BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2592
AUTHOR: Buchanan
AMENDED: May 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
SUBJECT : Early learning quality rating scale.
KEY POLICY ISSUES :
Should the California Department of Education implement an
early learning quality rating scale that measures the quality
of child care and development programs?
Should this rating scale be implemented on a pilot basis?
Should license-exempt providers be included in the rating
scale?
Is this bill premature?
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the California Department of Education to
implement an early learning quality rating scale that
measures the quality of child care and development programs
until June 30, 2017.
BACKGROUND
SB 1629 (Steinberg, Ch. 307, 2008) established the Early
Learning Quality Improvement System Advisory Committee
(advisory committee), comprised of 13 members, for the
purpose of developing the policy and implementation plan for
an Early Learning Quality Improvement System (quality rating
scale). The advisory committee was required to submit an
interim report in 2009, and is required to submit a final
report by December 31, 2010. (Education Code 8300)
The advisory committee held a number of meetings in different
locations throughout the state in 2009 and issued a
preliminary report in January of 2010. The advisory
AB 2592
Page 2
committee focused its work mainly on two of the four elements
of quality required to be considered, and learned about
existing local systems as well as features of systems from 19
other states. According to the report, some of the common
elements found in the quality rating and improvement systems
from other states include standards, accountability measures,
program and practitioner outreach and support, financing
incentives, and parent/consumer education. According to the
report, some of the lessons learned from other states'
experiences include:
Conduct a pilot and have the training for the rating
infrastructure in place before implementing the quality
rating system statewide.
Set clear standards from the outset for the rating
system.
Use environment rating scales as a core element of
the quality rating system, although they can be
expensive to administer.
Determine who should conduct the quality ratings,
recognizing that this is a key decision.
Accompany ratings with financial incentives and
technical assistance, given that participation in most
quality rating systems is voluntary, and that providers
are taking some risk to be rated.
The advisory committee has approved a preliminary general
design of a quality rating system featuring a non-weighted
block system. Six quality elements - family involvement,
ratios and group size, environment rating scales, staff
education and training, teaching and learning, and program
leadership - makeup the evaluation components. According to
the report, all the quality criteria in each tier need to be
accomplished to obtain that rating, and the criteria included
in each tier builds upon those in previous blocks. For
example, if a program meets Tier 1 criteria in the "Family
Involvement" scale, it would be scored in the Tier 1 box. If
it meets criteria for Tiers 1 through 5, it would be scored
in the Tier 5 box for that scale. The following is the
matrix of standards:
AB 2592
Page 3
------------------------------------------------------------
| Quality Elements | Tier | Tier | Tier | Tier |Tier |
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Family involvement | | | | | |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Ratios and group size: | | | | | |
| - Infant | | | | | |
| - Toddler | | | | | |
| - Preschool | | | | | |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Environmental rating | | | | | |
|scale that focus on | | | | | |
|structural quality and | | | | | |
|teacher/provider - child | | | | | |
|interaction | | | | | |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Staff education and | | | | | |
|training | | | | | |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Teaching and learning | | | | | |
|--------------------------+------+------+------+------+-----|
|Program leadership | | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------
This interim report stresses that what has been developed is
not final. The advisory committee is scheduled to complete
the design structure of the quality rating system in 2010.
On November 16, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger issued
Executive Order
S-23-09, which established the California State Advisory
Council on Early Childhood Education and Care (advisory
council) for the purpose of submitting an application for
American Recovery and Reinvestment Head Start funding by
August 1, 2010. This executive order cites the requirement
that states have an advisory council pursuant to the federal
Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This
advisory council is comprised of the Early Learning Quality
Improvement System Advisory Committee members plus five
additional representatives.
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the California Department of Education to
implement an early learning quality rating scale until June
AB 2592
Page 4
30, 2017. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
implement a quality rating scale based on the final
recommendations developed by the Early Learning Quality
Improvement System Advisory Committee, that reflects the
cultural and linguistic diversity of California's young
children.
2) Requires the quality rating scale to be implemented on a
pilot basis, with the sunset date of June 30, 2017.
3) Authorizes the quality rating scale to do any or all of
the following:
a) Measure the quality of services of an early
care and education provider.
b) Measure elements of quality in an early care
and education program and facility that include,
but are not limited to, the following:
i) Quality of the learning environment.
ii) Quality of adult-child interactions.
iii) Adult-to-child ratios.
iv) Provider's education and
professional qualifications, including those
recognized by the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing.
v) Parent and family involvement.
c) Inform parents about the quality of a facility
in a simple and easy to understand manner.
4) Requires the CDE to develop criteria for the selection
of early care and education providers and facilities to
participate in the pilot program. Requires the CDE to
ensure that the providers and facilities selected are
geographically diverse and provide services to low
income children, children with special needs, and
English learners.
AB 2592
Page 5
5) Requires the California State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care (advisory council) to do
both of the following:
a) Conduct an annual review of the pilot program
and provide ongoing recommendations for the
improvement of the quality rating scale.
b) Develop criteria to be used to evaluate the
pilot program.
6) Requires the CDE to develop and implement any rules and
regulations necessary for the implementation of this
bill.
7) Requires the CDE to conduct an evaluation of the pilot
program based on the annual reviews and criteria
developed by the advisory council, and requires the CDE
to submit the evaluation to the appropriate policy
committees of the Legislature by January 1, 2016.
8) Prohibits this bill from being implemented unless
federal early care and education funds are provided for
the purposes of this bill.
9) Sunsets the provisions of this bill on June 30, 2017.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author, "this bill
is necessary for California to compete for $9 billion
from the federal Early Learning Challenge Fund (ELCF)
proposed by President Obama as part of the 2011 budget.
This competitive grant proposal challenges states to
develop effective, innovative models to raise quality
through high standards, incentivizing excellence, and
focusing on outcomes. Draft legislation in Congress (HR
3221, Miller) has identified the Quality Rating Scale
(QRS) as the primary vehicle for early learning systems
change, and it is likely to be a requirement for states
to compete for the ELCF, which could mean from $100
million to $200 million a year for California to
implement its QRS."
2) What about license-exempt providers ? License-exempt
AB 2592
Page 6
child care providers must be fingerprinted and meet
background check requirements, but are not required to
meet education or training requirements, staffing
ratios, and are not monitored or overseen by the state.
This bill does not include license-exempt child care
providers in the quality rating scale. Does this assume
license-exempt programs are devoid of quality? Would it
make sense to include these providers in a rating system
when they are not regulated by the state?
3) Unresolved issues . California has a system of
reimbursement rates that does not always incentivize
providers to improve program quality (e.g., child care
programs in high-cost counties that meet only basic
health and safety requirements can earn higher
reimbursement rates than child care and development
programs that meet higher standards). In addition, child
care providers need education and training in order to
improve the quality of programs. These issues are
longstanding but remain unresolved.
4) Premature ? The final report of the Early Learning
Quality Improvement System Advisory Committee, regarding
the structure of the quality rating system, is due by
December 31, 2010. Should the Legislature wait for this
report before requiring the implementation of a quality
rating scale?
Staff understands that a source of federal funding being
sought to fund this bill is the federal Early Learning
Challenge Fund. However, this fund has not been
established nor has funding been appropriated for this
purpose; it is still a proposal in bill form, awaiting
hearing in the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions.
5) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would require one-time federal
early care and childhood funds, likely between $1
million and $2 million.
6) Related budget action . The budget conference committee
is currently considering an item that provides $1
million from one-time federal funds, and three positions
for the advisory committee and advisory council to
conduct a study on the feasibility of developing a
system to collect and store data related to the state's
AB 2592
Page 7
early education programs.
SUPPORT
Advancement Project
Association of California School Administrators
Bay Area Council
Business-Education Alliance of Merced County
California Federation of Teachers
California Head Start Association
California Kindergarten Association
California State PTA
Children Now
Delhi Unified School District
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
First 5 California
Livingston Union School District
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Merced County District Attorney
Options - A Child Care and Human Services Agency
Orange County Department of Education
Preschool California
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
University of California, Merced
Worldcolor Merced
Individuals
OPPOSITION
None received.