Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Stronger Together
California
Water Cooler Policy Report
Informing Advocacy for Children Birth to Five
November 2009
Over the past year, Water Cooler participants had the opportunity to engage in a series of
workgroup meetings to engage in common understanding in an effort to find policies that
would maximize participant’s opportunities to work together. This report is a summation
of all the policies that the various workgroups arrived at.
All policy workgroups were open to any individual or organization that wished to attend.
People self‐selected which group or groups they worked in over a series of meetings that
took place at various locations across California.
Logos pictured here show support for the Water Cooler Process, but do not imply
organizational endorsement of any recommendation contained herein.
Workgroup #1: Revenue, Taxation, Proposition 98, and Sequencing
Priorities
Co‐Chairs:
Ted Lempert, President, Children Now
Adonai Mack, Legislative Advocate, Association of California School
Administrators
Workgroup #2: Critical Issues within the Existing System
Co‐Chairs:
Debby Armstrong, Executive Director, First 5 San Mateo
California Association Nina Buthee, Executive Director, California Child Development
for Family Child Care
Administrators Association
Workgroup #3: Quality Rating and Improvement, Tiered Reimbursement,
Curriculum, and Delivery System
Co‐ Chairs:
Meera Mani, Program Officer, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Giannina Perez, Associate Director, Early Care and Education, Children
Now
Ginger Swigart, President, California Association for the Education of APIsCAN
Young Children
Workgroup #4: Access Gaps and Facilities
Co‐Chairs:
Sharon Scott Dow, Director of Governmental Relations, Advancement
Project
Nancy Strohl, Executive Director, Child Care Law Center
Workgroup #5: Workforce Development and Certification
Co‐Chairs:
Toni Campbell, Commission Chair, First 5 Santa Cruz
Sarah Neville‐Morgan, Deputy Director, Program Management Team, First
5 California
Marcy Whitebook, Director, Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment, UC Berkeley
Advancement Project Consultants to Workgroups: Erica Lawless,
Kim Pattillo Brownson and Jenny Paul‐Rappaport
Workgroup #1: Revenue, Taxation, Proposition 98, and Sequencing Priorities
Co‐Chairs:
Ted Lempert, Children Now
Adonai Mack, Association of California School Administrators
Principles of Allocating New Revenue to Early Care and Education in California
Quality AND Access
California children deserve to have full access to quality care in their youngest years. In order to ensure
this, new revenue allocated to early care and education in California should be given to policies that both
increase program quality and expand access for children not currently receiving care and education.
There are large geographic areas and segments of
the population in the state that have little to no
access to existing ECE programs, making it
imperative that we increase programs and services.
In addition, for those children who are fortunate
enough to have access to programs, they are often
in low quality settings. This is especially true for
infants and toddlers given the low reimbursement
rate for these children and the high costs
associated with their care. Given the dramatic
need for both more and better education and care,
programs that promote quality and access must be
given high priority for any new revenue for early
learning services.
Children birth to five
The earliest years in a child’s life are crucial for future success in school and life. Given this, investment in
early learning services needs to incorporate all children, birth to five.
1. Children birth to 3 face particularly acute access shortages, given the low reimbursement rate,
which often falls short of covering the high costs associated with infant/toddler care. They also
have a need for increased quality.
2. Preschool aged children have a dramatic need for increased access to programs and require a
system to increase the quality of their care as well.
3. It is also a priority to connect these children with the K‐12 system, ensuring their readiness to learn
in school.
System Building
In addition to balancing both quality and access, and the interests of both children 0 to 3 and children 3 and
4, a priority must be placed on investing in the system overall. To sustain a quality, comprehensive system
for early learning, investments must be made in infrastructure for the future. This includes investments in:
1
1. Higher education and professional development, including increased compensation and benefits
that will build a competent, diverse, early care and education workforce and result in improved
recruitment and retention of quality teachers.
2. Facilities development to prepare for increasing access to programs.
3. Advisory structures that are adequately funded to coordinate across programs to promote
continuity, increase quality, ensure access to our neediest children and families, and reduce
inefficiency across varied programs and services.
Sequencing for Funding Priorities
In order to build a comprehensive system for early learning in California, the following categories of Access,
Quality and system building need to be accomplished and funded – these priorities have been identified by
the four other Water Cooler policy workgroups:
1. Access
a. Expansion for Preschool.
b. Expansion for Infants and Toddlers.
c. New Facilities.
2. Quality
a. Licensing.
b. QRIS and Quality supports: wrap around care, increased reimbursement rate, workforce
incentives, ELL and Special needs inclusion, license‐exempt support.
c. Workforce Supports and Investments: articulation projects, WAGES, CARES etc.
3. System building/Oversight and Coordination: Advisory Structure
a. Data, workforce development and coordination, and overview of ECE administration.
All of the above categories of investment need to be accomplished to build a comprehensive, high‐quality
early learning system. However, in order to do this some categories need to be invested in before others.
Sequencing of these priorities should follow this general structure:
1. Immediate Investment.
a. Prioritize licensing– annual unannounced visits; Trust Line for all providers; pre‐licensing
training.
b. Development of a Quality Rating and Improvement System in conjunction with quality
supports.
c. Begin longer range plans for access expansion for preschool and infant/toddler programs.
d. Develop the infrastructure for more investment long term to support higher education, and
the ECE workforce.
2. Initial to Mid‐range Investment.
a. Begin to expand access for preschool and infant/toddler programs to neediest zip codes.
b. Implement pilot of QRIS and begin plans for expansion.
3. Mid to Long‐range Investment.
2
a. Facilities investment should be a longer range priority informed by strategic planning and needs
assessments; facilities should be funded through a separate funding stream other than
programmatic system funding: school facilities bond.
b. Expansion of program funding to increase access for preschool and infant/toddler programs.
This should be ramped up in later years once quality systems and infrastructure are well
developed.
c. Develop an advisory structure for oversight and coordination of the early learning system.
Revenue Generation Models
1. Public‐Private Partnerships: $50 Million/year.
a. A technique that has been successful in other states, notably Nebraska. If California created a
$1 Billion endowment (less per capita than the endowment Nebraska has), it would yield $40 to
$50 Million per year. This could be additionally enhanced by a public‐private match to fund
programmatic costs at $10 Million per year.
2. Tax Policy Changes: $565 Million/year.
a. Eliminating the vacation homes and boat exemption from the mortgage interest deduction
would yield approximately $85 Million per year.
b. Eliminating the candy/Snack tax exemption that exempts candy, confectionary and bottled
water from sales tax would yield approximately $319 Million per year.
c. Indexing the alcoholic beverage excise tax to 2009 dollars would generate approximately $161
Million in the first year, and would increase slightly each additional year if indexed for inflation.
3. Institute a New Tax: $.5 Billion ‐ $10 Billion.
a. Beer: Arkansas has successfully taxed beer to pay for ECE services. If California instituted a
$.05 on the sale of every 12 ounces of beer (A “nickel a beer” tax) would generate
approximately $386 Million per year.
b. Sales: The workgroup is still working on the estimates for how much revenue could be
generated from a potential sales tax increase.
c. Income: If California reinstated the 1991 income tax rates of 10% and 11% for those who earn
above $115,000 per year it would generate approximately $4 to $6 Billion per year. If the state
charged each taxpayer earning under $60,000 per year a flat tax of $20 and each taxpayer
earning over $60,000 per year a flat tax of $50 it could generate approximately $500 Million per
year in new revenue.
d. Property Tax: A split‐roll property tax is estimated to generate approximately $5 to $7 Billion
per year.
Cost Estimates
The workgroup is continuing to work on estimating the total cost of implementing the type of comprehensive
0 to 5 system referenced above. The range that has been identified thus far is $3 ‐ $6 Billion per year.
3
Workgroup #2: Critical Issues within the Existing System
Co‐Chairs:
Debby Armstrong, First 5 San Mateo
Nina Buthee, California Child Development Administrators Association
Goal: Maximize the current system’s capacity to provide quality care for California’s youngest
children by increasing efficiency and available resources for the current subsystems of care in the
state.
Recommendations
1. Licensing: Ensure that all California children in care that meets at least basic health and safety
standards.
a. CPR/First Aid Training: Require pediatric CPR/First Aid pre‐service training before being
licensed.
b. Pre‐Licensing Support: Increase support, training opportunities, and technical assistance in the
pre‐licensing process; increase access to licensing orientations that are culturally and
linguistically appropriate for providers.
c. Annual Visits: Ensure annual unannounced visits of all licensed programs to check their
compliance with the licensing requirements.
d. Ombudsman Program: Expand the Ombudsman program to provide comprehensive training
and technical assistance to providers and to coordinate facility development between the
licensing and facilities requirements and timelines.
e. Licensing Website: Support and expand the existing website housing licensing information so
that providers and parents have increased access to accurate licensing information.
f. Local Coordination: Study the possibility of streamlining and decentralizing the licensing
system to coordinate between local agencies to utilize the local capacity and resources to
conduct licensing reviews and visits to build upon the statewide licensing system.
g. Ongoing Training: Require appropriate ongoing training for providers each year and advocate
for additional funds to increase access for providers to obtain this training.
h. Waivers: Work with licensing department to develop statewide standards for waivers that are
consistently delivered to resolve issues such as lack of available land for outdoor play space.
2. Reimbursement Rates
a. Rate Structure: Implement one base reimbursement rate that combines the Regional Market
Rate (RMR) and the Standard Reimbursement Rate (SRR) and that matches the actual cost of
care. The reimbursement rate should have:
i. Increased Factors: Increased factors for higher cost areas and infant/toddlers and
children with multiple needs (such as English Language Learners, Severely disabled, and
children with exceptional needs) given the increased cost of providing care for these
children.
4
ii. Full‐Day Care: An increased rate that ensures that providers are not disincentivized
from providing full day care.
b. Tiered Reimbursement: Establish a tiered reimbursement system for providers, including
Family, Friend, and Neighbor/License‐exempt providers, who participate in a QRIS system.
3. Streamlining Funding Processes and Procedures and Reducing Unspent Funds
a. RFA Streamlining: Explore streamlining options for the RFA process to ensure efficiency and to
expedite funds to ensure cohesive services. This includes:
i. Evaluating the RFA Process.
ii. Considering a Multi‐year process.
iii. Providing budget authority for CDE to hire additional staff to support the RFA process.
iv. Providing more internal tracking and monitoring of programs to address where growth
and unallocated funds could go to best serve families on the waiting list.
b. Distributing Funds: Explore new and innovate ideas to change the funding mechanism &
method of getting out funds. This includes:
i. Evaluating Multi‐Year Contracts.
ii. Enacting a grant‐based contract system with minimum based attendance requirements
instead of reimbursement based funding (models: LAUP, Head Start).
iii. Allowing agencies to cover cost overruns in one year in a subsequent year – and/or
create a limited contingency fund to fund over expenditures where agencies have
served additional children.
c. QRIS Funding: Provide adequate funding to implement a QRIS and tiered reimbursement
system.
d. Increase training and technical assistance to providers
i. Focused fiscal technical assistance to marginal agencies.
ii. Increase funding for comprehensive training and technical assistance for providers in
budgeting, accounting and other fiscal issues.
iii. Support CDE to provide peer training for providers.
4. Centralized Eligibility List (CEL): Evaluate the CEL to determine whether it is effectively and
efficiently meeting its original goals. This includes Studying the CEL to evaluate:
a. How efficient it is in comparison to the previous system?
b. How effective it is: Is it working to make sure that the neediest children are getting access to
programs?
c. Whether the requirements and data gathering is consistent across different counties and
regions of the state.
d. Whether it is an accurate data source capturing the actual number of children who are eligible
for a program but not yet receiving services.
5
Sequencing and Prioritization of Recommendations
1. Priority Recommendations:
a. Licensing.
b. Reimbursement rate reform.
2. Short‐Term Recommendations:
a. License‐exempt systems building recommendations.
b. CDE streamlining recommendations.
c. Study of the CEL.
3. Long‐Term Recommendations:
a. Tiered Reimbursement.
b. Implementation of CEL study recommendations.
Workgroup #3: Quality Rating and Improvement, Curriculum and Tiered
Reimbursement
Co‐Chairs:
Meera Mani, David & Lucile Packard Foundation
Giannina Perez, Children Now
Ginger Swigart, California Association for the Education of Young Children
Goal: Incentivize higher quality care for all California children, desirable working conditions for workforce,
and information for families.
Guiding Principles
1. A California Quality Rating and Improvement System must build upon and integrate as appropriate
quality projects/programs currently underway in the State. A California Quality Rating and
Improvement System must be funded to ensure:
a. High quality care and early learning experiences for children.
b. Desirable working conditions for the workforce.
c. The communication of timely and meaningful information for parents/guardians and
consumers.
2. A California Quality Rating and Improvement System must include funding for reform of
Community Care Licensing. Such reform would include such things as increased inspections to
ensure high standards of health and safety practices.
3. A California Quality Rating and Improvement System must include elements that
a. Support and create opportunities for teachers/providers who are dual language learners.
6
b. Support and promote competencies for teachers/providers working with children who are dual
language learners.
4. A California Quality Rating and Improvement System must include elements that support and
create opportunities for children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds as well as
children with disabilities and special needs.
5. A California Quality Rating and Improvement System will improve the quality of centers and family
childcare homes by ensuring the measurement and inclusion of program structure/elements such
as:
a. Indoor and outdoor environmental quality.
b. Program administration.
c. Family involvement and parent engagement.
d. Teacher/provider‐child Interactions.
e. Cultural, linguistic, and special needs responsiveness.
f. Condition of Facilities/Structure.
g. Licensing and compliance history.
h. Teacher/provider education.
i. Developmental screenings and a response and referral process.
j. Age and developmentally appropriate curriculum.
k. Continuous quality improvement plan.
l. Health, nutrition, and physical activity.
m. Safety.
n. Both teacher/child ratios and group size.
Recommendations
1. Scope of a QRIS – Age
a. California should create a statewide Quality Rating and Improvement System for all programs
and providers serving children birth to five.
b. This Quality Rating and Improvement System should then be expanded to include all children
birth to 13.
c. In order to successfully achieve this vision a phase in structure should be developed.
2. Scope of a QRIS– Program Types Included
a. California should create a Quality Rating and Improvement System that is inclusive of, and
mandatory for, all licensed (Title 5 and Title 22) centers and family childcare providers.
b. In addition to the licensed providers, an entry point should be created for license‐exempt
providers that are receiving public subsidies.
7
c. All providers, including both licensed and license‐exempt providers, receiving public subsidies,
should receive incentives and support to improve the quality of the care they provide to
children and families.
3. Licensing
a. Need to reform governance structure and address existing challenges to governance, and aim
to increase coordination.
b. ELQIS should develop a subcommittee to work on specifics, with support from consultants who
can highlight national best practices, to have fuller discussion on specifics of how to reform
licensing, with strong representation from CCLC, which QRIS Group could help staff.
4. Tiered Reimbursement
a. California should create a tiered reimbursement/incentive structure linked to a Quality Rating
and Improvement System.
b. This tiered reimbursement/incentive structure should be designed to improve the salaries and
benefits of family childcare providers and center staff.
c. The tiered reimbursement/incentive structure should additionally include, but not be limited to
technical assistance, on site coaching, management and fiscal support, and grants or a loan
program to continue educational opportunities.
5. Cultural/Linguistic Inclusion: California should create a Quality Rating and Improvement System in
which home language, racial, ethnic and cultural competencies are integral to all measures,
standards, training, curriculum, and incentives that are developed.
6. Special Needs Inclusion: California should create a Quality Rating and Improvement System in
which measures, standards, training, curriculum, and incentives reflect the early identification and
inclusion of children with special needs.
Workgroup #4: Access Barriers to Quality ECE Programs and Facilities Issues
Co‐Chairs:
Sharon Scott Dow, Advancement Project
Nancy Strohl, Child Care Law Center
Access Barriers to Quality ECE Programs
Goal: Integrated birth to five early care and education system that is responsive to the needs of children
and working families, ensuring that preschool efforts are integrated with and strengthen the existing early
care and education system while simultaneously investing in building quality choices for our youngest
children birth to three.
Recommendations
Increase Access to Quality ECE Programs focusing first on children in poverty and facing special barriers.
8
1. Increase access for infants and toddlers:
a. Incrementally increase investment in subsidies and contracts for infants and toddlers:
Recognize the lack of access to child care subsidies and title 5 centers for infants and toddlers
and target an appropriate share of any new investments.
b. Contracted Centers: Remove barriers that prevent expansion of infant‐toddler centers in
California. This includes licensing and regulatory barriers, physical access and facilities barriers,
as well as inadequate reimbursement rates.
c. Family Child Care and non‐contracted Centers: Evaluate and make necessary increases to the
infant enhancement reimbursement rate factor.
d. Link to Early Head Start: Increase access to Early Head Start programs and improve linkages
between EHS and state funded programs.
e. Infants and Toddlers with Special Needs and Disabilities: Improve access to inclusive early care
and education settings; increase the availability of support and training for teachers; and
improve coordination with family support programs and regional centers.
2. Increase access for three and four‐year‐olds:
a. Preschool in High‐Need Communities: Expand access to high‐quality preschool for areas
with high concentrations of children of color, low‐income children, children of parents
without a high school education and children likely to attend low performing K‐12 schools.
b. Full‐day, Full‐year: Ensure that preschool programs offer parents full‐day, full‐year options
so working families can access preschool programs.
c. Mixed Delivery: Ensure California’s mixed delivery ECE system is maintained as it expands.
d. Children with Special Needs and Disabilities in Preschool: Improve access to inclusive
preschool settings for 3 and 4‐year olds with special needs and disabilities; increase the
availability of support and training for preschool teachers; and improve coordination
between state preschool programs and special education preschool.
3. Increase access for parents:
a. Parents with Limited Access: Support the development of state and local resources to
provide parents the support needed to choose and have access to high‐quality ECE
programs. Focus on parents with disabilities, whose first language is not English, who are
homeless, who are incarcerated, who are domestic violence survivors, or who face other
barriers.
b. California School Aged Families Education (CALSAFE): Give a higher funding priority to
programs serving student‐parents through CALSAFE.
4. Increase access for children with special needs:
a. Definition: The definition of children with special needs that should be used is children who
are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act or who have, or are at risk for, a
chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require
developmental, health, mental health, and related services and/or supports of a type or
amount beyond that required generally.
9
b. Health/Safety Laws and Regulations: Revise health and safety laws and regulations and
their implementation and interpretation so that they do not serve as an unnecessary
impediment to inclusion of children with special needs.
c. Training and Resources: Increase access to trainings and resources for providers to meet
the unique needs of all children and to increase access for children with special needs.
These trainings should reflect evidence‐ and community ‐based best practices.
d. Access to Specialized Programs: Promote access for families to a variety of options to
ensure that their children’s needs are met including high‐quality inclusive child care and
preschool settings, as well as specialized programs including therapeutic preschools.
5. Increase access for children in foster care: Promote effective referrals for children in foster care
and those considered at risk of abuse and neglect to high‐quality ECE programs, and promote
continuity of service for these children when placements change. Advocate for the eligibility for
child care subsidies and other services for dependent children of foster youth.
Federal Opportunities
1. Increase federal investment for early learning programs:
a. Child Care & Development Fund and Head Start: Make the ARRA fund increases to Child
Care & Development Fund (CCDF) and Head Start permanent and provide an increase of $ 1
Billion to each program in 2010.
b. IDEA: Make the ARRA IDEA fund increases in Part C early intervention services and Part B
services and supports permanent.
c. Title I: Increase funding directed to preschool for low‐income children.
d. Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: Improve the Federal Child and Dependent Care Tax
Credit to be refundable and expand the credit so that more low and moderate income
families are included in the program.
e. Early Learning Challenge Fund: Support the Passage of the Early Learning Challenge Fund
(H.R. 3221) and take necessary steps to maximize California’s successful participation.
f. CAPTA: Support full funding for the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
when reauthorized in 2010, and highlight parent access to high‐quality child care for
children 0‐5 as a strategy contributing to reduced risk of child abuse and neglect.
2. Federal Food Programs: Provide greater access to nutritious meals for low‐income children in ECE
programs, including family child care homes, by improving the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP).
State Opportunities for Systems Change
1. Support the Early Learning Advisory Council (ELAC) in increasing access to ECE programs:
a. Federal Purposes: Ensure that the federal purposes are met regarding access for the
underserved: increasing the overall participation of children in existing federal, state, and
local ECE programs, including outreach to underrepresented and special populations.
b. Geographic Access Disparities: Support the ELAC to ensure quality child care options in a
wide variety of geographic settings, maintain our diverse delivery system to provide quality
early care and education services to all children and their families, including support for all
10
types of child care arrangements, availability with respect to the hours families need care,
transportation availability, affordability for all families, and cultural and linguistic access.
c. ELAC Workgroups: The ELAC should include focused work groups, including one that
focuses on access and underserved populations and one that focuses on cultural and
linguistic inclusion. The workgroups should include a wide variety of ECE practitioners,
advocates, stakeholders, and consumers.
i. Access and Underserved Populations Workgroup:
1) Unmet Need: Identify current and unmet need among our lowest income
children, children birth to 5, and hard to reach and at‐risk families. Develop
plans to meet that need.
2) Special Needs Inclusion: Develop a plan for inclusive services in California
that focus on providing all children with access to appropriate ECE
programs to serve each child’s unique needs. Ensure coordination of state
and local programs and services that support or provide early recognition of
individual needs and a tiered system of responses to those needs including
intervention for children with special needs.
3) Infants/Toddlers: Develop a plan to expand services to our youngest
children, birth to three, including a review of funding formulas and solutions
to non‐funding barriers including licensing and regulatory barriers as well as
physical access and facilities barriers.
ii. Cultural/Linguistic Inclusion Workgroup: Ensure all ECE programs and systems are
culturally and linguistically competent and relevant.
d. Cost‐Savings Education: Provide return‐on‐investment information to the public on the
relationship between provision of early education to at‐risk populations and future cost
savings across sectors/domains (e.g., education, employment, social services, justice) and
consider such information when making policy recommendation.
2. Include California specific issues in the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG)
reauthorization:
a. Annual Recertification: Establish annual eligibility recertification for all ECE programs with
children remaining eligible when their parents financial situation changes.
b. Cultural/Linguistic Inclusion: Identify specific resources for culturally and linguistically
inclusive ECE programs to serve California’s diverse population.
c. Infant/Toddler Access: Increased resources for infant/toddler care in CCDBG.
d. Funding Levels: Significantly increase investment in CCDBG, and require similar increases in
state ECE investment to incrementally move towards providing access to all eligible
children.
e. Error Rate Reporting: Reformulate 2007 CCDBG regulations on Error Rate Reporting and
require genuine appeal and hearing rights.
f. California Agenda: Develop consensus recommendations for CCDBG based on the needs of
California’s low income children and families.
11
3. State Food Programs: Strengthen nutrition standards in the program as well as increase the state
meal reimbursement. In addition, barriers to participation must be reduced by simplifying
unnecessary administrative and paperwork requirements.
4. Braiding and Blending Funding:
a. Remove barriers and promote seamless braiding between funding sources.
b. Remove barriers including financial disincentives for families using Family, Friend and
Neighbor/License‐Exempt care to accessing part‐day preschool programs or other center
based programs.
6. Regional Center Transition: Develop and implement unified policies across the state that ensure
smooth transition and continuity of services for children as they move from regional center
programs to school district programs.
Access to Quality Facilities
Goal: Increase Access for all children, birth to five, to quality ECE facilities.
Recommendations
1. Funding: Promote access for all ECE programs to a variety of dedicated funding streams that are
enough to cover the actual cost of operating a quality facility.
a. Public School Facilities Bond: Expand access to quality facilities for underserved children birth
to 5. The legislative vehicle for this recommendation is the inclusion of early learning facilities
in the next major statewide public school educational facilities bond.
b. Federal Capital Magnet Fund: Support the creation of a federal capital magnet (revolving)
fund that provides capital and technical assistance resources for facilities for early learning
programs. The legislative vehicles for this recommendation are H.R. 1685 and S. 1002.
c. HHS, HUD, and CDE Funds: Promote facilities resources for early learning programs that may
become available through programs administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Education, and the Housing and Urban Development department,
California Department of Education and the Department for Housing and Community
Development.
d. Funding for all CDE eligible contractors: Promote additional facilities funding for all CDE
eligible child care and development contractors (i.e., School Districts, Community College
Districts, Colleges and Universities, County Superintendent of Schools, County Agencies, City
Agencies, Public Agencies, Private Nontax‐Exempt Agencies, and Private Tax‐Exempt
Agencies), for various types (e.g. temporary, factory‐built, traditional construction) of
buildings.
e. Funding for non‐CDE eligible contractors: Promote public sources of capital and incentives for
private sources, for child development programs that are not limited to California Department
of Education contractors. These funds should be targeted for programs serving low‐income
children. These may include, but not be limited to, programs such as family child care.
f. Local Community Capacity Building & Planning: Support sustainable funding to support local or
regional, centralized resources for developing and financing facilities for early learning
programs throughout California. One possible vehicle for this recommendation is the ABCD
Constructing Connections Program.
12
g. Head Start/Early Head Start: Fund capital grants for Head Start and Early Head Start programs
for a term that is sufficient to plan and implement a facility development project.
2. Training, Technical Assistance, and Support:
a. Facilities Development Training: Support all programs receive training and technical assistance
to prepare to fully utilize and access capital for a facilities development project. Encourage and
provide necessary resources for small business development centers and other existing entities
that provide business development training to increase business skills of child care providers.
b. Child Care Revolving Loan Fund: Create a process by which the California Department of
Education’s Child Development Division has access to capital financing expertise to facilitate
their capacity to make Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund loans for development projects,
other than relocatable buildings primarily on public school sites.
c. Local Land Use: Increase support and technical assistance for local land use and planning
challenges with zoning.
3. Ensure effective ECE facilities planning:
a. Land Use: Promote streamlining and collaboration in the land use approval process for fire and
building code regulations at the local and state level, while maintaining the high standards in
the codes.
b. City and County General Plans: Encourage and/or provide incentives for all city/county General
Plans to include services for young children in all appropriate elements (e.g. housing, land use,
economic development, etc.) and have an element that address human services, including child
care and other similar programs.
Workgroup #5: Workforce Development and Certification
Co‐Chairs:
Toni Campbell, California State University, San Jose
Sarah Neville‐Morgan, First 5 California
Marcy Whitebook, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment
Goal: Ensure that California has a skilled, stable, well‐compensated workforce that receives ongoing support
and professional development and provides quality care for young children.
Recommendations
Professional Standards
1. Program and Individual Standards: California needs a well‐integrated system that utilizes two
integrated approaches:
a. Program‐based standards (QRIS).
13
b. Individual standards through certification or licensure (for all who work in licensed and/or
subsidized ECE programs).
2. Title 5 and Title 22: Title 5 should be the floor of professional standards for all ECE programs; eliminate
the two‐tier Title 22 and Title 5 system over time.
3. Clear Requirements: Licensure system should clearly articulate requirements for entry, mid‐level and
advanced level of competency, and consist of two parts:
a. Educational component for varying levels of seniority, inclusive of non‐traditional forms of
education (e.g., Montessori, etc).
b. Augmented by demonstrated or observed competency through practicum or certified evaluator
observation.
4. Linked Competencies: A planning process should be established to link the competencies
(forthcoming in June 2010) to a certification system, build the career ladder around these
competencies, and then build a registry to support providers/teachers in gaining fluency and
proficiency in the competencies.
5. Quality Training: Training systems should be linked to certification systems by instituting a process for
approving training and trainers who legitimately offer quality training that is useful to providers.
Career Pathways
1. System: Establish a career pathway system including a registry.
2. Registry: A registry is a centralized statewide workforce development system that is housed on a
website that provides information about college education, professional training and ongoing
education courses that:
a. Is accessible and useful for students and advisors.
b. Connects students to local in‐person advisement resources on curricular and unit requirements,
course advisement, professional growth advising, financial aid, tutoring supports, etc.
c. Provides a secure ECE workforce database for policymakers, planners, and researchers to evaluate
workforce training programs and systems.
d. Includes a certification process tying training and classes to competencies and licensure system.
e. Supports recruitment of new entrants into field.
f. Clearly communicates requirements of competency requirements for multiple levels of seniority.
Articulation
1. Course Alignment: The current activities of the community colleges and CSUs
to encourage course alignment and articulation should continue, and should receive state‐
level support.
2. Client‐Friendly: California’s ECE articulation system should be ‘client friendly’: clear and accessible
to students.
3. Competency/Standards‐based: The articulation system should be a competency/standards‐
based system.
14
Financing
1. Higher Education: New resources for institutions of higher education are an essential element of ECE
workforce development, to assist with: serving nontraditional students; expanding/revamping ECE‐
related programs and offerings; creating/adding full‐time tenure‐track positions; accessibility in terms
of scheduling and location; and building on innovations (ongoing support, not just pilot programs).
2. Compensation: Improved compensation should be a core component of a Quality Rating and
Improvement System (QRIS), inclusive of the entire ECE workforce, in near term.
3. Reimbursement Rates: Need new resources in long term to increase and sustain reimbursement rates
as stabile part of wage structure, beyond QRIS stipend/bonus, which is subject to funding shifts.
4. Individual Support: Financial support to individuals (coordinated across systems, so that resources are
shared equitably and not duplicated) is essential for access to higher education.
5. Training/Classes: Need new resources for training and classes that support competencies and that are
responsive to varying points of entry.
6. ELQISAC: ELQISAC should develop a plan to address compensation and work environments, in addition
to an augmented reimbursement schedule, to:
a. Ensure that improved program funding be used to compensate individual teachers for their
educational attainment as their programs achieve higher levels of quality.
b. Integrate model work standards, including teacher compensation and working environments,
into the design of the rating scale criteria.
c. Provide technical assistance for program managers with a focus on accounting solutions that
resolve the complications arising from the blending of funding streams and facilitates the
ability of programs to improve pay, benefits, and working conditions.
Advisory Structure
1. Integration/Coordination: There should be a statewide advisory structure charged with integrating and
coordinating ECE‐ related workforce development.
2. Authority: The advisory structure must have the authority and the funding to effectively implement
changes.
3. Neutral, Representative, and Accessible: It should be housed within an existing infrastructure, and
should be neutral, representative of the field, and accessible.
Data
1. Sharing and Collection Practices: Effective workforce development requires that institutions across the
ECE field agree on data collection and sharing practices.
2. ECE Data System: ECE workforce data should be one component of a broader ECE data system.
3. Components: ECE workforce data are needed on: individuals in the workforce; ECE programs;
institutions of higher education; and other workforce education and training initiatives.
4. Planning Process: Need for an ECE workforce data planning process, answering the questions, ‘why
workforce data’ and ‘what data do we need.’ The group reached some agreement on the ‘whys’: for
better program planning and forecasting; for measuring outcomes; the impact of professional
development and education on individuals and programs; and as a key to answering policy questions.
15
5. Standardized and Accessible: Data system should be standardized, accessible, and easy to use.
6. Built on Current Data: Data system should build on what we have.
7. K‐12 Integration: We should look at, and integrate with, K‐12 data collection.
Joint Workgroup: Cultural and Linguistic Inclusion
Chair: Ruth Yoon, Los Angeles Unified School District
Goals
1. Access to high‐quality Early Care and Education (ECE) programs for all children including diverse
racial and ethnic groups and dual language learners.
2. A diverse, culturally and linguistically representative workforce that is appropriate and adequately
trained and educated to be culturally and linguistically competent.
3. A QRIS that supports and incentivizes programs and their staffs to achieve and maintain levels of
quality which support early literacy and language development for dual language learners.
4. Development and use of a multiple model curriculum framework that provides a foundation for
multiple models to support language development among dual language learners in diverse
environments.
5. Development and use of appropriate first and second language assessments to assess linguistic
and cognitive development and to reduce misdiagnosis and referrals of dual language learners to
special education.
Recommendations
1. Access Gaps and Facilities Expansion:
a. Promote increased access to high‐quality ECE programs for children of all racial and ethnic
groups and dual language learners.
b. All priority‐setting processes for facility and/or program expansion should take into account the
number of unserved children who are dual language learners.
2. QRIS: Measures of quality in a statewide QRIS for California should take into consideration
standards for integration of first and second language, racial, ethnic, and cultural competencies,
training, and curriculum. This includes supporting and incentivizing
a. A culturally and linguistically competent workforce.
b. Implementation of evidence‐based best practices for dual language learners.
c. Family/parent outreach that is based on needs and recognizes family strengths.
3. Workforce: Identify, recruit, educate, and support more teachers who represent the cultures and
languages spoken by dual language learners in California so that programs have a more culturally
and linguistically competent pool of employees from which to hire.
a. Recruitment, Retention and Development:
16
i. Develop an aggressive, multilingual outreach and recruitment strategy for the next
generation of teachers.
ii. Support increased access to services and systems that evaluate out‐of‐country
coursework, degrees, and credentials of the workforce.
iii. Build mentoring capacity and increase professional development offerings to both
licensed and license‐exempt providers that are culturally and linguistically appropriate to
build competencies to work with diverse populations and dual language learners.
iv. Employ a tired reimbursement system that is tied to professional development or formal
education attainment and that promotes cultural and linguistic competencies.
v. Ensure that professional development programs providing incentives for increased
education and training include cultural and linguistic competency as a priority skill area.
vi. Imbed dual language acquisition as a core content area in the permit matrix.
vii. Support dual‐language education programs to include online classes, hybrid courses, and
contract courses for intensive study.
b. Support for Institutions of Higher Education (IHE): Support IHEs to:
i. Provide coursework necessary for teachers to understand research based best practices
relevant to first and second language development.
ii. Provide coursework necessary for teachers to ensure that dual language learners have
full access to the content of early childhood curriculum, including math, science,
history, arts, physical development, health, and social‐emotional development.
iii. Expand the diversity of faculty in ECE programs who are linguistically and culturally
competent.
iv. Establish an education pathway with financial academic supports, so that culturally and
linguistically diverse ECE professionals achieve degrees from associates to
doctorate degrees to increase the pool of competent ECE faculty.
4. Outreach and Engagement: Increase outreach and engagement strategies with families and
communities that are culturally and linguistically appropriate.
a. Increased public education and engagement on
i. bilingualism and brain development
ii. best practices for dual language learners
iii. access to anti‐ bias training that is reflective of research in the field
iv. the benefits of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching to young children:
positive learning experiences and supports sense of identity and self esteem
b. Develop a clearinghouse of linguistically and culturally appropriate material for parents and
parent educators that supports home language development as the child acquires English.
c. Develop culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach strategies to families not proficient in
English to ensure increased access to and active participation in high‐quality ECE programs.
17
5. Quality Curriculum: Support research based best practices for dual language learners, including
providing children with environments that foster purposeful language use and build upon a child's
home language to support cognitive development, and emerging literacy.
a. Provide culturally‐, linguistically‐ and developmentally appropriate material and a variety of
instructional strategies to support the acquisition of first and second languages in different
settings (dual language programs, ESL/ELD, Tri‐lingual, etc.).
b. Establish a dual‐language ECE clearinghouse(s) to collect distribute and develop curriculum
materials and instructional models that support the major languages of California’s ECE
population.
c. Leverage and exchange best practices and lessons learned of the international ECE
community in California ECE instructional practices.
Joint Workgroup: Family, Friend, and Neighbor/License‐Exempt (FFN/LE) Care
Chair: Maria Balakshin, First 5, California
Recommendations
1. QIS Inclusion: Permit FFN/LE care providers to participate in support related to a QIS to:
supporting providers who wish to develop their professional skills by allowing them access to and
incentivizing them to obtain additional resources, education, and training.
2. Require Trust Line: Require all FFN/LE care providers who receive subsidies to complete the Trust
Line process.
3. CPR and First Aid: Evaluate the possibility of requiring all FFN/LE care providers to receive pediatric
CPR and First Aid training and recommend potential administration strategies for this new
requirement.
4. Culturally/Linguistically Appropriate Programs: Ensure programs that support improving the
quality of FFN/LE programs are culturally and linguistically competent and built upon the particular
needs of a community.
5. Connection to Pre‐K, Head Start, and other Center Based Programs: Encourage Alternative
Payment agencies, and other entities that work with FFN/LE providers, to inform providers about
the option to bring children in their care to part day free State Preschool programs and other
center based programs.
6. Outreach: Support culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach strategies to educate
communities about existing programs and services that support FFN/LE care providers.
7. Model Programs: Support and expand programs that currently outreach to, and have the
demonstrated capacity so if expanded could outreach to, train and support FFN/LE care providers.
These include but are not limited to programs, such as:
a. California Exempt Care Training Project/ (locally called) Growing Learning and Caring: offers
training, support, and outreach to license‐exempt providers in every county across the
state, totaling 71 projects.
18
b. California Child Care Initiative Project (CCIP): recruits providers caring for children in a home‐
based setting and who are not licensed to obtain a CCL issued license and connects them
with the appropriate education and training to do so.
c. Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES): provides stipends for
FFN/LE care providers in some counties to increase their professional training and skills.
Joint Workgroup: Data
C0‐Chairs:
Sharon Scott‐Dow, Advancement Project
Giannina Perez, Children Now
Goal: A California Early Learning Data System should
1. Provide useful information about California’s young children, their families, the programs and
services children receive, and the early learning workforce.
2. Identify access gaps.
3. Identify which programs and policies have the greatest impact on children’s outcomes and later
success in school to inform state and local policy leaders and so that families can make choices
accordingly.
4. Provide useful information, tools, and feedback to teachers, administrators, and providers to
support program improvement and individual professional development and growth as well as to
higher education administrators/professors/instructors to improve early learning degree programs.
5. Connect early learning data with the longitudinal K‐20 data system as well as other state data
systems (e.g., health, mental health, child welfare).
6. Meet the data requirements of recent federal initiatives (e.g., ELAC, ELCF) in order to maximize CA
competitiveness for federal funding.
Recommendations
Build a Useful and Effective Data System
1. Data Collection: Improve the quality and timeliness of existing data collections (including issuance
of unique child identifiers) and provide appropriate training to ECE and elementary school
administrators and staff in the collection and use of data.
2. Data Informs Practice: Ensure data is used to inform and improve care, instruction, administration,
and policy.
3. Additional Data: After review of current data collected, determine what/if other key additional
data on children/families, teachers, administration and other staff and programs is needed.
4. Assessment Data: Ensure that assessment and observation data (e.g. kindergarten readiness
assessment, DRDP‐R) is provided to ECE and elementary school teachers and administrators so that
19
they have timely information about the specific needs of their children and can use that data to
inform care and instruction.
5. Data Sharing: Promote better sharing of current data and information that can improve programs
and services as well as professional practice and assist in the recruitment and retention of teachers
and staff.
6. Interagency Linkages: Create interagency linkages to help ECE and elementary teachers and staff,
administrators, and policymakers make better‐informed decisions around the needs of and
outcomes for children outside the K‐12 system and how ECE and K‐12 can work together for the
betterment of children.
7. Support for Programs: Support agencies and providers to collect data so that the time required is
not uncompensated or overly burdensome.
Build a Transparent and Accountable Data System
1. Access: Ensure access to data for all users, including parents, teachers, and staff.
2. User‐Friendly: Develop more “user‐friendly” interfaces and reports.
Build a Stable and Secure System
1. Training and Development: Provide ongoing and consistent funding for development, training,
and use of the system.
2. Confidentiality: Ensure that all personally identifiable information is confidential and secure.
Specific Additions to the Data System
1. Workforce: Include data specific to the ECE Workforce in California’s data system, including
a. Individuals in the workforce (e.g. demographics, education/training, ongoing professional
development, turnover, compensation).
b. ECE programs.
c. Institutions of higher education.
d. Other workforce education and training initiatives.
1. Dual Language Learners and Diverse Populations: Include data specific to Dual Language Learners
and children and workforce from diverse backgrounds in California’s data system, including:
a. Ethnic background, languages spoken and education of parents.
b. Different language groups and social contexts.
c. Language use and preference of children.
d. Demographics of the teacher, staff, program director, and provider and their training in
working with diverse populations and Dual Language Learners.
e. The DRDP‐R, Kindergarten readiness assessments and any other data upon exit from
Preschool and Kindergarten, and retention rate data all children reported by language groups
and ethnicity.
2. Family, Friend and Neighbor/License‐Exempt Care: Include data specific to License‐exempt care in
California’s data system, including:
20
a. Demographics of the providers and children in the care.
b. Location.
c. Education level of provider and their relation to the family.
3. ECE Facilities: Include data specific to ECE facilities in California’s data system, including:
a. Specific childcare and/or preschool programs involved and number of children in each type of
funding (public, private, or mixed) for the program.
b. Building age of the facility and last date it was modernized.
c. Ratio (or number) of permanent classrooms to portable classrooms.
d. Existence of classroom based bathrooms and sinks.
e. The capacity of the building as constructed (a strong determinate of overcrowding), and the
number of children currently attending the facility.
f. Acreage and location of facility site.
g. Attached to or part of a public school site or public building.
h. Part of a private business facility that has dedicated space for childcare and/or preschool
space.
i. A private childcare and/or preschool facility.
j. A private home based facility.
k. Playground equipment and space and whether it is shared with others or separate.
21
Water Cooler Staff
Kris Perry, Executive Director, First 5 California
Molly Munger, Co‐Director, Advancement Project
Sharon Scott Dow, Director of Governmental Relations, Advancement Project
Kim Pattillo Brownson, Associate Director of Education, Advancement Project
Khydeeja Alam, Legislative Advocate, Advancement Project
Jenny Paul‐Rappaport, Policy Analyst, Advancement Project
Inger Brink, Public Finance Analyst, Advancement Project
Erica Lawless, Administrative Coordinator
Alyssa Carroll, Executive Assistant
Funding Provided by
1541 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 508
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213 989‐1300
925 L Street, Suite 305
Sacramento, CA 95814
916 441‐0172
www.advanceproj.org