1. Their English is awkward enough that it is hard to understand. I believe what they are trying to say is that if your child graduates from the preschool readiness program, then it is more likely that they will subsequently complete school. However, that isn't what they said. They compared the likelihood of completing school relative to the likelihood of completing the readiness program. And that is nonsensical in the context that they mentioned. They need a better editor. 2. They are implying that if you spend 100 dollars to send your child to this preschool readiness program, then taxpayers will save 700 dollars on education for your child over the period of time between when they graduate from the preschool readiness program, and when they turn 27. If it costs 1000 dollars, then taxpayers will save 7000 dollars.

This is a horrible paragraph. It doesn't make any sense. It is either a series of typos, or something written by a confused non-native. It says that those who participate *and graduate* from readiness programs are more likely to complete school than readiness programs. But if the graduated from the readiness program, by definition they completed it, so they had 100% completion rate. I can't imagine how a school could have a completion rate higher than 100%.

Oh, so that's why they can save money...... Thanks a lot :)

I think the paragraph is saying that the preschool readiness program might cost taxpayers money, but it is a worthy investment because for every dollar invested, the government will save 7 dollar by the time the person who received the preschool readiness program reached the age of 27 because they are less likely to repeat grades and more likely to graduate as opposed to dropping out.