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

CAEL QIS Advisory Committee Meeting Highlights

The tenth meeting of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee was held at the Yolo County Office of Education on November 3, 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 Contra Costa 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, Celia Ayala, Cliff Marcussen, Joya Chavarin for Consuelo Espinosa, Jeannie Oropeza, Maria Balakshian for Kris Perry, Toby Boyd, Dave Gordon, Venus Garth, and Sarah Tomlinson. The CAEL QIS Expert Consultants were Abby Cohen, National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center (NCCIC); 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, and Paty Munoz.

2.0 Public Discussion

There was a comment from Yolo regarding when the Public Hearing comments will be available on the CAEL QIS Web site. Clarification was given that after further formatting edits were made, they will be posted to the web site. Also, the Advisory Committee members have received a copy of the draft Public Hearing comments at the September 30, 2010, Advisory Committee meeting.

3.0 Comments from Co – Chairs

Camille Maben mentioned that further work was being done on the transition from CAEL QIS to ELAC, and also discussed the significant impact on children, families, and programs from the State Budget cuts to Stage 3 child care services.

4.0 Comments from Advisory Committee Members

There were no comments from the Advisory Committee members.

5.0 Information Items

5.1 Child Care Licensing Update

The Committee requested an update on the status of California’s Child Care Licensing (Title 22) at the September 30, 2010, meeting. Jeff Hiratsuka, Deputy Director, Department of Social Services (DSS), Child Care Licensing Division, presented on the tough decisions DSS is currently facing regarding licensing. However, it was stated that health and safety remain a high priority within the division. Changes were proposed in order to have annual site inspections for centers and inspections every two years for family child care homes,  but these proposals were denied by the Legislature. The fiscal constraints that the Child Care Licensing Division is absorbing due to the State Budget cuts have caused Licensing to explore more effective fiscal policy changes.

Committee Discussion:

Advisory Committee members were impressed by the proposal to redesign Licensing in California that was sent to the Legislature and are interested in being updated about how the Legislature is willing to work with the Child Care Licensing Division on future changes. Abby Cohen of NCCIC stated that the federal government is considering upgrading licensing standards for Early Childhood Education (ECE) throughout the country. There were further comments regarding the possibility of merging licensing with QRIS that would be beneficial in some ways, but that there would not be unlimited resources.

Public Comment:

A comment was made that we need to ensure health and safety conditions through licensing. Parents need to understand that licensing standards and inspections will be the same for all locations.

5.2 - CAEL QIS Final Report Update

Roberta Peck, CDD, and Susan Muenchow, AIR, provided an overview on the process for the CAEL QIS 2010 Final Report that will be submitted to the Governor’s Office and Legislature in December. They reviewed the legislated tasks for the work of the Advisory Committee and the process used by the Advisory Committee, five Subcommittees, and the Steering Committee. There was further presentation on the sections of the report, including the Executive Summary, Report, and the appendices. The powerpoint presentation provides an overview of the Committee’s directions, progress to date, and timeline for final review and completion.

Committee Discussion:

There was concern from a Committee member about how the Final Report presents the research and Advisory Committee’s decisions on “teacher effectiveness” in relation to child outcomes, and that teacher compensation seems to take a higher priority. There was clarification regarding how the report can further highlight the importance of teacher effectiveness (e.g., use of CLASS and PARS, emphasis in professional development). There was a suggestion that the evaluation of child outcomes be given more attention and point out different ways the goals of improved child outcomes could be achieved and measured. Several Committee members emphasized that teacher effectiveness needs to be accomplished and assessed in a very different manner for educators working with very young children (ages birth to three).

Committee members commented that they would not want to mesh K-3 education with Pre-K education because ECE is unique in the strategies used to achieve the child outcomes that we desire. Abby Cohen suggested that it’s important to describe what teacher effectiveness is in ECE. Quality programs are a proxy for better child outcomes because the research indicates that there are multiple, interrelated quality elements that synergistically impact child outcomes. We have to emphasize the fact that parents need to be given enough information to make good decisions. Consumer pressure from parents will support objective quality ECE information in ratings that provide accurate consumer information.

A committee member was concerned that the QRIS focuses on inputs and that we are over-selling the five-star rating system. Pilots will be important to see what works and for whom. Gail Zellman, RAND, stated that we are forced to look at inputs because of the enormous cost of doing well-designed studies on outcomes. It was clarified that there are multiple measures for looking at child outcomes through the QRIS and that the focus on child outcomes has been the key purpose of the CAEL QIS process since March 2009.

Points of emphasis regarding the report include:

• Concerns that there is severe waste in the lack of college coursework alignment that should be highlighted in the Final Report.
• The section about a comprehensive data system needs to be identified as the vision statement,
• Split up the ‘Policy Issues’ section and state that higher reimbursement rates are tied to program improvements. A possible change to the title could be “Major Policy Goals” and that certain improvements could be made outside of the QRIS.
• Make sure the report includes a focus on coursework and training early educators working with infants and toddlers.
• Refrain from using the word “weak” when mentioning issues in ECE throughout the state of California; suggest using a more positive tone.
• There is research that BA teachers vs. teachers with no degree shows significant improvement in child outcomes. However, the BA vs. AA degree research has not been conclusive, and the report should reflect that.

Further edits by the Advisory Committee on the Final Report will be submitted to CDE/AIR/WestEd by close of business, Monday, November 8, 2010. The Final Report will then be posted to the CAEL QIS Web site by November 24, 2010, after the edits are incorporated.

Public Comment:

A participant stated that the only comments regarding higher education in the CAEL QIS Executive Summary tend to be negative and neglect the great work of higher education, and it follows through to the rest of the report. It was requested that the report mention what has been accomplished in higher education and the accomplishments of programs throughout California.

6.0 Action Items

6.1 Approve Recommendations from the Finance Subcommittee Report

Cliff Marcussen presented the Finance Subcommittee’s Report and requested that the report be included in the CAEL QIS 2010 Final Report. The CAEL QIS Advisory Committee’s assignments to the Finance Subcommittee were:

• Cost analysis for components of proposed QRIS
• Identify and assess possible incentives
• Identify and assess possible sources of financial and non-financial resources for QRIS
• Develop a Funding Model linked, when possible, with cost centers

6.1.1 - Continue Cost Analysis

Action Item: Approve Recommendation #1 that the Early Learning Advisory Committee (ELAC) continue cost analysis using models such as the NCCIC Cost Estimation Model (CEM) and other cost estimation methods as appropriate.

Initial work on cost categories include:

• QRIS and administration
• Professional development
• Training and TA for providers/programs
• Financial incentives
• Public awareness efforts
• Data systems
• Evaluation and continuous improvement

We need to build on California-specific data available from CDE, Department of Social Services, UC-Berkeley (workforce), RAND (ECE quality), First 5 PoP Demonstration Projects, and others for modeling and “virtual pilots.” We will use a variety of cost analysis tools, including NCCIC QRIS Cost Estimation Model.

Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Celia Ayala to approve Recommendation #1. Motion was approved unanimously.

Committee Discussion:

There was a concern regarding language stating that CAEL QIS would use the CEM and other methods, as opposed to “considering” them. Clarification was given stating that ELAC would have the flexibility to use the CEM and other cost estimation methods. The NCCIC tool was the only tool presented at the Finance Subcommittee meetings and the only known tool that creates an accurate cost estimation for a QRIS.

There was a recommendation from a committee member to change the motion language to state, “…use models such as the CEM or other cost estimation methods as they see appropriate.” Abby Cohen stressed that the CEM should be used along with other possible cost estimation methods but not in substitute of; suggests using “and” instead of “or.”

6.1.2 - Prepare for Possible Federal Resources

Action Item - Approve Recommendation #2 that further work towards development of a QRIS specifically be developed to prepare California for the strongest possible federal Early Learning Challenge Grant application and other federal and non-federal funding streams.

Progressive Build Out and Trade-Offs:

• Consider progressive build-out of QRIS through pilot projects followed by ramped implementation
• Use combination of local implementation to maximize resources and expertise with fidelity to statewide QRIS model
• Consider trade-offs to set priorities; ultimately build to statewide QRIS implementation

Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Celia Ayala to approve Recommendation #2. Motion approved by a majority vote. Venus Garth, Kathy Radtkey-Gaither, and Jeannie Oropeza voted no.

Committee Discussion: A committee member questioned why there is a need for this recommendation. It sounds like the development of a QRIS is binding to federal grants.

Public Comment: No public comment given.

6.1.3 - Encourage Partnership Resources

Action Item - Approve Recommendation #3 that partnering with local entities that can bring significant resources to a collaborative partnership be included in the piloting of a QRIS to test the feasibility and value of this strategy.

Resources could include:

• substantial financial resources
• services – in addition to those in QRIS
• significant relationships with local providers and knowledge of the local community that would enhance the effectiveness of a QRIS
• Partnership Resources include:
  • State and Local Resources
  • Federal Resources
  • First 5 State and County Commissions
  • Foundations, Businesses, Others

Concept Parameters:

• Integrate existing local QRIS programs and funding, and other major local resources
• Use collaborative model
• Evaluate viability of different configurations through pilot projects

Motion made by Dennis Vicars and seconded by Toby Boyd to approve Recommendation #3. Motion was approved unanimously.

Committee Discussion: A committee member questioned the need for the three bullets in the original Action Item and that it would create limitations of the collaboration. There were also concerns from the committee member regarding the report and the suggestion that inserting or stating that the recommendations in the Finance Report were made by the Finance Subcommittee and not the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Committee members agreed to remove the following three bullets from the original action item:

Public Comment: A participant from Yolo suggested that the current system at community colleges would be an excellent partnership at no additional cost.

6.2 - Request for Decisions on Phase-in Timeline, Pilot Projects, and Oversight for California’s QRIS

Dennis Vicars presented on the phase-in timelines, pilot projects, and oversight for California’s QRIS. The Committee will review, discuss, and decide on recommendations on these topics based on the work of the Design Subcommittee and their previous deliberations.

6.2.1 - Phase-in Timeline

Action Item - Approve Recommendation #1: that CAEL QIS be phased-in over 5 or more years:

• pilot tested and evaluated for 3 or more years; 
• voluntary participation for all programs for 5 or more years;
• phase-in CAEL QRIS requirement for publicly-funded and then licensed programs so QRIS is eventually available to all California children.

Motion made by Toby Boyd and seconded by Joya Chavarin to approve Recommendation #1 to approve that CAEL QIS be phased-in over 5 or more years:

• pilot tested and evaluated for 3 or more years; 

• voluntary participation for all programs for 5 or more years; and

• phase-in CAEL QRIS requirement for licensed publicly-funded and then licensed programs with the eventual goal of mandatory participation by all programs.

Motion was approved by majority vote. Venus Garth, Jeannie Oropeza, and Kathy Radtkey-Gaither voted no. Amendment made to the third bullet from the original Action Item.

Committee Discussion: A committee member was concerned regarding the third bullet and the word “requirement”. There was a suggestion during the phase-in period of five years, that it be made voluntary. Furthermore, a suggestion was made to eliminate the third bullet from the motion but be included in the Final Report after further discussion and input.

Public Comment: There was concern that the glossary of the Final Report is not accurate regarding license-exempt programs. There was a request to reconsider using the third bullet as a vision statement. There was another suggestion to use the third bullet in the “Issues” section of the Final Report. Abby Cohen commented that most states are on a voluntary basis for a QRIS but some are moving towards a mandatory system. Another participant suggested talking to more parents about what they are looking for in child care; and she requested that QRIS be mandatory for all programs to help and inform families.

6.2.2 - Pilot Projects

Action Item – Approve Recommendation #2 including the initial steps for CAEL QRIS Pilot Projects, as listed below:

• Range: Invite counties/regions to participate. Encourage balanced distribution of factors such as: public and private; urban and rural; infant-toddler and preschool; established and new to QRIS.
• All participation is voluntary during pilot testing. Broad and diverse participation is encouraged statewide.
• Build on local quality projects and initiatives with partners such as First 5, County Offices of Education, Colleges, etc.
• Promote local implementation of QRIS pilot based on next steps for current local quality improvement efforts
• Pilots could involve parts or all of the QRIS: Elements of Structure, Whole QRIS, and/or Support Systems

First step: design evaluation of QRIS Pilot

• Work on evaluation questions to be addressed
• Develop information (lessons learned) and data collection processes
• Promote broad access to pilot criteria, evaluation design, and info/data collections processes

Evidence of commitment to CAEL QIS could include:

• Fidelity to QRIS scale and systems of support such as TA, Family Involvement, Workforce Development, and Data
• Agreement to participate in evaluation
• Leverage local resources, including expertise and funding
• Demonstrated partnerships across range of programs/providers and support systems

Motion made by Camille Maben and seconded by Maria Balakshian to approve Recommendation #2. Motion was approved unanimously.

Committee Discussion: No Committee discussion.

Public Comment: No public comment given.

6.2.3 - Oversight

Action Item – Approve Recommendation #3 for CAEL QRIS Oversight, as listed:

• 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 and lessons learned in other states.
• 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 Education Department 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; impact of length of time programs stay in tiers; use data gathered for rating and TA to evaluate QRIS; test TA methods; and more.

Motion made by Toby Boyd and seconded by Celia Ayala to approve Recommendation #3, including:

• Establish a review process for every 2-3 years, with noted exceptions.

• Establish appeals.

• Use a combination of local and state oversight to maximize expertise and resources.

• Safeguard against conflicts of interest in QRIS reviews, ERS reviews, and provision of TA.

• Further study to determine link between tiers and child outcomes and other impacts.

I move to approve Recommendation #3: CAEL QRIS Oversight, as listed in the above bullets. Motion was approved unanimously.

7.0 - Information Items

7.1 - Overview of the CAEL QIS Communication Plan

Celia Ayala and Terri Hernandez-Rosales, LAUP, presented the draft Communication Plan and the process of developing a comprehensive communication plan to roll-out the CAEL QIS message and timeline. The draft CAEL QIS Communication Plan was developed by the Family Involvement Subcommittee as part of their approved work plan and is one of the key outreach mechanisms for the phased implementation of QRIS.

Committee Discussion: There was concern regarding the communication plan and the idea of pilot project requirements. There was clarification that the draft CAEL QIS Communication Plan was provided as a report to the Advisory Committee for recommendations that will be incorporated into the Final Report. Another stated that the idea of “Keys” do not translate as well as “Stars” when regarding the levels of a quality improvement rating system.

Public Comment: A participant commented that this communication plan is very important and that the Resource & Referral Networks are willing to work on this project. There was also a question about when we will hear from the parents about how they feel about the QRIS. Another participant suggested utilizing the Local Child Care Coordinator’s Association due to the access of parents that are involved in the local programs.

7.2 - Update on ELAC

Camille Maben mentioned that the ELAC originally had a meeting on November 17, 2010, but was subsequently cancelled. There is a tentative meeting scheduled for November 30, 2010.

8.0 - Pending Agenda

The December 7, 2010, Advisory Committee meeting will be at the Yolo County Office of Education from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. There might be the possibility of changing the meeting time. The major agenda item will be the review and approval of the Final Report.