Quarterly Council Meeting – 9/29/11
Quarterly Council Meeting
September 29, 2011
Austin, Texas
Attendees
Council Members: LaShonda Brown, Mary Capello, Gina Day, John Gasko, Dottie Goodman, Angela Hobbs-Lopez, Reagan Miller, Rhonda Paver, Sasha Rasco, John Whitcamp
Guests: Dan Walters (Dan Walters Associates
Staff: Don Titcombe, Jennifer Lindley, Brian Herod
DEFINING SCHOOL READINESS
Key points from the discussion:
- The Council will write a definition of school readiness for the purpose of the grant; to define school readiness for the Council’s initiatives.
- Council Members preferred definitions from: Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, West Virginia.
- Council Members discussed elements of definitions that they did and did not like.
- Staff will produce several models of definitions for the Council’s review at the next meeting in December, based on feedback from this meeting.
- A model based on current Texas definition, with additions to resemble Kansas’ definition, stressing community supports.
- A model using Texas as a base, but with additional information to resemble West Virginia’s layout and content.
- A model using Texas, with a preamble for additional information and context, and new domains like Louisiana’s definition.
Notes:
Council Members’ reflections on the importance of the Council’s work, now and in the future:
Now: Common goals, missions for children of various state agencies
Now: Stakeholders were able to leave their agendas at the door on ITELG
Future: awareness, outreach for parents about importance of 0-5
Future: respect for Council’s leadership will reinforce importance of the Council’s deliverables
School Readiness Definition Selection Criteria:
Purposeful – specifically for the grant
Current – aligned with current thinking in the field
Understandable – for users
Supports measureable outcomes for children – realistically measured in a timely and affordable manner
Is it good enough? – for your organization?
Durable – shelf-life of the definition
Comprehensive/holistic – for the whole state, for all stakeholders, for all children
Presentation of School Readiness Definitions:
The definition will define the goals of the work the Council is doing, but could possibly be used in the future and formally adopted by Texas, TEA.
The Council must be aware of how people will possibly use the definition.
Definition doesn’t need to be long to be effective (opposite approach of VA)
Dangers: specificity, idealism, individual child vs. population
Important groups: parents, teachers, private child care centers, communities as vehicles for change
Although a definition that is a child outcome measure is attractive, there may be consequences for high-risk children.
Instead, focus the definition above child-level, at the system level, to ensure durability and flexibility in the future.
The definition can support community-level work, such as the EDI.
The group agrees that selecting measurements for inclusion in the definition will complicate the situation.
**The Texas definition in the white paper is incorrect. This is the correct definition:
School ready or school readiness--A term that refers to a child being able to function competently in a school environment in the areas of early language and literacy, mathematics, and social skills as objectively measured by state-approved assessment instruments. [Texas Administrative Code 102.1002a(12)]
Discussion of Model Definitions from Other States: VA, TX, MD, WV, LA
What will guide the development of definitions for Council’s 12/2 review:
-An explanation/reason and philosophy for the definition in a “preamble”
-Short or lean definition, not long definition
-Definition will be easy to digest for consumers
-Individualization and holistic child learning
-Importance of parents and families
-Role of families, schools, and communities in school readiness
-Council members like the model of Kansas definition
-Acknowledge Texas’ diversity, subpopulations
-Strength-based, not deficit-based
-Don’t want to measure community supports, but mention their importance
-Increase the number of developmental domains, like Louisiana – especially the arts and physical development (but domains only used for child skill sets)
-Expand, strengthen current TX definition with lead-in for families, schools, and communities and add more domains, like LA
-Stress school readiness as a transition into 1st grade entry and beyond
-Consideration of school readiness vs. school ready
-Role of pre-k and kindergarten as a window into the full school system
-Mindful of context and the full ECE system in Texas
Council Members preferred: Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia
TOTS DECISIONS
Key Points from the Discussion:
- All Council members voted for reinvestment of TOTS funds, against TOTS implementation.
- Staff will prepare a process for the Council to choose a reinvestment plan.
Notes:
For TOTS, Deloitte has completed the Strategic Plan and completed Joint Requirements Planning (JRP) sessions. In October, Joint Application Design (JAD) sessions are planned. Based on the challenges and the feasibility study from the JRP sessions and the Strategic Plan, the Council was presented with three scenarios for the future of TOTS: reinvestment, governance, and bulldog.
Reinvestment Scenario:This scenario discontinues the Council’s contract with Deloitte after the JAD sessions in October. Rather than committing funding to building and launching TOTS, the Council will reinvest in other Council initiatives or state programs.
Risks: No plan for sustainability
Opportunities: address concerns for achievability; reduced project risk; reduce risk of partnership or abandonment; reduce risk of overstretching resources
Governance Scenario:The Governance Scenario discontinues the Council’s contract after the JAD sessions and directs resources towards forming a data governance body for Texas early childhood systems. This body would most likely be comprised of Agency decision makers and would be responsible for creating rules and norms for data sharing and data utilization.
Risks: Same situation w/ agency heads; lack of authoritative mandate for relationship with agencies
Opportunities: synergy and foundation for all agencies; mulligan; right people in the room; providing funds to agencies for governance would increase buy in
Bulldog Scenario: The bulldog scenario continues the Council’s contract with Deloitte after the JAD sessions, creating business logic models and pseudo code for the actual build of TOTS. The RFP process for the build phase of TOTS would be initiated immediately.
Risks: Politically damaging
Quick Sweep of the room:
-Some ideas: invest in ECI, invest in QRIS self report system; expand partnerships;
-Could we prioritize data governance if the leaders of the agencies really wanted it?
-On reinvestment, though is the grant is telling us to think about system, but how do we keep our eyes on children? We have the opportunity to do something heroic; we could invest money in one or more of our current strategies
-Will the QRIS be relevant to child care only? An online application system would make sense, Whitcamp agrees but he wants to put SRCS in there. Self report system could help, peer to peer group could help; we can minimize cost, and align things;
-We will work on a process for funding.
-Develop a process on how we go about reinvestment, status of committees, proposed scenarios for the executive committees, earned value project management, compare apples to apples.
CAREER LADDER
Key points from the discussion:
- Council did not approve the career ladder.
- Council Members would like to see competencies on the career ladder, not just training hours. Mastery of core competencies could also advance an individual on the career ladder.
Notes:
Identified Challenges to the Career Ladder:
The inclusion of training hours on the career ladder is good, but does not show mastery of concepts, only training hours completed.
How can we relate competency in key areas to advancement on the career ladder?
Why can only Ph.D.’s get to the highest level?
The career ladder reinforces some hierarchical thinking in the system currently – licensed homes lower than others because of the education of that workforce.
How can we create flexibility in the system?
Relating Core Competencies Explicitly to the Career Ladder:
If core competencies are added to the career ladder, how can we validate these competencies in professionals?
Adding competencies to the career ladder could level the playing field for all programs and sectors.
One option to assess mastery of competencies: add assessment into trainings, to ensure competencies by the trainer.
Another option: add an online assessment to all trainings within the new training registry or the workforce registry.
There is a certain level of trust in the training system to assume that people are getting competencies from trainings.
Options for Next Steps:
Separate classroom and administrator experience on the career ladder.
Different career ladders for types of professionals, like Maine, for educators, administrators, mentors/coaches, and trainers.
We really do not have the capacity to test competencies. Could we assess competencies in an online system, as a type of certification for professionals? (This could be an option for TOTS reinvestment.)
1