Setting the Stage for Universal Preschool - Public Policy Institute of California

Setting the Stage for Universal Preschool – Public Policy Institute of California

November 1, 2022 · 11:00 am – 12:15 pm
November 3, 2022 · 11:00 am – 12:00 pm
Virtual Event
2022 Speaker Series on California’s Future — Virtual Event
2022 Speaker Series on California’s Future — Virtual Event
We believe in the power of good information to build a brighter future for California. Help support our mission.
Laura Hill and Emmanuel Prunty
Supported with funding from the Sobrato Family Foundation
California is on the cusp of implementing universal preschool—a step that could help level the playing field for young children. Over the next few years, all four-year-olds will become eligible for Transitional Kindergarten (TK), which has been part of the state’s early learning programs since 2012. To help prepare for an equitable expansion, we provide a demographic portrait of TK students and the districts and schools offering TK, highlighting existing gaps in participation and access.
As the state prepares to implement universal preschool, one of the central concerns is whether the expansion will serve the needs of Dual Language Learners (DLLs), students from low-income families, and students of color. Kindergarten students in California have some of the largest gaps in school readiness in the country—and greater access to high-quality early learning is a proven way to reduce these disparities (Stipek 2019). In the 2019–20 school year, only 37 percent of California four-year-olds were enrolled in preschool, Transitional Kindergarten, or another public early childhood program (NIEER 2021). Children from low-income families in particular benefit from access to universal preschool (Cascio 2019).
Beyond narrowing gaps in school readiness, early childhood education can yield numerous long-term benefits. While some research studies show that the early gains (e.g., higher standardized test scores) appear to dissipate in later elementary or middle school years, other academic and non-academic measures improve later on. For example, Gormley, Phillips, and Anderson (2017) find that middle school students who participated in district preschool took more honors courses and were less likely to repeat a grade than their peers who did not attend district preschool. Other research shows increased rates of high school graduation and college enrollment, higher earnings, reduced rates of welfare use, and lower rates of contact with the criminal justice system for preschool graduates (Gray-Lobe et al. 2021; Currie 2001; Duncan and Magnuson 2013). Impressively, one recent study finds that even the children of preschool graduates experience improved educational and employment outcomes, relative to the children of non-preschool graduates (Garcia, Heckman, and Ronda 2021).
In the 2025–26 school year, all four-year-olds in California will be eligible to attend a Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program at their district schools. TK has been a part of the state’s K–12 system since 2012–13, providing an early start to kindergarten with credentialed teachers and an age-appropriate curriculum. But currently only older four-year-olds are eligible to participate.
Research on California’s implementation of TK is somewhat limited. However, an early study showed that there were immediate gains for students who had enrolled in TK, including for English Learners (Manship et al. 2017). This finding is echoed in a study examining the impact of TK at San Francisco Unified School District (Doss 2019). As the program further expands, additional research on the short- and long-term benefits for TK graduates in California will be essential. Maintaining program quality will also be critical, as quality is not always equitable for universal preschool programs (Fuller et al. 2020).
Between now and when universal TK is fully implemented, there are a number of expansion-related challenges on the horizon, including finding TK teachers and aides for new classrooms, reducing student-teacher ratios, modifying existing facilities, and encouraging families to participate. Schools are also still in the throes of adapting and readapting to COVID-19 safety protocols, making up for students’ lost learning time, and planning to expand access to before- and after-school care. Further, other early childhood and preschool programs may also be affected by the transition as families consider their expanded options—and as the state considers how to reallocate state and federal funds for subsidized care.
One key issue as the state moves toward universal TK is whether programs are serving students equitably—and how to ensure equity going forward. The research shows that high-quality early education can have long-lasting benefits for underrepresented students, but are these students getting the opportunity to enroll in TK? In this report, we examine the demographic characteristics of current students and the characteristics of the districts and schools offering TK in order to understand whether TK is currently being provided in an equitable manner. Specifically, we ask if DLLs, students from families eligible for free and reduced-price meals (FRPM eligible, a proxy for low income), and students of color participate in TK in the numbers we expect given their age eligibility. We then provide recommendations for the state as it moves forward with expanding TK to help the program achieve true universal access and meet the goal of narrowing gaps in school readiness.
Enrollment in TK is driven by a number of factors, including whether a program is offered nearby, whether families of eligible children prefer TK to other options, and whether parents even know about the program. Currently, all school districts serving kindergarteners are required to offer TK, but there is no requirement that each elementary school does so. This means that families of eligible four-year-olds may find that the TK location in their district is not convenient. And TK, like kindergarten, is optional, so families may choose not to enroll eligible children even if slots are available. The wide range of other options include public preschool (such as the California State Preschool Program or Head Start), private preschool, child care, or remaining at home. The number of hours of care provided is one critical factor for families selecting a preschool program. Starting in 2022–23, all school districts with high concentrations of English Learners and students from low-income families must offer nine hours of care daily through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, including for children enrolled in part-day programs (Fensterwald 2021). Prior to the 2022–23 school year, families wanting a full day of child care may have opted out of TK because even full-day TK does not provide care for a full day of work for parents.
The 2021–22 California state budget committed to fund universal access for four-year-old children to TK by 2025–26, estimated at $2.7 billion for full implementation. This includes $300 million to support district planning, teacher training, and expanding the teacher workforce (in order to provide more classrooms and reduce class sizes), as well as $490 million for constructing and modernizing facilities. The expectation in the state’s expansion plan is that eventually all four-year-olds will be eligible for and have access to a TK program as a part of the K–12 system. While students of all income levels can attend TK, funding for expansion planning in the 2021–22 school year prioritizes districts with more DLL/EL students and students from low-income families.
The 2021–22 school year is a planning year and the rules for TK eligibility remain the same. The official expansion schedule adds two months of eligible birthdates each year between 2022–23 and 2024­–25, and in 2025–26, all children who turn four by September 1 will be eligible. As newly eligible students are added to TK classrooms, the Local Control Funding Formula will fund school districts for the additional children attending the program. 
In this section, we examine enrollment in TK and investigate how successfully the current TK program is reaching eligible students—especially DLLs, students from low-income families, and students of color—throughout the state.
In 2019, TK served approximately 90,000 students, a number that has grown over time (Figure 1). In the early years of California’s program, fewer children were eligible, though birthdate eligibility has remained the same since 2014.
SOURCE: California Department of Education (CDE) TK enrollment.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. TK data for 2012–13 is not publicly available.
Nearly 30 percent of TK students are DLLs and nearly 60 percent are from low-income families, somewhat higher than their representation among the K–12 population overall. Current TK students are approximately representative of the racial/ethnic distribution of students in the state (Figure 2). Nearly 60 percent are Latino, 22 percent are white, 8 percent are Asian, 5 percent are Black, 5 percent are multiracial, and 2 percent are Filipino. Native American and Pacific Islander students represent less than 1 percent of the total TK enrollment in the state.
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. CDE breaks out Filipino students from other Asian students and we follow that practice in this report.
In order to understand if children are being served equitably, we need a measure that considers their eligibility for TK. We assume approximately 25 percent of all four-year-olds in California are currently eligible for TK because their birthdays fall between September 2 and December 2. However, because the K–12 system only records data on enrolled children, and because TK is not mandatory, we do not know exactly how many children are eligible at the state, district, or school levels.
Our estimate of TK participation, which we call the take-up rate, comes from dividing the number of TK students by the number of kindergarten students in the same school year, and assumes the cohort of four-year-olds is approximately the same size as the cohort of five-year-olds in California. We calculate this number at the state, district, and school levels. We also examine participation separately for each racial/ethnic group, by socioeconomic status, and by DLL status. In this way, we can understand if there is any particular group that appears to be underserved, even after controlling for each group’s size in the adjacent grade level. For each student subgroup, we define full take up as TK students in that subgroup making up 25 percent of the number of students in that subgroup in the kindergarten class in the same year.
We estimate about 80 percent of eligible students, or roughly 21 percent of all four-year-olds, are enrolled in TK in California. At the state level, it is clear that expanding birthdate eligibility is associated with increased participation—but participation has also increased over time, under the same eligibility rules. For example, we see a large increase in participation from 2014 to 2015, when more children became eligible (Figure 3). In 2015, 25 percent of students were eligible, but only 15 percent participated. However, by 2019, that number had climbed to 21 percent, even as the proportion of eligible students remained the same.
Encouragingly, we see that participation among DLLs and students from low-income families is higher than or similar to overall participation levels. Notably, take-up rates have always been somewhat higher among DLL students than students overall (22% among DLLs in 2019). Meanwhile, students from low-income families are participating in TK at a rate similar to all students (21% in 2019), and have been since the program’s inception. 
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. “FRPM eligible” refers to eligibility for free and reduced-price meals, a proxy for low income. If all eligible students participated, full take up would be 16.7 percent in 2013–14 and 25 percent for each year 2014–15 and later; the full take-up rate is indicated by the dashed line. If we exclude Los Angeles Unified, the DLL take-up rate is 19.7 percent and the take-up rate for all students is 18.7 percent; the take-up rate for FRPM-eligible students falls slightly below the rate for all students, to 18 percent. These results can be seen in Technical Appendix Figure B3.
Despite relatively high take-up rates among DLL students overall, there are important differences in participation by racial/ethnic groups (Figure 4). In 2019, Pacific Islander students who are Dual Language Learners had take-up rates substantially below those of other groups (14% vs. over 20% for Black, Latino, Asian, and white DLL students, Figure 4). Pacific Islander students (14%) and Native American students (16%) from low-income families also had lower take-up rates than other racial/ethnic groups, especially compared to low-income, Latino students (21%).
SOURCE: 2019–20 school year, CDE TK enrollment.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. “FRPM eligible” refers to eligibility for free and reduced-price meals, a proxy for low income. Full take-up rate would be 25 percent. See Technical Appendix Figure B4 for take-up rates when Los Angeles Unified is excluded.
For most racial/ethnic groups, DLL students have higher participation than non-DLL students—the exceptions being Filipino and Pacific Islander DLL students, who have lower take-up rates. Across racial/ethnic groups, students from low-income families tend to have lower take-up rates than students from higher-income families, with the exception of Asian and Black students from low-income families, who have similar or slightly higher take-up rates compared to those from higher-income families. Technical Appendix Figure B5 compares take-up rates for DLLs and non-DLLs, and Figure B6 shows take-up rates for students from low-income families and students from higher-income families.
Statewide, it appears that not all eligible students are being served by TK, but DLL students participate at somewhat higher rates. Understanding current inequities in TK take-up rates will allow districts to make decisions about which schools should offer TK in order to increase access for families that are currently underserved.
In this section, we examine TK provision and participation across districts, including whether district characteristics are associated with take-up rates across student groups. We focus on districts with high shares of Black or Latino students, low-income students, or English Learners; as well as rural districts and “basic aid” districts, which are primarily funded through property taxes rather than the state funding formula.
There is wide variation in TK participation across districts. For example, when we look at the 10 largest districts in the state, the take-up rate ranges from 10 percent at San Francisco Unified to 36 percent at Los Angeles Unified (Figure 5). Los Angeles Unified provides both TK and Expanded TK programs, serving many more children than are strictly eligible. San Diego Unified, with a 23 percent take-up rate, also serves a greater proportion of four-year-olds than the average district in the state, and the district announced in 2021 that it intends to expand TK to all four-year-olds in the 2021–22 school year, well in advance of the full expansion date set by the state (Taketa 2021). Others districts (e.g., San Francisco Unified) have robust preschool and child care options outside the K–12 system, and this may lower the proportion of eligible children who participate in TK.
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. Districts ordered by enrollment, from largest at the top to smallest at the bottom. The blue vertical line represents the full take-up rate of 25 percent. Data for San Francisco Unified is from the 2018–19 school year.
Among districts with kindergarten students, we find 17 percent of districts do not offer TK at all. One key dimension related to whether districts provide TK is whether they are funded through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) or not. The latter are referred to as “basic aid” districts. These districts do not receive supplemental funding from the state because revenues from their local property taxes are sufficiently high to fund their schools. While all districts serving kindergartners are required to provide TK, the mechanism for ensuring they do so is the funding formula. Since basic-aid districts do not receive funding through the LCFF, the California Department of Education has little leverage to ensure they offer TK (D’Souza 2021). However, like all districts, basic-aid districts are required to offer TK.
The result is a substantial, 23 point gap between basic-aid and LCFF districts in the provision of any TK program (Figure 6). It is worth noting that despite this disparity basic-aid districts make up only 28 percent of all districts not providing TK (and comprise about 15 percent of districts in California). Notably, our analysis suggests that both basic-aid and LCFF-funded districts that do offer TK have a higher proportion of DLL students, as well as higher proportions of Latino and Asian students, but lower proportions of Pacific Islander and Native American students, than the districts that do not offer TK (Technical Appendix Table B1).
SOURCE: CDE enrollment and district characteristics data.
NOTE: TK Census day counts, all elementary and unified school districts.
As California gears up to expand TK to serve all four-year-olds, the grant funding available beginning in the planning year 2021–22 places at least some funding priority on districts with higher shares of high-need students. We have already established that, statewide, TK serves low-income students in similar proportions to those served in kindergarten classes, while serving DLL students at a slightly higher rate than in kindergarten classes.
At the district level, we similarly find no evidence that the district’s percentage of students who are English Learners, from low-income families, or both is associated with TK take-up rates (Figure 7). The correlation between a district’s take-up rate and its share of English Learners and students from low-income families is effectively zero, as shown in the horizontal line in Figure 7, suggesting that students in districts with high proportions of ELs and students from low-income families have at least as much access as those from districts with lower proportions of these students. The size of the bubble indicates the size of the school district, with Los Angeles Unified represented by the largest bubble.
SOURCE: CDE enrollment and district characteristics data, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census day counts, all elementary and unified school districts. “FRPM eligible” refers to eligibility for free and reduced-price meals, a proxy for low income. The size of district enrollment is represented by the size of the bubbles. Regression is not weighted by district size. Districts with fewer than 250 students are excluded. A small percentage of districts not providing TK are charters (6%), and they are found among both LCFF and basic-aid districts. The circles on the zero line of the horizontal axis indicate that some districts (17%) do not provide TK at all. The R2 is 0.007.
Next, we classify districts by their demographics to understand if those characteristics appear to influence participation in TK. Because Los Angeles Unified has such a large take-up rate and serves a disproportionate share of the state’s TK students, we exclude the district from the analysis here. We examine five district types that are important to understanding whether TK slots appear equitably distributed:
When we examine take-up rates for students overall (Figure 8), we do not see much variation across district types. High-poverty districts have the highest take-up rate (20.1%), but this is not dramatically higher than that of high-EL districts, which have the lowest take-up rate (18.3%).
SOURCE: CDE enrollment and district characteristics data, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. All elementary and unified school districts, excluding Los Angeles Unified.
When we examine take-up rates for Dual Language Learners and students from low-income families, we see that there are notable differences, especially in rural districts. DLL take-up rates are only 13.6 percent in rural districts, compared to 19.7 percent overall (Figure 9). These low rates in rural districts appear to be driven by small districts. When we exclude districts with fewer than 250 students, DLL take-up rates in rural districts nearly double to 27 percent (Technical Appendix Figure B8). Students from low-income families are also somewhat less likely to participate in TK in rural districts (16.5% vs. 18% overall) (Technical Appendix Figure B9).
SOURCE: CDE enrollment and district characteristics data, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census day counts. All elementary and unified school districts, excluding Los Angeles Unified.
Districts have choices about where to offer TK slots. While all districts serving kindergartners are required to offer TK, they can choose which elementary schools provide it. Here we explore the extent to which schools serving kindergarteners also provide TK, and how that varies by district and school characteristics. We then discuss the extent to which variation in these choices may contribute to equity in TK access among eligible children. Overall, we estimate that 78 percent of schools offering kindergarten also offer TK (excluding single-school districts, which are included in the analysis above).
First, we characterize the children potentially eligible for TK, but not enrolled, by a rough measure of access: whether TK is provided at their neighborhood school. In total, we estimate in 2019 that there were over 41,000 students eligible for TK, but not enrolled, given the currently qualifying birthdates. The most common situation for unenrolled eligible students is that they attend a school that does not offer TK, even though their district does—61 percent (or about 25,000 students) fall into this category (Figure 10). The next most common situation is that their school offers TK, but they are not enrolled (31%, 13,000 students). Residing in a district that does not offer TK accounts for only 8 percent of unenrolled eligible children (3,300 students). When a district offers TK, we do not know why potentially eligible children are not enrolled—it could be because of a lack of spots, a lack of interest among families, parents’ choice of another type of preschool, or other reasons.
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, 2019–20.
NOTES: TK Census Day counts. All schools serving kindergarten students, including charters, are included. We estimate eligible children at the school level. If a school serving kindergarteners is serving fewer than 25 percent of the size of their kindergarten class in TK, we count that difference as eligible TK students. Because some districts provide Extended TK or other TK programs that allow younger birthdates to qualify for TK participation, our estimates may undercount students not enrolled in schools providing TK.
Eligible DLLs and students from low-income families who are not enrolled are slightly more likely to be in schools that provide TK, compared to the average student (Technical Appendix Table B1). While families should choose the option that best suits their needs and preferences, this disparity suggests that targeted outreach to ensure all families are informed of the available TK options could be important.
Above, we see that many unenrolled students attend schools that do not offer TK. At 63 percent of the districts that offer TK, more than 80 percent of elementary schools provide the program. However, there are many districts where a much smaller share of schools provide a TK program (Figure 11).
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, 2019-20
NOTE: Among districts providing TK and that have more than one elementary school. Includes Los Angeles Unified.
When we examine the rate at which schools offer TK by district type, we find that basic-aid and rural districts are less likely to offer TK in at least 80 percent of their schools: 27 percent and 44 percent, respectively, compared to 63 percent of districts overall. Districts with high proportions of ELs are also somewhat less likely than districts overall to offer TK at 80 percent or more of their schools (54% versus 63%). As reported earlier, the take-up rate among DLLs is relatively high, so these families must nevertheless be finding their way to TK programs.
In contrast, relatively large shares of high-poverty and high-Black/Latino districts provide TK in at least 80 percent of their schools (69% and 77%, respectively).
Schools that provide TK have higher shares of low-income students and ELs than schools that do not (Figure 12). It appears districts attempt to offer TK at schools serving higher proportions of students who would most benefit. Among schools that provide TK, the average share of low-income students is 64 percent (55% among schools not providing TK even though their district does; 46% among schools whose districts do not provide TK). Shares of ELs are similarly higher among schools providing TK. When we examine race and ethnicity, we find that districts are also more likely to offer TK at schools serving high proportions of Latino students. Other racial/ethnic groups appear at least slightly underrepresented at schools providing TK (Technical Appendix Figure B11).
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, school characteristics, 2019–20.
NOTE: TK Census day count.
Next, we examine take-up rates by student groups at schools that offer TK. We find that even when controlling for whether their school provides TK, Native American students, Pacific Islander, and Black students are less likely to participate in TK than their peers (Figure 13). Students from low-income families are slightly less likely than average to enroll in TK, as are Asian and Filipino students. In contrast, DLL and Latino students are more likely than the average student to enroll in TK at schools that offer the program. And while white students may be less likely to enroll in TK overall (Technical Appendix Figures B5 and B6), when it is offered at their schools, white students are slightly more likely to be enrolled than the average student. Note that this analysis controls for whether schools offer any TK slots, but it does not control for a school’s capacity to provide enough slots for all interested families. Thus, low take-up rates are possibly a combination of family interest, successful advertising of the program, and capacity of the school to offer slots (e.g., space, staffing, and/or planning resources).
SOURCE: CDE TK enrollment, school characteristics, 2019–20.
NOTES: All schools offering TK. “FRPM eligible” refers to eligibility for free and reduced-price meals, a proxy for low income. Full take-up rate is 25 percent. Excluding Los Angeles Unified drops the school-level DLL take-up rate to 23 percent.
When we examine take-up rates by school type, we find that high-poverty schools are more successfully enrolling TK students than schools overall. Although these differences are relatively small, they hold true across many student groups (e.g., racial/ethnic groups, DLLs, students from low-income families) (Technical Appendix Table B2).
As California’s Transitional Kindergarten program prepares to expand eligibility to include all four-year-olds, our findings highlight some good news about access to the program. Currently, TK serves relatively high proportions of Dual Language Learners and Latino students—some of the students most expected to benefit from universal preschool. In addition, students from low-income families participate in TK at about the same rate as the average student. One possible reason for these findings is that districts are more likely to offer TK at schools serving higher percentages of Dual Language Learners and students from low-income families.
However, there are a number of eligible students who are not currently enrolled in TK—and our analysis suggests some inequities in access. In particular, Native American and Pacific Islander students appear to be consistently underenrolled in TK. Black students are also somewhat underrepresented, particularly when they attend schools that offer the program. These results could be due to a combination of factors, including whether TK is provided at students’ districts and a conveniently located school, the capacity of schools to offer sufficient slots, family interest, the availability of other early education options, and successful advertising of the program.
Districts may face various challenges in expanding TK. Some districts already serve more four-year-olds than are strictly eligible and are likely well positioned to transition to universal TK. Other districts that offer TK are far from reaching all eligible students. Roughly 25,000 unserved children are in districts with TK programs, but TK is not offered at their schools, and another 13,000 attend schools that do offer TK. Finally, about 3,300 unserved children reside in districts that do not offer TK at all. Compared to other districts, basic-aid districts—which are funded primarily through property taxes rather than the state’s student funding formula—are less likely to offer TK at all and less likely to offer it at a solid majority (80% or more) of their schools. Rural districts are also less likely to provide TK at a solid majority of their schools.
We offer the following recommendations to support an equitable expansion of the TK program:
CDE (California Department of Education). 2022. Universal Prekindergarten FAQs. Downloaded on February 19, 2022.
Cascio, E. 2019. “Does Universal Preschool Hit the Target? Program Access and Preschool Impacts.” NBER Working Paper 23215.
Currie, J. 2001. “Early Childhood Education Programs.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (2): 213–238.
D’Souza, K. 2021. “Should All School Districts Be Required to Offer Transitional Kindergarten?” EdSource.
Danielson, C. and Thorman, T. 2019. The Impact of Expanding Public Preschool on Child Poverty in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
Davis, E. E., C. Carlin, C. Krafft, and N. D. Forry. 2018. “Do Child Care Subsidies Increase Employment Among Low-Income Parents?” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 39 (4): 662–682.
Doss, C. 2019. “How Much Regulation? A Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Student Literacy Skills in Prekindergarten vs. Transitional Kindergarten.” Education Finance and Policy 14 (2): 178–209.
Duncan, G. J., and Magnuson, K. 2013. “Investing in Preschool Programs.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (2): 109–32.
Fensterwald, J. 2021. “Staffing Shortage Delays Ambitious Program to Extend School Day and Year in California.” EdSource.
Fuller, B, Leibovitz, T., Chin, D., Du, K., Garcia, N, and Kim Y. 2020.  2020 Equity and Institutions: Distributing Preschool Quality in New York City. University of California, Berkeley.
Garcia, J. L, J. Heckman, and V. Ronda. 2021. “The Lasting Effects of Early Childhood Education on Promoting the Skills and Social Mobility of Disadvantaged African Americans.” NBER Working Paper 29075.
Gormley Jr, W., D. Phillips, and S. Anderson. 2017. “The Effect of Tulsa’s PreK Program on Middle School Student Performance.”  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37: 63–87.
Gray-Lobe, G., Pathak, P. and Walters, C. 2021. “The Long-Term Effects of Universal Preschool in Boston.” Policy Brief. Bluespring Labs.
Lee, J. and B. Fuller. 2019. Equalizing Children’s Access to Early Education: Where to Expand Local Facilities. Berkeley Early Childhood Think Tank.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2019. California’s Education System: A 2019 Guide. Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Manship, K., Holod, A., Quick, H., Ogut, B., de los Reyes, I.B., Anthony, J., Chernoff, J. J., Hauser, A., Martin, A., Keuter, S., Vontsolos, E., Rein, E., and Anderson, E. 2017. The Impact of Transitional Kindergarten on California Students. American Institutes for Research.
NIEER (National Institute for Early Education Research). 2021. The State of Preschool 2020: State Preschool Yearbook. Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
Stipek, D. 2019. Early Childhood Education in California. Getting Down to Facts II. Stanford and PACE.
Taketa, K. 2021. “San Diego’s Four-Year-Olds to Get Transitional Kindergarten ahead of State Rollout.” The San Deigo Union Tribune, August 8.
Warren, P. and Lafortune, J. 2020. Declining Enrollment in California Schools: Fiscal Challenges and Opportunities in the Coming Decade. Public Policy Institute of California.
Laura Hill is a policy director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her areas of expertise are K–12 education and immigration. She is currently researching English Learners in California schools, special education, and ESL students in community colleges. Her recent publications examine student achievement on the state’s K–12 assessments and the link between language reclassification policies and student success. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a research associate at the SPHERE Institute and a National Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow. She holds a PhD in demography and an MA in economics from the University of California, Berkeley.
Emmanuel Prunty is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he focuses on K–12 education policy. Since joining PPIC, he has worked on topics such as distance learning, transitional kindergarten, and declining enrollment during the pandemic. Previously, he interned at the Hutchins Center at the Brookings Institution and served as a graduate student instructor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he majored in economics and ethnic studies, and minored in demography.
 
The authors would like to thank Caroline Danielson, Stephen Propheter, Beth Meloy, Karen Manship, Julien Lafortune, and Vicki Hsieh for their many helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the report. Becky Morgan provided excellent editorial and production assistance. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Sobrato Family Foundation. All errors are our own.
Steven A. Merksamer, Chair
Of Counsel
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello
Gross & Leoni LLP
Mark Baldassare
President and CEO
Public Policy Institute of California
Ophelia Basgal
Affiliate
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
University of California, Berkeley
Louise Henry Bryson
Chair Emerita, Board of Trustees
J. Paul Getty Trust
A. Marisa Chun
Chet Hewitt
President and CEO
Sierra Health Foundation
Phil Isenberg
Former Chair
Delta Stewardship Council
Mas Masumoto
Author and Farmer
Steven J. Olson
Partner
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Leon E. Panetta
Chairman
The Panetta Institute for Public Policy
Gerald L. Parsky
Chairman
Aurora Capital Group
Kim Polese
Chairman and Co-founder
CrowdSmart
Cassandra Walker Pye
President
Lucas Public Affairs
Helen Iris Torres
CEO
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
Gaddi H. Vasquez
Retired Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
Edison International
Southern California Edison
© 2022 Public Policy Institute of California
PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source.
Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or of the staff, officers, advisory councils, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.
This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. PPIC does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise disclose personal information.

source

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: