1. Design Options for California’s Quality Rating Structure: first 4 elements
CAEL QIS Advisory Committee
Design, Workforce, and Parent Involvement Subcommittees
October 29, 2009
Includes information provided by: Gail Zellman and Lynn Karoly, RAND
I’m pleased to present an update on the work of three Subcommittees who are coordinating efforts to construct a Quality Rating Structure (QRS). Today, we will be introducing the first 4 elements of the QRS and asking for approval of these four elements and factors that will assist the Subcommittees with defining and shaping these elements.
We are working together to maximize the expertise of the members of various Subcommittee and to effectively move the work forward in a timely way.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Consuelo Espinosa, the Design Subcommittee Vice-Chair, and our expert consultants:
Gail Zellman and Lynn Karoly, RAND
Abby Cohen, National Child Care Information Center
Marcy Whitebook, UC Berkeley
And our CDE/CDD staff for their outstanding efforts to support the CAEL QIS Subcommittees and Advisory Committee.
And also to all the dedicated members of our Subcommittees who have contributed many hours to our work together. There will be many more hours before we are done, so stick with us. We are all committed to improving outcomes for our youngest children by improving the early education and care programs that serve them.
3/28/2017

2. Outline Review terms and framework
Review guidance from full committee offered at August 26, 2009 meeting
Discuss design options for first four quality elements through work of CAEL QIS Subcommittees
Today, I’ll provide a brief overview of:
the terms and framework provided by our expert consultants, Gail Zellman and Lynn Karoly, RAND, and Abby Cohen, NCCIC, and
the directions provided by the Advisory Committee at the 8/26/09 meeting.
Then, I’ll discuss the design options for the first four quality elements and ask for the Committee to take action and provide guidance in several areas. I want to stress that these are just the first four quality elements. There probably will be more quality elements, and there also probably will be a need to re-visit these first 4 elements as additional information is analyzed on other areas and other factors are considered, such as cost, data, and our implementation timeline.
3/28/2017

3. Focus Today Is On Design of Quality Rating Structure
Parent Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement
Early Learning
Quality Rating Structure
Workforce and Professional Development
Finance and
Incentives
As we’ve discussed, our overall task is to design California’s Quality Rating and Improvement System over these two years. This first year, we have decided to focus on the WHAT – specifically what makes up the Quality Rating Structure (QRS). Next year, we will work on WHO and HOW and WHEN – the improvement part of the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)
So today, we are focusing on the first four elements of what will make up the Quality Rating Structure. We will continue the process of setting quality elements and refining the elements as additional factors and information are included. In the future, we will work on the process for assessing quality, producing summary ratings, and publishing the results.
Data for Program Improvement and Research
3/28/2017

4. How Do We Get There? Examine other states’ QRSs, but don’t just copy
California is unique; differences must be incorporated
Learn from other states’ successes and failures
Draw on research data on QRSs and their components
Conduct feasibility analyses using available data
Pilot less-developed aspects of the QRS
Integrate QRS with California’s licensing and regulatory processes
Evaluate system implementation and outputs
The Subcommittees are using the same process as the Advisory Committee in examining and learning from the work of other States, as well as the pioneering work being done in counties and communities in California. We are also using whatever research is available. But as a reminder, our experts have told us in prior meetings, when it comes to research, there are limitations:
1) Little research examines link between QRSs and child outcomes
2) Most research focuses on whether QRSs improve provider quality; some examination of parent awareness
3) Limited data available on component measurement
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
We appreciate that we will need to pilot both elements and measures of the quality rating structure being considered separately, as well as to pilot the Quality Rating Structure and Improvement System prior to full implementation.
3/28/2017

5. QRIS Guidance Approved by Advisory Committee on 8/26/09
Use a block system, perhaps in combination with point system. Note: In a block system, all elements in Tier 1 need to be met before the program can move to the Tier 2; and the progression continues in that way until Tier 5 is reached.
Account for weighting in system design
Incorporate some structural elements in revised licensing standards and then exclude those structural elements from rating system
Use four or five levels where level one includes licensing
Include licensing in entry tier but may require revised licensing standards
Let’s start with reviewing the guidance on the Quality Rating Structure that was provided at our 8/26/09 meeting. The Design Ideas for Licensing and QRIS, the Parent Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement and Advocacy, and the Workforce and Professional Development Subcommittees have used these directions to guide their work over these past two months.
3/28/2017

6. QRS Design in Block System Requires Completing a Matrix of Standards by Tier
Ratios
Group size
Classroom staff education, training & experience
Director education, training & experience
Environment (structure, process or both) rating scale (ERS)
Etc.
Standards
Since one of the directions provided by the Advisory Committee is to use a block system for the Quality Rating Structure, we wanted to show an example of the quality elements that could be combined into a Quality Rating Structure.
In a block system, all the quality criteria in each tier need to be accomplished to obtain that rating. And the tiers build up so that, for example, a Tier 3 program will meet all the criteria listed for Tier 3 and also meet all the quality criteria in Tiers 1 and 2. Programs will match themselves against the criteria to establish which level their overall program obtains.
We’ll start with four elements today, knowing that we’ll have to re-visit them as the Subcommittees deepen their work and additional quality topics and factors are considered.
3/28/2017

7. Potential Application: of QRS (quality rating structure) and QIS (quality improvement systems such as professional development and parent education) by setting and child age
Setting
Child Age
Infants/Toddler
Preschool-Age
Licensed centers
QRS / QIS
Licensed family child care homes
License-exempt home-based care
QIS
Since one of the directions from the Advisory Committee is to include licensing in the entry tier and one of our principles is that all children deserve access to high quality early learning programs, we include this slide to explain that the various parts of the Quality Rating and Improvement System will apply to different parts of the Early Learning and Care delivery system.
The Quality Rating Structure (QRS) applies to programs that are licensed, as licensing will be included in the entry tier.
The Quality Improvement System (QIS) applies to all programs, especially the workforce/professional development system and the parent engagement/involvement system.
Together, the QRS and QIS work together to serve all children 0-5 and is a Quality Rating and Improvement System.
3/28/2017

8. Additional QRIS Guidance Approved by Advisory Committee on 8/26/09
Emphasize quality components in rating system that show stronger links to child outcomes (e.g., process components)
Aim for fewer rather than more components
Explore possible inclusion of options for third-party accreditation, even with issues of alignment and inter-organizational complexity
Pilot and further evaluate components generally viewed as important but with limited research
Experiment in pilot phase with alternative cut points for continuous measures
Explore using independent assessors for higher rating levels
These are additional guidance provided at our 8/26 meeting – and again these directions have helped the various Subcommittees move forward with their work.
3/28/2017

9. Parent involvement
Now we are ready to present the options that have been analyzed and discussed by the Subcommittees and to ask you to approve additional guidance to the Subcommittees.
Each of these first four quality elements will be presented by the Subcommittee Chairs – and then we will ask you to make decisions to help our continued progress.
We’ll start with parent engagement, and I’ll ask Celia to join me to present the work of the Design Subcommittee and the Parent Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement Subcommittee.
3/28/2017

10. Parent Involvement: Issues in Design
Typically not included in ECE licensing standards but elements may be part of specific ECE program standards
The field has not reached consensus on what to assess or even whether to assess parent engagement in QRSs
No consensus on measure to use; existing measures somewhat ad hoc
Highly positive parent ratings argue for more behavioral measures, but these may be more costly to collect
Differences between center-based and family care need to be considered and reconciled
These issues were identified by our expert consultants and are important to understand because even though we know that parent/family involvement is critically important to children’s success in early (and lifelong) learning, most states have not included this element in the Quality Rating Structures because of the difficulty in measuring what is important and measuring it well.
The Design and Parent Involvement Subcommittees want to include a parent involvement/communication element in the QRS, and we’ll discuss the work behind that option for your consideration.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
3/28/2017

11. Parent Involvement in QRS: Examples from Other States and CA
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Pennsylvania (BS) “Partnership w/ Family and Community” –
Families receive info. on community & transitions
Orientation meeting held within 60 days of enrollment
Tier 2 + provide:
Info. on child’s day shared with parents
Parents offered yearly conference
Program requests copy of any IEP
Tier 3 + provide:
Written referral plan to community resources
Offer family group activity
Parents offered two conferences & group meeting on transition
Program participates in K transition
Tier 4 + provide:
Parent engagement & partnership activities
Parents offered a private transition meeting
IEP/FSP activities implemented
New Mexico (BS) “Family Involvement”
PI support statement in parent handbook
Children & parents acknowledged at arrival & departure
Program provides at least two FI activities
At least 3 FI activities incl. newsletter or other communication
Meetings/socials
Child development milestone information
Volunteer opportunities
Colorado (PS)
“Family Partnership”
Tool asks for feedback from parents on orientation, home & volunteer activities, events
It also includes observer documentation of parent policies, child development info, home learning activities, information sharing re child
CA: San Diego County (BS)
“Engaging Families as Partners”
2 annual conferences
Open-door policy
2+ volunteer oppor.
Organized volunteer opportunities
Monthly communication including parent tips
Annual develop. profile
Learning-at-home activities offered
Active Parent Advisory Committee
Parent education workshops
Community collaboration
Both Subcommittees reviewed information on other States (New Mexico, Colorado and Pennsylvania), as well as San Diego County - provided by Gail and Lynn.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
NOTE: BS = Block System; PS = Point System.
3/28/2017

12. Parent Involvement: Possible Design Options for California
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Option I
Provide:
Orientation meeting
Open-door policy
Annual developmental profile
Monthly communication
Tier 1 + provide:
Annual conference
Daily information on child’s day
Community resource referrals list
Tier 2 + provide:
2-way daily communication on child’s day
Monthly parent tips related to curriculum
Tier 3 + provide:
Monthly learning-at-home activity
Twice yearly conference
Request for input regarding child’s strengths and needs
Tier 4 + provide:
Collaboration with other institutions around transitions
At least one yearly parent-generated class or workshop
Request for family product of at-home activity
Option II
Minimum score on PE measure(s) to be piloted
Higher score on PE measure(s) to be piloted
Our expert consultants and CDE staff provided several ideas on strategies that could be included in this quality element, as well as the option of developing our own parent engagement/involvement measure. These options built on the work of other states, CA counties, and available research.
Design Subcommittee considered pros/cons for including parent engagement:
Pros:
Parent engagement improves child outcomes
Levels are comprehensive:
1. Inform: one way communication, 2. Educate: teach, train, prepare; 3. Involve: include, participation; 4. Engage: committed involvement; 5. Partner: engagement
Cons:
Cost
Staff time and training
Defining clearly
3/28/2017

13. Parent Involvement/Communication Element: Engagement and Design Subcommittees
Tiers of Parent Engagement with menu (to be developed) of strategies that are appropriate to different program settings.
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Parent Involvement Subcommittee
Inform Parents
Involve Parents
Engage Parents
Partner and Advocate with parents
Design Subcommittee
Educate Parents
Partner with Parents
The Subcommittees discussed these options and considered the research-based system developed by Dr. Joyce Epstein that has been adapted to early learning programs. Both our Subcommittees want to move forward with another option – a third choice: 1) to use five levels (tiers) of parent communication (Design Subcommittee) and engagement (Parent Involvement Subcommittee) adapted from Dr. Epstein’s work; and 2) to add a menu of strategies that are options for programs to select from that are based on:
1) effective, research-based practice (e.g., Head Start, First 5, Joyce Epstein); and 2) assessment of needs and capacity of children and families served.
Tier 1 Inform Parents means one-way communication; parents receive the information
Tier 2 Educate Parents means to instruct – teach, train and prepare; parents accept or acknowledge the content.
Tier 3 Involve Parents means to include, educate and use other strategies that establish participation. Parents would be included in the program, in the sense of an invitation
Tier 4 Engage Parents means more committed form of involvement; parents are integrated in the program activities in a variety of ways
Tier 5 Partner with parents means engagement in leadership, decision-making, and other activities that will be listed in the ‘menu of strategies’; plus advocacy for their own children and others.
3/28/2017

14. Parent Involvement: Subcommittees’ Factors to move forward:
Plan to develop white paper on goals, expected outcomes, and the support systems needed
Support for pilots, especially for cultural and language appropriateness, effective measures, and inclusive practice for children with special needs. Also to check that the steps roughly equal in difficulty.
Family desires, needs, and capacity must be considered.
Clarity on whether programs “offer parents opportunities” or if “parents must participate” to meet a goal
Be clear about the scope of work (what is expected of the early education and care provider).
The system should be equitable for both center and home based early education and care providers.
These factors are additional areas of Subcommittee work, and we request your guidance on these factors and process steps (e.g., white paper) to assist us with moving forward.
3/28/2017

15. September and October meetings: QRIS Factors for Parent Involvement
Communication and Input Plan for parents and families.
Provide information in multiple languages and formats and in locations parents frequent.
Use non-written communication forms (e.g., radio, television) to reach specific communities, particularly in the morning hours.
Collaborate with state, county, and community-based agencies and groups that have parents as a client base.
Attributes:
Recognize that all families have things to contribute.
It must be convenient for parents to participate relative to time, location, transportation, language translation, child care
Present clear and meaningful messages that respect the cultures and languages of the families within the communities.
These factors are additional areas of Subcommittee work, and we request your guidance on moving forward.
These factors move us into the support and improvement systems needed to effectively implement a QRS. For parent involvement, we will need a communication and input plan initially to ensure that the QRS represents the current views of parents and families. Then, we will also need to develop an outreach and engagement plan. The attributes listed will help us with shaping both the communication/input plan – and then the outreach and engagement plan.
3/28/2017

16. Action Items for Parent Involvement
Develop 5 tiers for Parent Involvement with menu of effective strategies that are appropriate to different program settings and California’s cultural and language groups.
Approve factors for Parent Involvement outlined on slides and provide direction to Subcommittees to continue work.
Here are two action items for the parent involvement element of the QRS.
Dennis – please note any changes made during the discussion of slides #
Camille will ask the Advisory Committee for a motion and a second. Then consider other member comments, public comment – and ask for a vote.
3/28/2017

17. Ratios and group size
I’ll lead the discussion of the next two elements proposed for inclusion in the QRS, as the work on them was done by the Design Subcommittee. I’ll start with Ratios and Group Size – and ask Consuelo to add her perspectives as the Vice-Chair of the Design Subcommittee.
3/28/2017

18. Ratios and Group Size: Issues in Design
Thresholds typically included in ECE licensing requirements and other ECE program standards (e.g., Head Start, Title 5)
Existing standards typically vary with child age and setting
Research evidence suggest ratios matter more than group size
Teacher: Child ratios usually imply a maximum group size
Limited discrete options between standards used in licensing and those associated with high quality programs
Our expert consultants provided information on issues that need to be considered for this quality element. These options built on the work of other states, CA counties, and available research.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
3/28/2017

19. Ratios and Group Size: Existing Center Standards
Infants
Toddlers
Preschool
Child–Adult Ratio
NAEYC
4:1 (0–15 mos)
4:1 (12–18 mos) 6:1 (21–36 mos)
10:1 (2.5–5 years) HS
4:1
8.5:1 (3-year-olds) 10:1 (4-year-olds)
Title 5
3:1 (0–18 mos)
4:1 (18–36 mos)
8:1 (3–5 years)
Title 22
4:1 (0–24 mos)
6:1 (toddler component)
12:1 (2–5 years)
Group Size
8 (0–15 mos)
12 (12–36 mos)
20 (2.5–5 years) 8
17 (3-year-olds) 20 (4-year-olds)
n.a. (effectively 18*)
n.a. (effectively 16*)
n.a. (effectively 24*)
n.a. (effectively 12*)
n.a. (effectively 12* for toddler component)
This chart lists the current Child : Adult Ratios and group sizes for programs which are based on Child : Teacher Ratios. We recognize that the teacher qualifications for each of these program types vary and will need to be considered in relation to the overall QRS.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states in applying the NAEYC and Head Start standards. Camille or CDE or DSS staff could respond to questions about Title 5 or Title 22.
3/28/2017
*Based on child–teacher ratio.

20. Ratios and Group Size in QRS: Examples from Other States and CA
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
North Carolina (PS)
Infant:
Toddler:
Preschool:
5:1 and 10 6:1 and 12 10:1 and 20
15:1 and 25
5:1 and 10 6:1 and 12 9:1 and 18
10:1 and 20 13:1 and 25
4:1 and 8 5:1 and 10 8:1 and 16 9:1 and 18 12:1 and 24
New Mexico (BS)
6:1
10:1
12:1
5:1 and 10
8:1 and 16
10:1 and 24
Nationally accredited
CA: San Diego County
8:1 and 24
10:1 and 20
CA: San Mateo County
This chart provides information about the ratios and group sizes being implemented in QRS in other states and California counties.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
NOTE: BS = Block System; PS = Point System.
3/28/2017

21. Ratios and Group Size: Design Subcommittee’s Possible Design Option
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Option I
Infant:
Toddler:
Preschool:
4:1 and 12
12:1 and 24
3:1 and 18
4:1 and 16
8:1 and 24
3:1 and 8
10:1 and 20
Our expert consultants provided several ideas on strategies that could be included in this quality element, as well as the option of developing our own quality levels for ratio and group size, based on our current ECE program requirements.
These ideas were discussed and further developed to this chart: our Option 1. The info below explains the chart and is the ‘action item’ on the next slide.
All 5 tiers will continue to be refined in relation to research, effective practice, and costs including facility costs
Title 22 standards become the Tier 1 with annual visits and opportunity to revise licensing standards
Title 5 standards become Tier 3
Same levels maintained for Tiers 1-2 and for Tiers 3-4
Improved Tier 5 beyond NAEYC for infants and toddlers to incorporate PITC standards for infants and toddlers:
3:1 ratio for infants; max group size of 8 (PITC)
4:1 ratio for toddlers; max group size of 12 (PITC)
10:1 ratio for preschoolers; max group size of 20 (NAEYC). Note that change in ratios reflects increased professional development at Tier 5.
NOTE: Infant (0–18 months), Toddler (18–36 months), Preschool (3–5 years).
Group sixe based on child–teacher ratio.
3/28/2017

22. Action Item for Ratios and Group Size:
All 5 tiers will continue to be refined in relation to research, effective practice, and costs including facility costs
Title 22 standards become the Tier 1 with annual visits and opportunity to revise licensing standards
Title 5 standards become Tier 3
Same levels maintained for Tiers 1-2 and for Tiers 3-4
Improved Tier 5 beyond NAEYC for infants and toddlers to incorporate PITC standards for infants and toddlers:
3:1 ratio for infants; max group size of 8 (PITC)
4:1 ratio for toddlers; max group size of 12 (PITC)
10:1 ratio for preschoolers; max group size of 20 (NAEYC). Note that change in ratios reflects increased professional development at Tier 5.
Here are five action items for the Ratio and Group Size element of the QRS.
This information in this action item provides the Design Subcommittee’s approach to Ratios and Group Size, and we request your approval. Again, we recognize that the teacher qualifications will need to be considered in relation to this element, as well as the overall QRS. As the QRS elements come together, we will address the interrelationship of the elements and will come back for additional direction from the Advisory Committee.
Dennis – please note any changes made during the discussion.
Camille will ask the Advisory Committee for a motion and a second. Then consider other member comments, public comment – and ask for a vote.
3/28/2017

23. Environment
Now we are ready to move to a discussion of Environment Rating Scales as part of our Quality Rating Structure.
Issues in Environment Rating Scales (ERS) that have been provided by Gail and Lynn and discussed by the Design Subcommittee include:
Typically not included in ECE licensing standards but may be part of specific ECE program standards
Some scales comprised of subscales but intended for use as aggregate scales (e.g., ECERS)
Standards may apply at the facility level
Use average score across all assessed classrooms
Use average facility score with minimum for each classroom
Standards may apply only at the classroom level
Each classroom must meet standard
Scales or subscales are continuous measures so room to define many cut points
Assumption typically is that the scale intervals are equal
But research may show this assumption is not correct
3/28/2017

24. Environment Rating Scale (ERS) in QRS: Examples from Other States and CA
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
North Carolina (PS) (birth to 5) –
F: ERS ≥ 4.0
F: ERS ≥ 4.5
F: ERS ≥ 5.0
Pennsylvania (BS) (birth to 5)
Learning environ. checklist
Self* ERS QI plan if any subscale < 3.0
F: ERS ≥ 4.25 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any subscale < 3.5
F: ERS ≥ 5.25 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any subscale <4.25
CA: Los Angeles County (preschool)
ECERS ≥ 4.0 (no subscale < 3.0)
ECERS ≥ 5.0 (no subscale < 3.0)
ECERS ≥ 6.0 (no subscale < 3.0)
CA: San Diego County (preschool)
ECERS ≥ 4.0
ECERS ≥ 4.5
ECERS ≥ 5.0
CA: San Mateo County (preschool)
ECERS ≥ 4.0 then ≥ 5.0 w/in 24 mos.
(no additional requirements)
Our expert consultants and CDE staff provided several ideas on strategies that could be included in this quality element. These options built on the work of other states, CA counties, and available research.
Ask Abby to respond to any questions on research and work of other states.
NOTE: F = Facility average; C = Classroom score; BS = Block System; PS = Point System; QI = quality improvement. ERS = ECERS or ITERS depending on age group. * Conducted by director or lead teacher who has received some training on ERS.
3/28/2017

25. Environment Rating Scale (ERS): Possible Design Options for California
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Option I: ERS only
Licensing (new Title 22)
Self* ERS QI plan if any subscale < 3.0
F: ERS ≥ 4.0 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any subscale < 3.5
F: ERS ≥ 4.5 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any subscale < 4.0
F: ERS ≥ 5.0 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any subscale < 4.5
Option II: Option I plus CLASS (CLS)
Self* CLS QI plan if any item < 4.0
F: CLS** ≥ 5.0 C: CLS** ≥ QI plan if any item < 4.5
F: CLS** ≥ 5.5 C: CLS** ≥ QI plan if any item < 5.0
F: ERS ≥ 6.0 C: ERS ≥ QI plan if any item < 5.5
NOTE: F = Facility average; C = Classroom score; QI = quality improvement. ERS = ECERS or ITERS depending on age group; CLS = CLASS. * Conducted by director or lead teacher who has received some training on ERS / CLASS. ** Cutoff is applied separately for each CLASS subscale: Emotional Support (ES), Classroom Organization (CO), and Instructional Support (IS). Cutoff for IS is 2.0 points lower.
The Design Subcommittee members considered two options provided by Lynn Karoly and Gail Zellmen based on the work of other states and available research: Option 1) to use one environment rating scale that focuses primarily on structural quality factors, or Option 2) to use a combination of environment rating scales that would include structural quality factors and the entry tiers and add more process quality factors such as teacher-child interactions at higher tiers.
The Design Subcommittee discussed pros/cons for using an ERS:
Pros:
Set standards
Compare Programs/Reliable
Can include both process and structural quality
Understandable and measurable
Cons:
No one tool addresses everything
Tool itself is not understandable to all
Cost of on-going implementation
3/28/2017

26. Environment Rating Scale Design Subcommittee Responses
ERS needs to be core of QRS and include:
Teacher/child interactions at higher levels/tiers
Tier 1 is entry level
Tier 1 needs to include each of the following:
Health and safety standards
Curriculum
Evidence that staff is trained in the curriculum
Lesson planning
The Design Subcommittee discussed the use of ERS in the QRS and developed these overall factors.
There is strong support for including ERS and some preliminary work on what needs to be included (third bullet). This supports the Design Subcommittee’s plan to develop options for revising licensing to include an education component, in addition to basic health and safety.
ERS tool not yet determined – may be a combination of tools as well as tools applicable to different early learning sites
Teacher – child interaction rating may be included at higher levels
3/28/2017

27. Environment Rating Scale Design Subcommittee Responses
Prefer Option 2 with:
Level 1: health and safety with some quality components (revised Title 22 Licensing Stds)
Level 5: Appropriate subscales for ECERS-R and CLASS for prek; ITERS and PARS/PITC for Infant/Toddlers; FCCERS or PARS for FCCH
Intermediate steps to motivate improvement
Need to analyze levels for ERS scales at each Tier
Long term option to develop own, non-proprietary scale that aligns with Foundations and Framework
This slide summarizes the work of the Design Subcommittee in developing Option 2, particularly to reflect the tools needed for Infant-Toddler programs and early learning programs provided in FCCH.
3/28/2017

28. Environment Rating Scales: More Discussion Issues by Subcommittees
Which ERSs should be used and in what combination and which subscales (e.g., ECERS and CLASS in center-based programs)?
Should there be self-assessment at lower tiers? If so, how should these scores be treated compared to those from independent assessors?
Should scores be averaged across assessed classrooms, or must all classrooms meet the standard? Should subscale minimums be applied within a classroom?
How many classrooms should be assessed at each age level?
These listed issues are provided for background about our next steps. These questions – and more – will be discussed by Design Subcommittee members to further clarify the specific scales and other considerations. The group also discussed the need to limit the QRS to a few key indicators, and that the larger QIS could include training in many more quality components.
The group also began a discussion on the use of third-party accreditation, such as the NAEYC process. Abby Cohen, NCCIC and one of our expert consultants, has advised that we develop California’s QRS and then cross-walk our quality elements with other systems (such as NAEYC, Head Start, Montessori) and determine which elements are met by the other system – and which ones would have to be added to reach a comparable tier. In other word, to give credit to other quality assessment systems and not create a redundant process – and still to ensure that California’s quality rating structure elements are in place.
3/28/2017

29. Action Items for Environment Rating Scales (ERS):
Develop Option 2 with combination of subscales for ERS that focuses on structural quality at entry levels and moves to process quality (such as teacher-child interactions) at higher levels and will include updating licensing standards for Tier 1
Approve continued work on factors outlined on slides 26-27
Here are two action items for the Environment Rating Scale element of the QRS.
This information in this action item provides the Design Subcommittee’s approach to the Environment Rating Scale, and we request your approval.
Dennis – please note any changes made during the discussion of slides #
Camille will ask the Advisory Committee for a motion and a second. Then consider other member comments, public comment – and ask for a vote.
3/28/2017

30. Staff education and training
Now we’ll move to staff education and training, and I’ll ask Dave to join me to present the work of the Design Subcommittee and the Workforce and Professional Development Subcommittee.
3/28/2017

31. Staff Education and Training: Existing Center Standards
Director
Lead Teacher
Assistant Teacher
NAEYC
12c ECE (3c GE) & 4 yrs exp. AA
75% w/ BA by 2020
50% w/ CDA or equiv. or enrolled to obtain CDA HS
CDA or AT Permit
100% w/ AA by 2011
50% w/ BA by 2013
HSG
100% CDA by 2013
Title 5
SS or PD Permit, or
Elem. teaching credential w/ 6c in ECE admin. & 12c in ECE/CD or 2 yrs exp.
AT Permit, or
Elem. teaching credential w/ 12c in ECE/CD or 2 yrs exp.
Title 22
BA in ECE & 1 yr exp., or
AA in ECE & 2 yrs exp., or
HSG or GED, 15c ECE (3c admin) & 4 yrs exp.
Entry: A Permit or 6u ECE
Full: AT Permit or 12u ECE & 6 mos. exp.
This slide presents the current staff education and training standards for licensed centers in CA. There is a wide spectrum of standards.
Though not specifically addressed on this chart, there are additional issues in the workforce/professional development element that were provided by our Expert Consultants:
Staff education and training are typically included in ECE licensing standards and specific ECE program standards
Standards are usually specific to level of staff (e.g., Director, Lead Teacher, Assistant Teacher, Aide)
Standards often combine requirements for credentials or degrees, field of study, quantity of courses in field, other training hours, and experience
May allow substitution (e.g., experience for coursework) though not in CA for Title 22 or Title 5
Standards may vary if apply to child care for ages 0 to 5 versus just preschool for ages 3 to 4 or 4 only
Cut points usually based on discrete increments in degrees, hours of coursework, or years of experience
NOTE: AA = Associate’s degree; BA = Bachelor’s degree; HSG = high school graduate; c = credits (or units); CD = child development; ECE = early care and education; GE = general education; CDA = Child Development Associate; I = Infant; T = Toddler; P = Preschool. For California ECE permits: A = Assistant Teacher; AT = Associate Teacher; T = Teacher, MT = Master Teacher, SS = Site Supervisor; PD = Program Director.
3/28/2017

32. Staff Education and Training: Title 5 Family Child Care Home Education Networks and Independent Licensed Providers
Title 22
Title 5
Title 5 Network Providers
Yes
Requires CA Emergency Medical Services Authority Approved Health and Safety Training (15 hours)
Title 22 staff education and training requirements for Network Providers (no Title 5 requirements)
Program Director Permit Required of Network Contractor
Independent Providers No
Information provided by the CDE/CDD.
The Subcommittees intend to work to include licensed Family Child Care Homes in the QRS -Quality Rating Structure, and this slide provides information about the current staff training and education requirements for FCCH.
3/28/2017

33. Staff Education and Training
Three components to define ‘qualified teacher’ by Workforce Subcommittee:
Meets standards of formal education (units earned)
Demonstrates competence through supervised practical experience
Continues to meet professional growth requirements over time, including mentoring and advisement
Integrate Early Childhood Educator Competencies into unit-bearing coursework and professional growth plan, then into career ladder and revisions to ECE Permit. Integrate I/T and PreK Foundations, Curriculum Framework, and child development screening and assessment.
The Workforce Subcommittee agreed on three components to define ‘qualified teacher’ which is core to the design of a high-quality early learning and care program. Please note that the ongoing work of the Workforce and Design Subcommittees (as they fully develop the QRS tiers) will be connected to the Early Childhood Educator Competencies Project coordinated by CDE and F5.
The Early Childhood Educator Competencies will be integrated into unit-bearing coursework and a professional growth plan, then into a career ladder and revisions to ECE Permit. The I/T and PreK Foundations, Curriculum Framework, and child development screening and assessment resources will also be included. The work will follow a parallel course for several months and will come together during the summer of 2010, so it can be integrated into the QRS prior to public hearings. We are working to ensure that QRIS supports California’s newly emerging and improved professional development system so it is clear and supportive of those who are pursuing a career in early learning and improving their practice with children.
3/28/2017

34. Staff Education and Training
Responses from Workforce and Design Subcommittees:
One set of professional qualification standards that are applicable for Centers and Family Child Care Home (FCCH) staff with longer phase-in period for FCCH staff
Current program-specific professional qualification standards will be combined, so there is one set for all early learning and care programs
Financial incentives, including subsidies, should provide incentives for moving up to higher tiers for individuals and programs
Encourage many gateways to enter ECE workforce
License-exempt providers need to have access to extensive training and support. Since licensing is included in the entry tier, they are not in the ‘quality rating structure.’
These responses from the Workforce and Design Subcommittees illustrate the importance that the Subcommittee members give to revamping California’s professional development support and delivery system, including constructing key components of the professional development system to better meet the needs of the workforce (e.g., compensation, registry for workforce data, etc.). We all want that system to be easily accessible, customer-friendly, and provide a seamless path in career preparation and continued professional development.
That systemic support is essential to the success of the staff education and training element of the QRS – and will be the main focus of the Workforce Subcommittee, in conjunction with the continued work on the QRS tiers.
Please review and provide any feedback that will give additional direction to the Subcommittees moving forward.
3/28/2017

35. Staff Education and Training
Other responses by Design Subcommittee:
Set qualifications in QRS for head teachers, as it’s clear and easier to explain
Build high quality professional development system for all providers; we can’t achieve quality without it
Flexible, effective system of supports and incentives with mixed delivery for professional development
QRIS workforce components (Workforce Subcommittee):
Workforce/professional development standards with measurement tools to determine if standards are met
Quality training for assessors and those being assessed
Accountability via data in registry
Competency not tied to employer/program
These responses from the Workforce and Design Subcommittees further the discussion that the Subcommittee members had on the improvement and expansion of the professional development support and delivery system.
Please review and provide any feedback that will give additional direction to the Subcommittees moving forward, particularly for the QRIS workforce components.
3/28/2017

36. Staff Education and Training: Factors in establishing Tiers (Workforce Subcommittee)
Staff education and training needs to vary at each tier with progressively higher teacher qualifications and sufficient funding to incentivize additional education and training
Standards need to be equally high to meet the needs of children 0-5 (or 0-9); not acceptable to have different qualifications for various age groups in early learning programs
Teachers need to be qualified to work with the age group of children they are teaching
Quality standards need to apply to all staff in a program – not a percentage
Demonstrated competence is important to a qualified workforce in education, experience, and ongoing professional development
Dave – notes from the 10/28 Workforce Subcommittee conference call:
Staff education and training need to vary at each tier from entry (Title 22 and 5) to ECE credential or more at Tier 5. Provide a 5-7 year timeframe for revising/upgrading the QRS including licensing standards. Essential to provide funding for compensation/incentives to move up.
All children need a qualified teacher who is educated/trained to work with their age group (e.g., Infant/Toddler teachers need training in working with Infants/Toddlers – not a high school teacher)
Though members want all staff in a program to have the same level of training to reach that Tier, they noted that maintenance would be a challenge due to funding and monitoring.
The concept of ‘demonstrated competence’ was accepted, though substituting experience for education was not. How that will be done needs to be defined. The PITC process and supervised field experience may be viable options to apply to the Early Educator Competencies, as would other strategies that could provide alternatives for a variety of practitioners (and still maintain high quality and accountability).
3/28/2017

37. Staff Education and Training
Initial Ideas for Tiers
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Work-force Subc
12 units at accredited college (Licensing Title 22)
ECE credential for lead teacher
Design Subc
12 units at accredited College (Licensing Title 22)
24 Units in ECE
AA in ECE
BA in ECE
Both the Workforce and Design Subcommittees want to develop tiers for professional development, including education, supervised experience, and continuing professional development - with consideration of the Early Educator Competencies and California’s career ladder that are being developed. The Workforce Subcommittee will also provide options to improve and expand the delivery system for professional development.
Please note that Tier 1 presently combines the staff education and training required for teachers by Title 22 and Title 5. The difference is that Title 5 teachers also need to have a Permit through CTC.
This slide shows our initial work, and much more will be done before we have the tiers for this quality element ready for your approval.
3/28/2017

38. Action Items for Professional Development Element:
Continue to work on tiers for Early Educator Professional Development with consideration of Early Educator Competencies and California’s career ladder, including the delivery system for professional development.
Approve inclusion of Early Educator Professional Development in the QRS with continued work on factors outlined on slides
Here are two action items for the Staff Education and Training element of the QRS.
This information in this action item provides the Workforce and Design Subcommittees’ approach to Staff Education and Training, and we request your approval.
Dennis – please note any changes made during the discussion of slides #
Camille will ask the Advisory Committee for a motion and a second. Then consider other member comments, public comment – and ask for a vote.
3/28/2017

39. Other Possible QRS Quality Components for Future Discussion
Curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation
Administrative policies & procedures
Staff compensation/ professional development
Health & safety measures
Health & developmental screenings
Approaches to children with special needs
Approaches to cultural competence
Our Subcommittees’ work will continue as we address additional quality elements that may be considered as separate elements, or may be integrated into one (or more) of our first four quality elements for California’s quality rating structure.
For example, ideas for other elements for QRS:
Curriculum that is research-based or aligned with California’s Early Learning Foundations and Frameworks
Teaching personnel trained in the curriculum and child assessments
Lesson planning including child observations and reflection on the observations
Thank you for a productive and helpful discussion today and for making decisions that move our work forward and closer to our goal of improving the quality of California’s early learning and care programs so our children have better outcomes, and we close our school readiness gap. Again, many thank to our Subcommittee members, CDE staff, and expert consultants.
3/28/2017

40. Materials on Which Presentation is Based
Forrey, Nicole, Jessica Vick, and Tamara Halle, Evaluating, Developing, and Enhancing Domain-Specific Measures of Child Care Quality, , Washington, D.C.: Child Trends,
Karoly, Lynn A., Preschool Adequacy and Efficiency in California: Issues, Policy Options, and Recommendations, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MG-889,
Mitchell, Anne, Kristen Kerr, and Juana Armenta, “Comparison of Financial Incentives in States’ Quality Rating and Improvement Systems,” New York, NY: Early Childhood Policy Research, November Nov2008.pdf
Tout, Kathryn, Martha Zaslow, Tamara Halle, and Nicole Forry, Issues for the Next Decade of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, , Washington, D.C.: Child Trends,
Zellman, Gail L., and Michal Perlman, Child-Care Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in Five Pioneer States: Implementation Issues and Lessons Learned, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MG-795,
Zellman, Gail L., Michal Perlman, Vi-Nhuan Le, and Claude Messan Setodji, Assessing the Validity of the Qualistar Early Learning Quality Rating and Improvement System as a Tool for Improving Child Care Quality, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MG-650,
These citations were compiled by Gail Zellman and Lynn Karoly, RAND, in developing the ideas that were discussed and analyzed through the Design, Engagement, and Workforce Subcommittees for the first four elements of California’s Quality Rating Structure. Their assistance, and the assistance of Abby Cohen and Marcy Whitebook, are greatly appreciated.
3/28/2017