UPK Mixed Delivery Quality and Access Exploration: What is our vision for
Quality Preschool through Mixed Delivery in CA and how will we get there?
The Workgroup will explore the following overarching questions through a
combination of presentations, facilitated discussions, and public comment: a. What do we want children to experience in high-quality preschool in California? b. Where does CA need to go to better support quality AND mixed delivery?
Love the new graphic and supporting document for this work. I do think home visiting (a major Head Start service delivery option) needs to be better called out, identified, and included - as opposed to home-based (i.e. FCCH); also not sure if and how FFN fits in.
Provide investment to make easy the participation of family child care providers this is huge in the creation/establishment of a successful Universal Pre-Kindergarten Mixed Delivery System. I appreciated that mention in the presentation. I also think it’s important to be firm - language like “to the extent feasible” should be removed as it is imperative we make the changes proven to make a positive difference in the lives of children. Hire staff that reflect the community, ensure outreach to focused populations like "multi-language learners, children with special needs and minoritized communities yields higher enrollment in the classroom from them. I also agree that beyond enrollment the state needs to ensure teachers are reimbursed/paid for their time in professional development opportunities - this is also critically important for family child care providers that must be explicitly included.
What do we want children to experience…?
Mixed age groups and class sizes need to be careful curated to ensure the E and I of DEI are appropriately addressed especially as minimum numbers of children with identified (and yet to be identified) disabilities are required. For example, FCCHs are limited to 8 or 14 children due to the mixed age group design of this service delivery option/model. As we being to see more 3 year-olds and potentially 2 year-olds in CSPP let’s be mindful of this. Per child funding per day funding and affordability (aka cost effectiveness) flies in the face of this approach, so we also need to be cognizant of the fiscal implications of smaller group sizes/ratios.
Where does CA need to go…?
Educational cumulative records need to be started at the UPK level and follow children along their entire public educational journey in our state. We need to have CALPADS unique identifiers for all UPK Mixed Delivery students generated as well as have developmental, social/emotional, and health screening tools conducted plus developmental and other readiness assessments follow students.
The recommendation around DEI from trust for learning:
the first bullet having educators that speak that language, it would be important to note that the environment should reflect language access practices, in languages other than English to be inclusive and welcoming.
having trained staff that speak the Children’s language when assessing development in home language and English is critical
materials bullet having language access would be more in alignment to inclusion.
I also agree about having a bilingual program as intentional practice and approach is important to support.
I support that there is culture shift that needs to occur to ensure that all students are seen as general education students, with some requiring additional supports or services. The federal definition of a regular early childhood program only requires that at least 51% of the students be typically developing (not on IEPs). Creating any sort of cap in excess of the federal requirements will have an impact on many blended programs that have been successful with nearly a 51/49 ratio. Additionally it is important to remember that students with IEPs have a variety of needs, some requiring only minimal supports and services (i.e. Speech for articulation).
While I don’t disagree with your comment Fabiola, I also do think language such as “to the extent feasible” allows for challenges at the local level to be mitigated. It also allows for regulators to measure what efforts have been conducted at the local level to address and/or meet requirements. In Head Start we are now seeing even more challenges with the BA requirement for teachers - all this to say, hard lines may not always be best when implementing changes over the long term.
I echo Scott’s comment on the need for accessible professional development/training for early educators on inclusive practices, including supporting children with exceptional needs. This is a need that I have heard directly from providers.
We are talking about “inclusion” and I apologize if I have missed this: Do we have a working definition of inclusion that we are using to ensure that we are on the same page? LRE/inclusion doesn’t mean the same thing for all students.
I really appreciated Dr. Ansina Green’s comments which also makes me think about the recommendations related to the written report and the efforts to hire educators and other staff that reflect the racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds… and ensuring that such hiring does not position diverse staff in low level, lower paid positions but also highlight the importance of people of color in leadership
