The sixth meeting of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee was held at the Yolo County Office of Education on March 2, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This meeting was joined through video conferencing by participants at the Los Angeles and Tehama County Offices of Education, coordinated through the California County Superintendents Education Service Association (CCSESA).
- Camille Maben, Director, Child Development Division, California Department of Education (CDE), welcomed the Advisory Committee members, the participating public, and regional sites. She reported that the CAEL QIS 2009 Interim Report was submitted to the Governor, Senate President Pro Tempore, and Assembly Speaker on January 15, 2010. The report provides a concise summary of our work, including legislative goals, demographics for California children, benefits of Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), and progress through 2009 made by the Advisory Committee and five Subcommittees. Through strong partnerships, the Committee made substantial progress on the first two tasks:
- assessment and analysis of early learning infrastructure and systems;
- design of the quality rating structure/scale.
- These accomplishments were highlighted, as were important next steps for 2010, such as the transition to the Early Learning Advisory Committee (ELAC). Camille thanked Susan Muenchow, AIR; the West Ed Comprehensive Center, First 5, the Packard Foundations; and all the stakeholders who submitted comments.
- The following Advisory Committee members introduced themselves: Dennis Vicars, Celia Ayala, Cliff Marcussen, Consuelo Espinoza, Sarah Tomlinson, Lynn Podesto for Jeannie Oropeza, Kris Perry, and Toby Boyd. David Gordon joined the Committee later in the morning. The CAEL QIS Expert Consultants were Abby Cohen, National Child Care Information Center; Susan Muenchow, AIR; Gail Zellman, RAND; and Lynn Karoly, RAND, participated by phone.
- Camille reviewed the agenda and asked if there were corrections or additions to the agenda. There were none.
Public Discussion
Several representatives from community colleges had concerns about the 2009 Interim Report section that stated “access in higher education” is an issue for prospective early childhood teachers. Information was provided about the variety of class offerings and the Curriculum Alignment Project that is working to align eight courses among community colleges to improve transferable units. So far 8 campuses are aligned, 16 are in the process, 57 agree to alignment, and 22 are undecided. It was noted that the report stated that “even more access” would be needed to our Community Colleges.
Other issues raised include:
- Substituting non-credit workshops for unit-bearing courses that lead to a degree would create equity and compensation problems for the early childhood workforce. The areas of equitable compensation and career ladder development need to be addressed.
- A concern was raised that the work of the Advisory Committee and Subcommittees is not transparent. People want to respond to meeting notes and to ensure integration in the process, as not everyone can be at the meetings.
- It is important to engage and involve teachers/providers and parents in this process, so an online forum or discussion board to allow ECE community to ask questions of committee members was suggested. Note: Email communication is possible through video streaming that is provided for all Advisory Committee and Subcommittee meetings, in addition to the email communication possible through the CAEL QIS website.
- There is an impressive amount of transparency provided for the Advisory Committee and Subcommittees. Over 65 people attended the Design Subcommittee’s San Mateo meeting.
Comments From Co-Chairs
Comments provided by Camille Maben during the welcome.
Comments by Advisory Committee Members
- The community college course alignment effort is a voluntary effort and very much appreciated, as it is important to get all colleges involved. Copies of the agreements with the California State Universities Humboldt and Fullerton were requested.
- Gathering input is important, and the assistance of field-based organizations is needed. The California Child Development Administrators Association is using e-mail blasts to invite members to CAEL QIS meetings, and other organizations can adapt these strategies.
- The CAEL QIS process is a very transparent process, and CDE staff was thanked for the work they do to prepare for these meetings and get the word out. We need to make sure we continue to outreach and receive comments from all interested groups.
- The Community College system needs to assure equity and access for everyone across the state.
- Assembly Member Joan Buchanan is working on legislation to improve California’s readiness for the Early Learning Challenge Grants.
- Presentations and meetings have been provided to Water Cooler participants, West-Ed and Children Now regarding 0-3 and infant / toddler brain development. These early stages in life are a unique period. The article, “The Science and Psychology of Infant-Toddler Care” describes early learning needs and new approaches for infant-toddler care.
- Toby Boyd, Dennis Vicars, and Dave Gordon participated in a CAEL QIS town hall meeting in Sacramento with 110 people present. There was numerous information presented on the work of the Advisory Committee and the Subcommittees.
- Approximately 2000 people have attended CAEL QIS meetings and an additional 1000 participate in the CAEL QIS discussions at conferences and town-hall meetings. We have an open and an inclusive process; the more people involved, the better.
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 and QRIS Subcommittee, gave an update on the Subcommittee’s October 29 and December 2, 2009 meetings. There were good discussions regarding the QRIS. Dennis then presented options for the Advisory Committee to consider and approve related to the Quality Rating Structure which included: Ratio and Groups Size Criteria, Teaching and Learning, which includes Environmental Rating Scales, as well as an update on Technical Assistance and the Program Leadership element.
A review of the decisions and directions of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee to date was provided, including the decision to develop a California-specific environment rating scale to provide additional emphasis on teacher/provider – child interactions and on the cultural and language needs of California’s children.
Ratio and Group Size
Action Item- Approve Ratio and Group Size Criteria for Center-Based Early Learning Programs.
RATIOS AND GROUP SIZE – Center Options
| Age Group | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Infant | 4:1 and 12 | 4:1 and 12 | 3:1 and 12 |
3:1 and 12 |
3:1 and 9 |
| Toddler | 4:1 and 12 (0-24 months) |
6:1 and 12 |
4:1 and12 |
4:1 and12 (18-36 months) |
4:1 and12 (18-36 months) |
| Preschool | 12:1 and 24 | 12:1 and 24 | 8:1 and 24 |
8:1 and 24 |
8:1 and 24 |
Things to consider for Group Size that will be included as notes to the chart above include:
- Title 22 programs use Infant (birth to 24 months) and preschool (24-60 months) age categories.
- The toddler option for Title 22 programs is: Infants (birth-18 months), Toddlers (18-30 months) with 6:1 ratios and group size of 12.
- For Title 5 programs, a toddler is 18 to 36 months.
- Group size is the number of children assigned to a care giver or team of caregivers.
- Group size for Infants in Tiers 3, 4 and for all age groups in tier 5 will indicate the maximum number in an individual classroom.
- Group size for Infants in Tiers 1 and 2, and toddlers and Preschool in tiers 1 to 4 may include “well-defined spaces” in a larger room.
- Same criteria for preschool in Tiers 3-5 assumes increased staff qualifications.
5.1.1. Motion made by Kris Perry and seconded by Toby Boyd and Consuelo Espinosa:
I move to approve the Ratio and Group Size Criteria for Center Based Early Learning Programs.
Motion was approved by majority vote.
Committee Discussion:
The Design Subcommittee will be meeting with the Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing, to discuss: a common definition for infants and toddlers; options for family child care; annual licensing visits; and other issues.
A question was asked about cost increases across the tiers with changing ratios and group sizes. The ratio and group size criteria have costs related to staffing, and the Committee will need to examine to what extent incentive payments could mitigate costs for subsidized and non-subsidized programs. The impact of changing ratios and group size on various types of programs was discussed, such as changes in the number of children served. One response is that the QRIS is about inclusion at this point. To improve the quality of early learning and care programs, we need to get them in the door at Tier 1, and then help with moving programs into Tiers 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The difficulties with publicly subsidized center based infant-toddler care were discussed. Many Title 5 infant-toddler programs have been closing due to costs. If you reduce group size from 12 to 9, Title 5 programs may not be able to participate without additional resources. Non-Title 5, Alternative Payment CalWORKS programs are very expensive. If we drive up their costs ($800 to $1000), the private market may not raise their fees and may not participate in QRIS. Improvements will need to be made over time. The proposed ratios are a good start, as we need to come to consensus and move forward with improvements. Oklahoma’s program with a group size of 8 infants seemed to be affordable. Abby Cohen responded that Oklahoma had a pilot program which was privately funded.
Improvements to ratio and group size could also be supported by other avenues. With technical assistance and the larger QRIS effort, improvements in ratio and group size are possible. For example, improvements to licensing standards and the frequency of visits need to take place. A question was asked about adding an education component to Title 22. The response was ‘yes’ in the Teaching and Learning quality criteria which will be discussed next. A concern was raised about increasing the licensing workload given the fiscal climate.Public Comment
Several speakers supported the need to clearly define the ages of infants and toddlers. Current age for Title 22 is zero to 24 months. Suggested age zero to 18 months for infants, 18-36 months for toddlers, and 36-60 months for preschool (Title 5 definitions). Another concern is group size, since we don’t know enough about the ability of two teachers to work with 20 children (e.g., one special education child may take a lot of a teacher’s time). Members were pleased that the licensing challenges will be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting. There is a difference in the law between Title 22 and Title 5, and voting today does not impact future discussions.
A speaker advised including ratios for mixed age groups since the costs of care for different age groups varies. At the highest tiers, are we freezing infants/toddler programs out of the system? Programs will close or not participate if they can’t be financially viable.
Dennis Vicars presented the next agenda item on the Quality Rating Structure Factors:
- Approve 2 criteria for Teaching and Learning Quality Element as proxies for identified quality criteria for this element, including:
- Use of Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales (ECERS) tools for Centers, Family Child Care Homes (FCCH), and Infant-Toddlers
- Criteria for Alignment to Infant-Toddler and Preschool Curriculum Frameworks and Foundations
- Provide Technical Assistance and Training for all criteria.
The Advisory Committee agreed on 12/2/09 that the Environment Rating Scales (ERS) need to focus on structural quality and teacher/provider-child interaction as entry level and move to higher levels of both quality areas along the progression of tiers. The Committee also added “teaching and learning” that includes curriculum, child assessment, screening/referral, inclusion of children with special needs, and cultural and language competence. We will measure a few criteria as proxies for the many important criteria and focus our efforts on the training, technical assistance and supports/incentives that improve the effectiveness of our programs/providers. We know we want and need to develop a California-specific tool. In the meantime, this is a good basis for the “teaching and learning” element of our quality rating and improvement system.
Proposed Teaching and Learning Element
A. Use “ECERS Family” as the Tool (ITERS-R, ECERS-R, FDCRS)
- Tier 1 Awareness: Facilitated Self-Assessment
Includes a one-on-one facilitated training after self-assessment completed. - Tier 2 Learning: Facilitated Self-Assessment
Includes a one-on-one facilitated training after self-assessment completed. - Tier 3 Knowledge and Implementation: Independent Assessment
All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 4.0. - Tier 4 Demonstration of Skills and Knowledge: Independent Assessment
All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 5.0. - Tier 5 Full Integration and Deepening of Skills: Independent Assessment
All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 6.0.
B. Alignment to Framework and Foundations
- Tier 1 Awareness: Awareness; introduction
- Tier 2 Learning: Partial alignment
- Tier 3 Knowledge and Implementation: Partial alignment
- Tier 4 Demonstration of Skills and Knowledge: Consistent alignment
- Tier 5 Full Integration and Deepening of Skills: Intentional alignment
Several motions were made and withdrawn. Then the Advisory Committee approved the following:
5.1.2. Motion made by Kris Perry, and seconded by Celia Ayala and Cliff Marcussen.
I move to approve the importance of a measurement of the quality of teacher /child interaction and environment as the criteria for the teaching and learning quality element.
Motion was approved with one abstention by Lynn Podesto.
5.1.3. Motion made by Kris Perry, and seconded by Celia Ayala and Cliff Marcussen.
I move to approve the use of ECERS for centers, family child care homes, and infant-toddler programs as a measure for Tiers 1-5 and the use of Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) for Tiers 4 and 5, to be done in alternating rating periods, as approved by the Committee.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote.
5.1.4. Motion made by Kris Perry, and seconded by Toby Boyd and Consuelo Espinosa.
I move to approve the development of a partnership with public and private entities in developing a single assessment tool that measures teacher/child interaction quality and environment.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote.
5.1.5. Motion made by Cliff Marcussen and seconded by Toby Boyd.
I move to approve a second criterion to the Teaching and Learning quality element to include “Alignment to the Infant-Toddler and Preschool Curriculum Frameworks and Foundations” with direction to the Design Subcommittee to further develop this area.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote.
Dennis Vicars presented an information item on the Program Leadership quality element. The workgroup developed a list of important criteria and are checking into the Program Administration Scale (center-based programs) and the Business Administration Scale (family child care homes). Options will be presented at a future Advisory Committee meeting.
Committee Discussions
Questions were asked about element for Teaching and Learning, including Environment Rating:
- Q: How long would it take to develop the California tool? A: 5 to 10 years.
- Q: Cost? A: Unknown and will ask the Finance Subcommittee.
- Q: What will be the Tier 1 costs to the provider for the education component? A: Since Tier 1 includes a self-assessment, there would be some time and effort by the provider but no specific cost.
- Q: Would this be a revision to Title 22 regulations? A: No, this would not involve a change to Title 22 regulations since the QRIS will be voluntary.
- Q: Given the importance of child/teacher interactions, why not use CLASS in the higher levels? Did the Subcommittee look at developing other tools or using other tools, or was this a workload issue to field? A: The Subcommittee looked at CLASS at the higher Tiers 4 and 5 and decided that we needed a California tool. This is an interim step and not the ultimate goal; something that will improve programs for children.
The Subcommittee chose ECERS because we would have solid information with ECERS and the additional criteria of ‘alignment with Infant/Toddler and Preschool Foundations and Curriculum Frameworks.’ This would be a big improvement and having both ECERS and CLASS would be costly. Two environmental tools would be too much for agencies to administer and could bring up the costs. The idea of alternative years is a problem, so perhaps use ‘alternating rating periods’ as we have not yet determined the frequency of rating.
Another consideration is that many agencies are using CLASS, especially for English Language Learners. The Curriculum Frameworks deal with dual language learners, early literacy, special education, health and nutrition, and other topics. This additional criterion is a great solution as it picks up many concerns. Tier 1 gets programs/providers in the door. Training and technical assistance will help programs/providers with moving up and improving. The descriptors for alignment were questioned. Staff responded that the Subcommittee has not yet quantified terms such as ‘partial alignment.’
Public Comment:
The measurement of the criteria re: alignment of the framework and foundations needs to be clarified.
Implementing ECERS statewide will be costly and would not be less than the cost of CLASS. ECERS has not been used as a measurement for teacher quality or teacher interaction; it is not a good tool for that. Using ECERS will leave out many of our child care providers because they cannot meet some the ECERS measures (e.g., outside play areas). Another speaker said that we need a different tool than ECERS, as it is not a self-assessment tool. There is no research that connects ECERS to improvements in child outcomes. ECERS only looks at environment and not child outcomes.
Other speakers said that the ECERS is a good solid tool, not perfect but cost effective since we have courses on how to use the ECERS family of tools. The cost to develop our own tool is prohibitive and not advisable. Gail Zellman commented that developing a tool is very costly and takes a long time. We might consider not developing our own tool but cooperate with other states that have similar issues and work with them.
CLASS is the best thing we have for the teacher/provider – child interactions domain. Teacher child interactions are important, and we need to focus on how children can learn and will learn. Environment is secondary to the teaching and learning; it matters less what the class looks like. Other states are using CLASS. We could use ECERS across the Tiers and add CLASS at the upper levels. One concern centers on costs for including two tools. Since ECERS is an on-going continuing development tool, programs will always be doing the ECERS tool, then adding on CLASS and the DRDP. Another speaker said that more than one assessment can be done by a trained assessor and does not double the costs.
Another cost area is the proposed technical assistance system. We have the Community College system in which we provide cultural awareness classes, as well as classes for teaching English learners, child development classes, ECERS, and CLASS. It was also raised that what is measured will be the focus of technical assistance. If the tools are paid for and support is provided, it may happen.
Abby Cohen mentioned that continuous quality improvement is not a one-time-only effort. States will have the opportunity to come back and refine their system and their standards over time, as we learn more and new tools are developed.
Celia Ayala, Chair of the Family Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement and Advocacy Subcommittee presented options for family involvement. The Subcommittee has two options for the Family Involvement Element for consideration. They are:
Family Involvement / Communication Element: Option A
The Advisory Committee (10/29/09) defined criteria for tiers of Family Involvement and asked for development of a menu of strategies that are appropriate to different program settings and California’s cultural and language groups. The strategies are based on Dr. Epstein’s work and Head Start criteria. For Option A in Tier I, the program/provider would provide information and communicate with families (two-way communication) by assessing families' needs and interests and providing relevant information. Tier 2: instruct-teach families based on their assessed interests and needs. Tier 3: involve families and use strategies that establish participation. Tier 4: more committed form of involvement; parents are integrated in the program activities. Tier 5: partner with families by engaging them in leadership, decision-making, and advocacy for their children.
Family Involvement / Communication Element: Option B
Option B was created by the members of Engagement Subcommittee during the January and February 2010 meetings as an alternate option. At Tier 5, there are 50+ required strategies. Both A and B contain many of the same elements. The primary difference is that all the strategies in six categories in Option B are required items, as compared to Option A which relies on a menu of effective family involvement strategies.
5.1.6. Motion made by Cliff Marcussen, and seconded by Toby Boyd.
I move to approve Option A for the Family Involvement Quality Element. In addition, the provision of training, technical assistance, and support for important, research-based criteria for quality family involvement will be a priority for California’s QRIS.
Motion withdrawn.
Committee Discussion:
The Subcommittee Chair was asked which option do you like? Celia Ayala responded that realistically Option A would be easier to get started, was workable for most programs/providers, and represented the work of many subcommittee meetings.
Another consideration is the diversity of providers in the community. Option A gives families and providers the flexibility to achieve the criteria set, and that’s why it looks better. A key question is how programs/providers react to the feasibility of these options. We need to hear from providers and parents. Another consideration is what research says about what works best. The response is that research is limited on family involvement though programs know it is important. It is also critical to remember that what we value, we measure – and what we measure, gets done.
Celia asked for additional direction from the Advisory Committee. Committee members responded that it is important to emphasize why family involvement is important, particularly the importance of quality care for child brain development, the importance of relationships for children from 0 to 5, and here is what you want the parent to do. Another member stated that despite the mixed message from comments, family involvement is very important. Family involvement strategies need to be flexible to be effective in diverse settings and communities. Helping parents work more effectively with their child is more important that working with parents on how they advocate with the system.
Public comment:
A child care provider with seven child care centers stated that each center is different and that some parents are involved, and some are not. Many parents commute for an hour, some more. It is better to have a list of things to pick from, since centers know what their parents need and engage them. It is not workable or effective to prescribe a list of parent engagement strategies.
Two speakers asked that the Committee not act on this item today. The Subcommittee met several times and discussed Option A, but she did not feel it was a finished product. She was not sure where Option B came from. One speaker had concerns because with Option A because a program/provider could be at Tier 5 and not have a family meeting. She felt that a required list shows that we pay a lot of attention to family involvement. We have less to go on in terms of research and practice. There is a difference between Option A and Option B in that Option B is where we are engaging families by co-constructing programs, though the list of required strategies is overwhelming. Several members felt that some of the strategies are not reasonable for family child care providers. We need to hear what parents and teachers have to say and focus on the type of family involvement at home which is the best and most effective (e.g., reading with your child, talking with you child).
6.0 - Information and Reports
6.1 Early Learning Advisory Committee (ELAC) Update
Camille Maben explained that currently all members of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee, plus an additional five appointments by the Governor, will compose the ELAC. The five new appointments have not been made. Camille reported that they have had conversations with the federal government on the ELAC. The federal government is interested in states applying for the funding to support the ELAC. There is a new staff appointed at the federal level who will be coordinating the application process for the states. The application due date is August 1, 2010, and so far four states have submitted their application and received funding. This is ARRA funding and the funding needs to be out by September 30, 2010. Camille reported that with direction from Steering Committee, a small workgroup is moving forward with drafting the application. There will be a public comment period for input on the application. She stated that she was hesitant to have a formal meeting until the five remaining Council members are appointed. She has been working with the Co-Chairs and Kris Perry and is hoping to work with the five appointees and the rest of the Committee soon.
Committee Discussion:
The information provides important assistance with obtaining federal funds to enable work to be done. It was requested that a briefing paper be developed by the co-chairs and posted.
Public Comment: None
6.2 – First 5 Signature Programs
Kris Perry, Executive Director, First 5 California, presented an overview of the First 5 Signature Programs for children, parents, and teachers. One of the goals of the Signature Programs is to position California to be competitive for federal funding opportunities, such as the Early Learning Challenge Grants. Another goal is to align First 5 California with a state Quality Rating and Improvement System and ELAC. The proposals include:
Child
- Power of Preschool Bridge Funding
- California State Advisory County on Early Childhood Education and Care (ELAC)
- California Kindergarten Readiness Observation Assessment
- Unique Child Identifier
Teacher
- Cares Plus
- Competencies-Based Career Pathway and Certification System
- Higher Education Quality Pathway Partnerships
Parent
- Develop a comprehensive Parent Resource Web site.
- Public television – Science program (SID)
- Parent kits for low income families
Public comment: None
6.3 CAEL QIS Information Gathering
Gail Zellman, RAND outlined a plan for a number of different kinds of input gathering strategies, including pilot project to get the work of CAEL QIS done. The short-term strategies focus on information gathering, cost estimates, and modeling (virtual pilots) using current data. There are data sets that RAND has along with other sources, such as UCLA and the National Research Center. This phase could be accomplished in 2010 to better inform the CAEL QIS Subcommittee work and Advisory Committee decisions. The longer-term strategies included two levels of pilot projects that could be accomplished in 2011 and beyond to assist ELAC with timeline and implementation decisions.
Committee Comment:
These are strategies and pilots that we have been thinking about since the beginning of the CAEL QIS process. Some counties are interested in assisting with pilot projects, and a letter from Santa Clara County has been provided to Advisory Committee members. Funding is a concern, so we may be looking at smaller projects this year and the larger project in 2011 through ELAC and other funding resources.
Public Comment:
A question was asked about available data on third, fourth, and fifth grade results to see what their preschool years were like and what worked and what did not work Gail Zellman mentioned that those studies do exist, birth through the adult years.
6.4 California’s Infant – Toddler Early Learning Needs Assessment
Susan Muenchow gave an overview of the research project prepared by the American Institutes for Research on California’s Infant-Toddler Programs, including supply/demand information and future data/research needs. The presentation focused on the areas of: 1) Utilization – What is the distribution of parental and non-parental early learning and care arrangements for California’s children from birth to age three? 2) Quality – What is the distribution of the quality of these arrangements across California for children birth to age three? 3) Equity – how do utilization and quality vary with the characteristics of the family? To what extent do the arrangements represent family preferences? Possible implications were shared, including the need to implement a QRIS; considerations for increasing publicity on paid family leave and incentives for publicly funded exempt care; and the need to address data gaps through strategies such as parent surveys, site visits, and improved program data collection.
Public Comment: None
6.5 Steering and Subcommittee Chair Updates:
Celia Ayala requested that the Advisory Committee approve working with partners to develop or modify a process for thirteen family focus groups. The cost would be around $30,000 and the Packard Foundation and other agencies have agreed to support this. Patty Seigel mentioned that the California Community Foundation is donating $15, 000, with additional in-kind resources from Resource and Referral Agencies. There is concern about how this process would be viewed by stakeholders, particularly needing to have neutral parties prepare these reports so that this is perceived as an objective process. The selection process for participants is important, and we need an organization qualified in conducting credible, valid focus groups to facilitate these meetings.
Cliff Marcussen reported that the Finance Committee is developing three documents to share with the Advisory Committee, as well as stakeholders. There are draft charts for funding, ERS cost comparisons, and cost analysis. Please provide input to Cliff or Roberta Peck.
Public Comment:
There was a Workforce Subcommittee meeting on February 4, and the participant would like to have that information.
