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

CAEL QIS Advisory Committee Meeting Highlights

The seventh meeting of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee was held at the Yolo County Office of Education on June 16 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting was joined through video conferencing by participants at the San Diego and Fresno County Offices of Education, coordinated through the California County Superintendents Education Service Association (CCSESA).

The following Advisory Committee members introduced themselves: Dennis Vicars, Venus Garth, Anne McKinney, Yolie Flores, Celia Ayala, Cliff Marcussen, Consuelo Espinosa, Sarah Tomlinson, Jeannie Oropeza, Diane Levin for Kris Perry, and Toby Boyd. David Gordon joined the meeting later in the morning. The CAEL QIS Expert Consultants were Abby Cohen, National Child Care Information Center; Susan Muenchow, American Institute of Research (AIR); and Gail Zellman, RAND. CDE staff was Roberta Peck and Simon Marquez.

Public Discussion

No public comment was provided.

Comments From Co-Chairs

Anne McKinney made an opening comment on the Governor’s appreciation for the in-depth and on-going efforts given by all the CAEL QIS participants to improving the lives of children 0-5 and their families throughout the state.

Comments by Advisory Committee Members

Celia Ayala participated in the Preschool California, California Association for the Education of Young Children (CAEYC) Advocacy Day: Early Learning, Seize the Moment. She stated that every speaker mentioned CAEL QIS in their discussion, so it is clear that CAEL QIS is very participatory and encourages broad input.

Action Items

5.0. - Action Items

5.1. - Approve Elements in California’s Quality Rating Improvement Structure       

Dennis Vicars, Chair of the Design Ideas for Licensing, Quality Rating, and Improvement System Subcommittee, started by thanking the fellow CAEL QIS Advisory Committee members who participated in the Subcommittee meetings, along with CDE staff and the Subcommittee members. Dennis presented options for the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee to consider and approve related to the Quality Rating Structure which included:

• Family Child Care Homes (FCCH) criteria for the Ratio and Group Size quality element
• Criteria for “Alignment with the Early Learning Foundations and Frameworks” for the Teaching and Learning quality element
• Program Leadership quality element
• Integration of a draft nutrition criteria and the Draft CAEL QIS License-Exempt Program Definition and Criteria.

Return to Top

5.1.1. Ratio and Group Size

Action Item- Approve Ratio and Group Size Criteria for FCCH.

• Considers limited research, plus negative impact of changes on capacity and financial stability of FCCH.
• Of 20 States with QRIS, only 4 change FCCH ratios/group size; of which only Ohio does it with a block system.

Ratios and Group Size for FCCH type: Infant*, Toddler*, PreK*, School-Age*

Small FCCHs: 1:4 infants including own children under 10 years of age, OR 1:6 children, no more than 3 of whom are infants, including own children under 10 years old, OR 1:8 if all conditions are met

• At least 1 child is enrolled and attending kindergarten or elementary* and a second child is at least 6 years old,
• No more than 2 infants are cared for when caring for more than 6 children,
• Licensee notifies all parents, and -Licensee obtains written consent of property owner.

Large FCCHs: 2:12 if no more than 4 infants including licensee’s and attendant’s children under 10 years old , OR 2:14 if all conditions met:

• At least 1 child is enrolled and attending kindergarten or elementary* and a second child is at least 6 years old,
• No more than 3 infants are cared for when caring for more than 12 children,
• Licensee notifies all parents, and
• Licensee obtains written consent from property owner.

*per AB 529, Chaptered 744, Statutes of 2003

Considerations for future improvement to policy and operations through ELAC include:

• Review Title 22 Licensing criteria as:
• There are complications with FCCH group size plus two allowances.
• We need a common definition for infants and toddlers, so consider changing Title 22 ‘toddler’ to 18-36 months.
• Reinstate annual visits for Community Care Licensing for Centers; every two years for FCCH.
• Safety is a primary issue. Recommend health and safety training (first aid, safety, CPR) every two years, moving to annual.
• Keeping FCCH ratio/group size constant assumes increased staff qualifications to improve program quality.
• Center-based programs also assume increased staff qualifications with no change to Ratio and Group Size criteria for preschool in Tiers 3 through 5.

Motion made by Celia Ayala and seconded by Yolie Flores:

I move to approve using current Title 22 Licensing Criteria as QRS Ratio and Group Size Criteria for FCCH and approve ‘policy options.’

Motion was approved by majority vote. Venus Garth opposed.

Committee Discussion:  A question was asked about whether the Advisory Committee was approving the 'considerations' and 'policy options' for QRS FCCH Ratios and Group Size Element and/or the chart above. The concern was that the chart may change over time. Clarification was requested regarding the word "consideration," and the Advisory Committee agreed to eliminate the word "consideration" from the statement. There was also a question of what training would be required every two years from the statement, "Recommend health and safety training every two years, moving to annual." It was clarified that the training includes first aid, safety, and CPR. The Department of Social Services has concerns about implementing any piecemeal policy options and would recommend a cohesive platform.

Public Comment:  A FCCH provider was concerned about the Quality Rating Structure’s staff education tiers given the current 10-year renewal limit for the ECE permit. Another speaker shared concern about the safety of infants and toddlers.

5.1.2. Proposed Teaching and Learning Element

Action Item- Approve QRS Teaching and Learning Element.

Proposed Teaching and Learning Element

* Developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate = DCLA.

Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Dave Gordon.

I move to approve the above criteria for 'Teaching and Learning Quality Element' as proxies for identified quality criteria for this element, including 1) criteria for “Alignment with the Infant-Toddler and Preschool Curriculum Frameworks and Foundations;” 2) providing TA and Training for all quality factors; 3) adding ‘age’ to the chart; and 4) "Ensuring a process on measurement and accountability for teaching and learning effectiveness."

Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

Committee Discussion:

There was a question about the age-appropriateness of the lesson plans. The point was made that it's an increase in workload for teachers. In addition, Tier 5 will require more support for teachers. There was a request for clarification on what teacher effectiveness means and how it is measured. It was suggested that measurement and accountability should be integrated into the QRIS and that it is important to prepare for it now. Camille Maben stated that there is a partnership with First 5 and other groups to establish the Early Childhood Educator Competencies. There is also access to ongoing assistance through staff education and training.

Public Comment: None

5.1.3. Proposed Program Leadership Element for Centers

Action Item- Approve Program Director’s qualifications as proxy for Program Leadership Element for ECE Centers (not for FCCH and small centers), and Provide TA and Training on BAS (Business Administration Scale - FCCH) and PAS (Program Administration Scale - Centers) for all ECE programs/providers.

Program Leadership Element Key Technical Assistance Areas:

• A wide array of knowledge and skills in administration, staff management, and leadership policies/processes are included in this quality element.
• Use Program Director’s qualifications as proxy. Program Director is defined as the person who administers and/or manages a center or program.
• Program Administration Scale (PAS-centers) and Business Administration Scale (BAS-FCCH) are highly correlated with Program Director qualifications and are a helpful TA tool (not appropriate for rating all programs).
• Use information on: Administration Rating Tools including BAS/PAS, Coordinated Management Review, NAEYC, and others for TA to improve program leadership.

Proposed Program Leadership Element

*(PAS) Program Administration Scale - designed to reliably measure the leadership and management practices of center-based early childhood organizations.

*(BAS) Business Administration Scale - measures management practices and quality of care in the family child care settings.

5.1.3. Motion made by Yolie Flores and seconded by Celia Ayala.

Return to Top

I move to:

• Approve Program Director’s (1) qualifications (2) as proxy for Program Leadership Element for ECE Centers (not for FCCH and small centers);

• Provide BAS and PAS for all ECE programs/providers;

• Ensure a process on measurement and accountability for program director effectiveness.

• Each ECE program shall identify the ‘Program Director’

• Use McCormick definition of management experience for Tiers 2-5; and Title 22 Licensing definition of ‘experience’ for Tier 1.

• Tier 1: use Title 22 licensing criteria for 12 units core ECE and experience

• Tiers 2-4: use Core 8 ECE courses (Curriculum Alignment Project – CAP) described in the Workforce Policy Statements #2) 24 units include: Child Growth and Development; Child, Family and Community; Principles and Practices; Introduction to Curriculum; Observation and Assessment; Health, Safety and Nutrition; Teaching in a Diverse Society; and Practicum

• Tier 5: plus 6 additional units in ECE, including specialized courses.

Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

Committee Discussion:

There was a question of who would decide who the program director is, and it was requested that each ECE program identify the program director. Clarification was requested on the experience requirement. It was suggested to amend the above Proposed Program Leadership Element chart to add management or supervisorial experience for tiers 2 through 4 and to provide a definition. A possible solution would be to add management training programs, such as internships. A question was asked about keeping equal treatment in each level of the tiers. It was noted that years of experience can be recorded through PAS and BAS. However, there are exceptions for small centers. Clarification was provided regarding three terms used in the 'Proposed Program Leadership Element' chart: Basic early childhood training; Management (or supervisory) training (Tiers 2-5); and Experience. (Tier 1)

Public Comment:

There was a question regarding whether the FCCH "owner/teacher" would be responsible for the Program Director qualifications, and it was clarified that FCCH would not be responsible to meet these criteria – but would be responsible for the quality element, “Staff Education and Professional Development.” FCCH would be able to take advantage of the TA resources, though TA would not be a requirement. There was clarification needed regarding the definition of "small centers" and for whom the Program Director qualifications would apply. It was stated that a small center with only a Lead Teacher/Director would be directed to use the PAS/BAS.

QRS Nutrition Criteria

5.1.4. QRS Nutrition Criteria

Action Item - Approve inclusion of Nutrition Criteria provided through ERS Family of Tools, Title 22 Licensing requirements, the Early Learning Foundations and Frameworks, and through Technical Assistance. Also, consider including comparable and consistent nutrition requirements in Title 22 licensing standards for FCCH.

A comparison of the proposed ‘Nutrition Criteria’ and the ERS family of tools, Title 22 Licensing requirements, and the Early Learning Foundations and Frameworks indicate that following items are already included in the QRIS:

• Meals/snacks meet Child Care Food Program requirements (centers)
• Meals/snacks served at regular time
• Children have access to water throughout day
• Menus are posted
• Program decides what is offered; child decides what to eat and how much
• Meals are served family style; adults sit with children during meals

The proposed ‘Nutrition Criteria’ that would be provided through QRIS technical assistance is:

• Orientation to Child Care Food Program nutrition guidance and state nutrition standards, in addition to encouragement for participation at Tier 1,
• Guidelines for food brought from home at Tier 1
• Education to support mothers who breastfeed their infants at Tier 1
• Self-assessment tool to evaluation nutrition and physical activity environment at Tier 2
• Guidance to encourage written nutrition and physical activity policies and guidelines for the program and for families at Tier 3

The proposal to require Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) participation at Tier 3 is better addressed through TA and promoting participation:

Pros:

1) Would address issues related to: cost, problematic levels of paperwork and reporting requirements, additional program reviews, not being feasible for part-time programs; and 2) would encourage healthy nutrition practices and CACFP participation through guidance and TA beginning at Tier 1 (rather than Tiers 3, 4, and 5)

Cons:

If participation is required, QRIS participation could decrease.

5.1.4. Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Toby Boyd.

I move to approve the inclusion of Nutrition Criteria provided through ERS Family of Tools, Title 22 Licensing requirements, and the Early Learning Foundations and Frameworks, with the amendment to remove “through technical assistance.”

Motion was approved by unanimous vote.

Committee Discussion:

There was a comment that the term, "orientation to child care nutrition guidance,” is unclear. Advisory Committee members suggested deleting the Action Item statement, "...through technical assistance." Gail Zellman, Rand, commented that technical assistance should be based on some kind of assessment and agreed that it should be deleted. Also, the inclusion of comparable and consistent nutrition requirements in Title 22 licensing standards for FCCH was discussed.

Public Comment:

A suggestion was made that money would be saved through technical assistance. It was asked that the bulleted criteria regarding inclusion of Nutrition Criteria become a requirement.

Return to Top

5.1.5. QRIS License-Exempt Considerations

Action Item - Modify requirement for Licensing (Title 22) at Tier 1 to include License-Exempt programs, as defined by CAEL QIS.

QRS License-Exempt Considerations:

License-Exempt ECE programs, as defined by CAEL QIS, will be ECE programs that are administered by an agency with operational oversight and responsibility for:

1. meeting Title 22 program licensing standards;
2. providing liability coverage; and
3. providing financial and legal recourse for parents/families.

MOUs will be required to certify that 3 criteria are met.

License-Exempt ECE programs include: Tribal Programs, CalSAFE programs, Parent Cooperatives operated by agencies such as LEAs, Parks and Recreation, and possibly others. Family, Friend, and Neighbor care is not included in this exemption request for CAEL QIS.

The presentation included a discussion on how we provide TA to “Family-Friend-Neighbor” care providers:

• TA will best be provided through the parent.
• TA can be channeled through local agencies (e.g., county agencies, Resource & Referral Network, First 5, Alternative Payment Programs (APP), Local Planning Councils).
• Resources could include parent/caregiver handbook with a list of resources or First 5’s kit for new parents.
• The parent is KEY, especially in terms of supporting “parental choice.”
• The goal is to have all 4-year olds in a part-day quality early learning program.

5.1.5. Motion made by Celia Ayala and seconded by Consuelo Espinosa.

I move to approve the modification requirement for (Title 22) Licensing at Tier 1 to include License-Exempt programs, as defined by CAEL QIS.

Motion was approved by majority vote. Cliff Marcussen opposed. Venus Garth abstained.

Committee Discussion:

A concern was expressed that the Action Item is too broad and that it includes programs, such as Mommy and Me, which the Advisory Committee may not intend to include. A substitute motion was offered to include wording stating that CalSAFE, military-based, and tribal programs, and all other license-exempt programs that are administered by an agency with operational oversight and responsibility for the CAEL QIS criteria.

There are programs that will never meet the Title 22 standards for facilities, but they meet all other programmatic requirements for Title 22. This Action Item is designed for those issues. An MOU for oversight of these license-exempt programs is needed to ensure that they meet all the other programmatic requirements under Title 22, as well as the additional criteria to be included in QRIS. There was a suggestion that the Advisory Committee come back and re-word the requirements in Tier 1. There are more than facility issues. It is advised not to list programs that are exempt because the result is that an eligible program may unintentionally be left out.

Public Comment:

There was concern about restricting access to other programs that do not meet the Title 22 standards for facilities but serve as valuable resources for children and families, such as Parent Cooperative programs and preschools run by LEAs, if a prescriptive list of programs was substituted for the CAEL QIS definition and criteria.

Another concern focused on who determines if a non-licensed program is meeting Title 22 standards for Health and Safety. Furthermore, what will be the course of action for programs when licensing standards change? A participant stated that there is an option for programs to be granted waivers for Title 22 licensing requirements. There may need to be a placeholder for a waiver or exceptions for programs that can't meet Title 22 licensing standards for facilities.

5.2. - Approve the Unique Identifier Proposal and ECE Data System Vision Statement

The order of presentation for this agenda item was changed so that the ECE Data System Vision Statement item preceded the Unique Identifier Proposal.

5.2.2. California ECE Data System Vision Statement

Action Item - Approve the California Early Childhood Education (ECE) Data System Vision Statement. Anne McKinney, Chair of the CAEL QIS Data Subcommittee, presented the following vision statement for the ECE Data Information System:

"The primary goal of the California Early Childhood Education (ECE) Data Information System is to provide timely, accessible, and useful data about children, families, teacher/provider, programs and funding to support continuous program improvement linked to improved access and better outcomes for children."

When fully developed and implemented, the ECE Data Information System will:

• Maintain information on children, families and communities over time.
• Include children’s demographic information (e.g., birth date, gender, race, ethnicity, language, disability status for children served and not served by public programs).
• Include child outcomes across developmental domains that can be linked across sectors, agencies and programs (e.g., infants/toddlers, preschool, early intervention, family child care, etc).
• Link to program, workforce and fiscal data through the assignment of unique child IDs, educator/staff IDs, session IDs and program IDs.
• Provide data useful to policymakers and communities engaged in Birth through age 8 strategic planning, resource management, program improvement, and accountability.

The system will:

• Reduce duplicative reporting
• Improve data quality
• Support more efficient program management, reporting, and administrative functions via management tools

Key end users will include: Teachers/Providers; Parents; Administrators/Agencies; Policymakers; and Researchers.

Return to Top

5.2.2. Motion made by Celia Ayala and seconded by Jeannie Oropeza.

I move to approve the California ECE Data System Vision Statement on page 7 of the Data Subcommittee PowerPoint presentation.

Motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

Committee Discussion:

There was concern that if the ECE Data System is too complicated and has too many elements, it will never get off the ground. There are already data systems in place, such as CalPADS and CalTIDES that hold certain data and it might not be beneficial to add another data system, but rather add to an existing system.

There was misunderstanding on whether the Advisory Committee is voting on the Vision Statement alone on page 7 of the Data Subcommittee PowerPoint presentation for Action Item 5.2.2., or whether they're voting on the Vision Statement that includes pages 8 through 12. The Vision Statement on page 7 is what the Advisory Committee will vote on today, and the Data Subcommittee was asked to continue to refine the remaining areas of the document.

Public Comment:

There were multiple comments emphasizing the need to adopt a broad vision for California’s ECE data system and a request for using the Needs Assessment as a resource for developing a template for a data system. The Vision Statement was a collective effort on behalf of the Data Subcommittee and is an important step in envisioning what California needs in a data system. The emphasis is on looking beyond current data processes and creating a robust system that we all want.

Nancy Remley, CDE, CDD, gave an overview on the need for a feasibility study. The feasibility study will establish the business case for the project by identifying the reasons for undertaking the project and analyzing the costs and benefits. The feasibility study will include:

• An assessment of the needs of policy makers, providers, administrators/teachers, researchers, and others users of the ECE data system.
• An analysis of the existing information technology capabilities and also what is needed for a fully operational ECE data system.
• Alternatives for the operation of the ECE data system.
• An economic analysis of each alternative, listing the cost and benefit of each alternative.
• Feasibility Study Report summarizing the results of the feasibility study.

5.2.1. Unique Identifier Proposal for Children 0-5

Action Item - Request to approve the unique identifier proposal for children 0-5.

Nancy Remley, CDE, CDD, presented on the method for issuing the California ECE Unique Identifier by using the unique registration number located on the birth certificate. This would be a low-tech solution and would also enable providers to go back to the common source to identify a child. The following are some reported cons to using the birth certificate:

• Every child may not have a birth certificate.
• Every child enrolled in California schools may not have a California issued birth certificate.
• Birth certificate registration numbers are unique within the county of issuance.

Possible solutions include:

• Alternative option for children not born in the United States.
• Add the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state numeric code or California county code.

5.2.1. Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Consuelo Espinosa.

I move to approve the birth certificate number as the Unique Identifier for children aged 0 through 5.

Motion was approved by majority vote. Dave Gordon, Anne McKinney, and Jeannie Oropeza opposed.

Committee Discussion:

There was some question regarding whether the CAEL QIS should be determining the unique identifier. Many of the children already served are in some sort of system, whether it be the healthcare system or a foster care system. The question is “what is the point in creating another child identifier, and should we recreate data systems when a child may already be in a system.”

Also, will cost create a barrier to creating a unique identifier for all children? The cost to CDD contractors to input this additional data information may be high. Private agencies may be reluctant to join the QRIS because of the cost of the data collection system. What would be the purpose of collecting all the corresponding data?

Public Comment:

There was majority support regarding using the birth certificate as the unique identifier. The participants from the Data Subcommittee explained their thorough work in coming up with the birth certificate number; how flexible it was; and how it meets the needs of a unique identifier. With the birth certificate, most children in California have a number that is unique.

There was reference made to the CalPADS and CalTIDES systems, and that ECE programs do not have access to these databases. LEAs have access to this system but many private providers do not, and there would be issues in how you would give these private entities access. County Offices of Education (COEs) can provide private providers access to these systems, but there would be costs to provide these services.

Return to Top

5.3 Approve Family Involvement Element in California’s QRIS

Action Item – Approve Family Involvement Element QRS tiers, draft policy statements, and adopt the draft white paper, “Guide to Family Involvement Element in California’s Quality Rating and Improvement System.”

Family Involvement Element:

Celia Ayala, Chair of the CAEL QIS Family Involvement Subcommittee, reviewed the Family Involvement Tiers of the QRIS for approval by the Advisory Committee. The five tiers focus on relationship building, shared goals, and family context. These partnering strategies extend and deepen in intentionality and variety as programs advance through the five tiers. ECE programs need a full range of options and opportunities for family engagement. Families should have the option to choose their level and type of engagement based on their priorities.

Three Components of Effective Partnering:

• Develop partnering relationships with families and recognize the primacy of family.
• Address diversity; acknowledge the differences of culture and family values and practices.

Build trusting relationships that grow out of shared knowledge.

Family Involvement Element

Rating Scale Option for Family Involvement:

Rating Scale Option for Family Involvement: References the ECERS subscale “Parents & Staff”, item 38; ITERS subscale ‘Parents & Staff’ item 33; and FCCERS subscale Parent & Provider, item 35.

Tier 1: Communication

1. ERS: Facilitated self assessment
2. If subscale item is less than ‘3,’ an improvement plan is developed
3. Title 22 Center requirements
4. Comparable Title 22 FCCH requirements

Tier 2: Two-way Education

1. ERS: Facilitated peer assessment
2. If subscale item is less than ‘3,’ an improvement plan is developed
3. Topics offered in support of subscale. Provisions for parents, indicators 3.2 & 5.3 for family info and/or education may include topics such as: how children learn at home and in ECE; developmental levels and brain development; physical activities and nutrition

Tier 3: Involvement

1. ERS Independent assessment
2. ERS average score of 4; when subscale item is less than 4, a quality improvement plan will be developed.
3. Provider has a written transition plan which is activated when a child moves into another child care setting or into K

Tier 4: Engagement

1. ERS Independent assessment
2. ERS average score of 5; when subscale item is less than 5, a quality improvement plan will be developed.

Tier 5: Partnership and Advocacy

1. ERS Independent assessment
2. ERS average score of 6; when subscale item is less than 6, a quality improvement plan will be developed.

Proposed Policy Recommendations:

• It is proposed that the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee adopt the Environment Rating Scales for Family Involvement and Title 22 as a proxy for the family engagement element of the rating scale. With the inclusion of specific (delete) topics for Parent Education beginning at tier 2 and Transition Planning beginning at tier 3 appropriate to the community (add).
• When assessing a classroom using an Environment Rating Scale, the independent assessor should be familiar (delete) and add “will have knowledge and experience” with the type of setting being reviewed (Infant/Toddler care versus Family Child Care or Preschool Center-based care).
• The implementation of the Family Involvement element of the rating system should replace with “will” be included in any pilot studies.
• When Title 22 is updated, have consistent and comparable requirements for Family Child Care providers and Centers regarding written information and orientation for families at time of enrollment.
• Cultural and language competency should replace with “will” be integrated into all family involvement strategies.

Family Engagement – White Paper:

The members of the writing group were thanked, particularly Debi Silverman who was the chief writer. A presentation was provided on the “Guide to Family Involvement Element in California’s Quality Rating and Improvement System.” Major points included:

• Family participation in education is twice as predictive of students’ academic success as a family’s socioeconomic status.
• Family involvement is linked to school readiness, academic achievement, and social and emotional development.

5.3.1. Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Toby Boyd.

I move to approve the Family Involvement Element QRS tiers.

Motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

5.3.2. Motion made by Yolie Flores and seconded by Toby Boyd.

I move to approve the draft policy statements.

Motion was approved by a unanimous vote, with the following amendments to the draft policy statements:

• Remove the word 'specific' on Policy Statement 1
• Add to the end of Policy Statement 1, "appropriate to the community."
• Remove the words 'should be familiar' and replace with 'will have knowledge and experience' on Policy Statement 2.
• Remove the word 'should' and replace with 'will' in Policy Statements 3 and 5.

Return to Top

5.3.3. Motion made by Toby Boyd and seconded by Dennis Vicars.

I move to approve including the draft white paper, “Guide to Family Involvement Element in California’s Quality Rating and Improvement System” as part of the CAEL QIS Final Report to the Legislature.

Motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

Committee Discussion:

An Advisory Committee member was concerned regarding Tier 5 and whether you can obtain an ECERS score of 6. Some community stakeholder groups felt it was high and unattainable. If all the elements are met in order to get to Tier 5 in the QRIS, a program will receive a 6 score in ECERS. The scoring was reviewed by the Design Subcommittee when they adopted the Environment Rating Scale. Another member agreed with the approach of using ECERS for the Family Involvement Element. There was a question with the policy statements about whether they were requirements or just recommendations. All CAEL QIS policy statements are recommendations that may need to be implemented through legislative or regulator changes – or through technical assistance resources.

There were concerns from the Advisory Committee regarding adopting the White Paper due to the philosophical theme in the document and that it may be interpreted as a compliance document. There was a suggestion that it be an attachment to the CAEL QIS Final Report as a resource document. In addition, there was a suggestion to replace 'adopt' with 'support'. Celia Ayala countered that a lot of work was put into the document to assist ECE programs with more effectively engaging families. The White Paper reflects the research and best/promising practices for Family Involvement as an essential quality element for California’s QRIS.

Public Comment:

There was general agreement that family involvement is extremely important. There were several comments that ECERS did not cover some important areas and that more specific items need to be added. ECERS is primarily used as a self-assessment and can produce biased results that need to be considered as California's QRIS moves to an independent assessment process. Eventually, the QRIS may move towards a CLASS-based system.

6.0 - Information and Reports

6.1   Staff Education, Experience, and Ongoing Professional Development: Options for QRS tiers and draft policy statements.

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 principles include: Content, Providers, Accessibility, Cost, Timing, and Certifications. Mr. Gordon is asking the Advisory Committee to review and provide direction on the principles and on the following draft policy statements:

• 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 There were two options for the Professional Development Element presented:

Two options for the Professional Development Element were presented.

Option A

Single set of criteria in QRIS tiers for both licensed center based and licensed family child care home providers. Please note that Option A uses this policy, and Option B provides different criteria for Centers and FCCH at Tier 1.

Option B

Committee Discussion:

A member expressed the need for a statewide Professional Development system in California because there appear to be immense problems with having too many systems in place that could be improved to meet the needs of ECE programs and practitioners/providers. The ‘experience’ criteria levels need to be defined. The agency/program’s responsibility for training the ECE workforce also needs to be considered, as the Head Start program provides resources for staff training time and costs. The concept of an ECE credential was briefly discussed, and several members stated that the credential is important for ECE professional credibility and for equitable compensation.

Public Comment:

There was a comment made about the need for a vision statement that addresses the lack of compensation for ECE teachers and programs. There was also concern regarding the lack of qualified teachers and how programs would have difficulty moving beyond a Tier 3, and as a result, losing teachers for lack of compensation. There's a need to get ECE on the same level as Special, Elementary, or Secondary Education as far as educating staff. Additionally, if there's a requirement for BA degrees for ECE, there must be a way to pay ECE teachers for that increase in education/training. Several speakers addressed the need for additional support to build out the current community college system and ensure rigorous, consistent, high quality professional development offerings. A caution was made about non-accredited colleges that offer ECE classes that are not transferable, as well as needing to clarify the language about ‘equivalency.’ Many speakers addressed the strengths of the current higher education system that need to be built upon as we improve ECE professional development.

Information on the additional ‘Information Items’ were provided via written documents or will be provided at subsequent meetings.

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

6.3 Update on CAEL QIS Input Sessions coordinated by Preschool California, California Resource and Referral Network, Local Planning Council Coordinators.

6.4 Update on the four CAEL QIS Public Hearing dates and locations.

6.5 Update on the “California Infant/Toddler Early Learning and Care Needs Assessment: A Policy Brief” by the American Institutes for Research and the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd.

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

7.0 - Pending Agenda - None

8.0 – Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:30p.m.

Return to Top