The ninth meeting of the CAEL QIS Advisory Committee was held at the California Department of Education on September 30, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting was joined through video conferencing by participants at the Riverside 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, Venus Garth, Kathy Gaither, Celia Ayala, Cliff Marcussen, Consuelo Espinosa, Sarah Tomlinson, Sarah Swan representing Jeannie Oropeza, Kris Perry, Toby Boyd, and Dave Gordon who 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); 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, Director, Child Development Division, California Department of Education (CDE), welcomed the Advisory Committee members, meeting participants, and regional sites. Camille announced that the Advisory Committee met just last month and that significant work has occurred in September with the final Subcommittee meetings and the four public hearings. Today’s agenda includes one action item, the approval of the Data Vision Statement. The remainder of the agenda provides an opportunity to discuss topics that were included on the August agenda, now as information items.
2.0 Public Discussion
A speaker from the Resource and Referral Network requested that the committee address community care licensing at the next meeting. The Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) relies on licensing for the first tier. She requested that a representative brief the committee on what to expect for Title 22 Licensing.
3.0 Comments from Co – Chairs
Camille Maben updated the Advisory Committee members on the budget process and impact of the budget delays on early learning and care programs. She thanked the CAEL QIS staff for their work, as well as partner CCSESA for arranging all the public hearings, and the county offices that hosted the hearings. She mentioned that the turnout was good. Camille ended by thanking all the partners and offices for continuing to support the work of the Advisory Committee.
4.0 Comments from Advisory Committee Members
Consuelo Espinosa acknowledged the QRIS staff at CDE, agencies, colleges, and programs who contributed endless hours to the development of CAEL QRIS.
5.0 Action Items
5.1 Approve Vision Statement for California’s CAEL QIS Data System
Toby Boyd presented the revised vision statement based on Advisory Committee’s feedback. He asked the committee to approve the CAEL QRIS data system vision statement.
Motion made by Celia Ayala and seconded by Consuelo Espinosa.
Committee Discussion:
There was a concern with changing the vision statement when it was previously approved by the committee. It was clarified that originally the statement was longer and contained more details and that it has been condensed to combine the mission and vision statements. Also, the subcommittee felt strongly that a strong statement about the purpose would assist the upcoming needs assessment for the data system.
There was a question about why the vision statement states ‘children 0 to 8’ when the council is charged with children 0 to 5 since there is a data system for K to 12. Nancy Remley answered that it is important to have information for children 0-5 that links to 3rd grade so we have a means to look back.The idea was not to set up a different system, but to see how existing systems could be better connected and used.
It was recommended that some wordsmithing take place prior to the Advisory Committee approving the revised statement. Removing the phrase “birth to 8,’ changing “data sources” to “data systems,” and changing the word “access” to “articulation” and deleting the word “other.”
It was agreed that the committee would work on the item during lunch and revisit the statement for voting later in the day. Cliff moved to table the item until a later time.
After lunch, the vision statement was further revised, as follows:
The California Early Childhood Education (ECE) data information system, as a component of the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), will provide timely, accessible and appropriate birth to age five data regarding children, families, teachers/providers, programs and data about funding to support continuous program improvement leading to increased articulation and better outcomes for children in California.
To ensure a high caliber California quality rating and improvement system, the ECE data information system will provide data to policymakers, consumers and the public for purposes of strategic planning, resource management, research and improved accountability. Major focus will be placed on leveraging existing data systems to eliminate duplicative reporting/collection and improve data quality in order to:
- measure school readiness,
- establish more efficient program management and administrative functions
- improve teacher and provider effectiveness
Motion was approved by majority vote. (9 aye – 2 no – 1 abstain) Kathy Gaither and Sarah Swan opposed. Venus Garth abstained.
6.0 Information and Reports
6.1 Finance and Incentives, Including Funding Models Subcommittees.
The following points were made by Abby Cohen in her presentation on the NCCIC Cost Estimation Tool (CEM):
- identifies basic cost elements to consider, thereby helping states identify what data sources are needed, what is available, and where the gaps are
- assists States in analyzing specific cost factors within these broader elements to consider in estimating costs (by identifying and providing defaults)
- calculates costs using the parameters and assumptions provided by the State
- enables cost estimates for certain elements by examining input costs and input/available revenues
- compares costs quickly and easily, given various parameters and assumptions over time, allowing for comparative modeling
The presentation on the Finance Subcommittee’s report was given by Cliff Marcussen, Finance Subcommittee Chairperson: Initial work on cost categories, included: QRIS and administration; Professional development; Training and TA for providers/programs; Financial incentives; Public awareness efforts; Data systems; and Evaluation and continuous improvement. Types of Incentives encompass both financial and non-financial, and all being used in various combinations by programs in California and other States. It is too early to have evaluations on effectiveness for QRIS, but there is an opportunity to provide direction and priorities for CAEL QRIS pilot projects
Draft Recommendations:
- Cost analysis using the NCCIC CEM and other tools, as refined through the pilot projects, to continue under the ELAC
- Refer Finance Subcommittee’s costing issues for ECE data systems to CAEL QIS Data Subcommittee and ELAC
- Further study is needed for: 1) most effective incentives for various outcomes; 2) cost-effective levels of incentives; and 3) most effective frequency of payments.
- Pilot projects need to test combination of incentives, including program/provider and class room teacher incentives.
- Existing funding streams be adapted or repurposed and incorporated, as possible, into QRIS pilot and implementation phases
- Partner and collaborate for all three of the following: funding, added services, and local relationships and expertise---for pilot projects and system build out
The financial model includes cost categories, cost estimates by category, and possible funding sources. We need to combine work on cost estimations with continued analysis of current and future funding sources to move forward with Early Learning Advisory Council (ELAC). Draft recommendations include:
- Future work toward developing a funding model be designed to prepare CA for federal resources, such as an Early Learning Challenge Grant, Promise Neighborhoods, and Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program
- Develop partnerships with businesses and foundations
- Further planning for QRIS should consider the option of a progressive build-out as resources become available; as well as the full-funding option for statewide implementation
Input from the Committee and the public will be used for the fourth draft of the report and the recommendations. It will be important to capture the work of the subcommittee and provide these considerations for ELAC. We need to include the cost to the local providers and the costs at the state level. We need to motivate programs to participate in the QRIS and to motivate staff to seek professional development. Financial incentives are important in the early years, as most improvements will take some money. We need to assess which types of incentives would be most beneficial, and we need partnerships with local agencies that bring resources. As we go through this process, starting with a pilot project and ramping up to an implementation model, we need to build on the expertise of the Subcommittees.
Committee Discussion:
There was a question on whether there is a different way to organize the Finance Subcommittee’s report; so it is not dismissed by the Governor. Kathy Gaither asked if there is any way to focus on just the quality rating since people will want to improve their score if they know it. Ten years from now, ECE is going to look very different. We cannot improve quality all at once, since we don’t have the staff or the dollars.It was noted that the system was named a quality rating and improvement system to recognize that we have poor quality in our ECE Programs, and we are committed to working on quality improvement so that we move the whole system up. The goal of the committee is to see continuous quality improvement in all ECE programs.
It was recommended that the cost estimator and recommendations for ELAC be broken down, so we could see what the basic categories would cost. All costs do not need to be stated in the same way, so it was strongly suggested that the Committee focus on higher priority areas.
Public Comment:
A speaker brought up a concern with the legislature potentially looking at the recommendations and saying it is too expensive. She strongly urged that the committee break it down and prioritize the ‘improvements’ over the ‘ratings.’ Another speaker thanked the committee for mentioning resource and referral networks and viewing them as a partner in the work that they do.
6.2 Discussion of scope for CAEL QRIS participation, oversight, and phase-in period
Dennis Vicars presented considerations for the initial development of the pilot projects, QRIS technical assistance, oversight, and participation. He emphasized that these were considerations for discussion.
CAEL QRIS could be phased in over 10-20 years: pilot tested and evaluated for about 5-7 years; voluntary participation for all program for about 5-7 years; and phase-in CAEL QIS requirement for publicly-funded and then licensed programs over about 5-7 years. Participation in the QRIS is initially voluntary with appropriate funding and incentives provided, and ultimately required for licensed ECE programs so it is available for all California children.
For the pilot projects, all participation is voluntary during pilot testing. Broad and diverse participation is encouraged statewide. Participation would be open to all counties/regions, and a balanced distribution of factors would be encouraged (such as: public and private; urban and rural; infant-toddler and preschool; established and new to QRIS). It will be important to build on local quality projects, initiatives and partnerships and to promote local implementation of QRIS pilots based on current status of local quality improvement efforts. The pilots could involve parts or all of the QRIS: Elements of Structure, Whole QRS, and/or Support Systems. It will be important to begin with the QRIS Pilot evaluation design through ELAC. Criteria for participation in CAEL QRIS pilots could include:
- Fidelity to QRIS scale and systems of support such as TA, Family Involvement, Workforce Development, and Data
- Agreement to participate in evaluation
- Leveraging of local resources, including expertise and funding
- Demonstrated partnerships across range of programs/providers and support systems
Annual reviews are costly and do not provide sufficient time to institute improvements. Oversight could involve establishing a review process for every 2-3 years, with noted exceptions. Exceptions include certain situations such as Title 22 licensing issues, key staff turnover, etc. 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).
Committee Discussion:
Co-chair Camille Maben asked that the committee reference the phase-in period and wanted the committee to discuss the 10 to 20 years listed. Questions arose on the amount of time it has taken other states to pilot their programs. Some states piloted for many years, others did not have one at all. It has varied state to state. There are only two states that currently include QRIS with their licensing system: North Carolina and Tennessee. Another member stated that this is going to take some time to build out. The Advisory Committee is using the word “consideration” which seems too weak. Cliff Marcussen stated that this committee makes no decisions, only recommendations. The Advisory Committee concluded these items should be agendized for action at the next meeting.
Public Comment:
A speaker asked what the cost will be for California to have this type of QRIS system.
6.3 Review Research on ECE Professional Development
During the last committee meeting the workforce subcommittee was asked to bring the item back to discuss the research that supported including college coursework and degrees in early educator professional development. Also, at the last meeting a concern was raised that the information appearing on the CAEL QIS website under workforce, was different than the information being presented at the committee meeting. In further discussion, it was discovered that different documents were reviewed, and the information was clarified to the satisfaction of the subcommittee member involved.
The presenters included: Peter Mangione, WestEd PITC; Lea Austin, UCB Center for the Study of Child Care Employment; Abby Cohen, NCCIC, Region IX TA Specialist; Florence Nelson, Zero to Three, Gail Zellman and Lynn Karoly, RAND; Susan Muenchow, AIR; Kathy Schreiner, Consultant; and members of the Workforce Subcommittee, CAEL QIS.
The Advisory Committee approved Option B at the August 26 meeting. The impact of having teachers with degrees at higher tiers was researched, and this discussion provided an opportunity to present information on the impact that well-trained and supported early educators have on outcomes for children. It was very important that we provide information; everyone in the state is interested in promoting the best possible early learning and care of young children. There is not going to be one single study that is going to answer all our questions, so we need to look at the overall picture. Early childhood professional development requires a mix of strategies.
When we look at the total body of research, there is strong evidence that higher education and training in the field impacts the learning environment of a child. We know from that research that relationships are essential, and we know that learning is mediated through the relationship. What we need to do is learn how to create an environment that is rich with language in all aspects. Young children need:
- Safe and health-promoting environments
- Nurturing, responsive, consistent early educators who recognize and respond to their cues and interests
- Language and learning-rich experiences
- Opportunities for exploration and challenge
- Early educators that respect their family’s culture and values and who engage parents in meaningful ways
Research supports:
- Credit-bearing coursework, experience, AND on-going training/technical assistance
- Infant-Toddler AND Preschool Early Educators
- Staff Education/Professional Development Tiers AND Research to continuously improve teaching-learning outcomes
Research Findings in support of B.A. Teachers
Literacy/Language Learning
- Expose children to larger vocabulary.
- Tend to engage in more behaviors that help children develop verbal skills, such as word play, rhyming, extended conversation, etc.
- Give children more opportunities to develop creative thinking skills and provide feedback to help child learn.
- Provide richer language and cognitive experiences.
Facilitation of Cognitive and Social-Emotional Development of Children
- Better able to “scaffold” child’s learning by helping child build upon prior knowledge to develop understanding and skills.
- Have a better understanding of how children learn and what they need to learn.
- Better able to develop and individualize lesson plans.
- Offer children more creative activities.
- Able to help children develop more skills in literacy and math.
Interaction with Children
- More responsive to individual children.
- Tend to be warmer, more sensitive, and more engaging in their interactions with children.
- Tend to approach behavior management in a more positive way (vs. taking negative or punitive approach).
- Better able to handle children with challenging behavior.
- Specialized training in teacher/child interactions that support positive child development accompanied by consultation result in better practices in programs serving infants and toddlers (Ramey et al, in press; Campbell et al, 2005)
- Meta-analysis of caregiver training studies suggests a significant positive effect of specialized training and the competency of caregivers in child care (Fukklink & Lont, 2007)
- subset of experiments showed a positive effect supporting a causal link between caregiver training, caregiver competencies, and children’s outcomes.
If we succeed, we would have an impact on the effectiveness of teaching and learning relationships. Currently, turnover is very high in ECE. It is important to stabilize the workforce system because we cannot measure the impact of professional development when staff turnover is every three to six months. Research on the importance of compensation for early educators includes:
- Wages and benefits for early childhood professional remain among the lowest of any occupation, contributing to a host of problems that impact the quality of services, such as high turnover, and declining educational levels among teachers (Herzenberg, Price, & Bradley, (2005).
- Centers paying higher wages or offering cash incentives are better able to retain highly-skilled and better educated teachers and directors (Gable, Rothrauff, Thornburg, & Mauzy, 2007; Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber, & Howes, 2001).
- High turnover and low compensation are strongly correlated; high turnover predicts low quality and negative outcomes for children (Helburn, 1995; Mill & Romano-White, 1999; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1998; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003)
- Higher wages are associated with greater overall program stability, fewer center closures and greater success in improving and sustaining program quality (Kershaw, Forer, & Goelman, 2005; Whitebook & Sakai, 2004; Phillips, Mekos, Carr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, (2000); NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000); NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1996)
- Many early childhood teachers experience persistent poverty, ill health, and depression—all conditions that can prevent adults from meeting the needs of young children (Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Whitebook, Phillips, Bellm, Crowell, Almaraz, et al., 2004; Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University 2009; National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs 2008; National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2004)
* Similar findings found in three reports: (1) Bueno, Marisa, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Danielle Gonzalez, A Matter of Degrees: Preparing Teachers for the Pre-K Classroom, Pre-K Now, Pew Center on the States, March 2010. (2) Barnett, W. Steven, Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications, Preschool Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. 2003. (3) Whitebook, Marcy, Early Education Quality: Higher Teacher Qualifications for Early Learning Environments – A Review of the Literature. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. 2003
Committee Discussion:
A Committee Member commented that what was presented was congruent with their own professional experience and observations. Trained professionals that are kind and loving develop better teaching/learning relationships, and the children learn more and develop.A concern was raised that the teachers often want to go into the K-12 system after completing their education since the compensation and opportunities are greater.
Another member stated that they felt resistance to change from higher education and was disappointed. If we were going to provide professional development the way it has always been done then why would you need a CAEL QRIS Committee? California needs to be open to a new way of doing business.
Public Comment:
A speaker mentioned that it is important for us to remember the diverse work force; our goal is to move all early educators to forward in quality. Vast numbers of the workforce will not have a BA, yet want to do the best job they can. Historically, the child development profession has not had the resources available. A speaker from the California Community College Chancellor’s office stated that they stand ready to partner with all parties involved as we move forward with the technical issues around education.
Another speaker mentioned that if we establish that an Associate degree is good enough, but not as good as a BA, it will be used as a reason to underpay our early education workforce. This would in turn discourage the best and brightest from working in ECE. They asked that the Advisory Committee consider the impact of college degrees and equitable compensation for workforce development.
6.4 Final Report and the 2010 CAEL QIS Timeline
Roberta Peck and Susan Muenchow presented the outline for the CAEL QIS final report and timeline. The overall table of contents was provided, and the committee was asked to review the detailed table of contents and provide as much input as possible. The report needs to accurately reflect the work of the Advisory Committee and input given. The information on the draft final report outline has been provided to the Steering Committee and discussed at their August and September meetings, plus it was provided in the August meeting materials for the Advisory Committee. Four public hearings were held during the month of September, and the testimony received was included with the agenda materials. This document is considered a draft to allow time for review and corrections.
Committee Discussion:
One member mentioned that the connection between teacher scale and training and student outcomes is something we ought to be seriously thinking about. If we just assume that higher salaries and education levels are going to transfer, we are delusional. Student outcomes and teacher effectiveness are talked about everywhere. Under goals and research, we need to begin that section talking about the school readiness.One of the expert consultants commented on how quality programs are a proxy for children outcomes.
There was a question on whether the committee would be voting on what would be in or out of the report.It was clarified that the report needs to accurately reflect the Advisory Committee’s decisions and work to date. Any substantive changes would need to be posted on an agenda prior to the December meeting and approved by then. The committee needs to take an action to a number of things they haven’t directly voted on. Co-chair Camille Maben suggested that the items discussed today by the Design and Finance Subcommittees be brought back as action items.A member complimented the reports attached to the Data Subcommittee item as excellent examples of how an executive summary could be designed.
The Committee members would like the policy ‘considerations’ to be documented. They could be included in the appendices so people are aware that significant discussions and information were provided on certain issues.
Public Comment:
A speaker commented that we do not have a universal childcare system. We are charged with creating a child care rating system. Our challenge is ultimately harder than our colleagues in K-12 because they are working to improve a universally available education system. She went on to suggest that a DVD be added to the report to relay the issues in an engaging way that others are more inclined to review.
Co-Chair Camille Maben thanked the expert consultants, audience, and Committee members for participating. She reminded everyone that the next meeting will take place on November 3, 2010, at the Yolo County Office of Education.
