1314-299 Emails Pre-K Junket

From: Fickes, Mary PTo: Herndon, FlipCc: Toner, CashelSubject: RE: Update on universal pre-KindergartenDate: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:49:11 AM

Dear Flip, Thank you for taking the time to pull together this succinct summary of the recent study trip to Jersey City and Boston. Even with much attention swirling around the Citys workgroups & community meetings, I havent seen such a clear statement of our situation and its really valuable. Thank you for taking the time to be part of that trip. Mary FickesEarly Learning Department

From: Toner, Cashel Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:37 PMTo: Fickes, Mary P; Hestad, KatySubject: FW: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten FYI

From: Banda, Jose L Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:34 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten Dear School Leaders, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school.

Sincerely, Jos Banda Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained

over time, and to avoid the fade out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City:

As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:

Boston (overall trend is slight decline or flat enrollment)School numbers: 12813-14 (54,300 -pk-2565) K-4379 12-13 (55,100 -pk-2753) K-4347 11-12 (55,027 -pk-2582) K-4133 10-11 (56,037 -pk-2522) K-4143 09-10 (55,371 -pk-2272) K-3953 08-09 (55,923 -pk-2330) K-3897 Jersey City (overall trend is slight decline in enrollment)School Numbers: 4212-13 (27,028 -pk-2257) K-2141 11-12 (27,397 -pk-2311) K-2198 10-11 (27,658 -pk-2348) K-224509-10 (27,464 -pk-2298) K-201708-09 (27,832 -pk-2093) K-2136 Seattle (overall trend in an increasing enrollment with continued growth for the foreseeable future)School Numbers: 9512-13 (49,954 -pk-719) K-5,01511-12 (48,605 -pk-658) K-4,62510-11 (47,038 -pk-603) K-4,315 + 129 (.5K)09-10 (45,944 -pk-514) K-3,989 + 243 (.5K)08-09 (45,632 -pk-592) K-219 + 3,942 (.5K)

In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the

state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:

High pay for pre-K staff. In order to attract high quality staff, you must pay them on par with K-12 staff.

Alignment and quality professional development on a consistent basis. Regular review and evaluation of both professional development and adherence to

operating expectations that occurs on multiple levels (school district, state, and private funding sources that seek accountability).

Finally, the local school district must be an essential partner and leader in the work. While schools may not have the space or capacity to house the programs, the professional development and quality programs can happen wherever the space may be located within the community. The following are a list of links to the numbers I looked up, news articles about debate concerning pre-K, or studies done on the merits of the investment: New Jersey:http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/files/2010/09/30.New-Jersey_Abbott-Preschool-Program_profile_.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/to-expand-prekindergarten-new-york-may-find-model-in-new-jersey.html?_r=0 http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/fulop_boe_at_odds_over_boosting_pre-k_classrooms.html http://nieer.org/publications/latest-research/abbott-preschool-program-longitudinal-effects-study-fifth-grade-follow Boston:http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00350000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=300& http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/221 http://www.countdowntokindergarten.org/ http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/impacts-of-prek/ https://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/YCSept2010.pdf Seattle:http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/Web/WashingtonWeb/Home.aspx

From: Mary Beth LambertTo: Stephan BlanfordSubject: Fwd: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten tripDate: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:27:19 PM

FYI

Mary Beth206.335.0191

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Banda, Jose L" Date: March 17, 2014 at 3:35:37 PM PDTTo: Undisclosed recipients:;Subject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip

Dear friends of Seattle Public Schools, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school. Sincerely, Jos BandaSuperintendentSeattle Public Schools

Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained over time, and to avoid the fade

out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City: As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many

differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:


In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some

challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:


Alignment and quality professional development on a consistent basis.

Regular review and evaluation of both professional development and adherence to operating expectations that occurs on multiple levels (school district, state, and private funding sources that seek accountability).


From: Stambor, Patricia LTo: "Annie Boeckman"Subject: RE: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6Date: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:02:28 PM

Annie,Didyoureceivepaymentforthis?IusedanumberofdifferentbudgetsandIdidnotreceivePOnumbersforalltheaccounts(eventhoughfundswereapproved).Also,CharlesWrightdidnotattend.Arewestillobligatedtopayfortheconferenceforhim?

PatriciaStamborAlignmentCoordinatorStrategicPlanning&[email protected]

From: Annie Boeckman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 2:44 PMTo: Gabriella Buono; Stambor, Patricia LSubject: RE: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6HelloPatricia,Theinvoiceforthefiveattendeesisattached.Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.Best,AnnieAnnie BoeckmanRegistration ManagerSeattle Metropolitan Chamber of [email protected] | d: 206-389-7271

Sign up for the Women in Business Leadership Initiative (WIBLI) Kickoff Symposium empowering women in business and leadership.

From: Gabriella Buono Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 2:31 PMTo: Stambor, Patricia LCc: Annie BoeckmanSubject: RE: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6HiPatriciaSoundsgood-Annie,ourregistrationmanager,willsendthatovertoyou.

Thanks!

From: Stambor, Patricia L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:00 PMTo: Gabriella BuonoSubject: RE: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6Ineedoneinvoicethatshowsthecostofall5participantsfor$9000.00.IwillneedtocreateaPOandcansubmitpaymentoncewehavereceivedtheservicesCanyousendthistome?Patricia

From: Gabriella Buono [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:37 PMTo: Stambor, Patricia L; Liz Swartz ([email protected])Cc: Annie BoeckmanSubject: RE: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6HithereWetakechecksorcontactAnnie(206-389-7271)topaywithacreditcardnumber.Letusknowifyouneedinvoicesforanyofthefivefolksregistered.Thanksandwelookforwardtohavingthemonthetrip.Gabriella BuonoDirector of Programs & EventsSeattle Metropolitan Chamber of [email protected] | d: 206-389-7246 Seattle Business Tradeshow160 exhibitors and 1500 attendees! Boost your brand and meet your next customer, May 15

From: Stambor, Patricia L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:16 AMTo: Liz Swartz ([email protected])Cc: Gabriella BuonoSubject: Preschool Study Mission Trip March 3 - march 6Liz,

IcheckedwithMarleneinAccountsPayableandshesaidwehavetogo-aheadtobookflightsforthefollowing.Seeattacheddocumentsforspecifics.IwillaskGabriellaonhowtopayfortheregistrationcosts.

Participants Conference Cost

Airfare (estimate)

DOB Sex Depart Return

CharlesEWrightJr. 1800 900 11/8/1969 m 3-Mar Returning March 5 - Arrive in Seattle by

3:00 PM

KeishaD.Scarlett 1800 900 6/5/1974 f 3-Mar 6-MarLauraElizabethMorrison 1800 900 5/23/1970 f 3-Mar 6-MarCashelToner 1800 900 6/8/1978 f 3-Mar 6-MarLesterThomasHerndon 1800 900 12/11/1969 m 3-Mar 6-Mar

Total Cost of Trip for 5 individuals

9000 4500

PatriciaStamborAlignmentCoordinatorStrategicPlanning&[email protected]

From: Stambor, Patricia LTo: Wippel, TeresaSubject: RE: Preschool Mission Costs and Budget codesDate: Friday, March 21, 2014 2:28:50 PM

No,Ididnot.TheSeattleChamberdidpayforanumberofpeopletogosohemayhavebeeninvitedasguestorjustpaidhimself.

From: Wippel, Teresa Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:03 PMTo: Stambor, Patricia LSubject: RE: Preschool Mission Costs and Budget codes PatriciaTheresaHalesaidtheboardofficedoesnthavearecordofwhopaidforDirectorBlanfordstrip.Youdidnotmakethosearrangements,correct?

From: Stambor, Patricia L Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:36 AMTo: Redman, Thomas L; Cassel, Jennifer; Wippel, TeresaSubject: Preschool Mission Costs and Budget codes OriginallyIbudgeted$900fortheairfarebuttheflightwasbookedsoIhadtomakealternativeplans.

From: Redman, Thomas L Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:06 AMTo: Cassel, Jennifer; Stambor, Patricia L; Wippel, TeresaSubject: Request from Teresa Wippel

Hi, Jenny and/or Pat, could you help Teresa Wippel with the answer to the question in yellow below? Thanks!

Tom

On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:12 PM, "Bath, Christine" wrote:

Teresa,Iwasnottheonewhoarrangedthetrip.IfIrecall,muchofitwasdonethroughPatriciaStambor,andthenfromoursideofitforFlip,JennyCasselwouldknowthecosts.FlipwasgonefromMarch3andarrivedbackonMarch6.SorryIdonthavemoreanswersforyou.BTW,doyouthinkthismayfallunderaPublicRecordsRequest?

From: Wippel, Teresa Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:40 PMTo: Bath, ChristineSubject: FW: a couple of things

HiChriscouldyoutellmetheanswertoquestion1?

From: Melissa Westbrook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:31 PMTo: Wippel, TeresaSubject: a couple of things

1. -DirectorBlanfordsaidattheBoardmeetingthathe,FlipHerndonandKeishaScottwentonatourofpre-schoolsinBostonandNewJersey(IbelievewithCouncilmanBurgess).Couldyoutellmewhopaidforthemtogo,thecostsandhowlongtheyweregone?

-whoispayingforDirectorMartin-Morris'andSuperintendentBanda'snexttriptoD.C.fortheCouncilofGreatCitySchools,thecostandhowlongwilltheybegone?

-couldyousendmetheinfoontheschoolsreferencedattheBoardmeetingthatwonELLawardsfromthestate?

-dittoonAkiKurose'sawardforSymtra(?)Heroaward

Thanks,MelissaWestbrookSeattleSchoolsCommunityForumblog

-

From: Stambor, Patricia LTo: Redman, Thomas L; Cassel, Jennifer; Wippel, TeresaSubject: Preschool Mission Costs and Budget codesDate: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:35:37 AMAttachments: Preschool Mission Trip Costs 032114.docx

Originally I budgeted $900 for the airfare but the flight was booked so I had to make alternative plans.

From: Redman, Thomas L Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:06 AMTo: Cassel, Jennifer; Stambor, Patricia L; Wippel, TeresaSubject: Request from Teresa Wippel

Hi, Jenny and/or Pat, could you help Teresa Wippel with the answer to the question in yellow below? Thanks!

Tom

On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:12 PM, "Bath, Christine" wrote:

Teresa, I was not the one who arranged the trip. If I recall, much of it was done through Patricia Stambor, and then from our side of it for Flip, Jenny Cassel would know the costs. Flip was gone from March 3 and arrived back on March 6. Sorry I dont have more answers for you. BTW, do you think this may fall under a Public Records Request?

From: Wippel, Teresa Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:40 PMTo: Bath, ChristineSubject: FW: a couple of things Hi Chris could you tell me the answer to question 1?

From: Melissa Westbrook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:31 PMTo: Wippel, TeresaSubject: a couple of things

1. - Director Blanford said at the Board meeting that he, Flip Herndon and Keisha Scott went on a tour of pre-schools in Boston and New Jersey (I believe with Councilman Burgess). Could you tell me who paid for them to go, the costs and how long they were gone?

Preschool for All Study Mission, March 3 March 6, 2014

Participants

Conference Cost

Airfare (estimate)

DOB

Sex

Depart

Return

Budget

Charles E Wright Jr.

1800

900

868.

11/8/1969

m

3-Mar

Returning March 5 - Arrive in Seattle by 3:00 PM

1000

4T097141A0

Keisha D. Scarlett

1800

900

992.00

6/5/1974

f

3-Mar

6-Mar

1B54

NSX7927S50

Laura Elizabeth Morrison

1800

900

992.00

5/23/1970

f

3-Mar

6-Mar

1B54

NSX7927S50

Cashel Toner

1800

900

992.00

6/8/1978

f

3-Mar

6-Mar

1000

41001211A0

Lester Thomas Herndon

1800

900

992.00

12/11/1969

m

3-Mar

6-Mar

2600

P00220000A

Total Cost of Trip for 5 individuals

9000

4500

4863

Total Cost: $ 13,836

- who is paying for Director Martin-Morris' and Superintendent Banda's next trip to D.C. for the Council of Great City Schools, the cost and how long will they be gone?

- could you send me the info on the schools referenced at the Board meeting that won ELL awards from the state?

- ditto on Aki Kurose's award for Symtra (?) Hero award

Thanks,Melissa WestbrookSeattle Schools Community Forum blog

-

From: Rogers, Lesley ATo: Herndon, FlipCc: Banda, Jose L; Wright, Charles E; Toner, Cashel; Paraghamian, AletaSubject: RE: UPKDate: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:02:27 PM

Agreed - we can clarify that part.

From: Herndon, Flip Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:02 PMTo: Rogers, Lesley ACc: Banda, Jose L; Wright, Charles E; Toner, Cashel; Paraghamian, AletaSubject: Re: UPK Except for the part where they still think we can have all the space.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:00 PM, "Rogers, Lesley A" wrote:

This is great, we should work on a response from Jose. Cashel, thoughts on how we can partner? Or offer to take them up on help?

From: Mary Beth Lambert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:38 PMTo: Rogers, Lesley ASubject: UPK Hi Lesley. Hope you are well. I wanted to pass on a note that Chris Korsmo just sent to the Superintendent. Best, Mary Beth Lambert | Communications & Development DirectorOffice: 206.728.6448Mobile: 206.335.0191Twitter: @marybethlambertVisit us at educationvoters.org or on Facebook League of Education VotersWorking to improve public education in Washington state from cradle to career with ample, equitable, and stable funding From: Chris Korsmo Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:39 AMTo: Banda, Jose LCc: Chris_External_Contact; Janet_External_Contact; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]: RE: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Superintendent Banda, Thank you for the update on the Pre-K for All initiative and the Districts support of this effort. As you know, the League of Education Voters Foundation (LEVF) has had a long standing partnership with South Shore Pk-8 School to support just this kind of effort. At South Shore, gaps are closed before they start because of the opportunity those children have for high quality Pre-K that is integrated into the school. We have long hoped for an opportunity to replicate this model as we see its benefits for kids as significant and long-standing. The District has a real opportunity right now to grow this highly successful model. There are several new elementary schools opening in the District over the next few years and while the window for including this model in those school designs is small and closing, it is nevertheless there. Immediate action is necessary to seize these opportunities for our youngest learners, but the benefits for all would far out-pace any disruption or changes to designs and plans. It is after all, easier to get it right the first time than to retro-fit, as weve had to do with expanded technology and other changes to our education model. While the District has seen growth and improvement in some areas, we are still lagging behind in closing achievement and opportunity gaps. We have an amazing opportunity to do something impactful to turn that around with investments in high quality, integrated Pre-K. At LEVF, we stand ready to assist in whatever way we can to expand this model and to bring high quality universal Pre-kindergarten to all of our kids in Seattle. Please, let us know how we can help. Our kids deserve this opportunity. Our community will benefit from it. Most importantly, we will change the trajectory for our least advantaged kids and families. Chris Chris Korsmo CEO League of Education Voters Foundation From: Banda, Jose L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:36 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Dear friends of Seattle Public Schools, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten

facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school. Sincerely, Jos BandaSuperintendentSeattle Public Schools Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support

these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained over time, and to avoid the fade

out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City: As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:

Boston (overall trend is slight decline or flat enrollment)School numbers: 12813-14 (54,300 -pk-2565) K-4379 12-13 (55,100 -pk-2753) K-4347 11-12 (55,027 -pk-2582) K-4133

10-11 (56,037 -pk-2522) K-4143 09-10 (55,371 -pk-2272) K-3953 08-09 (55,923 -pk-2330) K-3897 Jersey City (overall trend is slight decline in enrollment)School Numbers: 4212-13 (27,028 -pk-2257) K-2141 11-12 (27,397 -pk-2311) K-2198 10-11 (27,658 -pk-2348) K-224509-10 (27,464 -pk-2298) K-201708-09 (27,832 -pk-2093) K-2136 Seattle (overall trend in an increasing enrollment with continued growth for the foreseeable future)School Numbers: 9512-13 (49,954 -pk-719) K-5,01511-12 (48,605 -pk-658) K-4,62510-11 (47,038 -pk-603) K-4,315 + 129 (.5K)09-10 (45,944 -pk-514) K-3,989 + 243 (.5K)08-09 (45,632 -pk-592) K-219 + 3,942 (.5K)

In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS

Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:


Alignment and quality professional development on a consistent basis. Regular review and evaluation of both professional development and

adherence to operating expectations that occurs on multiple levels (school district, state, and private funding sources that seek accountability).

Finally, the local school district must be an essential partner and leader in the work. While schools may not have the space or capacity to house the programs, the professional development and quality programs can happen wherever the space may be located within the community. The following are a list of links to the numbers I looked up, news articles about debate concerning pre-K, or studies done on the merits of the investment: New Jersey:http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/files/2010/09/30.New-Jersey_Abbott-Preschool-Program_profile_.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/to-expand-prekindergarten-new-york-may-find-model-in-new-jersey.html?_r=0 http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/fulop_boe_at_odds_over_boosting_pre-

k_classrooms.html http://nieer.org/publications/latest-research/abbott-preschool-program-longitudinal-effects-study-fifth-grade-follow Boston:http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00350000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=300& http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/221 http://www.countdowntokindergarten.org/ http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/impacts-of-prek/ https://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/YCSept2010.pdf Seattle:http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/Web/WashingtonWeb/Home.aspx Mary Beth Lambert | Communications & Development DirectorOffice: 206.728.6448Mobile: 206.335.0191Twitter: @marybethlambertVisit us at educationvoters.org or on Facebook League of Education VotersWorking to improve public education in Washington state from cradle to career with ample, equitable, and stable funding

From: Mary Beth LambertTo: Toner, Cashel; [email protected]: [email protected]: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten tripDate: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:50:08 PM

Hi Flip and Cashel. Hope that you are both well. I wanted to share with you a note that LEVs CEO Chris Korsmo sent to the Superintendent this morning with regards to his recent email related to UPK. (Flip thanks for sharing your trip report widely I found it spot on). Thanks to both of you for your vision and support of UPK in Seattle and the possible role that the district can play in making it a reality. I look forward to seeing you both again soon. Best, Mary Beth Lambert | Communications & Development DirectorOffice: 206.728.6448Mobile: 206.335.0191Twitter: @marybethlambertVisit us at educationvoters.org or on Facebook League of Education VotersWorking to improve public education in Washington state from cradle to career with ample, equitable, and stable funding

From: Chris Korsmo Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:39 AMTo: Banda, Jose LCc: Chris_External_Contact; Janet_External_Contact; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: RE: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Superintendent Banda, Thank you for the update on the Pre-K for All initiative and the Districts support of this effort. As you know, the League of Education Voters Foundation (LEVF) has had a long standing partnership with South Shore Pk-8 School to support just this kind of effort. At South Shore, gaps are closed before they start because of the opportunity those children have for high quality Pre-K that is integrated into the school. We have long hoped for an opportunity to replicate this model as we see its benefits for kids as significant and long-standing. The District has a real opportunity right now to grow this highly successful model. There are several new elementary schools opening in

the District over the next few years and while the window for including this model in those school designs is small and closing, it is nevertheless there. Immediate action is necessary to seize these opportunities for our youngest learners, but the benefits for all would far out-pace any disruption or changes to designs and plans. It is after all, easier to get it right the first time than to retro-fit, as weve had to do with expanded technology and other changes to our education model. While the District has seen growth and improvement in some areas, we are still lagging behind in closing achievement and opportunity gaps. We have an amazing opportunity to do something impactful to turn that around with investments in high quality, integrated Pre-K. At LEVF, we stand ready to assist in whatever way we can to expand this model and to bring high quality universal Pre-kindergarten to all of our kids in Seattle. Please, let us know how we can help. Our kids deserve this opportunity. Our community will benefit from it. Most importantly, we will change the trajectory for our least advantaged kids and families. Chris Chris Korsmo CEO League of Education Voters Foundation

From: Banda, Jose L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:36 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Dear friends of Seattle Public Schools, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school. Sincerely,

Jos BandaSuperintendentSeattle Public Schools Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained

over time, and to avoid the fade out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City:

As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:


In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that

would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:




From: Miller, HollyTo: Banda, Jose L; [email protected]: RE: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten tripDate: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:43:43 AM

Bravo to both of you for this strong and positive summary. We look forward to working with you going forward! It was terrific to have Flip, Cashel, Keisha and Lorrie on the trip. Flip, does it make sense for you and me and Cashel to sit down to start hammering out some specifics? Warm regards, Holly Holly Miller, DirectorOffice for EducationCity of [email protected]

From: Banda, Jose L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:36 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Dear friends of Seattle Public Schools, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school. Sincerely, Jos BandaSuperintendent

Seattle Public Schools Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained

over time, and to avoid the fade out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City: As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot

measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:


In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by

Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:




Finally, the local school district must be an essential partner and leader in the work. While schools may not have the space or capacity to house the programs, the professional development and quality programs can happen wherever the space may be located within the community.

The following are a list of links to the numbers I looked up, news articles about debate concerning pre-K, or studies done on the merits of the investment: New Jersey:http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/files/2010/09/30.New-Jersey_Abbott-Preschool-Program_profile_.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/to-expand-prekindergarten-new-york-may-find-model-in-new-jersey.html?_r=0 http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/fulop_boe_at_odds_over_boosting_pre-k_classrooms.html http://nieer.org/publications/latest-research/abbott-preschool-program-longitudinal-effects-study-fifth-grade-follow Boston:http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00350000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=300& http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/221 http://www.countdowntokindergarten.org/ http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/impacts-of-prek/ https://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/YCSept2010.pdf Seattle:http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/Web/WashingtonWeb/Home.aspx

From: Greg WongTo: Banda, Jose LCc: [email protected]: RE: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten tripDate: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:49:33 AM

Thanks for this great update. Well put.Greg

From: Banda, Jose L [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:36 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten trip Dear friends of Seattle Public Schools, Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities. I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool. Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers. I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school. Sincerely, Jos BandaSuperintendentSeattle Public Schools Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon: The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey. I can break the trip down into three areas: 1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City

2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014? 1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City: Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students. There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size. I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings. The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained

over time, and to avoid the fade out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K. 2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City: As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention. In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the

State of New Jersey. The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:


In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings. 3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014?

As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore). With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term. Summary: The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:




Finally, the local school district must be an essential partner and leader in the work. While schools may not have the space or capacity to house the programs, the professional development and quality programs can happen wherever the space may be located within the community. The following are a list of links to the numbers I looked up, news articles about debate concerning pre-K, or studies done on the merits of the investment: New Jersey:http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/files/2010/09/30.New-Jersey_Abbott-Preschool-Program_profile_.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/to-expand-prekindergarten-new-york-may-find-model-in-new-jersey.html?_r=0

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/fulop_boe_at_odds_over_boosting_pre-k_classrooms.html http://nieer.org/publications/latest-research/abbott-preschool-program-longitudinal-effects-study-fifth-grade-follow Boston:http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00350000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=300& http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/221 http://www.countdowntokindergarten.org/ http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/impacts-of-prek/ https://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/YCSept2010.pdf Seattle:http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/Web/WashingtonWeb/Home.aspx

From: McLaren, MarthaTo: Banda, Jose LCc: Herndon, FlipSubject: RE: Update on universal pre-KindergartenDate: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:19:29 PM

I am, natch, delighted to see this!

Marty________________________________________From: Banda, Jose LSent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:33 PMSubject: Update on universal pre-Kindergarten

Dear School Leaders,

Last week Seattle Public Schools joined the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, City of Seattle and King County elected officials and School Board Director Stephan Blanford on a trip to Boston, Jersey City and Washington, D.C. to tour existing pre-Kindergarten facilities.

I am very excited about the possibility of bringing universal pre-K to Seattle, and look forward to partnering with the City and community on ensuring each and every student has access to high-quality preschool.

Dr. Flip Herndon, Assistant Superintendent for Capital, Facilities and Enrollment, was joined by Director of Early Learning Cashel Toner, Principal Keisha Scarlett and Principal Laurie Morrison, as well as the other people who represented non-profits and philanthropy, as well as child care and pre-K providers.

I want to share Dr. Herndons report of the trip (with a focus on Boston and Jersey City), which gives a detailed analysis of what the group observed. We can learn a lot from other cities and districts that are providing universal pre-K. And we can all agree that when our children come to kindergarten ready to learn, they have greater success in school.

Sincerely,

Jos Banda

Report on universal pre-K trip, March 3-5, 2014 by Dr. Flip Herndon:

The whole Seattle contingent was very inquisitive and it was quite instructive to have time to observe, learn and discuss with one another along the journey.

I can break the trip down into three areas:

1) What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City2) How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City3) What can Seattle do to support Universal Pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014?

1)What Seattle has in common with Boston and Jersey City:

Seattle is a major city in the United States. It is an urban community that is extremely diverse and is home to many innovative people, organizations and companies. The community has a vested interest in seeing an investment in early childhood care and educational support. I believe the research is quite clear on the impact of investing in quality early childhood education as it relates to future academic success for students.

There is a need for quality pre-K options for children and families, and there is political support from local and state elected officials to find sustainable resources to support these options. There is also a desire to ensure accountability of any resources and ways to gauge what successful pre-K programs look like. While Jersey City (27,000) was a smaller school district, Boston (54,000) and Seattle (51,000) are much closer in size.

I believe all three communities realize that finding enough physical space can be a challenge, and that quality programs can be attained both in school buildings and in community-wide locations that are not in school buildings.

The largest point I took away from both Boston and Jersey City, as well as what is envisioned for Seattle, is the importance of paying teaching staff more than what pre-K staff are currently earning. Both Boston and Jersey City pay staff the equivalent to what K-12 teaching staff earn in local public schools. Another major factor was the alignment of teaching, curriculum and professional development to prepare students to be school ready, to have such gains sustained over time, and to avoid the fade out effect after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Program success was viewed as unlikely unless the school district took the lead in the professional development and alignment aspect of universal pre-K.

2)How Seattle is different from Boston and Jersey City:

As much as Seattle has in common with Jersey City and Boston, there are also many differences. One of the main differences is how the implementation of universal pre-K varies in each location. Seattle is looking to start universal pre-k and the revenue to support the effort via a ballot measure. In addition to funding through local taxation, Seattle is also looking at federal support through Department of Education Investing in Innovation grants and money through Health and Human Services for early intervention.

In Boston, the genesis of universal pre-K came in 2005 from the Mayor (Menino) and the Superintendent of Boston Public Schools. The revenue associated with the effort came from existing budgets and was also supported through private donations. In Jersey City, the funding of universal pre-K is actually a state mandate. Much like the McCleary case in Washington State, there was a Supreme Court of New Jersey decision (Abbot v. Burke) in 1998 that mandated public investment in early learning for 3- and 4 year-olds. The funding for this program comes from the State of New Jersey.

The following are enrollment comparisons between the three cities:

Boston (overall trend is slight decline or flat enrollment)School numbers: 12813-14 (54,300 -pk-2565) K-437912-13 (55,100 -pk-2753) K-434711-12 (55,027 -pk-2582) K-413310-11 (56,037 -pk-2522) K-414309-10 (55,371 -pk-2272) K-395308-09 (55,923 -pk-2330) K-3897

Jersey City (overall trend is slight decline in enrollment)School Numbers: 4212-13 (27,028 -pk-2257) K-214111-12 (27,397 -pk-2311) K-219810-11 (27,658 -pk-2348) K-224509-10 (27,464 -pk-2298) K-201708-09 (27,832 -pk-2093) K-2136

Seattle (overall trend in an increasing enrollment with continued growth for the foreseeable future)School Numbers: 9512-13 (49,954 -pk-719) K-5,01511-12 (48,605 -pk-658) K-4,62510-11 (47,038 -pk-603) K-4,315 + 129 (.5K)09-10 (45,944 -pk-514) K-3,989 + 243 (.5K)08-09 (45,632 -pk-592) K-219 + 3,942 (.5K)

In addition to the differences in enrollment trends, Seattle is also facing some challenges by the state legislature as it looks to implement conditions associated with the McCleary decision that would reduce the class size ratio to 17:1 in grades K-3. While there is a difference between Boston and Seattle in enrollment, there are also 30 additional buildings to help with that capacity. The combination of enrollment growth and future class size reduction is an equation not yet solved by Seattle Public Schools. A recent calculation on the additional classrooms needed for class size reduction came out to be 350. Enrollment growth for the next 6 years is expected to result in 7,000-8,000 additional students. Housing even a considerable portion of the pre-K classes needed would be extremely challenging to say the least. By comparison, in Boston 85% of elementary schools house at least 1 room. However, in Jersey City less than 50% (47) of the Pre-k classrooms are located in a public school building. In the state of New Jersey, only 33% of pre-K classrooms are located in public school buildings.

3) What can Seattle do to support universal pre-K starting in the Fall of 2014?

As many challenges as there are associated with starting a coordinated universal pre-K effort, I believe Seattle Public Schools is positioned to make this a success for our families and community. First, we already have a department of Early Learning that is focused on consistency in our support of pre-K programs and students. Currently Seattle Public Schools has pre-K programs in 31 school buildings (29Community providers, 18SPS Special Education, 12Head Start classrooms (10 schools),1SPS Preschool (South Shore).

With appropriate support and funding, Seattle Public Schools can take on the role, as in Boston and Jersey City, of leading and coordinating the professional development and alignment of curriculum. In addition, while classroom capacity is a very daunting challenge currently, there are possibilities. There has been some discussion about buildings that might be able to serve as regional pre-K centers. Two possible locations that have been mentioned are Schmitz Park and/or Decatur. There are some logistical issues with both of these possibilities; both are still being used as elementary schools and will be occupied as such until 2016. However, I believe that Seattle Public Schools can start a smaller center at Van Asselt, which could serve as a beginning model that could then move to either location in 2016, giving two years to establish an aligned program. This effort will still require resources, but the question of space would be answered, at least in the short term.

Summary:

The study trip was quite informative. It showed how high quality pre-K is achievable. However, some key ingredients are essential to achieving success:


Alignment and quality professional development on a consistent basis.

Regular review and evaluation of both professional development and adherence to operating expectations that occurs on multiple levels (school district, state, and private funding sources that seek accountability).

Finally, the local school district must be an essential partner and leader in the work. While schools may not have the space or capacity to house the programs, the professional development and quality programs can happen wherever the space may be located within the community.

The following are a list of links to the numbers I looked up, news articles about debate concerning pre-K, or studies done on the merits of the investment:

New Jersey:http://blogs.tc.columbia.edu/transitions/files/2010/09/30.New-Jersey_Abbott-Preschool-Program_profile_.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/to-expand-prekindergarten-new-york-may-find-model-in-new-jersey.html?_r=0

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/02/fulop_boe_at_odds_over_boosting_pre-k_classrooms.html

1314-299 Emails Pre-K Junket

Documents

Transcript of 1314-299 Emails Pre-K Junket