2. The Problems/Challenges
• Growing population of at risk students in our state:
– 39% of our enrollment is now at risk (low income / ELL)
• Cost of these students is a significant financial burden:
– Last 5 years $525 million in Special Ed WPU add-on alone
– Other costs: Title I & local funds for ELL support, remediation, etc.
• Academic achievement gap for these students is high:
– 15%+ delta for Low Income students
– Average 50%+ delta for ELL students
– Low overall graduation rates (50% range)
• The current model is not working, we need a new approach for the
kids and for the cost to the state (better ROI).
3. Potential Solutions
• Pre-Kindergarten Interventions for At Risk Students:
– High Quality Pre-school
– High Quality Software/Technology
• Why “High Quality”?
– Pre-K works best when:
• Program has defined/targeted at risk student population
• Program has quality instruction/learning materials
• Program has structured/interactive learning/play
• Program has measured/tracked outcomes
• Program has engagement of parent/child
• Examples:
– Classroom: Granite School District Pre-School Program
– Software: Upstart and Imagine Learning
4. Examples
• Granite Pre-k Program:
– Pre-5 years of Proven/Tracked Outcomes
– Cohorts evaluated/followed by 3rd party (USU)
– Massive reduction in special ed need:
• 11 of 238 students
• $1.7 million in cost avoidance over 5 year pilot
– Removal of achievement gap:
• 0 – 2% difference between at-risk and regular student
• Sustained academic improvement (multiple years)
• Similar research results with software/technology
5. The Proposal
• Expand. Enable immediate significant expansion
of these proven high quality pre-k interventions
for at risk students in Utah
• Private Funding. Fund expansion of these
interventions through a new innovative results-
based public/private financing model
• Results-Based. Demand results in both cost
avoidance and removal of academic achievement
gap as criteria for success and repayment
6. The Specifics
• Part I – Establish Results Based Financing Board
– Staffed/Run by Workforce Services
– Board members from key state and community
experts
– Board shall facilitate results-based performance
contracts between:
• Private Investors (funding)
• LEAs or Software Providers (fulfillment)
– Board shall contract with independent evaluators to
determine when/if results have been achieved and if
repayment is due to investor
7. The Specifics
• Part II – Enable LEAs or Software Providers to expand
programs to at risk students:
– Application process for funding/contract
– LEAs/Private Software providers must have evidence of
current success
– LEAs must partner with Private Software Providers to
offer/expand pre-k classroom
– LEAs and Software providers must meet High Quality
program criteria
– All students must be tracked/assessed
– Results (cost avoidance and academic gap reduction) must
endure through end of 3rd grade before repayments may
begin to be issued
8. The Specifics
• Part III – Enable repayment to private investors:
– State shall set aside $1 million per year from the
General Fund
– Funds shall be put in Restricted Account
– Repayment terms will be defined in contract based
on:
• Independent review of 3rd party evaluator
– Sustained Cost Avoidance
– Sustained Academic Achievement Gap Reduction
– No results / no obligation for repayment
– Repayment will include interest
9. 5 Key Things to Remember
1. This is not a proposal for Universal Pre-K. I do not support that
approach and there is no evidence it benefits non-at risk children.
2. This is proposal is about ROI on tax dollars we spend today on at-
risk kids. We can do nothing and continue to spend tens of millions
on remediation every year with weak results or we can get a
better ROI through wise early investment.
3. The Granite program success evidence was verified by USU (one of
the top early education research facility in the country).
4. The program requires parental engagement and limits the amount
of time a child can be in a pre-k classroom.
5. For classroom expansion, the program requires expansion through
private industry (not competing with it).
11. Student Enrollment Growth
Enrollment Growth SY2008-SY2012
Total students: 9%
English Language Learner (ELL) students: 4%
Low Income students: 30%
Low Income Students as a percent of Total Student Enrollment grew from
32% in SY2008 to 39% in SY2012
12. Students with Disabilities (SWD) Enrollment
SWD Enrollment
12% of total student enrollment are SWD
10% of students who are neither low income or ELL are SWD
17% of low income students are SWD
20% of ELL students were SWD in SY2012
SWD Enrollment Growth Rate SY2008-SY2012
Total SWD: 14%
Neither low income or ELL: -1%
ELL SWD: 19%
Low Income: 31%
13. State WPU-Special Education Add-On
SY2008-SY2012
Total State WPU-Add-on for Special Education from SY2008-SY2012:
$886 million.
Total State WPU-Add-on for Special Education for low income SWD
students from SY2008-SY2012: $435 million.
Total State WPU-Add-on for Special Education for ELL SWD students from
SY2008-SY2012: $90 million
14. Potential Cost Avoidance
Unrealized historical cost avoidance-last 5 years
If percent of low income SWD had been reduced from 17% to:
12%: $122.5 million
10%: $174.6 million
Potential cost avoidance next 5 years
If percent of low income SWD is reduced from 17% to:
12%: $36 million
10%: $50 million
Potential cost avoidance next 5 years: Researched –Based Utah State
University Methodology
$36 million to $72 million depending on demographic characteristics of
students.
15. The Achievement Gap
Low Income and English Language Learner (ELL) Students
Language Arts Math
Percent Proficient -All Grades Percent Proficient -All Grades
SY2009-2012 SY2009-2012
100% 80%
90%
70%
80%
60%
70%
60% 50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20% 20%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012
Low Income Not Low Income ELL Not ELL Low Income Not Low Income ELL Not ELL
16. High Quality Preschool for At-Risk Children Closes the Achievement Gap
Language Arts Math
Percent Proficient Percent Proficient
90% 90%
85% 85%
80% 80%
75% 75%
70% 70%
65% 65%
60% 60%
55% 55%
50% 50%
SY2010 2nd SY2011 3rd Grade SY2012 4th Grade SY2010 2nd SY2011 3rd Grade SY2012 4th Grade
Grade Grade
Low Income-Statewide Low Income-Statewide
GSD SY06-07 At-Risk Preschoolers GSD SY06-07 At-Risk Preschoolers
Not Low Income-Statewide Not Low Income-Statewide
All Students -Statewide All Students -Statewide
17. Only 11 of 238 Children Potentially Eligible for Special Education Required
Services in Elementary School through SY11
Research-Based Utah State University Methodology
The Granite School District
Number of Children Receiving Special Education Services in
Elementary Grades
120
105
100
80
65 68
60
40
20
5 3 3
0
SY06-07 Preschool Cohort SY07-08 Preschool Cohort SY08-09 Preschool Cohort
Number of Children Beginning Preschool with PPVT Scores of 70 or Less
Number of Children Receiving Special Education Services in Elementary Grades
18. Reduced Special Education Use Results in Cost Avoidance for the State
Research-Based Utah State University Methodology
The Granite School District
Granite School District Preschool Program
State Savings in Special Education for At-Risk Preschool Cohorts
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,753,671
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000 $487,053 $432,936 $394,281
$400,000 $286,047
$200,000
$153,354
$-
SY07 SY08 SY09 SY10 SY11 Total
Total Annual State Special Education Savings
19. Benefit-Cost Ratio: Closing the Opportunity Gap
The opportunity gap for at-risk children becomes an achievement and
remediation gap.
Closing the opportunity gap will reduce the need for costly remediation
later on:
For every at-risk child who receives high quality early education and who
doesn’t require special education, the Benefit-Cost Ratio is:
12:1 if special education avoided K-6
23:1 if special education avoided K-12
