The following recommendations create
the framework needed to deliver services, raise quality, ensure equity, and
create accountability.
|
“Recognition that individual variation is
not only to be expected but also valued requires that decisions about curriculum
and adults' interactions with children be as individualized as possible...Having
high expectations for all children is important, but rigid expectations of group
norms do not reflect what is known about real differences in individual
development and learning during the early years.”
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8
|
Many
early educators now recognize the importance of focusing not only on the
characteristics of early learning programs (such as group size or teacher
qualifications), but also on their content. Programs that have challenging,
interesting activities that allow growth across all of the dimensions of school
readiness help children prepare for the challenges of elementary school. The
National Academy of Sciences has stated that, “While no single curriculum
or pedagogical approach can be identified as best, children who attend
well-planned, high-quality early childhood programs in which curriculum aims are
specified and integrated across domains tend to learn more and are better
prepared to successfully master the complex demands of formal
schooling.”42
By
acting on this recommendation, legislators can address the following problems:
California has a sound
framework for setting expectations for young children, but it has not yet been
applied consistently. Parents and educators need a framework that they can
use to set expectations for all young children and gauge their progress in
meeting developmental milestones. This framework exists in the form of
California’s Desired Results for Children. However, to date it has
not been applied systematically to guide learning activities and child
assessment in all subsidized settings. Furthermore, assessment instruments
aligned with Desired Results are not widely used for instructional improvement
and monitoring children’s achievement.
Many programs overlook a key
ingredient of quality--individualized learning plans. Individualized
attention to children’s strengths and needs is a key principle of
high-quality early education—one that underlies California’s
Desired Results for Children framework. That is why many high-quality
early education programs (including Head Start and Early Head Start) require
individualized learning plans, specifying how teachers or caregivers either
adjust activities based on the developmental milestones that children have
reached or have yet to master. Currently, many providers and programs do not
develop individualized learning plans for the children in their
care.
Many young children are in
settings that have no health, safety, or quality standards. Many parents
assume that all child care providers must meet basic health and safety
standards, especially if they receive public subsidies, but this is not true.
The regulations designed to ensure quality in child care settings do not apply
to many of the settings where infants and toddlers receive care. Licensed child
care supply meets only 22 percent of the estimated statewide need.43
Thousands of California children are in child care settings that have no public
oversight, despite the fact that they receive public subsidies. Their providers
are under no obligation to maintain healthy, safe facilities; to learn
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or key principles of child development; or
to limit the number of young children in their care. Where standards are in
place, different programs and funding streams (such as Title 5 and Title 22) may
have different standards, resulting in inequities in services for young
children. A single, consolidated set of program standards that promotes all
children’s school readiness is
needed.
Some settings lack
standards for child-adult ratios. The current lack of standards for
child-adult ratios in some settings is particularly troubling. Even the most
qualified teacher cannot individualize instruction and adequately supervise too
large a group of young children. For infants and toddlers, the number of
children that a provider is responsible for appears to be particularly important
in fostering the type of interactions that support young children’s
development.44
HOW?
Goals for children should establish high expectations in all five school readiness dimensions: health and physical development, emotional well-being and social competence, approaches toward learning, communicative skills, and cognition and general knowledge. The goals should be used as the basis for ongoing assessment of children and instructional practice. The assessment’s results should be communicated to parents regularly.
Learning plans should be based on individual, performance-based child assessments (including portfolios); updated several times each year (more frequently for younger children); and discussed with families. Providers in informal care settings should develop the plans with assistance from family child care home provider networks.
Currently,
Title 5 providers must meet a higher standard than Title 22 providers, which
often results in inequitable services for young children. A single set of
program standards is needed.
Appropriate ratios and group size
influence child outcomes and must be addressed in any school readiness
enhancement effort. Consequently, all subsidized settings should comply with
Title 5 ratios, modified to recommend that group size not exceed 20 rather than
24. Funding must be available to implement this quality enhancement, similar to
the approach used to enact class size reduction in Kindergarten through third
grade in elementary schools.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Enact Omnibus Early
Childhood Development legislation that raises standards for early childhood
educators and funds a professional development system that prepares, supports,
and guides the compensation of all adults who care for and educate
children.
|
“Social competence and
school achievement are influenced by the quality of early teacher-child
relationships....” “Employing qualified teachers who are satisfied with their compensation is associated with programs providing higher-quality early childhood experiences for children.” Eager to Learn National Academy of Sciences, 2000 |
WHY?
Many factors affect the
quality of early care and education programs, but no factor is more important
than the preparedness, competence, and commitment of program
staff.45
Compared with
elementary and secondary teachers, providers of early care and education have
fewer opportunities to prepare for their roles, acquire ongoing training and
support, or advance along a career path. They have fewer incentives, economic
or professional, for staying in the field. Addressing these issues is necessary
to improve young children’s results and school
readiness.
High staff turnover
rates, which threaten program quality, cannot be improved without addressing
compensation. According to the Center for the Child Care Workforce, average
wages in California are $8.38/hour for child care workers and $10.16 for
preschool teachers. Family child care providers earn even less. Turnover for
child care teachers reported in various California counties range from 39
percent in Sacramento County to 20 percent in Marin County.
46
By acting on this
recommendation, legislators can address these
problems:
California does not
have enough qualified early educators. Presently, there are not enough
qualified individuals working with young children. With the expansion of early
childhood programs recommended in this plan, the challenge of recruiting
qualified people to the early childhood field will be even greater. To develop
a competent early childhood workforce—one that allows children to have
adults who speak their language and reflect their culture as role models—a
focus on recruitment, retention, and professional development is essential.
Incentives must be created to bring new talent into the field, beginning with
secondary school students. A key strategy is to create a training registry.
Particularly helpful to new entrants into the workforce and those with limited
formal training, a training registry could approve all continuing education
training. It could also document the training received by providers.
Individuals would have permanent records of their training and could use
information in the registry to gain credit toward a Child Development Permit.
Standards for early childhood
teachers and caregivers are low and inconsistent. Teachers who work with
school-aged children are expected to have baccalaureate degrees. In contrast,
those who work with younger children (including those who receive public
subsidies for doing so) may not even have high school diplomas. Moreover, they
are not necessarily supervised or mentored by educators with bachelor’s
degrees. California presently lacks consistent educational requirements for
providers of early care and education.
Poor compensation results in
high turnover, and children suffer the consequences. Compared with teachers
in the K-12 system, those who work with younger children are very poorly
compensated. This salary disparity increases turnover and impedes the
continuity of care that is so important to young children. A recent study that
tracked several California child care centers in 1994, 1996, and 2000 found that
the situation has become increasingly urgent. Child care centers and the child
care industry as a whole are losing well-educated teaching staff and
administrators at an alarming rate and are hiring replacement teachers with less
training and education. Compensation for most teaching positions has not kept
pace with the cost of living. Teaching staff and directors reported that high
turnover among their colleagues undermined their ability to do their jobs and,
for some, contributed to their decision to
leave.47
Many
providers have no training at all—not even the basics. Many early care
and education programs require staff to attend training sessions that cover key
principles of child development as well as basic health, safety, and CPR.
However, many providers are exempt from these requirements. They can care for
young children and receive public subsidies for doing so without receiving any
training. Moreover, many providers who receive public subsidies are currently
exempt from a criminal-background check. California needs to institute a
minimum training requirement and screening system for all providers who receive
public subsidies, without exception. When the Department of Defense turned a
problem-ridden child care system into one that has been acknowledged as a model
for the nation, it introduced “basic training” and background checks
(for criminal records) for all providers, whether home-based or center-based.
This requirement was among the elements that helped to raise quality.
48
HOW?
With many elements of a professional development system already in place, California must now focus on linking the system’s elements and developing a training registry. The registry will approve continuing education training and chronicle all training providers receive. The training registry must be open to all California providers, who may voluntarily participate.
California should require a
bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a related field for
individuals who teach each group of 20 children in center-based programs;
supervise those who care for and educate young children; or coordinate a network
of family child care home providers.
For those who have a bachelor’s degree or above and who perform functions comparable to their public school colleagues, salaries, benefits, and annual cost of living increases should be commensurate. For those who do not have a bachelor’s degree but are working toward a bachelor’s or associate’s degree or a child development permit, salaries and benefits should be commensurate with public school employees who have similar training, experience, and job descriptions. Furthermore, those working toward a degree or permit who are employed caring for and teaching children in early care and education settings should receive salary increases when they successfully complete approved courses.
If the providers have not started work with young children, the professional development should occur pre-service; if they are already working with young children, it should take place in-service within a prescribed time period. Once employed, all providers must have current CPR and first aid certification and must comply with TrustLine, including renewing registration periodically.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Enact legislation to
create an accountability system (including program evaluation) that ensures that
public investments in early care and education result in improved school
readiness and, over time, improved achievement.
|
"For stakeholders to believe that an
accountability system is fair and that the standards are achievable, they need
information about how the system works and how they are performing.... Further,
stakeholders need to feel they have input in the design and implementation of
the system. All stakeholders should be informed and involved in the
accountability process."
National Governors Association |
WHY?
To improve young children’s learning
outcomes, clear standards and accountability mechanisms must be in place. It is
essential to distinguish the purposes for which accountability data are needed
and how the data are to be used.
Thus far, this report has
addressed two purposes of assessment and data collection. Recommendation 1
discussed collecting data to screen young children for developmental and health
purposes. Using these data, individual children can be referred, if necessary,
for follow-up services.
The second kind of assessment, addressed
in Recommendation 6, also collects and uses data to improve young
children’s immediate experiences. In this case, the data are collected
using multiple forms of assessment to help teachers tailor instructional
programs to children’s needs.
A third purpose for data
collection is to determine whether programs are meeting their goals. In these
cases, data on individual children are aggregated, usually without identifying
the individual child. These program data help program managers strengthen
programs, and are particularly critical in early care and education, given the
overall low quality of programs. These data may or may not be reported to the
state or federal government.
Program evaluation and
accountability data apply to all stakeholders and are necessary to assure the
effectiveness of early care and education; yet given the specific learning needs
and developmental stages
of young children, precautions must be
taken so that effective program evaluation and accountability systems are
culturally fair, developmentally sound, and scientifically valid. Moreover,
extreme care must be taken to assure that the uses of data are clear and that
parents can understand and use the results
appropriately.
By acting on this recommendation,
legislators can address these
problems:
The state has not yet
invested in a strong accountability system. There is no ongoing funding to
create and maintain a data system to collect and analyze program accountability
data.
A lack of funding also
weakens program accountability. There is no ongoing funding for independent
program evaluation and student outcomes measurement.
California lacks the data
system needed to ensure accountability. At present, there is no statewide
early childhood child/student data system in
place.
HOW?
To
assess the effectiveness of California’s programs for young children,
program accountability data must be collected annually. These data should
include information on program staffing, turnover, and levels of training;
numbers of children served; average attendance; nature of family supports and
activities; accreditation status and other program attributes.
Such data should be collected on a random sample of enrolled children, using assessment instruments that are closely aligned with California Department of Education’s Desired Results for Children. The evaluation process must comply with strict confidentiality standards.
Presently, data on young children are collected by multiple entities, using different timelines, data collection tools, and systems. Moreover, these data are not linked with data collected on kindergarten through grade 12 students. A single data collection entity, such as the California Department of Education’s California Student Information System (CSIS), should coordinate and assure the appropriate use of the data to improve children’s school readiness, their transitions to school, and their effectiveness in school.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Combine all existing
state and federal child care and development programs into one early education
system under the California Department of Education. Devolve decision-making
regarding planning and resource allocation to county superintendents of
schools.
|
“The time is long overdue for
state and local decision makers to take bold actions to design and implement
coordinated, functionally effective infrastructures to reduce the long-standing
fragmentation of early childhood policies and
programs.” From Neurons to Neighborhoods National Academy of Sciences, 2000 |
This
plan seeks to provide a coherent governance system and clear lines of
accountability for early education services in California. To create a single
and direct line of accountability for education, this proposal replaces the
elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction with a Cabinet position
directly accountable to the Governor for education administration. This
proposal will require an amendment of the state
Constitution.
To preserve the check
and balance nature of state government, the State Board of Education, the
education policy-setting body, would cease to be comprised only of gubernatorial
appointees. Instead, the State Board would be a combination of legislative and
gubernatorial appointees and include four members from newly constituted
advisory committees to the California Department of Education (see
Recommendation 9C).
Early childhood, as a developmental period, stretches from birth through the primary grades. This plan reflects that understanding and calls for greater continuity in educational services to young children. The CDE would be reconfigured to achieve greater emphasis on early education. Two divisions would work in tandem, ensuring that children benefit from the structure of both early and compulsory education as a continuum of learning, with differences in administration invisible to children and their families.
Two advisory committees will assist the two new divisions of the CDE. The committees will consist of nine legislative and gubernatorial appointees with expertise in education, health, or social services. Advisory committee members would select their Chair and a second representative who would become members of the State Board of Education. (See Appendix A for committee composition)
The planning and decision-making authority should be placed closer to those who receive and provide services. The county superintendents of schools already provide fiscal oversight and some program operations for school districts. Making the county superintendents of schools the lead local entity for governance and finance of early education services expands an existing role. The county superintendents will be assisted in the decision-making process by a County Early Childhood Development Advisory Council. (See Recommendation 9E)
The CECDAC will
make recommendations to the county superintendent of schools regarding
allocation of funds, professional development, quality enhancement, planning and
coordination, regulations, and approval of local school readiness plans. It
will also manage due process for grievances and compliance actions. The CECDAC
will be composed of up to 15 members who are elected officials from local school
boards, members of the child development community, parents, and business
representatives.
Proposed Governance Structure
RECOMMENDATION 10. Develop and fund a per-child allocation model of financing early care and education sufficient to meet the new system's quality standards and organizational infrastructure requirements.
|
“Society pays in many ways for failing fully to
exploit the learning potential of all its children, from lost economic
productivity and tax revenues to higher crime rates to diminished participation
in the civic and cultural life of the
nation.” Preschool for All Committee for Economic Development, 2002 |
WHY?
Today,
young children and their families are served by a variety of agencies with
various funding streams. Each has specific eligibility guidelines and
requirements. This arrangement provides neither the level of funding nor the
efficient coordination needed to ensure the well-being and school readiness of
California’s young
children.
California therefore
needs to develop an equitable, per-child allocation model for financing early
care and education. This model should be sufficient to meet the new
system’s quality standards and infrastructure requirements. The finance
recommendations include creating a guaranteed preschool allocation for all
three- and four-year olds (and additional funding for wraparound care and
flexible support services for three- and four-year olds of low-income families);
an allocation for all children, birth to kindergarten, to provide school
readiness services to them and their families through local School Readiness
Centers; and an initial allocation, to be phased in until it becomes a
guarantee, to fund early care and education services and flexible support
services for all low-income families with children from birth to age three.
The allocation model must also
fund the organizational infrastructure of the new early care and education
system, including professional development to improve quality and data
collection for better accountability. To accomplish these recommendations, we
propose to consolidate all child development funding sources, including those
from the Departments of Education and Social Services, and to create new sources
of revenue to augment existing funds.
The School Readiness Working Group
recognizes that implementing these proposals requires an enormous investment on
behalf of our young children. To implement these recommendations, the state
will have to incur significant costs. We have therefore suggested that some of
the more costly proposals be phased in over many years.
At the same time, these costs must
be weighed against the potential benefits. Investments in early childhood can
mitigate the spiraling costs of corrective social systems. Today, California
spends four times as much to serve a juvenile delinquent through the Youth
Authority than to enroll the same child in a high-quality preschool program.
Investments in early education can assure that more Californians become engaged
citizens, productive workers, and consistent taxpayers. The costs of acting are
high; the costs of not acting are much higher.
By acting on this recommendation,
legislators can address these
problems:
Current resources do
not cover the costs of high quality early education for all children. While
California invests considerable resources in its children under age the age of
five, the investments are not commensurate with the investments made for
children of school age, and they do not afford early educational opportunities
to all children.
California
needs strategies for funding early childhood programs that provide
accountability without limiting flexibility. Categorical funding often aims
to ensure services to specific populations. However, this type of funding often
limits flexibility and prevents localities from concentrating resources where
local need is the greatest. The regulations attached to categorical funding may
also keep programs immune to quality standards. More flexible, effective
funding strategies are needed.
There is no finance mechanism
to address capacity-building. Present finance arrangements do not provide
funds to meet the needs of the state’s growing population of young
children. In addition, they do not set aside monies for the supports needed to
expand access to or enhance the quality of early childhood services.
Families have unequal access to
essential services and resources. Creating an allocation to fund School
Readiness Centers is intended to equalize families’ opportunity to help
children reach their full potential. As things stand, many families lack the
means to access essential services and
supports.
HOW?
Proposition 98 funds should be increased by an amount sufficient to provide access for every three- and four-year-old child whose parents want their child to receive a high-quality preschool experience (see Recommendation 2). Phase-in of guaranteed universal preschool should be completed by 2010, starting in communities where schools have an API in the bottom three deciles.
Families who are eligible for subsidized child development services should receive an allocation for wraparound child care and family support services. Phase-in should match the efforts to expand core universal preschool services, so that families can receive core services and wraparound services together.
The per-child allocation for early education should use a funding equation based on the comprehensive services model in Head Start and Early Head Start. The funds should be used for child care and development and flexible support services that the family needs (see Recommendation 1). A guaranteed state allocation should be phased in by 2010, starting with service to children from birth to age three in communities where schools have an API in the bottom three deciles.
Using the same revenue limit concept that provides basic education funding for each K-12 student, California should create a guaranteed allocation within Proposition 98 to serve the families of children from birth to kindergarten. This allocation should fund local School Readiness Centers, which will provide core services, such as parent education and outreach, information and referral, child development activities, peer support, and life skills development (see Recommendation 12).
A
California Financing Task Force should be created to calculate the per-child
allocation to fund high quality early education services for newborns to
three-year-olds, universal preschool, and support services for low-income
children, birth to kindergarten. The allocation must invest in quality
improvement, professional development and compensation, accountability, and
other elements of the organizational infrastructure. The Task Force must also
address the development of fee schedules for those who can afford to pay for
part or all of the services provided. This Task Force should be convened
immediately so that its work can advise the Legislature in setting
appropriations for the above recommendations. As part of its work, the Task
Force should also determine a formula for cost-of-living increases and the cost
for group size reduction from 24 to 20 (see Recommendation
6).
The Master Plan Working Group
also recommends the creation of an expert panel to address education finance.
If the Legislature acts upon that proposal, it should expand that commission to
include experts on early education and child development, and expand its mandate
to incorporate the issues described above.
Consistent with the recommendation to implement a governance structure that unifies early childhood education under one department, funds should also be consolidated and flow through one department.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Improve the
availability, quality, and maintenance of early education
facilities.
|
”The high need for child
care will not ease in the near future. The population of Californians aged zero
to four is expected to increase by more than 325,000 over the next ten
years.” National Economic Development and Law Center, 2001 |
HOW?
Presently, the number of public schools serving young children is inadequate to handle demand in local communities. Expanding capital outlay formulas to include kindergarten and preschool programs can significantly reduce the current shortfall.
Such efforts might include increased state income tax credits to employers for developing early education programs, mortgage credits as incentives for higher quality family child care, low-cost loan pools, bond issues, and streamlined zoning processes.
Current building standards under Title 22 are limited to very basic requirements, such as square footage per child. New design standards should incorporate requirements that better define space based on the developmental needs of young children. The space should also be constructed and organized in ways that promote better workplace safety for the adults who care for young children.
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | Introduction | Improvements | Early Care |
| Family Support | Epilogue | Appendices | Members |