how might we improve the outcomes and continuous improvement of 17701? after over 20 years of experience in state-funded early education programs with programs that have had strong program philosophies, goals, and objective, the state has only ever asked to see them (i.e. do we have them), but not really measure if children and families are better off because of philosophies, goals, and objectives and if my programs have even met the goals and objectives laid out. Are the goals and objectives SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-bound). and also to see how we are developing professionals (teachers, aides, child care providers, etc., meaning all early childhood educators) within our stated philosophies, goals, and objectives
allow for, but not required?
hear, hear!
I second Fabiola’s comment about recommending a state communication’s approach to communication and family outreach, building on what we heard from NYC’s outreach strategy.
To clarify, this is a Title 5 regulation, not the Education Code. The citation is 5 CCR section 17701. The parallel regulation for CDSS Title 5 programs is 5 CCR 18271 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 18271 - Program Philosophy, Goals and Objectives | State Regulations | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 18271 - Program Philosophy, Goals and Objectives
In addition to having a centralized eligibility list, having one agency coordinate family enrollment and provider participation for UPK (as is the case in NYC) could also be effective.
strongly encourage, but not required, correct?
I think we need to really look more into how other states have included special education students. The issues I have that may be a deterrent or an obstacle are:
School district employees are unionized.
1 How do we work with the union
a. make sure that caseload/workload is being considered when bridging LEA and Family Child Care centers?
b. Training from a qualified educator - may be a school employee who goes to FCC? How does this reflect on the workload for the district special education teacher.
c. How will the services be given? If parent has child in a FCC then who will provide the services on the IEP?
These are just a few of the questions that need to be addressed between LEA and FCC. I am glad that other states have looked into this. But we do need to see how to streamline this for CA.
Thank you
I agree with all those that are stating that what is written does not always reflect what is actually implemented or in practice. How might these goals and objectives be rolled into a QRIS system that aligns with the areas that this workgroup is looking at:
High-Quality Programs
Child-Centered Learning Environments
Family Engagement
Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity
Program Administration
Monitoring, and Governance
Competent and Supportive Workforce
All our Kin asked me to share: “We at All Our Kin work with educators who take subsidy, and now of course some are in networks (in CT & NY states) and we administer an EHS program that blends EHS and subsidy. This question could also be explored with a systems building lens as well.”
Developing systems and policy that promote and ease the ability to create co-mingled early learning opportunities across our continuum will be important to creating inclusive, equitable, and diverse child centered and culturally affirming learning environments with more opportunities to also “co-mingle” our workforce so that our educators more often reflects our children and families across all settings.
In Head Start programs, it is strongly encouraged - but not required - because not all programs offer both service models.
We are now in the session about Workforce recommendations
Many states have a “peer review” model for educator licensing that looks at how educators meet defined competencies. Documenting life experiences, courses taken, etc. in a portfolio and reviewed by a committee. This was a very helpful avenue for family child care providers in Vermont who were seeking educator licensing so that they could participate in the mixed delivery system model and access public education dollars. Peer Review - Alternative Route to Licensure | Agency of Education
From the Military Model on Workforce - things to hang on to:
- We Inspect What we Expect (so let’s make sure our expectations are informed by what evidence proves makes a difference in child/family/provider outcomes (culturally-appropriate care, flexibility in achieving professional development, Substitute Pool, Pay Equity, etc)
Their Goal is Simple and ours should be as well: Support Working Families AND Provide High Quality Pre-K Education
I was a family child care provider on a military base in the early 90’s and I still hold up my TAC as one of my very best mentoring coaching experiences with an IPDP, coaching and on the job support with direct feedback in my own environment and with a child centered focus based on the children in my home. It was a very impactful system to my career development and my focus on building leaders from within our system, prioritizing a train-coach-train model. Thank you for making space here for the military system for our consideration.
like the CDA portfolio and mentor/reviewer model?
Re the military model…Why would a current FCCH need to do an internship? When and where? Is it paid? What happens to the children currently in their care?
Similar but aligned with the Birth to Grade 3 educator license. So in CA - aligned with our new P-3 credential. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/pk-3-handbook.pdf?sfvrsn=74bd26b1_24
Understanding we are to not increase costs with any recommendations… however, one can dream and perhaps start planning for a future where California borrows from other states like Alabama that apparently " sets aside special funding to address salary parity in community-based child care and education settings." according to the NIEER Presenter… WHOOOAAA that’s wonderful!!!