Appendix B: Committee Process
Senate Bill 1629 required 13 committee members to be appointed to the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee. Members were selected according to the process specified in the legislation. For a list of the members, see the Acknowledgments section of this report.
At the June 10, 2009 meeting, the Advisory Committee approved the following operating principles:
- Commit to candid discussions and consideration of diverse ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
- Explore research, policy, and implementation options for California; make decisions; and revisit when necessary.
- Know who will be there by committing to attend scheduled meetings.
- Reserve voting for Advisory Committee members or official designees.
- Make decisions based on data and evidence-based practice.
- Strive for consensus and use majority vote, with dissenting views represented in documents when needed.
- Use and update the operating principles as needed.
Senate Bill 1629 requires at least four CAEL QIS meetings to be held each year for two years. In 2009, five meetings were held on March 23, June 10, August 26, October 29, and December 2. In 2010, meetings are tentatively scheduled for March 3, June 16, August 3, November 3, and December 7. The latter will be a half-day meeting used to review the final report. All meetings are open to the public and meet the Bagley-Keene requirements as stated in Government Code Sections 11120-11132.
Meetings typically include reports from pertinent subcommittees on options for components of a quality rating and improvement system, research updates, input from attendees at regional sites, and public comment. Action items requiring a Committee vote are indicated on the meeting agenda.
Webpage
To facilitate coordination of the Advisory Committee’s work and interaction with stakeholders, the CDE has established a CAEL QIS webpage, which includes committee and subcommittee meeting dates, agendas, materials, and highlights. The webpage is updated regularly.
Role of Subcommittees
The Advisory Committee created five subcommittees and directed them as follows: “The Subcommittees will clarify issues, outline possible alternatives, and present likely results. The California Early Learning Quality Improvement System Advisory Committee will receive the information and issues analyzed through the Subcommittees for the Committee’s consideration, discussion, and the development of recommendations; not as an expectation for approval” (June 10, 2009, CAEL QIS Advisory Committee meeting). In short, the subcommittees’ role is to provide information and analysis while the full Advisory Committee’s charge is to decide upon the final recommendations.
Each subcommittee is led by Advisory Committee members as Chair and Vice-Chair, and facilitated by CDE staff. Subcommittee meetings are open to all Advisory Committee members as well as the general public.
The Committee charged each subcommittee with the task of helping to inform the development of one of the major aspects of the CAEL QIS model. The focus of the subcommittee work is further described as follows:
- Design Ideas for Licensing, Quality Rating, and Improvement Systems Subcommittee: To develop options for California’s rating structure and process, with support systems to improve quality over time
- Workforce and Professional Development and Quality Incentives Subcommittee: To develop professional standards and a delivery system that supports high quality initial preparation and ongoing professional development linked to quality learning standards and financial incentives for enhanced training
- Family Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement and Advocacy: To develop a communication plan to ensure broad input on the design of the Quality Rating System, and to develop an engagement and outreach plan for families, programs/providers, and the public for California’s rating structure and process
- Finance and Incentives, Including Funding Model, Subcommittee: To analyze, develop alternatives, and report back in two broad areas: financial alternatives for a variety of issues including a funding model and for incentives that encourage quality and would be most effective and cost efficient in relation to positive outcomes for children and families
