Thank you for your comment! TK staff may currently participate in PD opportunities funded through CSPP QRIS; however, to your point, they cannot receive Site Block Grants and Incentives, or any direct supports through CSPP QRIS. The CDE encourages joint PD opportunities for CSPP and TK staff. The Education Code Section for CSPP QRIS is very specific to CSPP programs participating in the QRIS/QCC system. Are you in favor of changing that Ed Code Section to allow more flexibilities for TK staff?
This recommendation lays out the arrays of topics that are important for staff to be comfortable and competent in the work. It also shows time for training is essential, but hard to find. Families need their children to be in school, so that they can go to work. However, we do need time to do PD for staff, but we are open every day. In Massachusetts, the QRIS funds allow program to be able to close 4 days out of the year to do staff training, clean up the classrooms or do any adaptation to the classroom environment. Maybe we should look at the possibility such as this.
We should merge CDSS/QI with CDE/QRIS PD initiativeâs as one to align with age group/grade level where current long standing expertise exist. This should reflect coaching and mentoring currently funded by https://cecmp.org/. Separate quality initiatives creates continual confusion and bifurcation in these early care and learning system for similar age cohort of children.
#41: social/emotional development should be called out here as it is a foundational precursor to the language, literacy, and numeracy which are specifically called out here; play-based learning environments should be specifically called out here;
how will institutions of higher learning (IHLs) be brought in to the fold with this recommendation and how will they be more readily responsive? e.g. the bridge pathway credential to go from ECE to TK is still not ready at many IHLs yet here we are in year 3 of UTK (and actually longer since TK Sep-Dec b-days have been in existence for nearly a decade)
#20: survey should include a balance of parent satisfaction, child outcomes (desired results), and social service referral information; e.g. overall, were you satisfied with the program; what worked well; what didnât work well; did your child flourish as a results of the program; were you given appropriate family support to any immediate or emerging needs or challenges experienced
#19: how about also adding linguistically relevant and developmentally appropriate in addition to culturally appropriate (would informed be better here than appropriate?)?
#40: agree with this recommendation and do it in such a way that allows for a broader approach to workforce development and recruitment; there are so many programs out there and they are not aligned (e.g. classified to certificated funding, early educator teacher development funding, educator effectiveness funding, Head Start programs using their own grantee funding to create local workforce pipeline programs, and so on)
#44: this is overly complex; ratios should be ratios independent from staff member qualifications; staff member qualifications should have a quality standard minimum, not a moving target; while 1:10 begins to align TK and Head Start, there are benefits to the 1:8 and as classrooms that are predominantly comprised of 3 year olds, in Head Start the class size gets capped at 17; there are benefits to have 3 adults in a classroom; 1:10 also doesnât work for small FCCHs as they are licensed for 6-8 and for large FCCHs 2:20 or 3:24 wouldnât work either as they are capped at 12-14
there are existing challenges with the current permit matrix that have not been addressed and so we should build off of what is existing and address the challenges with it, not create something else brand new; e.g. expiring Assoc Teacher permit is a disservice to the field, no clear pathway from CDP to TK-12 for educators or administrators (program director permit carries no weight when in the company of administrative services credentials), the CDP matrix alienates the private child care community (FCCHs and Centers)
how might this work group provide input to the forthcoming CTC Child Development Permit workgroup since it is now being referenced as part of recommendations from our workgroup prior to the CTC CDP workgroup finalizing their recommendations?
understanding that the bridge credential to go from ECE to TK is also being changed before it has been finalized and implemented in an inequitable way; e.g. the 3 years teaching experience in CSPP appears to now be changing to 6 years in addition to having a BA degree and a CDP teacher permit or higher plus having 200 hours of work experience in K-3 classroom(s); this change flies in the face of equity and workforce pipeline develop amid our staff shortage; this change again pits against one another and places higher respect and emphasis on TK-12 credentials as opposed to child development permits; why wouldnât (other than not being able to afford to leave their job) a CSPP teacher just go get a multiple subject credential as this bridge credential was just made even longer and less inclusive and respectful of the ECE profession
Speaking of public comment, how do workgroup members or the public access public comments? I am interested to hear what the public thoughts are especially given there is limited time to hear verbally from public attendees.
Yes, I am in favor of changing the Ed Code section to allow more flexibility for TK staff to include staff and classrooms in the QRIS/QCC system. If there is no way to include TK into the existing QRIS/QCC system, then add to Ed Code the same quality standards and incentives of professional learning as CSPP to align quality across both settings.
Yes, I strongly support recommendation #26; as Jennifer has stated, it is a unifying recommendation. I would also add a data component to this that supports quality improvement and transparency for parents to help them make informed decisions about their options for pre-k.