I’d like to discuss II.B.M. Share a process and criteria for reviewing and determining which self-evaluation and monitoring reports required by other local, state, or federal agency requirements, such as Head Start and QCC would be accepted for program monitoring. (I didn’t really understand it as written.)
2 Likes
Quality Standards Recommendations
Page 46 - Proposed New Regulations: D. Create a new Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity section…I believe DEI should be infused in all sections of the document and not a stand-alone topic
4 Likes
and/or I’d like to discuss II. B. N, "Include that staff professional development should be aligned with the PTKLF, in addition to the DRDP, and consider additional topics for inclusion in allowed topics for paid staff professional development days, pursuant to Education Code Section 8251. "
Right now, it’s written into EdCode what topics of PD can be covered during staff PD days. I wondered if the regulations could be changed to provide more flexibility to contractors.
I wish there were more connection and inclusion of TK in this work report.
CDE plays a major role in our state’s public education, and the children/families and teachers need their guidance. Having TK be such a minor part of this workgroup or report, even the in the graphic, is tricky, as 1000s if not the majority of CA’s 4-year-olds are and will be in those classrooms. Teachers and associates in the daily classroom, as they are also part of a larger school system with administration, need to have articulated support for implementing these many excellent recommendations.
2 Likes
It’s important for us to have a common understanding of what inclusion and LRE means and that it does not mean the same for all children who may have an IEP. For example, in the case of d/hh children, consider the following:
For deaf and hard of hearing children, the United States Department of Education has clarified “the consideration of LRE as part of the placement decision must always be in the context in which appropriate services can be provided. Any setting which does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf, and therefore does not allow for the provision of FAPE, cannot be considered the LRE for the child.”110
Just as placement in the regular education setting is required when it is appropriate for the unique needs of a child who is deaf, so is removal from the regular education setting required when the child’s needs cannot be met in that setting with the use of supplementary aids and services.111
Thus, LRE for a deaf or hard of hearing child may be in schools designed specifically for the education of deaf and hard of hearing children (these schools may use ASL or spoken English); in deaf and hard of hearing programs housed within general education schools; or in the general education classroom (called “mainstreaming”), with or without an ASL interpreter and/or technological aids, including the use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and/or FM systems; or some combination of the above.112
I’d like to discuss: II E 4 (p. 59) Teacher Qualifications.
I recommend adding UPK MDS grant as well as the upcoming UPK P&I Phase 2 grant to those being recommended to allow for a no-cost extension in II D H c (page57)
How to better define UPK MD that is not only inclusive of CDE funded programs but considers CDSS funded programs to avoid
a false understanding of what MD truly is to support family options. (pp. 24-25)
2 Likes
Interested in discussing 2CB: “Implement changes to define a day of operation as inclusive of professional development days (up to the number of days specified by the CDE) through the most effective regulatory or statutory mechanism.”
Would further recommend increasing the number of allowable PD days to at least 6 as well as encouraging a portion of the professional development time to be dedicated to supporting Dual Language Learners (DLLs), particularly in programs that serve a large percentage of DLLs.
1 Like
Clarifying the ERS will still be used in CDSS title V programs.
1 Like
we had lots of downtime this afternoon and appears that we would’ve had time to discuss II E 4 (p. 59) Teacher Qualifications which I had listed above by 3:05p; disappointed we did not elevate this for work group discussion and of public comment
Thanks for sharing your concern Tony. As we mentioned, we wanted to make sure we had ample time to discuss the identified topic and to ensure our state partners were also prepared to engage in the conversation. We will look forward to discussing this issue with the workgroup and the public on 2/2
I think this is a very important comment that needs to be addressed. If this workgroup is charged with UPK Mixed Delivery that is specific to CDE ran programs, it needs to be more clear. There are still too many in the field associating this with DSS contracted programs and I am not sure we have done a great job creating alignment among CPSS and TK.
Understood, thanks for clarifying.