Clarification on Early Childhood Strategy and Budget Impact

For some time, both community members in the South and the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) have asked the district to consider a tuition-based pre-K program as a way to generate additional revenue.

However, at no point were we made aware of certain key constraints — particularly those that limit the district’s ability to generate income from tuition, which was mentioned at the most recent board meeting.

Now that the program is being discussed as a pilot, it’s becoming clear that this is absolutely not a meaningful solution to budget concerns, which raises additional questions about how it aligns with the district’s investment in Early Childhood Centers (ECCs).

1. Financial Viability of Tuition-Based Pre-K

While the idea of generating revenue through a tuition-based model has been discussed, many of us were not aware that TEA regulations prohibit school districts from profiting from tuition. Any revenue exceeding costs must be reinvested into the Pre-K program (e.g., instruction, facilities, administration).

For context, Round Rock ISD charges $684/month for its tuition-based program. If we were to adopt a similar model, this would effectively amount to only a $34 per month “perk” for teachers who enroll their children—hardly a meaningful retention strategy.

Additionally, based on the discussion last night, this program could actually cost the district money. Consider this hypothetical scenario:

• Max class size: 20 students
• Current enrollment: 18 students (8 of whom are tuition-paying)
• New eligible students during the year: 3
• This triggers the need for a new class, which costs approximately $130,000 to operate.
• The additional tuition revenue (~$50,000) offsets only a fraction of this cost.
• Net loss to the district: ~$80,000

While filling available spots with tuition-paying students makes sense in the short term, the financial constraints, state regulations, and operational risks need to be carefully evaluated. How will the district ensure that there are enough open spaces for newly eligible students throughout the year?

2. ECC Strategy vs. Pre-K Expansion at Campuses

I’m also trying to reconcile this program with the district’s long-term Early Childhood Center (ECC) plans.

For the past 18 months, the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) was encouraged to explore a second and even a third ECC, with the rationale that centralizing early childhood education would improve both student outcomes and teacher experiences. We were given an entire presentation emphasizing why a single-site model was the best approach.

Given this, I’m struggling to understand why we are simultaneously planning to expand Pre-K 3 and Pre-K 4 programs at individual campuses while investing in dedicated ECC facilities. If the goal is to centralize early learning, why are we spreading it out again? How does this approach align with the initial justification for ECCs?

I completely support increasing access to early childhood education, but I would like a clearer understanding of the district’s long-term vision. Specifically:

• What is the strategic plan for ECCs vs. Pre-K expansion on individual campuses?
• How does this initiative fit into the district’s broader budget strategy?
• If the pre-K expansion was part of a budget workshop, how does it actually address cost concerns?

I appreciate any insights you can provide on these questions and look forward to discussing this further.

Lastly, I want to express concern about how this program has been framed. It feels disingenuous to suggest that this initiative was developed in response to community input. In reality, the teacher perk was already decided upon—including campus selection and pricing — long before this discussion took place.

This decision is being presented as if it were a response to public demand. If this program was truly meant to address the needs of the broader community, then transparency in how and why these decisions were made is essential.