As programs often tend to be blended/layered funding model, we actually all need to be monitored by the different funding authorities. We all have licensing visits from CCL, CSPP/CCTR review, HS federal review, QRIS, HS CLASS review…We end up follow all of them. In UPK, depending on how we blend the funds, we will again follow the particular funding requirements. When there are differences, we follow the most stringent regulation. This is in a way not a bad thing. But again, it is inconsistent and not an equitable picture. Each type of programs sometimes has different expectation too. For example, family style meals at Head start. In the blended funds, which fund will pay for what services…A lot to figure out. One question, does UPK needs to happen on school district property, or can it take place in the CBO? (Is it still open for us to make recommendations?)
How might TK expansion be impacting parents’ utilization of current programs (CSPP, AP, private-pay programs, etc.)? Was this a factor that Dr. Fuller evaluated when conducting his most recent research? Will he consider evaluating this factor in the future, particularly with the continued planned expansion of TK?
@b_fuller another Q here for you
I am curious as we review the preliminary data reflecting enrollment in various programs, I am reflecting on the fact that each county LPC compiles zip code priority data that is submitted to the state and supports with identifying areas of need. How does the expansion of TK impact priorities raised within the zip code priority data? The zip code priority data reflects children served, but does not identify whether or not family needs are actually met. For example, a child may be enrolled in a part day program and be counted as served, but the family may actually require full day care. I would be interested in being able to identify children who would in that case only be “partially” served. This would assist as a measure of quality with respect to fully meeting family needs.
A very good point… tried to respond but muted. You are correct, some fee-charging pre-Ks do serve kids financed thru AP. It’s difficult to get an exact count. Thanks for raising. -Bruce
acronym used to be GCC (General Center-based Childcare), then standardization came in to play with contracting and it went to CCTR (California CenTeR-based general childcare) like California State Preschool Program (CSPP) and California MIGrant center-based childcare.
Mei Hua, do you use San Francisco’s MOCHA software in your Head Start program? It’s my understanding that this program allows providers who blend and braid multiple contracts to have a single place to track enrollment, and it also allows the city to identify openings and prioritize them for children with highest need–the matching idea you mentioned. I think this is critical so we can use all space and funding available to serve children- and also not overburden providers who take extra steps to serve children from families with different income levels in their program.
Thanks for the questions, Dr Deidre: In April we hope to have Head Start data… it’s taken a few months to get HS enrollment by zip code / community. Stay tuned.
Remember that before HS and CSPP, we only had pre-Ks or ‘nursery schools’ that charged fees. This sector has remained large – mainly in middle-class and affluent areas – despite the steady growth of publicly funded pre-Ks.
The Working Group may want to explore… esp given that CSPP will now be available to families earning under the state median income… that is, many middle class families. Bruce
Dreaming about California being the best place to raise a family - because we have a simple connected early childhood system where all California families know that this state prioritizes supports for all day child care (should you need it) through access to high quality settings that meet your needs, include options that prioritize your home language/culture/special needs accommodations, and are accessible to you (family-based, center-based near your home ) where providers are paid a living wage, are trained appropriately and are happy to welcome your child. No matter your income, California ensures you are set with access to high quality early care and education from the very beginning. After your child turns say 3, there is a smooth transition to something called Preschool for a whole year, (for either half day or full day depending on your needs), then at age 4 your child is automatically enrolled in Transitional Kindergarten at their feeder elementary school where they will also enter Kindergarten the next year and will learn with their peers that will stay with them through at least 5th grade. What a great state to raise a family we would be!
Great question, Elsa. Sending an earlier paper on the topic. Infrastructure built via HS or CSPP begets more capacity… when TK or other programs expand. But some concentrations of 3-4 year olds are not in areas with historically stronger organizational capacity. Bruce
Thank you for this explanation. I have searched and searched for years and couldn’t find an understanding of how CCTR translates to General Child Care.
MOCHA was discontinued since June last year due to system issues. Programs used it for a short while. This year, the city just unveil a different enrollment system, only for tracking purpose, not to place or match families.
I think, similar to the State 801A system with the capacity to collect data from all programs, there must be a way to do the same for enrollment purpose. Maybe we can also look at whether other states has best practice, as this will be very important to figure out for the family accessibility.
and how might we streamline things at the state level?
This topic was automatically closed after 18 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.