the preschool choices of middleclass and wealthy

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!15 "Preschool For All!" Goldwater Institute. October 8, 2007. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/preschool-all-0. 16 Ibid.

! "%!

families.”17 In this way, the authors expand on anti-early education arguments by incorporating

market and limited government ideology. The current market for preschool is mixed, meaning

children can receive their preschool education from either publicly supported or private

preschools.18 However, the authors argue that preschool expansion in California would

completely restructure the market by creating a state controlled monopoly and thereby limit

families’ freedom of choice. The extension of state would impede the already efficient

functioning of the mixed market for preschool and allow state government to make decisions that

should otherwise be limited to family discretion.

Los Angeles Times reporter Karin Klein offers another critical perspective on preschool.

She denounces calls for preschool expansion in California, raising concerns over the potential for

a “scary preschool utopia.”19 Her argument is based on the ideological assumption that state

government has no right to obstruct or substitute for family choice. Rather than building

bureaucracy, Californians should focus on building better families.20 Klein does not refute the

benefits of ECE and preschool specifically; instead, she suggests that government is already

doing enough to promote access. Klein holds that the current state-market relationship has led to

an efficient preschool system and that less emphasis should be placed on state-led preschool

expansion.

Others, such as David Kirp of UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, view

access to quality preschool as a primary responsibility of the state. From his numerous articles,

such as “California Should Give All Kids the Pre-K Advantage,” he argues that the state is

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!17 Olsen, Darcy, and Lisa Snell. "Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten." Reason Foundation, 2006. http://reason.org/news/show/assessing-proposals-for-presch. 18 Note: please see chapter two, “The Mixed Market for Preschool,” for an in depth explanation and analysis of the market for preschool in California.!!19 Klein, Karin. "Scary Preschool Utopia." Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2005. 20 Ibid.

! "&!

responsible for leveling “the playing field for hundreds of thousands of poor children.”21 In

reviewing the array of benefits that come with a quality preschool education, such as increased

graduation rates and participation in higher education, Kirp suggests that the government should

ensure the right for all children to have access to quality preschool programs. On a more

ideological level, Kirp holds that the state has a responsibility in addressing poverty, and state-

sponsored early education offers one such way to ensure that poverty is not destiny.22 The issue

of ECE is not just about freedom of choice or nanny-statism. Preschool policy begs the all-

important question of who is responsible for solving some of the grave inequities that exist in

society. According to Kirp, the state can be the principal agent in reducing such inequities, and

expanding access to preschool offers one policy area that can help to accomplish this.

Education reporter Sarah Garland also frames the issue of preschool expansion as a state

responsibility in narrowing the well-known and reported gap between students in California. In

her report, the author highlights the fact that the achievement gap starts early in California; in

fact, studies have shown that an achievement gap exists before children even begin attending

school.23 As a result, Garland points to increased access to quality preschool as one possible state

solution for creating a more equitable education system – one that addresses inequalities in

access that exist between different racial and socioeconomic groups. By expanding and

improving the preschool quality, the state of California may better fulfill its responsibility of

providing an equitable and just education system that offers all children a fair chance to succeed.

Indeed, preschool policy can be framed as a matter of the state ensuring fairness and

justice in education for all children in California. Bernstein, a political and policy correspondent

for Reuters, identifies preschool as critical in upholding all kids’ right to a fair start. She notes

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!21 Kirp, David. 2014. 22 Ibid. 23 Garland, Sarah. "More, Better Early Education Could Help Close California's Achievement Gap." The Hechinger Report, October 24, 2011.

! "'!

that “higher income families are already making sure their children have access” to high quality

early education; it should be up to the state to ensure access to the many families who cannot

afford such a luxury.24 Bernstein suggests that the state is not only responsible for closing the

achievement gap in California, but is the only viable actor in closing the gap. The market alone

will not address the inequities inherent in the current system. The significance of preschool

policy is framed such that access to quality preschool is a right, not a privilege, of all children

and a direct obligation of the state.

Policy analyst Linda Jacobson expands on this framework in her comprehensive report,

“On The Cusp in California.” She offers policy recommendations on the primary grounds that

the state “can- and should- be” doing much more to ensure equal access to early learning

experiences.25 In addressing the discrepancies in access between high and low-income families,

Jacobson specifically calls on the state to expand access to preschool as a means of closing the

achievement gap and improving education for economically disadvantaged families. Throughout

the report, Jacobson draws on disparities in access, quality and inequitable distribution to

emphasize the failure of state government in providing a fair start for many children in

California.26 A social justice perspective is implicit in Jacobson’s report: it is the state’s

responsibility to provide preschool to children who need it most, namely low-income families.

State officials have a responsibility to show leadership and to advance preschool and other ECE

reforms in California.27 For Jacobson, preschool expansion offers the state a concrete opportunity

to narrow the opportunity gap between high and low-income families and ultimately reduce

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!24 Bernstein, Sharon. "In Newly Solvent California, Dems Propose Free Preschool." Huffington Post, January 7, 2014. 25 Jacobson, Linda. "On The Cusp in California: How PreK-3rd Strategies Could Improve Education in the Golden State." New America Foundation, 2009: 3. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid, 33.

! "(!

poverty. The opportunity to combat educational inequities inherent in the system should not be

wasted, especially given the tremendous body of research touting the benefits of preschool.

The Sandbox Investment by Kirp provides a narrative of the ECE movement throughout

America but devotes several portions specifically to California. While he addresses the views of

prominent members involved in the preschool policy debate in California such as Fuller, Snell,

Hill-Scott and Boskin, Kirp ultimately acknowledges the significance of regulation in the

promotion and expansion of quality preschool. He suggests that “competition can strengthen

quality… but only if parents have good information and government sets sensible standards”; in

addition, an unregulated market for preschool will not increase the availability of usable

information to families and will, in all likelihood, hinder the quality of education for most

children.28 Kirp recognizes the importance of the state in facilitating meaningful change in

preschool policy that promotes both access and quality. The author’s work also highlights the

relevance of preschool policy in California politics. Preschool is now a prominent policy issue in

California state politics that all policy-makers are well aware of. By providing a narrative of the

preschool debate in California, Kirp reminds us that preschool policy needs to focus on kids’

future rather than politics. The importance of politics in expanding access to preschool cannot be

stressed enough, but the far-reaching impact of comprehensive preschool reform reiterates the

need to overcome political gridlock.

Bruce Fuller, Alejandra Livas and Margaret Bridges present the case for a more

decentralized approach in their report on how to expand and improve preschool in California.

The authors, all prominent academics in the field of ECE, point out that policy options are not

limited to maintaining the status quo of a mixed preschool market or expanding to a state-

controlled market. Instead, the authors contend that decentralizing early education policy may !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!28 Kirp, David. The Sandbox Investment: The Preschool Movement and Kids-First Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007:222-223.

! ")!

address flaws in the system, namely gaps in access and quality. The report suggests, “the ideal

system from a parent’s vantage point would be a single and inviting point of entry”; in other

words, a more efficient system might entail localized options from either government, private, or

community organizations.29 The authors address the pros and cons of the status quo and

potential for universal preschool while embracing a more decentralized policy framework. They

claim the current mixed market fails to address quality disparities between communities while

state-controlled preschool would likely increase standardization and uniformity in early

education.30 On the other hand, decentralizing early education may consolidate programs and

simplify the process for both families and organizations by county.

Fuller’s book, Standardized Childhood, delves deeper into the role of government in

promoting promoting. Most importantly, the author frames the role of government as one that

increasingly must be defined by decentralization in California. In this way, Fuller is not

questioning whether the government has a role, but which kind of role the government has in

proposing initiatives and implementing programs.31 He addresses the primary concern of many

limited government advocates by stating that preschool policy debates should incorporate

democratic discussion over how to “strengthen the capacity of families” so they may be better

able to make decisions for themselves.32 The author warns against the possibility of a state-

controlled early education system and contends that the extent of government intervention needs

to be limited. A state-controlled system would result in the standardization of education and

become another entitlement program that fails to close achievement gaps and reduce inequities in

education. Accordingly, Fuller suggests that the role of government should be to support

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!29 Fuller, Bruce, Alejandra Livas, and Margaret Bridges. "How to Expand and Improve Preschool in California." Policy Analysis for California Education, 2006:21. 30 Ibid. 31 Fuller, Bruce. Standardized Childhood. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007: 150. 32 Ibid. 274.

! "*!

collective action locally. More specifically, decentralizing early education policy and programs

to local counties would lead to “an easier-to-access, higher quality network of organizations and

caregivers.” 33 Fuller’s suggested preschool policies frame preschool as an opportunity for the

state to support and nurture more local, culturally based early education programs rather than

establish its own universal system of preschool.

Innovative Policy

Public policy and especially issues such as early childhood education are dynamic:

policymakers, academics, and experts in the field are always looking for solutions to social

issues or, for the purposes of this research, the best policy frameworks for either expanding or

contracting state-supported preschools in California. San Francisco’s Preschool For All (PFA)

program helps to reframe the preschool policy debate. PFA offers an example of policy with an

explicit mission to increase access to all children in San Francisco, but especially low-income

families. The program’s demonstrated impact on increasing access to quality preschool

highlights the importance of preschool policy and its potential to transform the educational

experience and opportunities of children throughout the city. The existing body of research and

policy analysis on this particular program is limited, offering one area for greater research and

analysis.

Jill Tucker, an education reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, highlights PFA’s

ability to counter some of the previously mentioned arguments against preschool expansion. She

notes the program’s high quality standards and financial support of under-resourced preschools

in the city. Tucker also alludes to the program’s funding of both public and private preschools

and family centers. By working within the mixed market for preschool in San Francisco, PFA’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!33 Ibid. 285.

! #+!

partnerships with a variety of program types has no doubt contributed to the city’s well above

average preschool enrollment rates.34 PFA has helped to increase enrollment for all children in

the city but particularly for children from economically disadvantaged families. Given this

success, the author contends that the program could serve as a model for other counties and even

the state in restructuring preschool and other early education policies. PFA’s ability to expand

access to quality preschool through both public and private partnerships while enhancing quality

may prove crucial in shifting the framework for preschool policy in California.

Text Analysis

In addition to this literature review, text analysis of a sample of over 200 newspaper

articles helps to lay the foundation for better understanding preschool policy in California. The

media discourse analysis included in this paper gives insight into the political rhetoric of

preschool policy. It also highlights some of the major areas of discussion, namely financing

preschool, which groups need preschool services, and the quality of programs. For example, how

to finance preschool initiatives is clearly an integral part of the policy discussion. The word

“budget” is used 338 times in the sample, and “money” and “funding” are used 243 and 205

times, respectively. Given California’s recent budget woes and recovery from the recession, it

makes sense that these words are used so frequently in preschool policy discourse. This further

emphasizes the role of economics in preschool policy. Both supporters and opponents of

preschool expansion draw on economic arguments, usually that preschool expansion is either

fiscally irresponsible or a positive investment in the state’s future.

Moreover, issues of access and quality are apparent in the discourse. “Income” is used

333 times, and “Low-income Families” is a top bigram and trigram with regard to frequency. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!34 Ibid.!

! #"!

This indicates that much of the discourse surrounding preschool policy includes discussions over

who is in need of access to ECE. Discrepancies in preschool participation rates based on family

income persist, and low-income families in California have less access to quality preschool

programs.35 “Universal” is used 182 times and “Universal Preschool” is a top bigram; “access”

itself is mentioned ninety-eight times in the text. The frequency of these terms in the discourse

suggests that certain groups are in need of greater access to preschool. It is evident, too, that low

and middle-income families are central to the policy debate. Preschool expansion and calls for

universal preschool center around leveling the playing field and increasing access for all of

California’s children, but especially children from economically disadvantaged families who

stand to gain the most from such policies.36 Disparities in access are apparent in the discourse

and are inherently linked to the role of the state. Universal and targeted approaches to increasing

access to preschool involve the state in some capacity, and the “State,” “State Preschool,” and

“Public Preschool” are amongst the most frequently used terms. The role of government is a

major issue in preschool policy, and the media discourse affirms the importance of the state in

promoting access.

Last, quality is commonly used in preschool discourse. “Quality” is used 215 times in the

sample of articles, and “High Quality” and “Quality Preschool” are most frequently used

bigrams. The use of quality in discourse is critical – increased access to preschool will have a

negligible impact if quality is not high. The quality of preschool programs is key, and the

frequency of “quality” terms in the discourse points to its significance in policy discussions. Text

analysis of media discourse shows that access and quality are dominant points of discussion in

preschool policy debates. The role of the state and economics are also main lenses through which

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!35 Note: please see “Gaps in the Mixed Market” for specific details on preschool participation rates by income in California. $'!Schumacher, Kristin. "Reinvesting in California’s Children: Preschool for All?" California Budget and Policy Center. May 7, 2014.!

! ##!

preschool policy is framed. The full list of top words, bigrams, and trigrams can be found in the

appendix.

By breaking preschool policy down by economics, the role of the state, and policy

innovations and analyzing media discourse, the reader is more easily able to understand the key

frameworks of preschool policy in California. Whether viewing preschool expansion as a sound

economic investment or unsubstantiated extension of the state, these perspectives offer insight

into the changing dynamics of the relationship between state and market and its influence on

preschool policy. Furthermore, the issue of ECE offers one area for new policy innovations and

state-market dynamics. The literature provides theoretical, qualitative and quantitative support

for a wide range of viewpoints on preschool. The diversity of opinions suggests that a consensus

on preschool policy is far from being reached in California. It also calls for more in depth

analysis on the market for preschool in the hopes of highlighting potential areas for improvement

moving forward.

II. The Mixed-Market for Preschool

The history of California’s mixed market for preschool dates back to 1965. During this

time, the state of California created the State Preschool Program (SPP), which was created in the

hopes of better serving at-risk children who did not otherwise have access to quality preschool.37

The program’s implementation was in part facilitated by nationwide efforts such as Head Start,

which sought to improve child services and access to preschool by placing particular emphasis

on low-income families and families living below the poverty line. Prior to California’s SPP,

preschools did not receive funding from the state; instead, center-based programs were either

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!37 Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. "The State of Preschool 2013." National Institute for Early Education Research, 2013. 36.

! #$!

privately funded or funded by local initiatives. Thus, it was not until 1965 that California’s

market for preschool education became mixed, offering both state-funded and private options for

families to choose from. The SPP provided a basis for state preschool education policy, helping

to shape the programs that currently make up state-funded options offered within California’s

mixed market for preschool.

Fast-forwarding to 2007, the state created the Prekindergarten and Family Literacy

Program (PKFLP), offering half and full day services for families at or below seventy percent of

state median income.38 Shaped after the SPP, the PKFLP’s scope expanded to include an

additional literacy component. By 2008, the state of California streamlined its many ECE

programs, including the SPP, PKFLP, and General Child Care programs such as First 5

California, to create the California State Preschool Program (CSPP).39 The CSPP consolidated

funding for the aforementioned state-funded programs that serve eligible three and four year olds

across the state. The CSPP is now the largest state-funded preschool program in the country; it

provides services ranging from meals for children to parent education and is administered

through local education agencies, colleges, and nonprofits.40 While the CSPP provides an

example of the state’s contributions to the mixed market for preschool, looking at actual

enrollment rates for private, public, and home-based preschool education presents a more holistic

framework for understanding the preschool system in California.

Because California’s market for preschool consists of both public and private options, it

is difficult to find comprehensive data that accounts for children participating in various types of

center-based programs and home-based programs such as Family Child Care Homes. A series of

Rand reports on preschool quality and efficiency gives extensive data on participation rates and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38 Ibid. 35.!39 Ibid. 40 "Child Care and Development Programs." California Department of Education. March 20, 2015. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/op/cdprograms.asp.

! #%!

the market for preschool in California. Their work is a series of technical reports based on the

organization’s own representative sample of preschool age children in California, including three

and four year olds. The data sample is intended to provide further insight into the types of

programs used by families throughout the state. The reports also detail types of funding

associated with each program, in turn indicating the socioeconomic factors that may go into a

family’s decision of which type of preschool to send their child to.

It is critical to note that more than half of California’s preschoolers, including three and

four year olds, attend center-based preschool programs.41 These programs, as defined by Karoly

et al., include Head Start Centers, preschools, prekindergartens, nursery schools, and child-care

centers. They may also be defined as programs that are not home-based with regard to either the

child or provider’s home.42 Table 1.0 displays program arrangements for preschool-age children,

categorizing the setting types as center-based, relative care, or nonrelative care.

43 Table 1.0 displays the distribution of early childhood education programs for three and four year old children. The study was conducted with sample size 2,025 children. Of those 2,025 children, 1,016 were three years old and 1,009 were four years old.

As Table 1.0 shows, the majority of surveyed parents, about fifty-nine percent, reported sending

their child to a center-based program compared to twenty percent and thirteen percent for relative

and nonrelative care, respectively.44 The total distribution of children attending center-based

programs is brought down by three year olds, a group that has lower participation rates in all

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!41 "Most California Children Attend Center-Based Preschools; Educational Quality of Programs Falls Short." Rand Corporation, 2008. 42 Karoly, Lynn, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Gail Zellman, Michal Perlman, and Lynda Fernyhough, “Prepared to Learn: The Nature and Quality of Early Care and Education for Preschool-Age Children in California.” RAND Corporation, 2008. 36. 43 Ibid. 40. 44 Ibid. 39.!

! #&!

local, state, and federal preschool programs. This discrepancy in three and four year old

preschool participation rates is consistent with other existing data on preschool participation

rates.

It is worth mentioning that the distribution of setting types for three and four year olds

does vary slightly with the data collected from providers rather than the families themselves.

Based on provider survey data, fifty-seven percent of four year olds and forty-two percent of

three year olds attend center-based programs.45 Altogether, the percentage of both three and four

year olds participating in center-based programs is equal to roughly half of all children. In spite

of these minor variations, the main take-away from this data remains the same: the majority of

children attend center-based programs as opposed to home-based preschool. The demand for

center-based programs highlights the relevance of the market for preschool in both the private

and public sectors. Given the growing demand for center-based programs, it is especially

important to examine the distribution of setting types within the center-based category.

The breakdown in preschool participation for center-based programs offers a closer look

at the differences between public and private preschool attendance in California. Table 2.0

displays program type in center-based settings for preschool-age children including three and

four year olds.

46Table 2.0. The above information is based on a sample size of 615. In contrast to previous tables included in this report, Table 2.0 includes percentages that are based on survey data from preschool providers rather than households.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!45 Ibid. 80. 46 Ibid.

! #'!

In total, thirty-seven percent of three and four year olds attend publicly funded preschool.47 This

includes children enrolled in Head Start, Title V (i.e. California State Preschool), or public

school prekindergarten programs. Twenty percent of children are enrolled in private preschool

programs, twenty-seven percent in independent preschools or nursery schools, and sixteen

percent in child-care or other.48 The data also suggests that more four year olds are enrolled in

publicly funded programs compared to three year olds. While there is no dominant program type,

publicly funded program types represent the largest percentage of center-based programs. The

distribution in participation rates between private, independent, child-care/other, and publicly

funded preschools confirms the mixed nature of the market for preschool in California. In the

absence of a universal early education system, families in California are left with a number of

options regarding where to send their child to preschool that varies depending on program type,

cost, and affordability. For the most part, they prefer to send their children to center-based

programs and, within this, publicly funded programs that may offer free or reduced cost

preschool.

Still, tuition and accessibility of the aforementioned center-based programs is

inconclusive. Although the distribution of participation rates in center-based programs indicates

a mixed market for preschool in California, it does not entirely indicate which programs are

accessible to whom. A deeper analysis of program fees offers a more transparent view of the

market for preschool and which aspects of the market are serving whom. From Table 5.0 below,

it is evident that sixty-two percent of children attending preschool in center-based programs are

part of programs that charge a fee.49 This does not suggest that children attending programs with

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 80. “Other” entails centers that provide preschool services but are not necessarily labeled as preschool. One example includes recreation-center programs.!49 Ibid. 83.

! #(!

tuition all pay the same amount; rather, the majority of programs that do charge a fee offer either

sliding-scale tuition, adjusted based on family income, or need-based scholarships.50 Thus, about

forty percent of three and four year olds enrolled in center-based programs attend preschools that

require no fee. These programs that require no fee predominantly consist of publicly funded

programs, such as Head Start, First 5, and Title V preschools.

51 Table 5.0. The information provided shows the percentage breakdown of programs included in the Rand study that charge fees or participate in public subsidy programs. It is also important to note that these percentages are for center-based programs only and include statistics for both three and four year olds. The table highlights that while the majority of programs charge a fee, there are still opportunities for alternative funding through sliding-scale fees and need-based scholarships. This information will be especially relevant in analyzing the PFA program in San Francisco, which provides services to programs that charge fees as well as participate in public subsidy programs.

The differences between programs with and without fees do not relate to either type of

school’s ability to accept public subsidies. Although sixty-two percent of schools charge fees,

more than eighty-five percent of center-based programs accept some form of public subsidies.52

These subsidies include but are not limited to vouchers, Head Start contracts, First 5 contracts,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!50 Ibid.!51 Ibid. 52 Ibid.

! #)!

and other local or county school district subsidies. Table 5.0 looks mostly at fees and subsidies

for programs, but it does provide an estimate for the total percentage of three and four year olds

in center-based programs that are subsidized – just over thirty percent of total children enrolled.53

The dollar amounts of the subsidies received by those thirty percent remain uncertain, but the

data does offer critical insight into some of the factors that influence the distribution of

participation within private, public, independent, and other preschool programs.

The amount of subsidies and funding for public programs depends on government

funding at the local, state, and federal levels. Depending on its type, each program may be

eligible to receive funding from one or all levels of government. For instance, Head Start centers

receive federal funding since the program is a nationwide initiative; First 5 California centers

receive mostly state funding but, as is often the case, receive some funding from the counties

they serve. Since this section details the political economy of preschool in California, it is

important to pay special consideration to the state’s role in funding public programs.

Table 6.0 displays state spending per child enrolled in public programs from 2002 to

2013. State spending on preschool appears to have remained relatively constant between 2005

and 2008, with a slight decrease from roughly $4,200 per student to $4,000 occurring at the onset

of the Great Recession. The data included in Table 6.0 also suggests that state preschool

spending increased dramatically from 2009 to 2010 to just over $5,800 per child enrolled. It

should be cautioned that this apparent increase in state funding is a product of program

consolidation rather than an actual increase from previous years.54 The 2008 California State

Preschool Program Act streamlined funding for state preschool programs, including the

Prekindergarten Family Literacy Program and General Child Care Program, and was fully

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!53 See Table 5.0 &%!Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. 35.!

! #*!

implemented in 2009. The ensuing increases in Table 6.0 represent consolidated funding from

the General Child Care program as well as stimulus money from the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act.55 The decrease of over $1,000 in spending per child enrolled in preschool

from 2010 to 2012 reflects steep budget cuts as a result of the Great Recession.56 State preschool

spending has since recovered to pre-recession spending levels and has actually increased thanks

to grants from the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTELC) and the creation of

Transitional Kindergarten.57 California now ranks seventeenth out of fifty states in the NIEER’s

annual state spending and resource rankings.58

59Table 6.0 displays California state spending from 2002 to 2013. Data is taken from the NIEER’s most recent preschool yearbook, which provides an overview and analysis of preschool policy and its effectiveness. The data shows a spike in state spending between 2009 and 2010. Although this indicates a dramatic increase in per student spending for preschool, the spike is in fact a result of program consolidation resulting from the 2008 California State Preschool Program Act.

Gaps in the Mixed Market

In spite of the variety of center-based preschool programs, the mixed market for

preschool in its current state is far from promoting equal opportunity for all children in

California. A gap in access to quality preschool persists, disproportionately impacting low-

income families. According to the California Budget and Policy Center, nearly two-thirds of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!55 Ibid. 36. 56 Resmovits, Joy. "Preschool Funding Reached 'State Of Emergency' In 2012: NIEER Report."Huffington Post, April 29, 2013. 57 Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. 35. 58 Ibid.!59 Ibid.

! $+!

low-income three and four year olds are not enrolled in center-based preschool programs.60 This

compares to fifty-six percent of higher-income three and four year olds who are enrolled in

preschool. Even children from families earning close to the state median income have lower

preschool participation rates than their higher-income peers.61 These statistics highlight a critical

trend in preschool participation rates: class matters, and a family’s income is a strong predictor

of a child’s enrollment in quality preschool programs.

The state of California has tried to address this gap in the preschool market through

various programs. While federal programs such as Head Start have offered preschool services for

families living below the poverty line since the 1960s, California has taken more recent steps to

help increase access to preschool for middle and low-income families. For instance, the CSPP

serves more than 200,000 three and four year olds from families earning less than seventy

percent of the state median income.62 The state’s transitional kindergarten program, which will

be discussed in further detail, offers older four year olds services regardless of family income. In

spite of these efforts, income remains a dominant factor in shaping who has access to quality

preschool. It is especially critical for the state to increase access to preschool for low-income

children given they are most at-risk for falling behind in school.63 Without further state action to

increase access to quality preschool for both low and middle income families, the positive

feedback loop continues – gaps in school readiness persist, and these children start primary

education already behind their wealthier classmates.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!60 Schumacher, Kristin. "Reinvesting in California’s Children: Preschool for All?" California Budget and Policy Center. May 7, 2014. Note: preschool participation rates cited from the California Budget and Policy Center vary slightly compared to previously listed statistics sourced from the Rand report, which claimed fifty-nine percent of three and four year olds are enrolled in center-based preschool programs. The variation in data may result from research methodology and their respective sample populations. Moreover, the percentages cited here refer specifically to participation rates based on income groups whereas the Rand study does not disclose the economic backgrounds of families included in its sample. In spite of the variations in overall participation, both data sets suggest that a slight majority of California’s three and four year olds are enrolled in center-based programs. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid.

! $"!

Transitional Kindergarten

Until recently, the mixed market for early education in California neglected older four

year olds, whose kindergarten readiness varied significantly based on date of birth. Before 2010,

four year olds born in the fall on or before December 2nd were eligible to attend public

kindergartens.64 While the date of birth requirements for kindergarten seem relatively harmless,

the policies in place before 2010 had a huge impact on the kindergarten readiness of many of the

state’s four year olds. More so than almost any other state, California children started

kindergarten at a younger age, which in turn affected children’s social, emotional, and cognitive

abilities in the classroom.65 The academic struggles and general lack of readiness on the part of

these four year olds presented a serious gap in the market for early education, one that required a

fix in the state’s early education policy.

In 2010, the state of California passed the Kindergarten Readiness Act, which pushed the

kindergarten entry date back from December to September. As a result, this policy ensures that

children enter kindergarten at age five.66 Most importantly, the law created Transitional

Kindergarten, a “developmentally appropriate curriculum aligned with kindergarten standards

and taught by credentialed teachers.”67 The cutoff date for kindergarten was phased in over a

period of three years and is now fully implemented. In 2014, transitional kindergarten served

134,000 four year olds, helping to close the previous gap in kindergarten readiness that persisted

for older four year olds. Transitional kindergarten so far appears to pose a win-win situation for

children and schools, who both stand to gain from increased kindergarten readiness. Transitional

kindergarten is also indicative of the state’s ability to correct failures in the mixed market for

early education that stem from state education policy as well as private preschool and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!64 "TK California." TK California: A Project of Early Edge California. 2015. http://www.tkcalifornia.org/. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid.!

! $#!

kindergarten supply. The Kindergarten Readiness Act and its creation of transitional

kindergarten highlight a key addition to the preschool market in California, one that fills a

previous gap in state policy and renews the state’s commitment to its early learners.

68 Figure 1.0. This figure created by TK California provides visual aid to California’s transitional kindergarten program. The program has already served thousands of four year olds and helped close a previous gap in state preschool policy. Mixed Market Recap There are several key takeaways from this overview of the market for preschool in

California. The data on center-based programs confirms that the market for preschool is indeed a

mixed system of mixed quality. While there is no majority program type, publicly funded

programs represent the largest percentage of center-based programs followed by private and

independent preschools. It is also evident that the majority of preschool-age children in

California attend center-based programs. Upward trends in center-based participation rates

indicate the growing demand for preschool education outside of the home and in general.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!68!TK California." TK California: A Project of Early Edge California. 2015. http://www.tkcalifornia.org/.!

! $$!

Increasing participation in preschool still does not ensure quality, which can vary greatly from

program to program.69

The distribution of preschool participation rates does not entirely explain who has access

to different programs, but it does highlight discrepancies between high and low-income families.

Even though children from low-income families stand to gain the most from quality preschool

education, they have much lower enrollment rates than their higher-income peers. On top of this,

the preschool programs that low-income children are enrolled in tend to be of lower quality than

that of children from upper income families. This poses a serious challenge for local and state

education agencies, who must find a policy solution to increase access to quality preschool for

those families most in need.

State funding plays a critical role in the mixed market for preschool. California’s support

for early education is slightly above average in relation to the rest of the United States, leaving

plenty of room for improvement. Although sixty percent of center-based programs charge a fee

or tuition, the vast majority of centers accept some form of public subsidy. These numbers do not

offer in depth insight into the accessibility of preschool in California, but they do reaffirm the

importance of public funding and its potential to transform access.

This section has identified California’s preschool system as a mixed market of mixed

quality. Although a variety of programs exist and a slight majority of the state’s three and four

year olds are now enrolled in preschool, access to quality preschool, especially for low-income

families, remains an issue. As long as this gap in the market goes unaddressed, many of

California’s children will forego the benefits of preschool education and begin their schooling

well behind their peers from higher income families. There are local preschool initiatives that

have sought to address these gaps persisting in the market and state policy. San Francisco’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!69 Karoly, Lynn. "Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California." RAND Corporation, 2009. 38.

! $%!

Preschool For All program is one example of a local policy initiative that has focused on

increasing access for all four year olds in the city and children from low-income families in

particular. As a universal preschool policy, San Francisco’s PFA program provides the state with

one policy model for improving access to preschool. The program also shows that preschool

policy can increase access for all children without jeopardizing quality as well as focus on

specific groups most in need of quality early education services.

III. San Francisco’s Preschool For All Initiative

Preschool policy discussions have taken on many faces, and the issue’s framing has

contributed to an array of policy proposals throughout California. There are several ways of

measuring the effectiveness of early education policies, and the arguments both for and against

expansion of state-supported early education offer a diverse set of approaches for analyzing

policy. Preschool policy can be measured by its long-term investment in children, accessibility to

low-income families, or program quality. Certainly, some of these aspects cannot be neglected –

an analysis of any education policy would be remiss if it did not address access and quality in

some shape or form. Because access and quality can be very ambiguous terms in and of

themselves, it is critical to clearly define how they will be used in this context. This section first

provides an introduction to San Francisco’s Preschool For All (PFA) program. It then analyzes

the program’s impact with specific regard to access and quality before offering recommendations

for the policy.

Access to early education has increased significantly in the past decade, and there are a

number of proposed local and state initiatives that champion preschool expansion. The previous

overview of the mixed market for preschool in California highlighted some of the gaps in access

! $&!

to quality preschool. Amidst calls for a decentralized system of preschool, increased

privatization, and universal state-run preschool, there is no consensus on which policies will

provide the highest level of access to quality preschool for all Californians. Policy-makers are

left to grapple with how to increase access efficiently and effectively and in a manner that does

not jeopardize quality.

The city of San Francisco’s PFA program offers one policy model for increasing access,

especially for low-income families, while enhancing quality. By exploring in depth the PFA

program, this paper identifies San Francisco PFA as one potential policy model for other

counties and the state as it tries to close gaps in access to quality preschool. Taking into account

quality, effectiveness, limitations, and areas for improvement, this analysis ultimately suggests

that universal preschool policies can increase access for all children while focusing particularly

on children most in need; this in turn fills a persisting gap in the market for preschool and levels

the playing field for all children as they begin their primary education.

Historical Overview

The story of the Preschool For All program begins in 2004 when San Francisco voters

passed Proposition H. Also referred to as the Great Schools Charter Amendment, Proposition H

appropriated money from the city’s General Fund, which is explicitly used for public services

such as public health and education.70 The proposition increased annual funding for preschool

and K-12 public school enrichment programs by sixty million dollars.71 More specifically, the

funds were distributed three ways: one third for San Francisco First 5 and preschool support, one

third for sports, libraries, arts, and music programs, and the last third for wellness centers,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!70 “Proposition H-Public Education Fund.” SPUR. March 1, 2004. http://www.spur.org/publications/voter-guide/2004-03-01/proposition-h-public-education-fund 71 Ibid.!

! $'!

student support professionals, translation services, and peer resources.72 The proposition gained

significant voter support and political traction as a result of underperforming schools, relatively

low per pupil spending, and declining enrollment in San Francisco Unified School District

(SFUSD) schools stemming from a number of factors, including but not limited to dramatic

increases in the cost of living and gentrification. Although San Francisco’s high cost and

standard of living would seem to indicate substantial per pupil spending in the city’s public

schools, San Francisco, at the time, ranked thirty-fourth among forty-three city public school

districts of comparable size.73 The proposition’s passage in many ways represents San

Francisco’s renewed commitment to public education and growing interest in a quality ECE

system.

The third of Proposition H’s Public Education Enrichment Fund was designated to San

Francisco First 5 and its support for preschools, which ultimately led to the creation of a new

universal preschool program. San Francisco First 5’s new program, titled Preschool For All, was

created under a clear and concise mission: to provide quality preschool and family services to

San Francisco’s families regardless of income or socioeconomic background. Since its inception,

the program has sought to uphold its mission of promoting accessible and affordable preschool to

all four year olds in the city. It also aims to serve San Francisco’s most under-resourced families,

namely low-income and minority families.74

The program offers additional services for families beyond preschool education. PFA and

First 5 San Francisco have taken additional measures to provide resources and education to

families throughout San Francisco. The program’s Family Resource Center Initiative, which

began in 2009, offers families intensive support services and opportunities for community !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!72 “Public Education Enrichment Fund.” San Francisco Unified School District. 2015. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/about-sfusd/voter-initiatives/public-education-enrichment-fund.html 73 “Proposition H-Public Education Fund,” 2004. 74 “SF Family Resource Initiative Evaluation.” First 5 San Francisco. 2013. http://www.first5sf.org/programs/preschool-all.!

! $(!

development. This initiative within PFA focuses especially on building parents’ knowledge and

skills as a means of strengthening families and ensuring healthy childhoods.75 In accordance with

high quality early education, the Family Resource Initiative has undoubtedly helped to improve

family relationships, which is a key factor for children’s emotional and social development. The

initiative has served over 13,000 parents and children to date, the majority of whom are Latino.

According to a report by the San Francisco Department of Children and Human Services

Agency, more frequent visits to the center are associated with improvements in emotional well-

being and reductions in the risk of abuse.76 By offering workshops ranging from parenting

education to parent/child interaction groups, the initiative has had a clear impact on the

thousands of parents and children it has served since 2009.

PFA and partner initiatives like the Family Resource Center have made a tangible and

lasting impact on families in San Francisco. Around the time of Proposition H’s passing and

implementation, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation reported that less than fifteen

percent of children in California attend high quality preschool.77 More than eighty percent of

children in San Francisco now attend preschool, beating both the state and national participation

rates. The program has made significant strides in promoting access to economically

disadvantaged families. Prior to PFA, access to public preschool for free or reduced cost was

limited to families earning less than $35,000. In the absence of an income eligibility limit, PFA

has expanded access to quality preschool for all families in the city. According to Melissa Daar,

a San Francisco parent, “Preschool For All is helping us stay in the city.”78 For Daar and many

families throughout San Francisco, paying tuition upwards of $12,000 for quality preschool is

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!75 “San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative, Year 2 Evaluation.” First 5 San Francisco. July 2012. http://www.first5sf.org/sites/default/files/page-files/11_frc_es.pdf. 76 Ibid. 77 Graff, Amy. “SF’s PFA Adds 10 New Sites.” SF Gate. June 4, 2009. http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2009/06/04/s-f-s-preschool-for-all-adds-10-new-sites/.!78 Ibid.

! $)!

simply not possible. By subsidizing the cost and imposing quality standards, San Francisco has

taken progressive measures to facilitate positive change in its preschool education system.

With PFA’s ten year authorization under Proposition H now coming to a close, it is an

especially critical time for an impact analysis of the program to better understand its strengths

and weaknesses as well as its ability to fulfill the program’s stated mission. This includes an

examination and analysis of the program’s effectiveness as determined through its ability to

promote access and quality. This paper addresses a central question surrounding preschool

expansion in San Francisco: is PFA increasing access to quality preschool for all children in San

Francisco, especially for children most in need?

Funding

Since the implementation of Proposition H in 2005, PFA has seen significant growth in

preschool enrollment rates amongst its partner sites as well as its allocation of funding from the

city. Before discussing trends in participation and the terms of partnering with PFA, it is

necessary to explain how PFA funds its services. From 2005 to 2015, the amount of funding for

PFA increased nearly tenfold. However, the funding for PFA has not been consistent, and both a

sustainable and predictable financial model remains to be seen.

In 2005, the program received $3.3 million, a budget that ultimately supported the

education of 561 four year olds in San Francisco.79 According to one study conducted by San

Francisco’s Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, the average cost per child of

providing preschool in San Francisco falls around $8,800, with higher cost estimates associated

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!79 Note: data was prepared by First 5 SF in 2013 and forwarded by PFA Data Analyst, Xavier Morales.

! $*!

with higher quality preschool programs.80 These numbers include administrative and staffing

costs, which make up between seventy and eighty percent of center-based programs’ budgets, as

well as quality enhancement measures and tuition subsidies or credits.81 At the time of the

program’s implementation in 2005 and the ensuing two years, the program expanded rapidly,

and its annual allocation of funds fell in line with the amounts stated under Proposition H.

Nonetheless, San Francisco, like most cities and states throughout the United States, experienced

budget shortfalls with the onset of the Great Recession in 2007-2008. SFUSD faced upwards of

$40 million in cuts, representing ten percent of its total annual budget.82 As a result, 2008 marked

the first year of the Preschool For All initiative in which program expenditures exceeded

revenue. Although PFA enrollment continued to increase during this time, its improvements in

access to preschool staggered. As portrayed in Figure 2.0, the discrepancy between actual and

statutory Proposition H funds for PFA peaked in 2010, with the program receiving only $14.7

million of the original $20 million set aside by the Public Education Enrichment Fund.83 From

this, PFA was forced to look elsewhere for funding and attain greater efficiency with the funds

they received from the city.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!80 Lucich, Mardi, and Kelly Lynch. “Cost Models of Three Types of Early Care and Education in San Francisco: What is the True Cost of High Quality Care?” SF Department of Youth and Their Families. 2009. 3. 81 Ibid. 82 Tucker, Jill. “School Board Votes to Save Prop. H Cash for Shortfall.” SF Gate. January 23, 2008. 83 Note: data was prepared by First 5 SF in 2013 and forwarded by PFA Data Analyst, Xavier Morales.!

! %+!

84 Figure 2.0. In 2005, the passage of Proposition H promised PFA increased funding as the program expanded. However, the 2007-2008 financial recession forced the City of San Francisco to cut much of its education budget, resulting in the above discrepancy between actual and promised funding for the Preschool For All program. Because of the variations in city funding, PFA has had to seek additional funding

strategies and partnerships. Beginning in 2012, PFA started using its reserve funding for excess

expenditures stemming from budget shortfalls. In this coming year, the program is expected to

deplete the remainder of its reserve funds, meaning that over $5 million of reserve funding will

be used to cover excess expenditures.85 Although the program has received grants from

numerous state and federal entities, such as First 5 California and the Department of Education,

the program’s financial model is not self-sufficient or sustainable. Funding for the program

seemed especially uncertain moving forward given the expiration of Proposition H this year,

which in turn concludes PFA’s ten-year funding authorization.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!84 Ibid. 85 “Proposition H Funding.” First 5 San Francisco. http://www.first5sf.org/press/proph.

! %"!

Nevertheless, members of PFA remain optimistic about the program’s future. While

excess reserve spending and budget shortfalls have limited PFA enrollment growth and put forth

an unsustainable financial model in previous years, increasing access to early education and,

more specifically, the initiative for universal preschool are incredibly salient and politically

feasible issue areas in the city of San Francisco. Proposition H and its concurrent Public

Education Enrichment Fund are set to expire this coming June, but the voters of San Francisco

have already passed Proposition C, which extends the city’s Children’s Fund as well as Public

Education Enrichment Fund.86 Proposition C offers PFA more consistent funding by eliminating

a previous provision that allowed the city to withdraw PFA funding during any year it suffered

budget shortfalls of $100 million or more.87 With nearly three quarters of the vote, the passage of

Proposition C is indicative of citywide support for universal preschool and continued expansion

of early education and family services in San Francisco.

Drawing on the city’s overwhelming support for universal preschool, San Francisco’s

politicians have also taken on the issue in hopes of further expanding access. In January of 2015,

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee proposed expanding access to preschool for an additional 860

children.88 Noting access to early education as one of the primary concerns for families living in

San Francisco, the Mayor is attempting to expand the program at a time when the city is

experiencing tremendous economic growth from the tech boom. Although the proposed

expansion would add another $5 to 10 million to the PFA budget, it would, at least for the time

being, reduce or eliminate the current 500-child waitlist for the PFA program.89 Since 2013, PFA

has received the original amount of funding guaranteed under Proposition H, but the current

budget is still not enough to promote expansion such that the supply of quality preschool in San !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!86“City of San Francisco Children and Families First City Funds, Tax and Administration Proposal, Proposition C.” Ballotpedia. 2014. 87Ibid. 88 Cote, John. “S.F. Mayor Ed Lee Promises Funds for Preschool, Muni.” SF Gate. January 14, 2015. !89 Ibid.

! %#!

Francisco is able to meet the demand. These long waitlists suggest that, with the ten-year

authorization of PFA funding through Proposition H coming to a close, the program has not yet

reached its goal of providing universal preschool. While budget issues have limited PFA’s

impact and growth in previous years, overwhelming political support of universal preschool as

an issue will allow PFA to continue its mission of increasing access to quality preschool

education. Whether the Mayor’s early education proposals are simply rhetoric and political

maneuvers or genuine action remains to be seen, but they certainly present an optimistic outlook

for PFA and the state of universal preschool in San Francisco.

In the current fiscal year, PFA is set to receive about $27 million in city funds.90 Where

and how this money is distributed requires further examination. Understanding PFA’s budget

offers one policy perspective on the program’s efficiency in terms of costs and benefits, but it

also provides greater insight into the viability of replicating the successes of this program

elsewhere in California. With that said, PFA partner sites are delineated into two primary

categories: subsidized or unsubsidized. Subsidized schools, which make up roughly sixty-five

percent of the 150 PFA partner sites, include schools that receive either state or federal education

subsidies. More than sixty percent of subsidized preschools partnering with PFA receive state

subsidies from California’s Department of Education, while the remainder of subsidized

preschools in San Francisco receives funding from either Head Start or Title I.

In fact, PFA partners with every Head Start school in SFUSD. Head Start, a federal

program established in 1965, is designed to serve children between the ages of three and five and

was founded on the basis of promoting equal opportunity for families of all socioeconomic

backgrounds. The program specifically targets children at high risk for academic failure in low-

income communities, and the majority of families served by Head Start centers either fall below !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!90 Ibid.!

! %$!

the federal poverty line or qualify for social services according to state and federal income

guidelines.91 Even though Head Start is a federally run and sponsored program, sixty-four

percent of Head Start agencies in California also contract with the State Department of Education

and city programs like the Preschool For All initiative.92 These schools require further resources

and funding from PFA and First 5 San Francisco to enhance their efforts to alleviate poverty and

promote quality preschool education for under-resourced families.

In addition, Title I schools, which receive federal funds and grants as per the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act, make up a much smaller percentage of PFA partner sites. Much

like the Head Start programs, the handful of Title I schools that partner with PFA have especially

high percentages of students from low-income families.93 In spite of receiving funding from

various federal and state entities, these subsidized schools still require a great deal of additional

funding for quality improvement, teacher development and assistance as well as financial

assistance for individual students. Because Title I and Head Start schools specifically target low-

income families and families living below the poverty line, funding is critical for subsidizing the

cost to families and improving quality, which tends to be lower than that of private preschools in

San Francisco.

Unsubsidized schools, which make up the other forty percent of PFA partner schools, are

in large part tuition-based, meaning students enroll on a fee-for-service basis. Like subsidized

schools, these early education centers may also offer scholarships or sliding-scale tuition. While

unsubsidized schools are more likely to be private preschools and provide access to fewer low-

income families, they still offer a number of opportunities for reduced tuition. Since PFA’s

mission focuses particularly on low-income families, unsubsidized schools on the whole receive

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!91 “About Head Start.” California Head Start Association. 2015. caheadstart.org. 92 Ibid. 93 “Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies.” US Department of Education. June 4, 2014. !

! %%!

less funding than subsidized schools from PFA. These schools still need funds to ensure quality,

promote enrollment, and streamline various program requirements that PFA mandates for its

partner sites.

The amount of funding both subsidized and unsubsidized schools can receive is also

limited by enrollment type. Within this, preschools can either provide a full, part, or school day

of learning. At the least, schools provide part day learning, which entails four or fewer daily

hours; school days are defined by four to seven hours of daily education, and full day preschools

provide seven plus daily hours of learning.94 Eighty-five percent of participating PFA schools

offer full day services, a figure that is critical in enhancing PFA’s potential impact. Numerous

studies highlight the benefits of additional hours of preschool education. Most notably, the

NIEER conducted a randomized study of eighty-five four-year olds in a low-income urban

school district, in which twenty percent of participating families were living below the poverty

line.95 The study suggests that “even students who are far behind at entry to preschool can

develop vocabulary, math, and literacy skills that approach national norms if provided with

extended-duration preschool that maintains reasonable quality standards.”96 Thus, high

participation rates among full day preschool services is significant to PFA’s mission of

increasing school readiness of its students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds.

More hours of quality preschool education result in substantial gains for participating children. In

turn, it is necessary to analyze PFA’s standards of quality and accessibility in order to more

accurately gage the program’s effectiveness.

Defining and Measuring Effectiveness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!94 “2013/2014 PFA Preschools.” First 5 San Francisco. 2013. http://www.first5sf.org/sites/default/files/page-files/Directory_PFA_CURRENT.pdf 95 Barnett, Stephen, Ellen Frede, and Kenneth Robin. “Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-Day Preschool on Early School Achievement.” 2006. http://nieer.org/resources/research/IsMoreBetter.pdf. 96 Ibid.

! %&!

So far, this analysis has only looked into PFA’s historical background and funding

schemes. It is also important to better understand and analyze the program’s effectiveness, a

ubiquitously controversial criteria for any education policy analysis. First 5 SF and the PFA

program have very specific criteria for measuring success and effectiveness. The initiative’s

primary objectives are to make high quality preschool accessible, available, and affordable for all

and to ensure that children are socially, emotionally and academically prepared for success in the

classroom.97 PFA’s site evaluations specifically focus on school readiness by measuring early

math and reading skills as well as self-regulation, which measures children’s attention skills and

social development.

PFA’s most recent evaluations from 2012 suggest that children attending PFA partner

preschools achieve significant gains in early literacy, early math and self-regulation skills,

placing them well above the national average for these categories. The gains in early literacy,

measured by letter word recognition tests, can be equated into a three-month advantage for PFA

children.98 In addition, students at PFA sites achieved increases in applied problem scores for

mathematics, resulting in a three to four month advantage in school readiness.99 The program had

the biggest impact on self-regulation skills. Using the Head-Toes-Shoulder-Knees Test, which

tests participants’ ability to concurrently inhibit impulses while still executing intention, students

made further progress in school readiness.100 From this, children enrolled in PFA partner sites

experience significant progress in school readiness and exhibit learning skills above that of non-

PFA and national averages.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!97 "Evaluating Preschool For All Effectiveness." First 5 SF. August 1, 2013. 98 Ibid. Note: letter word recognition tests measure language development and early literacy. The test is endorsed by the National Education Goals Panel, which selects tests on the basis of predicting subsequent academic success. The test itself is a series of test plates; students are then asked to identify letters, words, and distinguishing letters from images on those plates. This pre-reading and word decoding test can be taken in both English and Spanish. 99 Ibid.!100 Ibid. Note: the Head-Toes-Shoulder-Knees Test is a five minute test that measures a child’s ability to self-regulate. The test asks children to perform the opposite of a response to various commands. For instance, if a child is instructed to touch his toes, his/her correct response entails touching his/her head. PFA administers this test in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

! %'!

An evaluation of PFA’s effectiveness would be remiss if it did not address the program’s

ability to uphold a key part of its mission, namely to ensure accessible and affordable preschool

for all four year olds in San Francisco but particularly four year olds from low-income families.

First 5 agencies throughout California focus a great deal on providing their services to low-

income families. Within this, PFA’s work is especially geared toward under-resourced

communities in the city. As displayed by Table 7.0, the differences between PFA and non-PFA

preschools offer one metric for measuring the impact of PFA programs and provide context for a

comparative analysis of which students PFA actually reaches.

The socioeconomic and racial demographics of PFA participants very much reflect the

program’s special emphasis on promoting preschool access to low-income and under-resourced

communities. For instance, seventy percent of children at PFA partner sites come from families

earning annual salaries of less than $35,000 versus just thirty-five percent of non-PFA

children.101 The income discrepancy between PFA and non-PFA children in San Francisco is

most pronounced in the $15,000-35,000 income range, in which forty-three percent of PFA

children fall compared to just fifteen percent of non-PFA children.102 It is also important to note

that nine percent of PFA families earn over 100,000 dollars per year; although this number falls

well below the twenty-eight percent of non-PFA schools, it is still a point of criticism for the

program that will be discussed in further detail. From these statistics, it is evident that PFA

serves a disproportionately low-income population.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!101 Note: data was prepared by First 5 SF in 2013 and forwarded by PFA Data Analyst, Xavier Morales. 102 Ibid.!

! %(!

103 Table 7.0. This graph details the San Francisco PFA income of entering San Francisco Unified School District kindergarten children by PFA participation (as compared to those who did not receive preschool education from FPA partner sites). The discrepancies between PFA and non-PFA children are most pronounced at the low and high ends of the income spectrum, suggesting that, on the whole, PFA children tend to come from more low-income backgrounds compared to non-PFA children, who come from more high-income backgrounds.

Further analysis of PFA participation demographics shows that increases in preschool

participation rates over the years are most pronounced for socioeconomically disadvantaged

families. Nearly eighty percent of Black four year olds are now enrolled in preschool, up ten

percent since 2007. Four-year-old Latinos have seen the biggest spike in participation with

twenty-five percent improvement in enrollment rates and eighty percent now enrolled.104 These

increases provide strong evidence that PFA has made preschool more accessible, particularly

amongst families who are in the greatest need of these services. In addition to high preschool

participation rates for low-income minority families, PFA has also impacted households with

limited parental education: the majority of PFA parents have no higher than a high school

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!103 Ibid. 104 Note: data was prepared by First 5 SF in 2013 and forwarded by PFA Data Analyst, Xavier Morales.

! %)!

degree.105 These statistics suggest that PFA as a program has made significant gains in preschool

participation rates for the city’s most socioeconomically disadvantaged families and helped to

level the playing field for these children as they move on to kindergarten and primary school.

First 5 SF and the PFA program have a set criteria for measuring effectiveness that

includes rating systems, quality assessments, site evaluations, and tests. These measurements

provide data and critical insight into some of the strengths and weaknesses of the program that

policy-makers and program administrators can in turn use to improve policy moving forward. It

is clear that student performance on administered tests and enrollment data play an important

role in PFA’s own assessment of program effectiveness. For the purposes of this study,

measuring the program’s effectiveness extends beyond these instruments and criteria to focus

particularly on PFA’s ability to uphold its mission of increasing access to quality preschool for

all children in San Francisco. In further defining PFA’s effectiveness through access and quality,

this research offers deeper analysis of the quality of PFA preschools and who actually has access

to these programs. In doing so, quality must be more clearly defined.

Access to Quality Preschool: What is quality preschool and who has access to it? PFA as an organization champions its impact on increasing access to quality preschool in

San Francisco. The program has expanded over the past ten years, culminating in its current

partnerships with over 150 schools. The quality of PFA partner sites has continued to increase

during this time, especially as compared to the quality of non-PFA schools in San Francisco.

There is still a spectrum of quality within PFA preschools, and the question remains as to who

receives what kind of quality preschool education. Because the program places special emphasis

on improving the livelihoods and opportunities for low-income families, it is of particular

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!105 Ibid.!

! %*!

importance to more closely examine the relationship between the spectrum of quality preschool

education and the different socioeconomic and racial groups in the city. This section addresses

the issue of whether or not PFA is enabling affluent families to send their children to well to-do

schools and low-income families to send their children to still underperforming or lower quality

preschools. The evidence ultimately suggests that PFA has increased overall access to preschool

for four year olds in the city, especially for children from low-income families, and income is not

a determining factor in families’ ability to access quality programs.

In order to better understand the relationship between quality and access, it is necessary

to clearly define what quality is and how it is measured. Defining quality preschool education is

a much more difficult task than it may seem on the surface. State and local education agencies

are often caught between choosing older or current quality assessments versus developing new,

more comprehensive and locally based ones. All measures of quality preschool education to

some extent incorporate common elements or criteria. These elements include teacher

qualifications, class size, and assessments of the program’s learning environment among other

criteria.

In an interview with Scott Moore, the former executive director of the California Early

Learning Advisory Council and current Chief Policy Advisor at Early Edge California, he

discussed the framework for effective quality assessments. While the previously mentioned

elements are no doubt important in assessing the quality of preschool programs, they should

really only serve as the foundation for better understanding and assessing quality. According to

Moore, the quality of instruction should be the most important aspect of any quality

assessment.106 All learning, but especially early learning, must involve instructional scaffolding,

or the ability for teachers to adjust their teaching styles and learning environments to best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!106!The information and opinions referenced were noted during an in-person interview with Scott Moore on April 10th, 2015.!

! &+!

accommodate each student’s needs. Effective quality assessments find a way to address teachers’

abilities to reach each and every one of their students. The ultimate purpose of preschool

programs and the quality metrics used to assess them is straightforward: coming out of

preschool, children should be better prepared for school and achieve better results in future

learning environments. Effective quality assessments should account for these elements and

provide insight not only into the current state of preschool, but also ways of improving education

policy moving forward.

Going off of Moore’s definition of effective quality assessments, it is evident that PFA’s

system of quality assessment is adequate given its emphasis on teacher quality and ultimate goal

of improving the program. PFA determines the quality of its partner preschool sites based on a

statewide Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). Within the past few years, California

has sought to create a more uniform, locally based rating system. In 2012, the state of California

received over $50 million from the U.S. Department of Education as part of the Race to the Top-

Early Learning Challenge Grant Award; seventy-seven percent of these funds is spent at the local

level to support organizations, such as San Francisco First 5 and the PFA program, in developing

and implementing a QRIS.107 Upon receiving grant funding from the U.S. Department of

Education, a voluntary network of local early education agencies formed a consortium to align

their local QRIS to a common framework based on various research-based elements and

improvement measures.108 First 5 San Francisco is part of this consortium, and the PFA program

uses the established QRIS in its assessment of its preschool partner sites in the hopes of ensuring

that children have access to high quality programs.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!107 "RTT-ELC Implementation." California Department of Education. January 9, 2015. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/rt/rttelcapproach.asp. 108 Ibid.

! &"!

The QRIS used by PFA and various other early education agencies throughout California

is based on three core elements: child development and school readiness, teachers and teaching,

and the program and environment quality.109 Each core category’s scoring is based on specific

criteria. For instance, scores for the child development and school readiness core are based on

the programs’ compliance with the state of California’s Desired Results Developmental Profile

(DRDP) as well as the programs’ ability to work with families in screening all children using the

Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ).110 The teachers and teaching core is predominately based

on teacher qualifications, with higher scores related to higher degree levels on the part of lead

teachers. In addition, seventy-five percent of lead teaching staff must meet the education degree

requirements as specified by the state of California.111 Effective teacher-child interactions, as

determined by classroom assessments, are also taken into account in the scoring of this core.

Last, the program and environment core is scored according to student/teacher ratios and group

size, Environment Rating Scale (ERS), and the education qualifications of the centers’

directors.112 More specifically, the ERS is a scale designed to assess process quality in ECE that

takes health and safety, the building of positive relationships, and opportunities for stimulation

and learning into account.113 The fully detailed QRIS matrix can be found in the appendix for

more precise details.

By summing the scores from the three core categories, each school receives a total score

between zero and thirty-five. Depending on its score, a partner PFA site is placed between tiers 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!109 See Appendix for full Quality Rating Matrix 110 The Desired Results Developmental Profile is an observation based early childhood assessment that is meant to provide documentation of children’s behavior in natural environments. The assessment is broken down into eight domains, with each based on its own focus. These domains include Approaches to Learning-Self-Regulation, Social and Emotional Development, Language and Literacy Development, English-Language Development, Cognition, Physical Development-Health, History-Social Science, and Visual and Performing Arts. Because the assessment is developed by California’s Department of Education and is modified annually, it is important to view the most up-to-date profile, which can be located at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/documents/drdp2015preschool.pdf. Moreover, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire is a questionnaire designed to help schools and families check children’s development. The questionnaire focuses specifically on developmental and social-emotional screening for children between birth and age 6. This assessment is created independently of state and federal government and can be accessed via agesandstages.com. 111 See Appendix for full Quality Rating Matrix. 112 Ibid. 113 "Environment Rating Scales." Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. 2015. http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/.

! &#!

and 5, with tier 5 representing the highest quality preschools according to the QRIS. Table 8.0

lists the QRIS ratings for 127 PFA preschools in thirty-nine neighborhoods in San Francisco.

The frequency of QRIS tier levels is listed, representing the number of preschools in that

particular neighborhood with the corresponding tier level. Of the 127 preschools included in the

data, the average tier level is 3.46 with a median of 3. Seventy schools are Tier 3, fifty-five

schools are Tier 4, and just 2 of the schools included in the data are Tier 5. Before diving deeper

into the analysis of this data, it is important to note that this sample of 127 PFA preschools is not

entirely comprehensive. The program currently partners with over 150 preschools, which is

about half of all preschools in the city of San Francisco.

114Table 8.0. The above information lists neighborhoods in San Francisco with participating PFA preschools. The frequency of QRIS tier levels and total number of preschools in each neighborhood is also listed. It should be cautioned that the total preschool count in this instance, 127, does not include all PFA preschools, which now totals over 150 preschools. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!114 Note: data was collected by Xavier Morales, Data Analyst for SF PFA, and forwarded to me for the purposes of this project.

! &$!

Nonetheless, the information provided in Table 8.0 does provide meaningful insight into

the quality of a large proportion of PFA preschools. Going off of the QRIS matrix, the minimum

tier of three and average tier score of 3.46 offers several conclusions. For instance, the PFA

partner schools included in this data use valid and reliable child observation and assessment tools

aligned with the California Department of Education and local First 5 agency. These schools also

work with families to screen all children using valid and reliable child screening tools as

developed and approved by the state. With regard to teacher qualifications, the average tier of

partner PFA sites indicates that, at the minimum, preschool classroom teachers have taken

twenty-four units in ECE, sixteen units of general education, and have twenty-one hours of

professional development annually. This means that, on the whole, PFA teachers pass the basic

qualifications required by the state and have studied from an ECE-specific curriculum.

Each of the 127 schools has a group size ratio of two teachers/staff members to twenty-

four students. While there is no limit to class size in California, this ratio falls in line with the

typical enrollment of twenty-four children per classroom.115 In terms of program and

environment ratings, these schools annually receive an ERS assessment, which is conducted

independently by a Quality Improvement System rater. In addition, the average QRIS tier rating

indicates that each program’s director has at least an associate’s degree with twenty-four units in

ECE, six units in management and administration, and two units in supervision. This again

implies that PFA preschool directors are qualified for their positions and have received specific

training in ECE and school administration.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!115 Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. "The State of Preschool 2013." National Institute for Early Education Research, 2013. 36.

! &%!

The minimum criteria met by these schools, as suggested by the minimum and average

QRIS tier ratings, offers several implications when compared to the state as a whole. PFA

preschool teachers are much more qualified than the typical preschool teacher in California, who

is not actually required to hold a degree in ECE or complete annual professional training.116 Only

one quarter of preschool teachers in California hold degrees related to ECE, a standard that PFA

schools well surpass given their minimum tier rating observed in the data.117 PFA preschools’

compliance with state and local assessments, including the ERS assessment, also places them

ahead of the curve in California. Median and average QRIS scores indicate that PFA preschools

receive annual classroom assessments and meet the overall score level required by the state. In

contrast, many CSPP schools do not require or receive site visits and other developmental

support services.118

On the whole, PFA partner preschools excel compared to state preschool programs in

child development and school readiness, teaching and teacher qualifications, and program

environment. Still, a spectrum of quality exists within the program. The neighborhood

distribution of QRIS tier levels, as previously mentioned and listed in Table 8.0, highlights that

not all children in San Francisco and even within the PFA program receive the same degree of

quality preschool education. This begs the question posed at the onset of this chapter: is PFA

truly reaching its target audience of low-income families, or does the standard paradigm of

affluent children attending high-quality schools and low-income children attending lower-quality

schools persist?

Answering this question requires an analysis of the neighborhoods in San Francisco that

PFA serves. The data collected includes median household income of each neighborhood, the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!116 "California Children's Report Card: How Kids Are Doing in Our State and What Needs to Be Done About It." Children Now. 2014. 9. 117 Ibid.!118 Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. 36.

! &&!

quality of preschools in these neighborhoods, and the PFA preschool participation rates for each

neighborhood. The results from this data ultimately suggest that PFA does offer increased access

to quality preschool programs for families of all income levels, but especially for low-income

families, and the level of quality is not directly determined by family income. These results also

support the argument that PFA is one example of an effective universal preschool program that

works to reduce economic inequities in education while increasing access to quality preschool

for all children in San Francisco.

!!"#$%&'(")*,!-./!0123/!4050!6.276!5./!4865981:582;<!1=!125.!;:>1/9!0;4!?/9@/;50A/<!2B!/;92CC>/;5!8;!DEF!?9/6@.22C6!1=!;/8A.129.224!8;!G0;!E90;@86@2,!-./6/!;:>1/96!09/!106/4!2;!5./!>265!9/@/;5!4050!@2CC/@582;!1=!5./!DEF!?92A90>!0;4!E8965!&!GE,!-./!501C/!706!@9/05/4!1=!H038/9!I290C/6<!J050!F;0C=65!B29!5./!DEF!?92A90>,!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!119 Data was collected by Xavier Morales, Data Analyst for SF PFA, and forwarded to me for the purposes of this project.

! &'!

The breakdown in median household income by neighborhood affirms the city of San

Francisco as one of the most expensive in the country. The neighborhoods served by PFA have a

median household income of $83,017, well above the median household incomes for both

California and the United States as a whole.120 The data on neighborhood incomes also highlights

the extreme levels of income inequality in the city. In spite of this large discrepancy between

high and low income neighborhoods, access to preschool through the PFA program is actually

more pronounced in low-income neighborhoods. By providing greater access to quality

preschool in low-income neighborhoods, the PFA program is indeed reaching its target audience

of low-income families while still promoting preschool participation citywide.

Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the top five highest and lowest income neighborhoods in San

Francisco, respectively, based on median household income. In addition, the tables include the

number of children from those neighborhoods attending PFA preschools and its corresponding

percentage. It is critical to point out that the percentage of children attending PFA partner

preschools from the highest income neighborhoods is significantly lower than that of children

from the poorest neighborhoods. As of December 2014, the number of children enrolled in the

PFA program totaled 5,194.121 Only 8.2% of the total number of children enrolled in the PFA

program comes from the richest five neighborhoods in San Francisco. In contrast, 30.2% of

children enrolled in PFA come from the five poorest neighborhoods. It should come as no

surprise, then, that the preschool count is much higher in low-income neighborhoods as

compared to high-income neighborhoods. In referring back to the total preschool counts in Table

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!120 "State and County Quick Facts." United States Census Bureau. March 31, 2015. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. Note: The median household income of California in 2013 was $61,094 compared to $53,046 for all of the United States. 121 See Table 9.0.

! &(!

8.0, there are ten PFA preschools in the five richest neighborhoods in San Francisco and forty-

one PFA preschools in the five poorest neighborhoods.

Table 10.1

!"#$%$&'()*+",*""-.$/+0$(12"3'4$ 5'-(61$7"8.'*"9-$:12"3'$/;4$ &"<$"=$>*(9-,'1$ ?$>*(9-,'1$!"#$%&'($)*% +,-./-,% 01% +2,%&("#343'% +,5.5-6% 5,% /2-%7)(38)9:';%<'**';% ++5.=1,% 5=% /26%>88"(%?@8#"$% +/1.0/+% 5/-% ,2A%B@C'D"9:)#$('9E'"%F)**"G% +//.//6% ++/% 52+%

Table 10.2

@"A'.B$%$&'()*+",*""-.$/+0$(12"3'4$ 5'-(61$7"8.'*"9-$:12"3'$/;4$ &"<$"=$>*(9-,'1$ ?$>*(9-,'1$:3H3D%:"8$"(9%I"84"(*'38% 5-./6+% 5,=% -20%:J38)$';8% ,5.1,1% 1+% +20%K)GH3";9%<@8$"(L#%&'38$% ,=.0=0% 0+6% ++21%!"#$"(8%M443$3'8% -0.61/% +-6% 521%F3#3$)D3'8%F)**"G% 6,.6,,% -1A% A2-%

It is also significant to note that there is no clear link between the quality of preschools in

each neighborhood, as measured by the aforementioned QRIS, and neighborhood income. In

fact, the average quality tier of preschools in the richest five neighborhoods, at 3.37, is slightly

below that of the poorest five neighborhoods, which have an average QRIS rating of 3.42. This

suggests that, as a result of PFA, children from low-income families have greater access to high

quality preschool, and the quality of their preschool education actually rivals that of their

wealthier counterparts within the city. This is a major success of the program, and it holds much

broader implications for the policy, especially as program administrators and local government

officials reflect on the program’s impact over the past ten years.

The data presented in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 affirms PFA’s ability to uphold its mission of

increasing access to quality preschool for all children but especially children from low-income

! &)!

families. The program addresses the evidence-based gap in the market for preschool. This gap,

which refers to the inequities in access to quality preschool for low-income families, represents

an ongoing challenge for PFA, but also an area of marked improvement since the program’s

implementation. As the program has continued to expand over the past few years, it has

strengthened its focus on serving low-income neighborhoods in the city. For instance, in 2011

seventy percent of children not attending preschool in San Francisco lived in five communities:

Bayview/ Hunter’s Point, Visitacion, Potrero Hill, Inner Mission, and Outer Mission.122 Based on

2014 preschool enrollment numbers, these communities compose 36.3% of total enrollment in

PFA preschools, highlighting the program’s strong commitment to under-resourced

neighborhoods in the city.123 While low-income families are traditionally underrepresented in and

underserved by preschool in California, PFA has acted on its mission to improve access to high

quality preschool for the very neighborhoods in San Francisco most in need of these services.

A Response to Concerns Over Preschool Expansion

Referring back to Olsen and Snell’s assessment of preschool policy proposals, one of the

central arguments against preschool expansion in California is that it provides middle class and

wealthy families with a free ride. As the argument goes, universal preschool programs create an

entitlement program for the poor and inefficiently subsidize early education programs for

families who would be able to pay regardless. From the evidence and analysis just provided,

these claims are for the most part refuted by PFA’s impact thus far in San Francisco. The

distribution of participation rates by income clearly shows that PFA serves a disproportionately

low-income population. The program and its impact over the past ten years highlight that

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!122 Ricks, Alice. Increasing School Readiness Among Children in Families with CALWORKS Childcare Vouchers. Berkeley, California, 2011. 6. 123 See Table 9.0. Percentage is calculated by summing the enrollment percentages for Bayview/ Hunter’s Point, Visitacion, Potrero Hill, and the Mission neighborhoods.!

! &*!

universal preschool policy can reach a wide audience while still paying special attention to

certain groups. Low-income families stand to gain more from universal preschool in San

Francisco and are in fact served by PFA at a higher rate than their wealthier counterparts.

Even without PFA, the city’s wealthiest families will continue to have access to quality

preschool through various program options. This does not mean, however, that funding for PFA

is wasted on middle and upper class families and certainly does not mean that these families are

taking advantage of public subsidies. On the whole, PFA has helped to enable what is left of the

middle class to stay in San Francisco. In the absence of PFA, middle-income families like the

Daars would have limited options for quality, affordable preschool and would be under even

greater financial duress to leave the city.124 The middle class is financially vulnerable as a result

of city trends in increased cost of living and housing, and it will continue to shrink in the absence

of public programs and policies that subsidize essential services such as early education.

Furthermore, the number of wealthy families served by PFA is limited compared to the number

of low-income families. This percentage of families who unnecessarily receive subsidized

preschool is even less significant when the proportion who have given their tuition credits back

for scholarships and other subsidies for the program is taken into account. PFA can certainly

improve its mechanisms for tracking funding and tuition credits, and the program is already in

the process of identifying ways to improve in this regard. This is discussed further in the section

on policy recommendations.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning the potential benefits of socioeconomic diversity in the

classroom. The nine percent of PFA children whose families earn more than $100,000 a year

offer one financial inefficiency for an organization that has at times been strapped for funding.

Still, this financial inefficiency may also enhance the learning experience for all children at PFA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!124 See page 37.

! '+!

sites. Several studies on socioeconomic diversity and early learning report the benefits of having

children from various income brackets in the same classroom. Reid, an early education

researcher at Columbia University, argues that there is a positive association between

socioeconomic diversity and children’s language and math skills.125 The study further indicates

that the socioeconomic composition of classrooms plays a critical role in early learning. In this

way, socioeconomic diversity of PFA schools may in fact present a learning advantage for

children. In spite of this positive externality, a more efficient and effective tracking system for

high-income families receiving subsidies and tuition credits is still necessary in creating a more

efficient financial model.

Other criticism from opponents of state preschool expansion touches on concerns over

universal preschool and the creation of entitlement programs. Because the PFA initiative is a

universal preschool policy, it cannot be identified as an entitlement program. Even though the

program predominantly serves low-income families, it does not limit its services to any one

income group or require children to qualify for general participation based on income. PFA

offers one clear-cut example of a universal preschool policy that has succeeded in promoting

access to quality preschool for all but has especially helped to narrow the gap in school readiness

that typically persists between high and low-income groups. The program’s impact over the

years is evidence that universal preschool policies can provide services for those who need them

most without giving the bulk of wealthy families a free ride.

The criticism surrounding preschool policies that in turn create entitlement programs is

also void in this instance. Even though PFA is not an entitlement program, aren’t all children

entitled to a quality preschool education? The well-researched benefits of a quality preschool

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!125 Reid, Jeanne. “Socioeconomic Diversity and Early Learning: The Missing Link in Policy for High-Quality Preschools.” The Century Foundation. February 6, 2012. http://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-earlylearning.pdf.

! '"!

education for three and four year olds should not be limited to a select few. All children are

entitled to a quality early education and have the right to enter kindergarten and elementary

school on a level playing field with their peers. PFA shows that there are alternative policy

solutions to reaching children most in need of quality preschool aside from creating new

entitlement programs. PFA honors children’s right to a quality preschool education in San

Francisco without relying solely on entitlement programs and limiting its reach to families on the

basis of income.

PFA’s impact as a policy invalidates the dissent over preschool expansion that stems

from issues surrounding freedom of choice. Conservative groups and individuals such as the

Goldwater Institute, Olsen and Snell, purport that universal preschool policies limit families’

freedom of choice and impede the already efficient market for preschool. In the ten years since

the program’s implementation, PFA has actually expanded families’ options on where to send

their child to preschool. The program has not fundamentally changed the market for preschool in

San Francisco and has certainly not created a government monopoly on preschool, as these

critics warned might happen. It should be noted that PFA remains a voluntary program in San

Francisco. Although PFA as a program has expanded significantly since its implementation in

2005, there is still a large number of non-PFA schools that offers early education services in the

city.

The mixed market for preschool continues to operate alongside the PFA program, which

partners with all different types of preschools. As aforementioned, the distribution of PFA

preschool partnerships consists of 63% of preschools that receive some form of public subsidies

! '#!

and 37% that are unsubsidized.126 Within subsidized and unsubsidized program types, families in

San Francisco have a variety of options for where to send their child, including but not limited to

preschool centers run by SFUSD, tuition-based schools, state preschools, Head Start programs,

Title I preschools and even a handful of family child care homes (FCCH).127 These options

additionally include preschools offering part, full, and school day enrollment types. By

partnering with a variety of types of preschool, PFA works within the mixed market to provide

families an array of preschool options and in no way inhibits families’ freedom of choice.

Another primary concern over state-supported expansion of preschool mentioned in the

literature review is that it holds the potential to create a standardized classroom with limited

quality, using ‘drill and kill’ teaching methods instead of more creative and play-based

approaches to teaching. The data on program quality indicates otherwise. Preschool expansion in

San Francisco has not limited quality, and classroom observations show that the PFA program

actually serves as a model on how to incorporate play as a tool for creating more effective

learning environments. Tucker points out that PFA’s approach to structuring play in order “to

learn skills” has proven successful in both maintaining and nurturing school environment and

enhancing the quality of education.128 This was also apparent during my visit to Capp Street

Head Start Center in the Mission District. Cecelia Lopez, who’s four year old son, Daniel, is

currently enrolled there, noted the quality of education: “preschool is free, and the quality is

great. Daniel gets to play with his friends and receives special attention from his teacher.”

Preschool teachers at Capp Street try to personalize children’s education as much as possible,

and visit each student’s home at least once to develop personal relationships with families. PFA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!126 Note: these percentages are taken from my own data set, which contains data from only 137 of the roughly 150 PFA partner preschools. Accordingly, these numbers cannot be considered a complete data set of the types of PFA partner schools, but the information does offer insight and trends into the distribution of preschool types involved with the PFA program. 127 Ricks, 17.!128 Tucker, Jill. "Preschool For All Gives Youths Edge in Kindergarten." SF Gate, September 28, 2013.

! '$!

preschools maintain high quality standards, but also stress the importance of play and a more

personalized learning experience.

IV. Policy Recommendations and Limitations

After speaking with several members of the PFA program, the organization is well aware

of some of its financial inefficiencies and recognizes room for improvement. The main financial

inefficiency stems from program subsidies for families who can already afford quality preschool.

Matthew Rector, a program administrator for PFA since 2006, focuses specifically on

onboarding sites and contract administration. In discussing the dilemma of working toward

universal preschool and subsidizing families who are not necessarily in need of financial

assistance, Rector acknowledged that families can give back their tuition credit from PFA to

schools, which can then be used to “offer a greater number of scholarships, more cost reduction,

and deeper discounts.”129 In the past, it has been difficult for PFA to track reimbursements from

families who have chosen to give their tuition credits back to their schools. While the

organization does not have precise numbers on the amount of money given back to schools,

Rector suggests that, on the high end, ten to fifteen percent of reimbursements for PFA partner

sites come from tuition donations. Moving forward, the program hopes to track such information

so that it may paint a more accurate picture of who is and is not using PFA subsidies.

A more efficient system for tracking tuition credits and program subsidies offers PFA

several benefits. Such a system would dispel concerns over subsidizing preschool for families

who are already financially capable of sending their children to quality schools. More

importantly, a better tracking system of tuition credits and subsidies will enable a more efficient

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!129 Information is sourced from my interview with Matthew Rector, Preschool For All Program Administrator.

! '%!

use of funds. Greater transparency in PFA’s funding schemes involves establishing a more

comprehensive enrollment and data collection process.130 Data collection on participating

families’ use of subsidies and credits will enable more efficient distribution of program subsidies

and ultimately increase the number of preschool slots. The demand for quality preschool is still

greater than the supply, and it is important for PFA to continue working towards its mission of

providing quality preschool to all children in San Francisco.

The Age Debate

Since its inception in 2005, PFA has improved preschool participation rates of four year

olds throughout the city, but its efforts to increase participation amongst three year olds have

proven to be lackluster. Over the years, the program’s emphasis on increased accessibility to four

year olds has overshadowed the importance of an even earlier start to quality preschool

education. In 2012, PFA made its first attempts at expanding program services to three year olds.

In taking a targeted approach to increased accessibility, PFA started offering full-day subsidies

for as many as 200 qualifying low-income three year olds.131 While the number of three year

olds enrolled in PFA preschools still pales in comparison to the more than 5,000 four year olds

enrolled, this initiative marked a step in the right direction. As the program looks for new ways

to improve its impact in San Francisco, it must continue to expand access to quality preschool

education not just for four year olds, but three year olds as well.

Preschool participation rates for three year olds, as compared to four year olds, are lower

by all local, state and federal accounts. About seventy percent of the nation’s four year olds are

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!130 Ricks, Alice. 59. 131 Note: data was prepared by First 5 SF in 2013 and forwarded by PFA Data Analyst, Xavier Morales.

! '&!

enrolled in preschool versus only fifty percent of three year olds.132 Within this, twenty-eight

percent of four year olds are enrolled in state-funded pre-K programs while the rate of

enrollment for three year olds stands at just four percent.133 The NIEER’s most recent annual

report on the state of preschools indicates that eleven percent of three year olds and thirty-eight

percent of four year olds are enrolled in state pre-K and Head Start nationwide.134 California

offers a slightly different picture in terms of the differences between three and four year old

enrollment rates. Table 11.0 below shows that seventeen percent of California’s three year olds

are enrolled in state-funded preschool initiatives, special education, and Head Start programs

compared to twenty-six percent of four year olds.135 This shows that PFA’s lower participation

and enrollment rates for three year olds are not uncommon results for early education policies

both within and outside of California, but they still present an opportunity for greater impact

moving forward.

136Table 11.0. These pie charts illustrate the percentages of three and four year olds enrolled in state-funded preschool initiatives, special education, and Head Start. The “Other” category consists of types of programs that qualify as child care rather than preschool, such as state-subsidized child care, and also includes children who may not be attending a center-based preschool program.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!132 Herman, Julia, Sasha Post, and Scott O'Halloran. "The United States Is Far Behind Other Countries on Pre-K." Center for American Progress. May 2, 2013. 133 Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. "The State of Preschool 2013." 9.!134 Ibid. 7. Note: These percentages reflect enrollment as a percent of the total population for these ages, respectively.!135 Ibid. 36. 136 Ibid.

! ''!

The discrepancies between three and four year old participation rates in preschool are

particularly alarming given the significant body of research suggesting that three year olds stand

to gain a tremendous amount from an earlier start to preschool. Steven Barnett, Director of the

NIEER, argues that expanding early education policies to incorporate three year olds is critical in

creating a lasting impact; he bases this assertion on the numerous studies that indicate an earlier

start and longer duration of preschool ultimately produce better results.137 The positive effects of

earlier preschool participation, which include improvements in both cognitive and social

development, are lasting effects that benefit children into their future learning experiences.

Bearing this in mind, Barnett champions more ECE initiatives that target children under the age

of four, especially economically disadvantaged children who stand to benefit the most.138

Loeb et al.’s study examines the extent to which early education benefits children and

offers additional support for increased preschool access for three year olds. By looking into the

cognitive and social effects of preschool attendance at different ages, the authors’ suggest that

more preschool yields better results. The results of their research indicate that the optimal age for

entering center-based programs is three years of age.139 Children under the age of two who

entered center-based programs did not achieve any significant gains in cognitive development

and actually experienced negative impacts in social development.140 It is also important to note

that full day programs were especially beneficial for three year olds coming from lower-income

families.141 This evidence not only supports calls for PFA to increase access to quality preschool

for three year olds, but provides additional support for preschool policies that stand to benefit

low-income families the most.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!137 Barnett, Steven. “Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications.” NIEER. 2008. 2.!138 Ibid. 21. 139 Loeb, Susanna, Margaret Bridges, Daphna Bassock, Bruce Fuller, and Russell Rumberger. "How Much Is Too Much? The Influence of Preschool Centers on Children’s Social and Cognitive Development." Economics of Education Review, no. 26 (2007). 65. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid.!

! '(!

Increased access to preschool for three year olds is a critical issue given the existing

levels of inequality in access. PFA was created with the purpose of providing universal access to

four year olds with a special emphasis on families who would not otherwise have access to

quality early education. The program’s mission can also be interpreted as an initiative to increase

accessibility as well as reduce the inequities in overall access to preschool for all four year olds.

Still, the inequality in access is even more pronounced for three year olds than it is for four year

olds.142 Although policies and programs like PFA have improved access to preschool for four

year olds, increased access for three year olds has remained negligible. Perhaps most

importantly, improvements in access for children from low and middle-income families have

been limited.143 This means that, in addition to being more likely to have attended preschool

before kindergarten, children from high-income families are more likely to have started

preschool at an earlier age. Moving forward, it is essential that PFA use this information to better

address the issue of equity in preschool participation for three year olds. Without a more focused

approach for increasing access for three year olds, disparities in school readiness for four and

five year olds will persist, especially for low-income families who stand to gain the most from

access to quality preschool and family services.

Changing Demographics in San Francisco

Amid changes in the socioeconomic demographics of San Francisco in recent years, the

question remains as to how well PFA can remain true to its mission of increasing access to all

but especially low-income families. Although the San Francisco Bay Area was certainly not

immune to the 2007-2008 economic recession and its detrimental effects on the housing market

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!142 Barnett, Stephen, and Donald Yarosz. "Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does It Matter?"National Institute for Early Education Research, no. 15 (2007). 14. 143 Ibid.!

! ')!

and employment, the city has experienced a strong recovery as a result of new job growth from

the bustling tech industry. The revitalization of San Francisco’s economy and housing market

represents, for many long time residents of the city, both positive and negative change. The rapid

demographic changes within San Francisco inherently affect who is served by the PFA program,

and recent census data provides further insight into possible population trends that will continue

to affect PFA’s focus on low-income families.

According to the most recent U.S. census data, the city of San Francisco experienced a

four percent population increase from 2010 to 2013 compared to 2.9 percent for the state of

California as a whole.144 In real terms, this percentage increase is equivalent to an increase of

20,000 people to the city’s population. While a population increase in and of itself by no means

indicates neighborhood gentrification, the growth in income statistics associated with this

population increase does offer a more transparent picture of the city’s changing socioeconomic

demographics. The cost of living index, which incorporates the cost of housing, food, utilities,

transportation, health care and other goods and services, is based on an average of 100, with each

city’s index read as a percentage of the average for all cities included in U.S. census data. Next

to Manhattan’s index of 216.7, San Francisco has the highest cost of living index in the United

States, with an overall cost of living index of 164.145 Even within California, San Francisco’s cost

of living index is still far higher than that of Los Angeles and San Diego, cities with cost of

living indexes of 136.4 and 132.3, respectively, and larger populations. Such high cost of living

indexes does not imply a lack of poverty in these cities, but it does relate to well above average

median incomes and housing prices.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!144 "State and County Quick Facts." United States Census Bureau, 2015. 145 Ibid.

! '*!

San Francisco’s median household income stands at a whopping $75,600, significantly

higher than California’s average of $61,094.146 Since 2010, the median income in San Francisco

increased by twenty percent and shows no signs of slowing down.147 Compared to California as a

whole, San Francisco also has a lower percentage of residents living below the poverty level –

13.5 percent compared to 15.9 percent for all of California.148 Median income levels and existing

poverty rates are indicative of San Francisco’s high degree of income inequality. In fact, San

Francisco has the second highest level of income inequality of any major city in the United

States.149 While median household and per capita incomes have continued to increase rapidly

over the past few years, the gap between rich and poor has widened. This hollowing out of the

middle class is further impacted by the city’s booming housing market.

150 Note: this graph displays dramatic increases in the price of renting an apartment in the city of San Francisco between June of 2013 and 2014. Prices have increased for studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom apartments. Trends in the cost of housing continue to impact the demographics of San Francisco.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!146 Ibid.!147 Kloc, Joe. "Tech Boom Forces Ruthless A Gentrification in San Francisco." Newsweek, April 15, 2014. 148 “State and County Quick Facts,” 2015. 149 Kloc, Joe. 2014.!150 Stone, Madeline. "Here's What The Average One-Bedroom Rental Costs Around San Francisco." Business Insider, August 15, 2014.!

! (+!

Much like the cost of living index, San Francisco’s cost of housing is second only to

Manhattan; by some accounts, the housing market in San Francisco is now the most expensive in

the country.151 Median rent in the city is $3,460 a month, and the median price for a new or

existing single family home hit $1 million in July of 2014.152 Although these numbers are

astonishing in and of themselves, the pace at which housing prices are increasing has realtors

across the city ecstatic. From 2013 to 2014, the median price for housing in San Francisco shot

up thirty-three percent.153 In addition to monthly rent increases, the number of evictions went up

115 percent, further perpetuating neighborhood gentrification.154

These increases highlight the tremendous economic growth of the city, but also the

ensuing changes to local culture and demographics. Due to geographical constraints and strict

development laws in San Francisco, gentrification and the associated trends in the city’s

socioeconomic demographics are unlikely to change any time soon. San Francisco’s inelastic

housing market has left city policy-makers with trade-offs between the preservation of local and

cultural contexts versus the continued economic benefits of increasing rent and real estate values.

These changes and policy decisions are especially relevant to the PFA program and its mission

of providing universal preschool. As the percentage of low and middle-income families in San

Francisco decreases, the ability for PFA to maintain its focus on economically disadvantaged

families remains uncertain.

Dramatic increases in housing prices have undoubtedly contributed to one of the most

significant demographic changes in San Francisco with regard to preschool policy: the number of

families living in the city is alarmingly low and continues to decrease. San Francisco has the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!151 Pender, Kathleen. "$1 Million City: S.F. Median Home Price Hits 7 Figures for 1st Time." SF Gate, July 17, 2014. 152 Stone, Madeline. 2014. 153 Pender, Kathleen. 2014. 154 Kloc, Joe. 2014!

! ("!

lowest percentage of kids of any major city in the United States.155 According to U.S. census data

from 2013, just 4.6 percent of the city’s population is five or below compared to 6.5 percent

statewide.156 The number of children living in San Francisco has been declining since the 1960s,

a time when a quarter of the city’s population was below the age of eighteen.157 This “fleeing” of

families from San Francisco to the East Bay suburbs and elsewhere directly impacts the city’s

early education policies. Preschool and other ECE policies can only be effective where there are

children to serve, and the overall impact of these policies depends on the demand for quality

preschool.

The low and still declining number of children in San Francisco poses serious limitations

to PFA’s potential for impact. The data presented throughout this report illustrates the need for

high quality preschool in San Francisco, most importantly for low-income families. While the

number of children in the city may be low, there is still plenty of room for PFA to increase

access and expand the scope of its programs and partnerships. Waitlists and excess demand for

high quality preschool persist, and the city must renew and expand its commitment to early

education. PFA must also continue its community outreach efforts to ensure that all families in

San Francisco are aware of the benefits of preschool and the resources available to them.

Nonetheless, the dwindling number of children in the city does highlight the need for

effective and comprehensive early education policy where the population of children and overall

demand is even greater than in San Francisco. The benefits of preschool are too important for

any child to be ignored. The limited number of children in the city should not detract from

support for PFA, but instead encourage similar policies and programs in areas of California

where even greater demand for access to high quality preschool programs exists.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!155 "Families Flee San Francisco: City Has Lowest Percentage Of Kids Of Any Major U.S. City."Huffington Post, March 11, 2012. 156 “State and County Quick Facts,” 2015. 157 "Families Flee San Francisco: City Has Lowest Percentage Of Kids Of Any Major U.S. City," 2012.!

! (#!

V. Conclusion

Access to quality preschool is a right, not a privilege. This paper provides an in depth

look at preschool policy in California and identifies increased access to quality preschool as a

key tool in ensuring all three and four year olds a fair start to their education. Starting with an

overview of preschool policy frameworks, this paper addresses different views of preschool

policy that include but are not limited to preschool expansion as an economic investment,

obligation of the state, and unnecessary extension of government in families’ lives. The literature

review provided a foundation for better understanding preschool policy and highlighted the

central arguments both for and against preschool expansion in California. Data included in media

discourse analysis suggested that funding, access and quality are major areas of discussion within

preschool policy. This implied that policy debates not only address if preschool should be

expanded, but to whom and of what quality and cost. The differing perspectives on preschool

policy beg the question of whether or not access to preschool can increase for all, but especially

children most in need, without limiting quality.

To answer this question, this paper first offers an overview of the market for preschool in

California. This section details the various private and public options available to families and

importantly identifies the preschool system as a mixed market of mixed quality. Although the

majority of three and four year olds attend center-based programs, there is still a tremendous

amount of room for increasing participation, especially amongst certain groups. The analysis of

the preschool market pays close attention to persisting gaps in access and quality. It is evident

that access to quality preschool in California is far from universal, and low-income families have

significantly less access to quality preschool compared to their higher-income peers. The state

! ($!

holds a central role in maintaining the preschool system and provides funding for many of these

essential services. In the absence of a self-correcting private market for preschool, many of

California’s children will continue to forego the benefits of preschool solely because of their

families’ income level. It is imperative moving forward that the state offers policy solutions to

increase access to quality preschool for families most in need and who stand to benefit the

greatest, namely economically disadvantaged families.

San Francisco’s Preschool For All initiative serves as a policy model for increasing

access to quality preschool for all children but especially those from low-income backgrounds.

This paper analyzes PFA’s effectiveness in terms of access and quality. PFA operates with the

goal of increasing access to quality preschool for all children in San Francisco, and it is evident

that the program has lived up to its mission. PFA’s impact extends beyond that of increasing

preschool participation rates to well above state and national averages. In its ten years since

implementation, the program has reached families most in need of quality preschool services.

Increases in preschool participation rates are most pronounced for low-income and minority

families. It is also critical to note that family income is not a determinant of the level of quality

preschool education a child receives through PFA. Data included in this study highlights that the

quality of PFA partner preschools is high across neighborhoods of varying incomes, and children

from low-income families have access to the same quality early education as their wealthier

peers.

PFA’s ability to increase access to quality preschool without limiting quality helps to

refute many of the criticisms surrounding preschool expansion. PFA works within the mixed

market for preschool to offer families a number of options for where to send their child.

Moreover, the program shows that universal policies can increase access for all children while

! (%!

focusing especially on families most in need. Preschool expansion does not have to limit quality

or lead to standardized classrooms. PFA preschools hold high quality standards but also

recognize the importance of maintaining local and cultural contexts as well as personalizing the

learning experience. There is certainly still room for improvement. A more efficient tracking

system of tuition credits and subsidies as well as expanded efforts to collect enrollment data will

help the program further increase access. While the program has had a significant impact on

increasing access for four year olds, it has not fully implemented strategies for increasing

enrollment of three year olds. These improvements will help the program come closer to

achieving its goal of universal access to quality preschool in San Francisco. Through its

commitment to increasing access and quality, PFA will continue to make an impact and help

level the playing field for all children in the city as they begin their primary education.

San Francisco’s PFA model highlights the potential for policy to create a more fair and

inclusive early education system. There are certainly limitations in replicating this model

elsewhere in California – universal preschool is politically salient in San Francisco, and the city

has the budget to be able to offer these services. Nonetheless, local and state government must

adopt a similar commitment to ensure all three and four year olds receive a quality preschool

education and are prepared for primary education. All children have the right to a quality

education; preschool policy that promotes access and quality for all children but especially

California’s most economically disadvantaged families is a great starting point for ensuring this

right. The benefits of preschool are too great and the stakes too high for preschool access to

remain limited to a select few. Increased access to quality preschool through policy is possible,

and we as a society can ensure that all children have equal opportunity as they begin their

education.

! (&!

Works Cited “About Head Start.” California Head Start Association. 2015. caheadstart.org. Barnett, Stephen, and Donald Yarosz. "Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does It Matter?"National Institute for Early Education Research, no. 15 (2007). Barnett, Stephen, Ellen Frede, and Kenneth Robin. “Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-Day Preschool on Early School Achievement.” 2006. http://nieer.org/resources/research/IsMoreBetter.pdf. Barnett, Stephen, Megan Carolan, James Squires, and Kirsty Brown. "The State of Preschool 2013." National Institute for Early Education Research, 2013 Bernstein, Sharon. "In Newly Solvent California, Dems Propose Free Preschool." Huffington Post, January 7, 2014. Boskin, Michael. "Quit Taxing the Rich to Fund Your Pet Projects." Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2006. Burke, Lindsey, and Lisa Snell. "Universal Pre-K May Not Be as Good as It Sounds." Reason Foundation, 2014. http://reason.org/news/show/universal-pre-k-may-not-be-as-good. "California Children's Report Card: How Kids Are Doing in Our State and What Needs to Be Done About It." Children Now. 2014. "Child Care and Development Programs." California Department of Education. March 20, 2015. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/op/cdprograms.asp. “City of San Francisco Children and Families First City Funds, Tax and Administration Proposal, Proposition C.” Ballotpedia. 2014. Cote, John. “S.F. Mayor Ed Lee Promises Funds for Preschool, Muni.” SF Gate. January 14, 2015. "Environment Rating Scales." Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. 2015. http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/. "Evaluating Preschool For All Effectiveness." First 5 SF. August 1, 2013. "Families Flee San Francisco: City Has Lowest Percentage Of Kids Of Any Major U.S. City."Huffington Post, March 11, 2012. Fuller, Bruce, Alejandra Livas, and Margaret Bridges. "How to Expand and Improve Preschool in California." Policy Analysis for California Education, 2006.

! ('!

Fuller, Bruce. Standardized Childhood. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007. Garland, Sarah. "More, Better Early Education Could Help Close California's Achievement Gap." The Hechinger Report, October 24, 2011. Graff, Amy. “SF’s PFA Adds 10 New Sites.” SF Gate. June 4, 2009. http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2009/06/04/s-f-s-preschool-for-all-adds-10-new-sites/. Herman, Julia, Sasha Post, and Scott O'Halloran. "The United States Is Far Behind Other Countries on Pre-K." Center for American Progress. May 2, 2013. “Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies.” US Department of Education. June 4, 2014. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html. Jacobson, Linda. "On The Cusp in California: How PreK-3rd Strategies Could Improve Education in the Golden State." New America Foundation, 2009 Karoly, Lynn. "Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California." RAND Corporation, 2009. Karoly, Lynn, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Gail Zellman, Michal Perlman, and Lynda Fernyhough, “Prepared to Learn: The Nature and Quality of Early Care and Education for Preschool-Age Children in California.” RAND Corporation, 2008. Karoly, Lynn, and James Bigelow. "The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool in California." RAND Corporation, 2005. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG349z1.html. Kirp, David. "California Should Give All Kids the Pre-K Advantage." Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2014. Kirp, David. The Sandbox Investment: The Preschool Movement and Kids-First Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Klein, Karin. "Scary Preschool Utopia." Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2005. Kloc, Joe. "Tech Boom Forces Ruthless A Gentrification in San Francisco." Newsweek, April 15, 2014. Loeb, Susanna, Anthony Bryk, and Eric Hanushek. Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and Governance in California. Stanford University, 2007. Loeb, Susanna, Margaret Bridges, Daphna Bassock, Bruce Fuller, and Russell Rumberger. "How Much Is Too Much? The Influence of Preschool Centers on Children’s Social and Cognitive Development." Economics of Education Review, no. 26 (2007).

! ((!

Lucich, Mardi, and Kelly Lynch. “Cost Models of Three Types of Early Care and Education in San Francisco: What is the True Cost of High Quality Care?” SF Department of Youth and Their Families. 2009. “Mission Head Start." Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.2014. www.mncsf.org. Mongeau, Lillian. "Not Investing in Preschool Is 'Mortgaging Our Future'"EdSource, March 11, 2013. "Most California Children Attend Center-Based Preschools; Educational Quality of Programs Falls Short." Rand Corporation, 2008. Olsen, Darcy, and Lisa Snell. "Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten." Reason Foundation, 2006. http://reason.org/news/show/assessing-proposals-for-presch. Pender, Kathleen. "$1 Million City: S.F. Median Home Price Hits 7 Figures for 1st Time." SF Gate, July 17, 2014. "Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California: Issues, Policy Options, and Recommendations." The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. January 1, 2009. "Preschool For All!" Goldwater Institute. October 8, 2007. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/preschool-all-0. “Proposition H-Public Education Fund.” SPUR. March 1, 2004. http://www.spur.org/publications/voter-guide/2004-03-01/proposition-h-public-education-fund “Proposition H Funding.” First 5 San Francisco. http://www.first5sf.org/press/proph. “Public Education Enrichment Fund.” San Francisco Unified School District. 2015. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/about-sfusd/voter-initiatives/public-education-enrichment-fund.html. Reid, Jeanne. “Socioeconomic Diversity and Early Learning: The Missing Link in Policy for High-Quality Preschools.” The Century Foundation. February 6, 2012. http://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-earlylearning.pdf. "Research Shows: The Benefits of High Quality Learning." Early Edge California. 2015. http://www.earlyedgecalifornia.org/resources/research--studies/making-the-case.html. Resmovits, Joy. "Preschool Funding Reached 'State Of Emergency' In 2012: NIEER Report."Huffington Post, April 29, 2013. Ricks, Alice. Increasing School Readiness Among Children in Families with CALWORKS Childcare Vouchers. Berkeley, California, 2011.

! ()!

"RTT-ELC Implementation." California Department of Education. January 9, 2015. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/rt/rttelcapproach.asp. Schumacher, Kristin. "Reinvesting in California’s Children: Preschool for All?" California Budget and Policy Center. May 7, 2014. “SF Family Resource Initiative Evaluation.” First 5 San Francisco. 2013. http://www.first5sf.org/programs/preschool-all. “San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative, Year 2 Evaluation.” First 5 San Francisco. July 2012. http://www.first5sf.org/sites/default/files/page-files/11_frc_es.pdf. "State and County Quick Facts." United States Census Bureau. March 31, 2015. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. Stone, Madeline. "Here's What The Average One-Bedroom Rental Costs Around San Francisco." Business Insider, August 15, 2014. “TK California." TK California: A Project of Early Edge California. 2015. http://www.tkcalifornia.org/. “Top 10 Daily California Newspapers." Cision. March 3, 2010. Tucker, Jill. "Preschool For All Gives Youths Edge in Kindergarten." SF Gate, September 28, 2013. Tucker, Jill. “School Board Votes to Save Prop. H Cash for Shortfall.” SF Gate. January 23, 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/School-board-votes-to-save-Prop-H-cash-for-3230110.php. “2013/2014 PFA Preschools.” First 5 San Francisco. 2013. http://www.first5sf.org/sites/default/files/page-files/Directory_PFA_CURRENT.pdf.

! (*!

Appendix

! )+!

! )"!

SF PFA Preschool Partner Sites Funding Type

Funding Type

Subset

Top Words Frequency Top Bigrams Top Trigrams Preschool 1267 1, Billion % 3, Year, Olds Children 783 Child, Care % Children, Low, Income State 608 Childhood, Education Darrell, Steinberg, D Year 599 Day, Care % Early, Childhood,

Education Education 561 Early, Childhood Gov., Jerry, Brown School 462 Early, Education High, Quality, Early Programs 426 Early, Learning High, Quality, Preschool Program 400 First, 5 % Low, Income, Children Early 375 Funded, Preschool Low, Income, Families California 373 Gov., Jerry % Preschool, Year, Olds Budget 338 Head, Start % President, Barack, Obama Income 333 High, Quality Publicly, Funded,

Preschool Kindergarten 328 High, School % Rainy, Day, Fund Years 283 Income, Children Say, Start, Conversation New 267 Income, Families President, Pro, Tem Child 262 Jerry, Brown % State, Funded, Preschool Families 247 K, 12 % %Money 243 Long, Term % %

High 240 Los, Angeles % %

Care 237 Low, Income %Kids 229 Middle, Class %

Percent 222 Pre, K % %

Start 220 Pre, Kindergarten %Parents 216 Preschool, Program %

Quality 215 Preschool, Programs %

Day 214 Prop, 82 % %Low 213 Quality, Preschool %

Also 209 State, Preschool %

One 206 Transitional, Kindergarten %Funding 205 Universal, Preschool %

States 201 % %

Olds 193 % %Public 186 % %

Million 185 % %

Billion 184 % %Universal 182 % %

Students 181 % %

First 179 % %

! )#!

Subsidized Unsubsidized Tuition-Based

Scholarship Sliding Scale

State Preschool

Head Start

Title I

C5 Children's School State Building ! ! ! !

C5 Children's School City Building

! ! ! !

CDI Head Start Cadillac Center ! !

Clara House/Helen Hawk Children's Center ! ! ! !

Compass Children's Center ! ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center- Tenderloin Center

! ! ! ! !

Glide Child Care & Family Support

! ! ! !

Salvation Army Harbor House ! ! ! !

SFUSD Tenderloin Community School CDC

! ! !

Wu Yee Children's Services- Golden Gate

! !

Holy Family Day Home ! ! ! ! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Stevenson Head Start Center

! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Valencia Gardens Head Start Center

! !

Presidio Knolls School ! !

SFUSD- Bessie Carmichael CDC ! ! !

South of Market Child Care, Inc.- Judith Baker Center

! ! !

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools- Main St. Campus

! !

Bright Horizons/marin Day Schools- Fremont St. Campus

! !

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools- Healthy Environments CDC

! !

CDI Head Start Potrero Hill Center

! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Mission Bay Head Start Center

! ! !

Potrero Kids at Daniel Webster ! ! ! !

Potrero Kids at 3rd St. Site ! ! ! !

SFUSD - Starr King Early Education School

! !

South of Market Child Care, Inc.- Yerba Buena Gardens CDC

! ! !

Chinatown Community Children's Center

! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.- Powell head Start Center

! !

SFUSD- Commodore Stockton CDC

! ! !

SFUSD- Gordon J. Lau Title I Pre-K

! !

True Sunshine Preschool Center, Inc.

! ! ! ! !

Wu Yee Children's Services- Lok Yuen Child Development Program

! !

Community Preschool, Grace Cathedral ! ! ! !

! )$!

Buen Dia Family School ! ! ! !

Centro Las Olas ! !

Cdi Head Start Alemany Center ! !

CCSF- Mission Community College Center

! !

Family Service Agency SF- Family Developmental Center

! ! !

The Family School ! ! ! !

FCC-Acosta, Milagros ! !

Good Samaritan Family Resource Center Preschool

! ! ! ! !

Little Tree Preschool ! !

Mission Kids ! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Bernal Dwellings Head Start

! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Capp st Head Start

! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Regina Chiong Head Start

! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Women's Building Head Start

! !

SFUSD-Bryant CDC ! ! !

SFUSD- Cesar Chavez Title I Pre-K

! !

SFUSD-Junipero Serra Annex CDC

! ! !

SFUSD-Las Americas CDC ! ! !

SFUSD-Paul Revere Elementary School PFA Pre-K

! !

SFUSD-Zaida Rodriguez CDC ! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-Broadway Head Start

! !

CCSF-Campus Children's Center ! !

FCC-Estrada, Esperanza ! !

FCC-Fuentes, Nancy ! !

FCC-Guidry, Monique ! !

FCC-Manzanares, Barbara ! !

FCC-Ramirez,Elena ! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Jean Jacobs Head Start

! !

SFUSD-Excelsior CDC ! ! !

SFUSD-San Miguel CDC ! ! !

SFUSD-Sheridan ! !

YMCA SF- Mission Branch Preschool ! ! ! !

FCC-Fellom, Julie ! !

Friends of St. Francis Childcare Center

! ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Sanchez Elementary School Preschool

! !

! )%!

SFUSD-Theresa S. Mahler CDC ! ! !

CDI Head Start Ella Hill Hutch Center

! !

CDI Head Start Westside Center ! !

Chibi Chan Preschool ! ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Marcus Garvey Center

! ! ! ! !

Little Children's Developmental Center ! ! ! !

Nihonmachi Little Friends Bush Site

! ! ! ! !

Nihonmachi Little Friends Sutter Site

! !

SFUSD-Dr. William Cobb Pre-K ! ! !

SFUSD-Raphael Weill CDC ! !

FCC-Cherdak, Juliya ! !

FCC-Melikyan, Gayane ! !

FCC-Moy,Xiao-Song ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-Sunset Head Start ! !

Little Footprints Preschool ! !

CCSF-Orfalea Family Center ! !

FACES-SF Masonic Preschool ! !

Pacific Primary ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Grattan CDC ! ! !

SFUSD- John Muir Title I Pre-K ! !

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools-UCSF Laurel Heights

! !

Congregation Beth Sholom Preschool ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Argonne CDC ! ! !

St. James Preschool ! ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Richmond Center

! ! ! ! !

FCC-Yuan,Philip ! !

Happy Shalom School ! ! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-Geary Head Start ! !

Kai Ming, Inc-Richmond Head Start

! !

Land's End School ! ! ! !

FCC-Chen Selina ! !

FCC- Schmit Marina ! !

SFUSD-Jefferson CDC ! ! !

SFUSD-Noriega CDC ! ! !

Wah Mei School ! ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Tule Elk Park CDC ! ! !

CDI Head Start Hunters' Point ! !

! )&!

CDI Head Start Southeast Center ! !

FACES-SF Bayview Preschool ! ! !

FCC-Suarez,Delia ! !

FCC-Underwood,Renee ! !

Frandelja Enrichment Center ! ! ! ! !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Southeast Families United Center

! !

SFUSD-Bret Harte CDC ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Dr.Charles Drew CDC ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Leola M. Havard Early Education School

! ! !

YMCA SF-Stonestown Family Preschool ! ! ! !

SFUSD-Presidio CDC ! ! !

Catholic Charities CYO-Treasure Island CDC

! !

SFUSD-Fairmount Title I Pre-K ! !

CDC Head Start Oceanview-Merced-Ingleside Center

! !

Economic Opportunity Council SF-OMI Site

! !

FCC-Khazan Larisa ! ! !

Utopia St. Thomas More Preschool ! ! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-North Beach Head Start

! !

Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center Preschool

! ! ! ! !

Wu Yee Children's Services-Generations CDC

! !

1st Place 2 Start ! !

CDI Head Start Sunnydale Center ! ! !

Child's Time Preschool ! ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley Family School

! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley John King Center

! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley Tucker Center

! ! !

FCC-Chow Sandy ! !

Portola Family Connections ! ! ! !

SFUSD-E.R. Taylor Title I Pre-K ! !

SFUSD-John McLaren CDC ! !

Wu Yee Children's Services-Sunnydale CDC

! !

Total (Out of 135) 85 50 90 34 34 52 31 5

Total % 63% 37% 67% 25% 25% 39% 23% 4%

! )'!

SF PFA Preschool Partner Sites

Enrollment Type

Full Day Part Day School Day

C5 Children's School State Building

!

C5 Children's School City Building

!

CDI Head Start Cadillac Center

!

Clara House/Helen Hawk Children's Center

!

Compass Children's Center !

Cross Cultural Family Center- Tenderloin Center

! !

Glide Child Care & Family Support

!

Salvation Army Harbor House

!

SFUSD Tenderloin Community School CDC

!

Wu Yee Children's Services- Golden Gate

!

Holy Family Day Home !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Stevenson Head Start Center

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Valencia Gardens Head Start Center

!

Presidio Knolls School !

SFUSD- Bessie Carmichael CDC

!

South of Market Child Care, Inc.- Judith Baker Center

!

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools- Main St. Campus

!

Bright Horizons/marin Day Schools- Fremont St. Campus

!

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools- Healthy Environments CDC

!

CDI Head Start Potrero Hill Center

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Mission Bay Head Start Center

!

Potrero Kids at Daniel Webster

!

Potrero Kids at 3rd St. Site !

SFUSD - Starr King Early Education School

!

South of Market Child Care, Inc.- Yerba Buena Gardens CDC

!

Chinatown Community Children's Center

!

Kai Ming, Inc.- Powell head Start Center

!

SFUSD- Commodore Stockton CDC

! !

SFUSD- Gordon J. Lau Title !

! )(!

I Pre-K

True Sunshine Preschool Center, Inc.

!

Wu Yee Children's Services- Lok Yuen Child Development Program

!

Community Preschool, Grace Cathedral

! !

Buen Dia Family School !

Centro Las Olas !

Cdi Head Start Alemany Center

!

CCSF- Mission Community College Center

!

Family Service Agency SF- Family Developmental Center

!

The Family School !

FCC-Acosta, Milagros !

Good Samaritan Family Resource Center Preschool

! !

Little Tree Preschool !

Mission Kids !

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Bernal Dwellings Head Start

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Capp st Head Start

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Regina Chiong Head Start

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.- Women's Building Head Start

!

SFUSD-Bryant CDC !

SFUSD- Cesar Chavez Title I Pre-K

!

SFUSD-Junipero Serra Annex CDC

!

SFUSD-Las Americas CDC !

SFUSD-Paul Revere Elementary School PFA Pre-K

!

SFUSD-Zaida Rodriguez CDC

!

Kai Ming, Inc.-Broadway Head Start

!

CCSF-Campus Children's Center

!

FCC-Estrada, Esperanza ! ! !

FCC-Fuentes, Nancy ! ! !

FCC-Guidry, Monique ! ! !

FCC-Manzanares, Barbara ! ! !

FCC-Ramirez,Elena ! ! !

! ))!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Jean Jacobs Head Start

!

SFUSD-Excelsior CDC !

SFUSD-San Miguel CDC !

SFUSD-Sheridan !

YMCA SF- Mission Branch Preschool

!

FCC-Fellom, Julie !

Friends of St. Francis Childcare Center

!

SFUSD-Sanchez Elementary School Preschool

!

SFUSD-Theresa S. Mahler CDC

!

CDI Head Start Ella Hill Hutch Center

!

CDI Head Start Westside Center

!

Chibi Chan Preschool ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Marcus Garvey Center

!

Little Children's Developmental Center

!

Nihonmachi Little Friends Bush Site

! ! !

Nihonmachi Little Friends Sutter Site

! ! !

SFUSD-Dr. William Cobb Pre-K

!

SFUSD-Raphael Weill CDC !

FCC-Cherdak, Juliya ! !

FCC-Melikyan, Gayane ! ! !

FCC-Moy,Xiao-Song ! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-Sunset Head Start

!

Little Footprints Preschool !

CCSF-Orfalea Family Center

!

FACES-SF Masonic Preschool

!

Pacific Primary !

SFUSD-Grattan CDC !

SFUSD- John Muir Title I Pre-K

!

Bright Horizons/Marin Day Schools-UCSF Laurel Heights

!

Congregation Beth Sholom Preschool

!

SFUSD-Argonne CDC !

St. James Preschool !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Richmond Center

!

! )*!

FCC-Yuan,Philip ! ! !

Happy Shalom School !

Kai Ming, Inc.-Geary Head Start

!

Kai Ming, Inc-Richmond Head Start

!

Land's End School !

FCC-Chen Selina ! ! !

FCC- Schmit Marina ! ! !

SFUSD-Jefferson CDC !

SFUSD-Noriega CDC ! !

Wah Mei School ! ! !

SFUSD-Tule Elk Park CDC !

CDI Head Start Hunters' Point

!

CDI Head Start Southeast Center

!

FACES-SF Bayview Preschool

!

FCC-Suarez,Delia ! ! !

FCC-Underwood,Renee ! ! !

Frandelja Enrichment Center

!

Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc.-Southeast Families United Center

!

SFUSD-Bret Harte CDC !

SFUSD-Dr.Charles Drew CDC

!

SFUSD-Leola M. Havard Early Education School

!

YMCA SF-Stonestown Family Preschool

! !

SFUSD-Presidio CDC !

Catholic Charities CYO-Treasure Island CDC

!

SFUSD-Fairmount Title I Pre-K

!

CDC Head Start Oceanview-Merced-Ingleside Center

!

Economic Opportunity Council SF-OMI Site

!

FCC-Khazan Larisa ! ! !

Utopia St. Thomas More Preschool

! ! !

Kai Ming, Inc.-North Beach Head Start

!

Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center Preschool

!

Wu Yee Children's Services-Generations CDC

!

1st Place 2 Start ! ! !

! *+!

CDI Head Start Sunnydale Center

!

Child's Time Preschool ! ! !

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley Family School

!

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley John King Center

!

Cross Cultural Family Center-Visitacion Valley Tucker Center

!

FCC-Chow Sandy ! ! !

Portola Family Connections !

SFUSD-E.R. Taylor Title I Pre-K

!

SFUSD-John McLaren CDC !

Wu Yee Children's Services-Sunnydale CDC

!

Total (Out of 135) 115 38 31

Total % 85% 28% 23%