• Home »
• Specialized Programs »
• Child Development »
• Resources

CAEL QIS Advisory Committee Meeting Highlights

The eighth meeting of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee was held at the California Department of Education on August 26, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This meeting was joined through video conferencing by participants at the Los Angeles and Fresno County Offices of Education, coordinated through the California County Superintendents Education Service Association (CCSESA).

1.0 Welcome, Introductions, and Review Agenda

The following Advisory Committee members introduced themselves: Dennis Vicars, Kathy Radtkey-Gaither, Randi Wolf representing Celia Ayala, Cliff Marcussen, Consuelo Espinosa, Jeannie Oropeza, Kris Perry, Toby Boyd, and Dave Gordon who joined the meeting later in the morning. Sarah Tomlinson was absent, and Venus Garth left the meeting early. The CAEL QIS Expert Consultants were Abby Cohen, National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center; Susan Muenchow, American Institute of Research (AIR); Gail Zellman, RAND; and Lynn Karoly, RAND, who joined via conference call. CDE staff included Roberta Peck, Simon Marquez, Paty Munoz, and Amanda Lopez.

Camille Maben called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. She introduced Geno Flores as the new Chief Deputy of Public Instruction as well as the new Co-Chair Kathy Radtkey-Gaither. Camille then welcomed public discussion from the audience.

2.0 Public Discussion: No public comment was given from Sacramento, Fresno, and Los Angeles.

3.0 Comments from Co – Chairs: Geno Flores introduced himself, welcomed the participants and thanked them for their contributions to CAEL QIS, and welcomed the new member Kathy Radtkey-Gaither. Kathy expressed her appreciation to the committee for their efforts.

4.0 Comments from Advisory Committee Members

Consuelo Espinosa provided an update about QRIS presentations she had done, mentioning that there were 80 participants at the presentation in San Francisco.

5.0 Action Items

5.2 Approve Policy Statements for QRIS Technical Assistance, Sampling Parameters, Oversight, and Participation

Dennis Vicars, Chair of the Design Ideas for Licensing and QRIS Subcommittee, began his presentation stating that technical assistance is going to be the main factor that influences the success of CAEL QRIS. He went on to say that piloting the QRIS is extremely important.

Dennis stated that the action items would be on the following topics: technical assistance, sampling, oversight and QRIS participation. The Informational items would be guidance for the pilot projects. He asked that the committee approve policy statements for the QRIS technical assistance, mentioning that they have previously approved initial policy statements and that information on these items was included in the presentation.

5.2.1. Policy Statements for the CAEL QIS Technical Assistance

Action Item - Approve the policy statements for the CAEL QIS Technical Assistance.

Dennis presented the following TA factors developed by the Design Subcommittee.

• Build on TA using resources and expertise of early QRIS champions and ECE associations
• Prior to implementation, review TA local models in CA and in other states that have QRIS experience
• Explore use of reciprocal reviews and TA support to build a QRIS learning community and program leadership/ownership
• TA resources focus on improving:
  • Quality of the teaching and learning relationship, primarily and the learning environment to improve outcomes for children and
  • Operational considerations such as leadership, personnel administration, and management to support outcomes for children.
• Use a coaching model and other techniques that encourage continuous improvement
• Coaching model is a client-driven approach and begins with a baseline QRIS assessment of the ECE program
• QRIS coaches have (or acquire) training in specific skill areas
• Statewide oversight is needed on QRIS coaches’ credentials and approaches used
• Aspects of TA need to be included in pilots with effectiveness evaluated, particularly regarding outcomes for children
• Quality improvement action plans:
  • Tool for improvement and not a grading or punitive system
  • Enables training to be offered (not required)
  • More fundamental in the early tiers; more comprehensive or detailed in the higher tiers
  • In early tiers, focus on moving up; in higher tiers, focus on sustaining higher quality levels and continuous improvement
• Develop pilot phase to include TA with current resources:
  • maximize use of technology
  • use resources already available such as, PITC, CPIN, R&R, LPC, and others
  • examine alternatives for ‘local broker’ to identify regional and local TA resources without conflict of interest issues, such as LPCs

Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Toby Boyd to approve the policy statements for the CAEL QIS Technical Assistance. Motion was approved by majority vote. (7 ayes – 3 no – 1 abstain) Kris Perry, Jeannie Oropeza, and Kathy Radtkey-Gaither voted no. Venus Garth abstained.

Committee Discussion:

Dave Gordon commented on TA coaches and urged that there be flexibility with a variety of effective coaching strategies. Kathy Gaither questioned why we are separating quality rating from coaching, and how do ‘operational considerations’ relate to quality of learning. She was concerned that many items do not fit with early learning. Dennis Vicars clarified that it is our mission to develop an early learning environment for children, and this includes the operational aspects that impact effective teaching and environments conducive to early learning. We are going to be able to monitor children’s learning and the impact of various quality factors, including all five elements in the quality rating structure.

Kris Perry stated that the committee should be referring to these efforts as professional development efforts, not technical assistance. There appears to be a set of guiding principles which in no way would be sufficient for implementation of a professional development program statewide. She recommended the committee re-title the section, professional development, and refer to these as guiding principles. She recommended that the item remain a discussion item. Randi Wolfe suggested that it needed to state both, technical assistance and professional development. We need to support effective teachers and administrators; providing both professional development and ongoing TA. It was clarified that professional development is the next agenda item, and it was originally scheduled to precede the discussion on TA. The agenda order was changed to accommodate Dave Gordon’s schedule.

Abby Cohen stated that the focus for workforce improvements is professional development. Every level has professional development needs. The TA for QRIS focuses on the overall program’s improvement; it includes, but is not limited to, professional development. There was a comment that QRIS is a system; TA is part of it and needs to assist with the rating process that is being put in place. TA should focus on components of quality that we think are important.

Public Comment:

A speaker was concerned with the potential cost for support and training of unlicensed providers, stating that the 2003 study of unlicensed providers showed a 70% annual turnover. Another speaker commented that we need to have some clear benchmarks and need to do a good job in funding programs that work, not ones that we think may help. A speaker was confused with the Professional Development on page 7, stating that there appears to be more detail on operational considerations.

Another speaker commented that TA needs to be offered for license-exempt providers, and we need to be able to offer opportunities for them to improve and become licensed. Another speaker commented that resources for exempt providers are in infancy stages. The committee needs to value the importance of improving the quality of early learning for all children.

Returned to Committee Discussion

Cliff Marcussen made the motion to amend the agenda item, and the changes are reflected in the TA items listed. Kris Perry stated that the TA factors are not specific enough and do not reflect back to the tiers that we are trying to improve. It doesn’t make sense since it is too generic. We are approving technical assistance policy statements, and we haven’t reviewed the different tiers or domains. Technical assistance is subordinate to the goals, therefore she felt uncomfortable voting. It was clarified that these TA policy statements provide a framework for continued work on TA through the pilot phase, and that the Committee had already approved an initial set of policy statements for TA. It is very difficult to move forward with a QRIS if the rating structure is not supported by a tangible commitment to TA.

5.2.2. Policy Statements for CAEL QIS Sampling Parameters

Action Item - Approve policy statements for CAEL QIS Sampling Parameters

Dennis Vicars presented the next item, Sampling Parameters that would be assessed through the pilot project prior to use in QRIS. Each age range needs to be considered in program reviews. Need to establish appropriate random sample size based on valid sampling methodology and align sampling parameters between different types of programs. Centers and homes would know the period of time when a visitation was scheduled but not the exact date or classroom, and the rating team would have discretion re: which classrooms would be visited.

Tiers 1-5 would use sampling for environmental rating scales centers and homes, and infant toddler programs. Tiers 4-5 would have all classrooms assessed for CLASS or PARS on alternating rating periods with ERS. CLASS/PARS are to be used for professional development and quality improvement plans, but not for setting a rating.

Committee Discussion:

Randi Wolfe expressed a concern for tiers 4 and 5, as to whether we are assessing all classrooms or just sampling. If all classrooms are assessed by the CLASS or PARS it would be problematic, knowing how labor intensive it is to do a CLASS evaluation. Does that mean in alternate years, programs don’t get a rating relative to their ERS? The committee approved having the rating for CLASS and PARS be done on alternating rating periods. Clarification was provided by the subcommittee that CLASS and PARS are designed as professional development and technical assistance tools, not intended to be used in a rating process.

Further clarification was given that all initial ratings of programs would be done for all five elements and would focus on the ERS. The alternating years would use CLASS/PARS and technical assistance to further focus on teaching and learning. This will prove time to determine which elements to include in the California based tool. Sampling is not applicable to family child care homes because the license is for a single site which is the home of the provider.

There was discussion on whether a formal vote would be necessary on these Action Items and whether the items should be considered as recommendations. It was suggested that the item be returned to the subcommittee for further review and that Agenda Items 5.1.2 through 5.1.4 be presented as Information Items.

5.2.3. Oversight

Dennis presented on policy statements for CAEL QRIS Oversight as an information item. The policy statement stated the following:

• Establish a review process for every 2-3 years, with noted exceptions. Annual reviews are costly and do not provide sufficient time to institute improvements. Exceptions include certain situations such as Title 22 licensing issues, key staff turnover, etc.
• Check results of 1or 2 or 3 year review periods, if possible, through pilot projects.
• Establish appeals process for technical issues, such as administrative or recording errors. The qualitative aspects of the QRIS reviews (e.g., ERS) would not be subject to appeal.
• Use a combination of local and state oversight to maximize expertise and resources. The QRIS reviews would be done at the county level (or regional consortium). The State (CDE) would provide oversight and assurance of statewide consistency (e.g., inter-rater reliability).
• Need to safeguard against conflicts of interest in QRIS reviews, ERS reviews, and provision of TA. Possibly provide for different administration, but not necessarily separate agencies since there are few agencies with sufficient expertise in some regions.
• Review Head Start methodology for oversight, monitoring, and TA.
• Further study: determine link between tiers and child outcomes; length of time programs stay in tiers; use data gathered for evaluation of QRIS as well as for rating and TA; test TA methods.

Committee Discussion: No Committee Discussion

Public Comment: No Public Comment

5.2.4. Policy Statements for CAEL QIS Participation

Dennis Vicars presented policy statements for CAEL QIS Participation as an information item.

Vision Statement for QRIS Participation:

• CAEL QIS could be phased-in over 20 years.
  • pilot tested and evaluated for about 7 years;
  • voluntary participation for all program for about 7 years;
  • phase-in CAEL QIS requirement for publicly funded and then licensed programs over about 7 years.
  • The vision is that participation in the QRIS is initially voluntary with appropriate funding and incentives provided, and ultimately required for all ECE programs so it is available for all California children.

Factors to Study for QRIS Participation:

• Investigate phase in for public and private ECE programs
• Check effectiveness of communication with ECE programs/providers and families
• Study length of time programs stay on tiers and/or move up on tiers
• Explore method for recruitment
• Establish data parameters for evaluations
• Test TA methods and effectiveness of incentives
• Assess costs and benefits over time. Strong evaluation is key to success of pilots and CAEL QIS.

Committee Discussion:

There was debate that 20 years would be too long for implementing QRIS. This timeframe would mean that 10 million children are not receiving the benefits of improvements to program quality, and half of those children are at poverty level. Many committee members agreed that QRIS should be implemented in 10 years.

Public Comment:

A speaker commented that as we think about the timeframe for a pilot, if the ratings are done every 2 to 3 years then what agency will oversee the ratings and licensing standards. We hope that by the time we have a pilot, we have an improved licensing system.

Another speaker stated that parents will look at QRIS as guaranteeing quality. If the ratings are happening every 2 or 3 years, the less significance they will have.

Another speaker commented that we need a vision for mandatory QRIS because we are going to create an even greater disparity between high and low quality programs without a universal QRIS platform.

5.1Approve Staff Education, Experience, and Ongoing Professional Development for California’s Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS).

Dave Gordon, Chair of the Workforce Subcommittee, presented on the Workforce Subcommittee goals, charge, and principles of a statewide delivery system and why they are important. The topics for the principle statements are: Content, Providers, Accessibility, Cost, Timing, and Certifications. Mr. Gordon asked the Advisory Committee to approve the draft policy statements for the following areas:

• Competencies and Courses: Content of Education and Ongoing Professional Development
• QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element
• Delivery System for Workforce Education
• Compensation and QRIS Incentives

5.1.1. Competencies and Courses: Content of Education and Ongoing Professional Development

Action Item - Approve Workforce Policy Statement #1: Competencies and Courses: Content of Education and Ongoing Professional Development.

• By 2012, Early Childhood Educator (ECE) Competencies developed into a common and comprehensive course of study that are reflected in courses for Associate and Bachelor degrees and delivered statewide.
• By 2013, All community colleges that offer ECE programs incorporate ECE Core 8 and additional courses to reflect designated lower division ECE Competencies into their degree programs.
• By 2014, All CSU, UC, and private higher education institutions align ECE courses to a common and comprehensive course of study across the two and four-year degree system.
• By 2015, Develop and publicize a clear and accessible system of demonstrating the ECE Competencies equivalency for courses.
  • California’s ECE Permit Matrix and Title 22 licensing requirements will be revised and aligned with common and comprehensive course of study.
  • Develop an Early Childhood Specialization or Credential focused on children birth to third grade with a variety of specialization areas that is incorporated into a four-year ECE major, graduate, or credential program.

'Considerations' for Competencies and Courses for Ongoing Professional Development:

All members of the higher education community, including the Regents, Presidents, Deans, and Faculty need to ensure the completion of work by the listed timelines so that the ECE workforce can effectively provide learning opportunities for young children and meet program requirements.

Need to update ECE Permit Matrix as soon as the common course of study is defined to clarify expectations and inspire the ECE workforce.

If an ECE Credential is thought to be desirable, more examination of credentials is needed to determine available research on the use of credentials to develop effective teachers. Specialization within the ECE Credential will ensure that teachers have courses that will prepare them for working with younger or older children. The ECE Credential is intended to be unique to the skills and competencies of the ECE field and may or may not include a 5thyear course of study. Students will have the option to complete more than one specialization. Recommend 3 specialization options: Infant/Toddler, Preschooler-Kindergartener, and 1st– 3rdgrade.

Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Cliff Marcussen to approve Policy Statement #1 for Competencies and Courses: Content of Education and Ongoing Professional Development, with the amendment to remove the last two bullets of Policy Statement #1 and move them into the 'Considerations' section. Motion was approved unanimously. Venus Garth and Sarah Tomlinson were absent.

Committee Discussion:

Jeannie Oropeza expressed budgetary concerns regarding Universities that are currently cutting back courses and how it seems unlikely that they would add additional ECE courses. Dave Gordon stated that private colleges are able to make adjustments to current market demands for training and that public institutions could do the same.

Kathy Radtkey-Gaither expressed concern regarding increasing education requirements, and that degrees and college coursework don't necessarily create more effective teachers. Education requirements create barriers and don’t improve effective teaching, but rather check off ‘inputs’ and raise costs to the point that families can't afford high-quality child care. We are recommending education requirements throughout the tiers that may not result in more effective teachers.

Kris Perry questioned using degrees as a proxy for teacher effectiveness. She suggested that the Committee have a discussion about whether the research supports that assumption. Dave Gordon suggested that Committee members can test that teacher (and director) education and ongoing professional development produces quality student outcomes. As the pilots are implemented using the criteria set, there will be results that will indicate whether further staff education and training result in improved child outcomes.

Cliff Marcussen clarified that on slide 11, the first 3 bullets express an emphasis on education alignment throughout state educational institutions regarding coursework and competencies; and that a lack of alignment makes thousands of ECE students retake courses as they move from a community college to a university. It costs the state a huge amount when the state education institutions are not aligned. This alignment would make the system more effective and efficient in terms of a state budget and assist students in furthering their ECE education. Cliff also had concern with the last bullet regarding California’s ECE Permit Matrix and Title 22 licensing requirements because of the lack of increased compensation for those programs.

Abby Cohen of NCCIC commented that there was not an intention to have all programs start at the 5-Star level. California's state licensing requirements are currently inadequate because we have waited 20 years to increase licensing standards.

Randi Wolfe commented that experts in the field would argue that the BA degree alone should not be the proxy for quality child care but rather a BA degree with specialized ECE course work. She also mentioned to the Committee to be mindful of all the early childhood brain research and the research linking the higher education of the teacher or caregiver with positive child outcomes.

Public Comment:

There was a comment from the Fresno County Office of Education that higher education has been encouraged to increase the visibility and importance of ECE training. There should be an emphasis on maintaining and build upon the existing institutions that are performing well and take advantage of what is working.

A comment from the Sacramento location stated that 12 ECE units is not enough training for teachers to be considered "Professionals" in ECE and to effectively improve outcomes for children. She also stated that there seems to be inconsistency in the order of the timeline for implementation of Competencies and Coursework. The 2012 criteria seems dependent on the criteria from 2013 and 2014, and that maybe they are out of order.

Another comment was that licensing standards need to be updated since the number one indicator of a child's success in school is the education level of the teacher/parent. This should be very important in the field of ECE, considering that children spend 5-6 hours with a teacher whose educational experience is linked to positive child outcomes. Current licensing standards don't call for one section of a college-level English course for ECE educators. In theory, a college student can take 12 units of ECE coursework and receive D grades in every single class and be considered a professional teacher in ECE.

5.1.2. QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element

Action Item - Approve Policy Statement #2: QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element. There were two options for the QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element presented.

Single set of criteria in QRIS tiers for both licensed center based and licensed family child care home providers. The criteria for Options A and B refer to the Lead Teacher for each classroom/program, as the Lead Teacher will serve as the proxy for all the program's staff education and ongoing professional development. Please note that Option A uses this policy; Option B provides different criteria for Centers and FCCH at Tier 1.

Pros for QRIS Option A:

• Improved educational requirements including degrees would improve the public’s perception of, and respect for, the ECE field.
• Consider adding more time for each tier to meet criteria. The current tiers 2-5 are realistic for all providers if more time is provided to complete units (e.g., 5 years).
• Providing one set of quality criteria for early childhood centers and FCCH will support the professional status of FCCH.
• The standards will motivate ECE teachers and staff to continue their education. Higher degrees will make the field more desirable, and that passion may be contagious.
• Research links a better educated and skilled teacher with improved child outcomes, early identification and intervention for children with special needs, and improved family relations.

Cons for QRIS Option A:

• A work group on 7/8/10 proposed beginning Option A tiers with the current Tier 2 (24 units in ECE – Core 8) because this will professionalize the ECE field by changing the current culture and perception of the ECE workforce. Eliminate Tier 1; replace with 24 units in ECE (Core 8); Add 16 units in General Education in Tier 2; Tiers 3-5 remain the same
• Other, earlier work groups stated that Tier 1 with 12 units from an accredited college does not provide realistic entry level for FCCH who lack prior college education.
• Teaching staff may be more qualified than the program director.

Professional development hours are too low. Higher annual hours should be adopted across all tiers. Recommend 25 annual hours for all tiers.

Pros for QRIS Option B:

• Supports entry of FCCH providers into Tier 1 at the current level required by Title 22 Licensing which supports the overall policy that the QRS Tier 1 should reflect Title 22 Licensing requirements.
• By making it possible for FCCH to start participating in QRIS and TA right away, this option enables FCCH to begin to implement improvements for their programs that will benefit children before (or during) their college coursework.
• Recognizes that many FCCH may have participated in non-credit professional development, may have limited English proficiency, and may need assistance in basic skills to participate successfully in unit-bearing courses.
• Adopts the current 105 hours of professional development required for a permit. The tiers require an annual commitment of 21 hours which reinforces continuous, ongoing professional development.

Cons for QRIS Option B:

• Tiers 1 and 2 provide separate educational standards for Centers and FCCH which contradicts the policy for a ‘single set of criteria for QRIS.’ But by Tier 3 there will be a single set of criteria.
• Disappointing to advocates of professionalization of ECE who want higher starting standards.
• Option B reflects the current workforce; but looking toward the future, this option will not entice new members to consider ECE a profession.
• Ethnic minorities comprise the majority of the current ECE workforce and creating a bifurcated educational entry point continues the under-payment and under-appreciation of this workforce.
• The increase in requirements for units between Tiers 3, 4, and 5 are not equal increments, and make it more difficult for providers to secure a Bachelor’s degree.
• Coursework needs to be at WASC accredited colleges and count towards degrees, or they may need to be repeated.

Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Dennis Vicars to approve Option B of Policy Statement #2: QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element. Motion was approved by majority vote. Kathy Radtkey-Gaither and Jeannie Oropeza opposed.  Dave Gordon and Kris Perry abstained. Sarah Tomlinson and Venus Garth were absent.

Committee Discussion:

There was a comment that Option B is the best option for including the majority of family child care homes. Option B would increase participation among family child care providers and maintain dialogue to get them into the QRIS system. Another member agreed, stating that throughout the process of CAEL QIS, there was an emphasis to keep the door open for providers to enter the QRIS system and that Option B best reflects that emphasis.

There was clarification made that slide 15 of the Workforce Options for California’s Early Learning Quality Rating Structure presentation regarding 'Professional Development Units' should say 'Professional Development Hours.'

There was concern regarding whether there is research that shows that education in ECE is a proxy for quality. The Committee member emphasized that the Committee should look specifically at teacher effectiveness rather then additional teacher educational requirements. It was recommended that other methods, such as coaching, would be more effective than coursework or degrees in ECE in impacting child outcomes.

Dave Gordon mentioned that we should have further evaluation from higher education institutions regarding the training that teachers receive and adjust their programs accordingly. Kris Perry suggested waiting and going back to do more research, beginning with pilots, to see how child outcomes might align with the tiers in Option B, before requiring particular levels of coursework or degrees.

There was some concern from the expert consultants regarding the need to overly rely on the pilots to come up with answers regarding the need for increased education among providers. It was commented that it is good to use research as basis for making decisions regarding the need for higher education among ECE providers. However, you'll need an extended period of time and considerable expense to properly evaluate the role of increased educational requirements on ECE providers in order to better gauge the result of improved outcomes for children based on those increased requirements.

Public Comment:

A commenter from the Sacramento location stated that there was a study done in 2009 from the Center for the Child Care Workforce on ECE teacher training that showed that the more education that an ECE provider has, the result was an increase in positive child outcomes.

The was an additional comment made from the Sacramento location that stated that CAEL QIS is building a quality rating scale and that Option B, Tier 1 did not reflect quality. There was the request to use Option A but with the caveat to include existing providers in the QRIS system.

There was a majority of Public Comments that favored Option B of the QRS Staff Education and Ongoing Professional Development Element as a means to keep the door open for providers to enter the QRIS system, including family child care providers.

5.1.3. Delivery System for Workforce Education

Action Item - Approve Policy Statement #3: Delivery System for Career Pathways.

Dave Gordon presented on Policy Statement #3 regarding the Delivery System for Career Pathways; including a common course of study offered by WASC accredited institutions of higher education (IHEs), a diverse and customer-friendly delivery system, cost analysis, and expanded existing student support systems to assist ECE professionals in furthering their education and development.

Course of Study via WASC accredited IHE

The early care and education professional development system is comprised of accredited degree programs at the Associate, Baccalaureate, Masters, and Doctoral levels, as well as supplemental educational experiences, including remedial, enrichment, and specialization offerings. Degree programs are defined as integrated, comprehensive courses of study offered by WASC accredited IHEs that prepare professionals at all stages along the career path from entry to expert. The common and comprehensive course of study will be rigorous, recursive, outcomes-focused, and will reflect currency with development in the field and the knowledge base (e.g., Early Childhood Educator Competencies).

Customer Friendly

A customer-friendly, accessible delivery system for credit-bearing degree programs will be provided by both two and four-year colleges and universities. IHEs shall ensure inclusion of all segments of the ECE professional community in degree programs. IHEs shall partner with community agencies to provide degree programs that vary in structure (e.g., location, schedule, and format) with the goal of providing access to high quality, credit-bearing professional preparation throughout California.

Diverse Delivery System

Community-based agencies, county offices of education, resource and referral agencies, and others with expertise in a given subject area provide educational experiences. IHEs will partner with community agencies that wish to provide educational experiences, including core courses or supplemental experiences for credit, in order to extend access to constituencies in the ECE community. These community agencies will contract with local colleges and universities to do so and will meet IHE standards for course content, assessment, and personnel qualifications.

Student Supports

Existing student support programs and approaches, such as AB 212/CARES, Mentor Teacher Program, Child Development Training Consortium, and Child Care Initiative Project may be expanded in order to assist ECE professionals in furthering their education and development. Student remediation assistance and other academic supports will be identified and expanded. In both instances, available funds and other resources will follow students to the IHEs and community agencies providing ECE professional development. Where gaps in support structures and delivery systems are found, special projects will be established to address them.

Cost Analysis

There are benefits to ECE employers and students to minimize costs while maintaining the quality of professional development and sustaining degree-granting institutions. A cost analysis with recommendations will be completed to determine the financial needs of professionals seeking degrees and IHEs and community agencies that provide professional preparation. The cost analysis will inform and benefit both providers and consumers to maximize enrollment opportunities.

Motion made by Jeannie Oropeza and seconded by Kathy Radtkey-Gaither to request clarification on Policy Statement #3 and that the Policy Statement #3 be provided as information. Motion failed with three ‘yes’ votes by Jeannie Oropeza, Kris Perry, and Kathy Radtkey-Gaither. Venus Garth and Sarah Tomlinson were absent.

Motion made by Cliff Marcusson and seconded by Randi Wolf to approve Policy Statement #3: Delivery System for Workforce Education with the amendment to delete reference to WASC accreditation. Motion failed with two ‘yes’ votes by Cliff Marcusson and Randi Wolf. Venus Garth and Sarah Tomlinson were absent.

Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Toby Boyd to approve Policy Statement #3: Delivery System for Workforce Education as a 'consideration.' Motion was approved by majority vote. Kathy Radtkey-Gaither and Jeannie Oropeza opposed. Venus Garth and Sarah Tomlinson were absent.

Committee Discussion:

There was clarification regarding whether there was a need to have ECE courses taken at a WASC accredited institution. There was concern that the QRIS would exclude some higher education institutions from providing accredited ECE courses. It was clarified from work by the Workforce Subcommittee that WASC accredited institutions were a valid proxy for ECE courses taken at these educational institutions. Further clarification was given from the Committee that certain educational institutions that are not WASC accredited tend to be private universities that are more expensive. There was further emphasis on professionalizing the field of ECE by using accreditation comparable to WASC.

Public Comment:

There was concern regarding the validity of agencies hiring staff to provide courses for institutions of higher education. It was clarified that the courses would need to meet the IHE requirements, including teacher qualifications, through an agreement with the IHE. Another comment stated that we should be expanding on programs that show effectiveness in increasing outcomes for children.

There was further concern that moving away from WASC as the barometer for which higher education institutions are measured would be a mistake.

5.1.4. Compensation and QRIS Incentives

Action Item - Approve Policy Statement #4: Compensation and QRIS Incentives.

Dave Gordon presented on Policy Statement #4: Compensation and QRIS Incentives. The goal for California’s Early Care and Education (ECE) system will be to plan for and increase funding to develop and sustain the professional ECE workforce by increasing salaries, benefits, professional development opportunities, incentives, and financial supports to reach increased education and training standards in order to provide early learning and care experiences that improve outcomes for children across all domains through an efficient and effective delivery system.

By increasing and utilizing a variety of federal, state, local and private funds, the ECE system will support the workforce by:

1. Creating and implementing Compensation Standards based on regional/county differences and demographics as benchmarks to ensure that dedicated program funding streams for both early care and education centers and family child care providers be used to increase compensation for Teaching-Provider Staff based on their Educational Attainment and job responsibilities.

2. Providing additional financial support to access accredited credit-bearing courses and degrees to recruit and retain the ECE workforce, such as:

• Expanding access to financial assistance with parity to K-12 educators
• Expansion of educational stipends to individuals
• Developing strategies to retain cultural and linguistic diversity at all levels of the career ladder
• Enacting tax credits

3. Significantly increasing funding to IHEs to support the ECE workforce including:

• Planning and expanding access of model educational programs between community colleges, universities, and their community partners
• Recruiting and retaining higher education ECE professionals in the field
• Supporting existing lab schools and developing additional qualified community lab sites, such as through the Mentor program, to increase access and diversity of lab settings tied to higher education

4. Developing and implementing ECE/Child Development degrees (Associate, Bachelors, Masters) and Credential for ECE workforce from birth-3rd grade statewide to ensure professionalization of the field and parity with K-12 educators.

5. Providing TA to support defined high quality working environments, including teacher compensation standards.

6. Providing enhanced incentive funding to ECE programs participating in CAEL QRIS with a set-aside (such as a percentage) of incentive funds to be dedicated to staff for improved measureable best practices, such as moving from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

7. Designing and implementing strategies to increase compensation for ECE workforce in licensed centers and FCCHs through CAEL QRIS / ELAC without regard to public or private funding status.

Motion made by Kathy Radtkey-Gaither and seconded by Jeannie Oropeza for Policy Statement #4 to be moved to an information item. Motion withdrawn.

Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Dennis Vicars to approve the 'Goal' section of Policy Statement #4. Motion was approved by majority vote. Kathy Radtkey-Gaither and Jeannie Oropeza opposed. Sarah Tomlinson and Venus Garth were absent.

Motion made by Toby Boyd and seconded by Dennis Vicars to approve the remaining sections as 'considerations.' Motion was approved by majority vote. Kathy Radtkey-Gaither and Jeannie Oropeza opposed. Sarah Tomlinson and Venus Garth were absent.

Committee Discussion:

There was a comment regarding the First 5 CARES program and how research might show how stipends can positively affect child outcomes. A suggestion was made to run a QRIS pilot for stipends and employee compensation.

Public Comment:

There was concern regarding compensation standards and whether they should be interpreted more appropriately as guidelines. Also, there were recommendations to allow individual programs to analyze their own compensation models. There was further concern regarding the idea of provider compensation and how imperative it is in attracting qualified ECE teachers. Also, there was further comment on how there needs to be further awareness regarding the lack of funding to adequately compensate qualified providers.

Information on the additional 'Action Item' and ‘Information Items’ were provided via written documents or will be provided at the September 30, 2010, meeting.

5.3 Vision Statement for California’s CAEL QIS Data System.

6.1 Finance and Incentives, including Funding Models Subcommittee: Update on Finance Subcommittee’s progress and Overview of National Child Care Information Center QRIS Cost Estimator

6.2 Update on Communication Plan.

6.3 Overview of the proposed outline for the CAEL QIS Final Report and the 2010 CAEL QIS Timeline.

6.4 Update on ELAC (Early Learning Advisory Committee) new members, development of federal application, and upcoming meetings and public hearings.

7.0 Pending Agenda - None