Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines tradeoffs for pre-K: CERDEP startup model vs. DSS licensure
Summary
District staff reviewed two state-directed paths for 4K classrooms: pursue DSS licensure across programs or code eligible students under the CERDEP startup model; staff explained funding differences, program requirements and enrollment thresholds needed to match current EIA funding.
Rebecca Benson, who the superintendent introduced as leading early childhood work for the district, briefed the board on two state-directed options for pre-K classrooms: pursue Department of Social Services (DSS) licensure across classrooms or adopt the CERDEP (Child Early Reading Development and Education Program) startup model, which is income-based and carries different monitoring and reporting requirements.
Benson told the board that CERDEP funding pays $5,100 per eligible pupil and that current EIA funding for the district's pre-K program is $173,456. She said the district calculated that it would need roughly 34 CERDEP-coded students to approximate the current EIA funding level, and that some adjustments to assessments, reporting cadence and parent conference requirements would follow CERDEP rules. "For CERDEP coding, it is strictly income eligibility," Benson said, adding that staff are preparing procedures and parent communications to verify income where required.
The presentation noted programmatic differences: DSS licensure would involve a longer checklist of operational requirements, while CERDEP classrooms would be subject to one state monitoring site visit per year, four interim reports (nine-week cycles) and additional teacher professional development requirements. Board members asked about selection, equity and whether the district would move only a subset of classrooms to CERDEP; staff said the district intends to start with two Title I schools and can expand if enrollment thresholds shift. The board did not take formal action but directed staff to continue planning and return with implementation details.
