Are there estimates now as to how state's Blueprint for the Future will affect available space at MCPS schools?

[Anonymous]

The blueprint will:

Expand full-day Pre-K at no cost for four-year-olds and three-year-olds from families with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and for four-year-olds from families between 300% and 600% FPL using a sliding scale.

How many more classrooms are needed to enable full-day Pre-K? Do we know where additional classrooms are needed?

[Anonymous]

MCPS barely has enough space for the students it currently has. Where do they plan to add these classrooms?

It does not sound feasible at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

Public preK hours are very limited. It's not going to be useful to working families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The blueprint will:

Expand full-day Pre-K at no cost for four-year-olds and three-year-olds from families with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and for four-year-olds from families between 300% and 600% FPL using a sliding scale.

How many more classrooms are needed to enable full-day Pre-K? Do we know where additional classrooms are needed?

MCPS choose not to fund this this year. It was part of the budget cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The blueprint will:

Expand full-day Pre-K at no cost for four-year-olds and three-year-olds from families with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and for four-year-olds from families between 300% and 600% FPL using a sliding scale.

How many more classrooms are needed to enable full-day Pre-K? Do we know where additional classrooms are needed?

MCPS choose not to fund this this year. It was part of the budget cuts.

This is all helpful information. Thank you. I found what is a list of private preK providers with which MCPS partners:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pnwZElp-pxMLWCNkJ0psoiG874jpyFRUZvpDEYiz5RU/edit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

What will they cut to pay for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

What will they cut to pay for this?

We won't need to cut anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

Public preK hours are very limited. It's not going to be useful to working families.

The plan has always called for a mix of public and private partners. There is a defined ratio. However getting to that ratio has proved challenging in many places. Not to mention space.

https://marylandmatters.org/2023/06/19/breaking-down-the-blueprint-major-changes-ahead-as-maryland-plans-dramatic-expansion-of-early-childhood-education/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

Public preK hours are very limited. It's not going to be useful to working families.

Yes, exactly, forgot to mention this added benefit of PreK in private centers... it allows kids to get Pre-K while also being enrolled for the full regular child care hours at that center, which is way more convenient for most parents than the hours of school-based Pre-K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

What will they cut to pay for this?

They won't make cuts. The county will raise property taxes, because of the Blueprint's underfunded mandate from the MD legislature. First in line to thank for this is state Senator Nancy King, from Montgomery Village.

[Anonymous]

To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

What will they cut to pay for this?

They won't make cuts. The county will raise property taxes, because of the Blueprint's underfunded mandate from the MD legislature. First in line to thank for this is state Senator Nancy King, from Montgomery Village.

Some things are worth paying for. This is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?