preschool_plan_8-09

The Orange County Preschool Plan:

Universal Quality, Targeted Services

June 2008

n DevelopedbytheOrangeCountyPreschoolPlanningCollaborative

n ConvenedandfundedbytheOrangeCountyDepartmentofEducation

n WrittenbyKarenHill-Scott,Ed.D.

Orange County Preschool Plan

Page | i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative Acknowledgements

Orange County Board of Education Felix Rocha Jr. 1st District

Alexandria Coronado, D.M.A. 2nd District

Ken L. Williams Jr., D.O. 3rd District

John W. Bedell, Ph.D. 4th District

Elizabeth Parker 5th District

OCDE Administration

OCDE Management Team

Linda MacDonell Assistant Superintendent

Ellin Chariton Executive Director

Daria Waetjen Director

Cathy Wietstock Manager

Nicole Savio Coordinator

Work Group Chairs Christie Baird Mary Kaarmaa Gwen Morgan- Beazell Sharon Seidman

Robin Hunter Laura Long Paul Ramirez

OCDE Work Group Liaisons

Shelia Arnold Christie Baird Dillon Henry Trisha Louie-Nash

Jeanne Awrey Jean Barbre Annette Jewel Jan Peterson

OCDE Staff Amanda Blake Colleen Combs Kyla Groeneveld Sharon Riley Blanca Zimmerman

Linda Behnami Karol Gartner Julie Gundling Marilyn Rollins

William M. Habermehl County Superintendent of Schools

Lynn April Hartline Deputy Superintendent

John L. Nelson Associate Superintendent


Page | ii

Acknowledgements (continued)

Collaborative Members

Cyndee Albertson Elaine Coggins Linda Hunter Donna McInteer Nicolas RomeroAlan Albright Mary Coggins Heather Huntley Debi Miles Kelly Rowe

Ingrid Anderson Dan Copple Marcela Ibanez June Millovich Michael RuanePaul Andresen Marilee Cosgrove Troy A. Jacobs Dian Milton Marcia Rudolph

Roseann Andrus Arthur Cummins Suzanne Jaglowski

Diane Mohn Aracely SalazarJuan Carlos

Araque Darren Dang Maria Mora Roselma SamalaPat Desimone Linda Jahneke Cinda

Muckenthaler Catalina Sanchez

Desiree Avila Diana Diaz Pam Kahn Ann SanetoKatie Baker Megan Drda Belinda Karge Krista Murphy Jeanine Sansone

Arleen Bates Mike Duvall Darcie Kass Jody Nguyen Sunny SchroeterLindell Belote Barbara Easton Charlotte Kies Sharon Nordheim Sheri SenterAlicia Berhow Cheryl Erickson Lorrie Klevos Mary O'Neill Terry ShanahanMary Bishop Susie Estrada Crystal

Kochendofer Sandra Orellana Susan Shipstead

Marcia B Marthaler Pat Evans Claudia Ornelas Irene TakahashiKim Bohannon Darcy Fehringer Lucinda Kramer Valerie Padilla Barbara Tamialis

Anne Broussard Jessica Fernandez Ana Landrian Lucia Palacios Gary TaylorFabiola Bruhl Laura

Finley-Sanbrano Heather Lenore Chandinie

Parasram Thu-Ha

Tran- Nguyen Anna Bryson Christine LightfootLauralee Cabibi Sue Garnett Diane Limbo Deborah Paratore Dee Tucker

Jeannine Campbell

Dolores Gaunty-Porter

Dian Limbote Tina Paul Susie ValdezMichele Lindstrom Barbara Paxton Lori Vasquez

Marjorie Cardenas Kevin Gilhooley Nilo Lipiz Lori Perez Colleen VersteegNancy Carri Kristi Golden Cara Lockwood Peggy Phan

Nguyen Gina Villarraga

John Cartafalsa Kathy Goodspeed Vinicio Lopez Dave WallerDenise Casco Lily Gorban Barbara Lowry Kristi Piatkowski Phyllis Watanabe

Mary Castorena Fritzi Gragg Veronica Mackenney Kelly Pijl Jan WeinerConnie

Castro-Reed Gloria Guzman Wendi Mahaney Kris Powell Janis WhiteJoyce Hanson Betty Manuel Barbara Price Michele Winstrom

Christy Catron Christina Harper Mary Marlin Karyn Quick Karen WunderlichClaire Cavallero Leonor Hernandez Debora Martin Yumi Ramirez Hallie Yopp-Slowik

Jennifer Chaiyakal Nery Hernandez Lupe Martinez Tina Reinemann Stacey ZapantaTom Chiaromonte Joan Hersh Alyce Mastrianni Jennifer Rivera Pam Zvonec

Robyn Class Lorie Hoggard Paula Mathis Tom RizzutiNancy Claxton Crystal Holbert Debbie McBee Sandie Skinner Linda Clinard Merri Jo Hooven Anita McCarthy Chriss W. Street

Tina Coca Joyce Horowitz Kathleen McFarlin Andrea Sullivan


Page | iii


Child Care Providers

Betsy Aasland Tarry Goeden Hilda Miramontes Sheri Senter Babette Webster

Farba Azahir Lily Gorban Sugeith Miramontes Monica Silveira Tammy Withana

Mahshid Azahir Karen Heffernan Fern Roundtree Gracie Swain

Marilee Cosgrove Connie Holtz Jeanine Sansone Elly Tsai

Kim Deans Jo Kelly Louise Senteno Tracy Uyemura

Parent Focus Groups

Rosie Achong Suemy Arruda Nidel Castaneda Estuardo Gifuentes Arlene Salazar

Cynthia Alfaro Jana Beekman Wendi Cramer Dylan Guggenmos Jennifer Thomas

Jay Arruda Bob Carr Elba Davila Kimberly Peabody

Consulting Staff

Karen Hill Scott, Ed.D. Christina Meono

John Harris Ariana Sani

The Orange County Department of Education would like to thank our convening partners:

n Anaheim City School District

n California State University Fullerton

n Children and Families Commission of Orange County

n Children’s Home Society of California

n Karen Hill Scott Company

n National Pediatric Support Services

n Newport-Mesa Unified School District

n Orange County Child Care and Development Planning Council

n Orange County Head Start, Inc.

n Orange County Social Services Agency

n Orange County United Way

n Santa Ana College, Rancho Santiago Community College District

n State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division

Thank you to all of the Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative partners who attended meetings and provided expertise and ideas for the development of the plan.

For a complete list of Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative partners, see Appendix C.


Partners

Page iv


Page | v

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 CONSOLIDATED GOALS ............................................................................................. 4 PART I: WHAT WE DID ................................................................................................ 5

1.0 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Organization of the Plan ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.1. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK: THE PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................... 6 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2. OUR PLANNING METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 8 1.2.1 The Theory ................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.2. The Collaboration Process .......................................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Case Statements ........................................................................................................................ 12

1.3. ORANGE COUNTY ASSETS ....................................................................................................... 13 1.3.1. Positioned to Stay Ahead of the Curve ..................................................................................... 13 1.3.2. A Bend in the Curve .................................................................................................................. 14 1.3.3. Navigating the Curve ................................................................................................................. 16 1.3.4. Staying on Track ....................................................................................................................... 18 1.3.5. Family Strengths, Family Threats ............................................................................................. 19

1.4. THE LAY OF THE LAND .............................................................................................................. 20 1.4.1. Demand: Where Are the Children? .......................................................................................... 21 1.4.2. Supply: Where Are the Preschool Spaces? ............................................................................. 23 1.4.3. Preschool Gap: Where Are the Gaps?...................................................................................... 26 1.4.4. Low API Schools: Are Decile 1-3 Schools Located in Areas of Greatest Need? ..................... 28 1.4.5. Declining School Enrollment ..................................................................................................... 30

Part II: WHAT WE WANT ............................................................................................ 32 2.0. THE PLAN .................................................................................................................................... 32

The Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 32 2.1 Meeting 1 – February 2007 ........................................................................................................... 32 The Strategic Mission .......................................................................................................................... 35 2.2. Meetings 2-5 ................................................................................................................................. 35 2.3. July, September, and October Meetings ...................................................................................... 38 School District Superintendents Involvement...................................................................................... 52 2.4. November Meeting ....................................................................................................................... 52

PART III: WHERE ARE WE HEADED? ....................................................................... 53 3.0 INCREMENTALISM ...................................................................................................................... 53 3.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 55

3.1.1 Recommendation 1 .................................................................................................................... 56 Work Scope and Composition of the Strategy Group ......................................................................... 56


Page | vi

3.1.1.1. Facilitation of the Strategy Group ........................................................................................... 57 3.1.2. Recommendation 2 ................................................................................................................... 57 3.1.3. Recommendation 3 ................................................................................................................... 58 3.1.4. Recommendation 4 ................................................................................................................... 58 3.1.5. Recommendation 5 ................................................................................................................... 59 3.1.6. Recommendation 6 ................................................................................................................... 59 3.1.7. Recommendation 7 ................................................................................................................... 60 3.1.8 Recommendation 8 .................................................................................................................... 61 3.1.9. Recommendation 9 ................................................................................................................... 61 Parting Notes ....................................................................................................................................... 62

Acknowledgements from the Karen Hill Scott Company .............................................. 64 References ................................................................................................................. 65

List of Tables

Table 1: 1990 Population Categories ........................................................................................15 Table 2: 2006 Population ..........................................................................................................15 Table 3: 2006 Nuanced Classifications .....................................................................................16 Table 4: Today's Population Pipeline - 1980 Census Distribution ..............................................17 Table 5: Tomorrow's Population Pipeline - 2006 Census Estimate ............................................17 Table 6: NAEYC Accredited and Non-Accredited, Licensed Centers ........................................24 Table 7: Financial Projections - Saturation for API Decile 1-3 at Current Cost/Child .................38

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Planning Process Structure .................................................................................11 Figure 2: Where Are the Children? ............................................................................................22 Figure 3: Where Are the Preschool Spaces? ............................................................................25 Figure 4: Where Are the Gaps? ................................................................................................27 Figure 5: Low API Decile 1-3 Schools in Hot Zones ..................................................................29 Figure 6: Change in Enrollment .................................................................................................31 Figure 7: What’s Your Headline Template .................................................................................33 Figure 8: Case Statement Template ..........................................................................................34 Figure 9: Strategic Mission Statement Template .......................................................................36

.

The Orange County Preschool Plan: Universal Quality, Targeted Services –

National studies consistently demonstrate that high quality preschool experiences result in significant educational and social benefits for children. Because the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) views preschool as a vital experience for children and families, the Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative (Collaborative) was convened in February, 2007.

Goals of the Collaborative

n Increase quality of preschool programs

n Increase access to preschool for families with the greatest need

n Improve coordination between preschool and K-12 systems

n Maximize existing resources

Background

From February to October, 2007, over 200 individuals, including educators, public agency representatives, child care providers, parents, and other early childhood education stakeholders, met to develop a seven-year comprehensive plan for preschool education in Orange County. The plan needed to build upon prior work in the county and throughout the state. The plan needed to be action-oriented and prescriptive, laying out two-, five-, and seven-year goals with indicators of achievement to monitor the county’s progress. In addition, the plan needed to bear the unique signature of Orange County while being responsive to the state and local fiscal and political climate.

The Orange County Preschool Plan addresses the above criteria and more. The county has a blueprint for the next seven years that will improve the overall level of quality in preschool programs and will also increase access to high-quality preschool experiences for the children who have limited prospects of access today.

Where some counties choose to centralize functional responsibility for preschool in one agency, Orange County will follow the path of a voluntary and sustained collaboration among different agencies, each fulfilling its respective role for the overall effort. Where some counties have few assets to build upon as they go forward, Orange County has tremendous assets that can be leveraged to stay ahead of the curve.

The Collaborative is committed to ensuring that the quest for a quality education for every child, beginning with preschool, starts in 2008. Thus, through this planning process, Orange County developed its local signature: Promoting preschool quality everywhere, while targeting new services in the communities where they are needed most.

The Orange County plan is comprehensive in scope, realistic with regard to expected accomplishments, and pragmatic in timing the roll-out of each component of the plan.

Planning Process

The Collaborative participated in seven meetings over the course of nine months. In addition, one child care provider meeting and three parent focus groups were held. Six work groups were established to develop goals and objectives for the key content domains of the plan.

Preschool Plan Work Groups

n Program Quality and Monitoring

n Workforce/Professional Development

n Parent and Community Engagement

n Articulation and Coordination with K-12

n Data

n Facilities

Overarching Work Group Goals: Program Quality and Monitoring

n Encourage preschool programs to adopt agreed upon community standards of quality that are inclusive of all children and reflect research-based best practices in all program components

Workforce/Professional Development

n Create a workforce development model that provides continuity between early childhood education course work completed in secondary schools, regional occupational programs, and community and four year colleges

Parent and Community Engagement

n Launch a local communication effort about the benefits of preschool and the importance of early childhood experiences targeted to parents of preschool-age children

Articulation and Coordination with K-12

n Develop a seamless transition process between early childhood programs and elementary school

Data

n Utilize a coordinated Geographic Information System (GIS) containing demographic and preschool program data that is updated on a regular basis and is accessible via the internet for county planning purposes

Facilities

n Increase the number of preschool spaces by expanding, building, and/or renovating at least two to four new sites per year

Overall Recommendations

n Convene a new Strategy Group to guide the implementation of the plan

n Identify “best fit” stakeholders for the designated responsibilities of implementing different components of the plan – quality rating systems, workforce development, parent and community engagement, alignment of preschool to kindergarten, information accounting and evaluation, and facility development

n Designate a responsibility center for data collection to track progress and facilitate local planning

n Support workforce development and quality production through collaboration among school districts, community and four year colleges, and the county office of education

n Adopt a policy framework and advocacy strategy where local efforts are synchronized with state expansion for preschool

Recommendations for Universal Models of Quality, Alignment, and Parent Engagement

n Form a public/private multi-district task force to develop an alignment and articulation handbook based on input from local providers and school district personnel, the California Preschool Learning Foundations, and the Content Standards for California Public Schools – Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve

n Expand upon or refine the currently available quality rating models to develop a voluntary countywide system for certifying and recognizing the quality standards that have been met by public or private preschool programs

n Create incentives to participate in the voluntary quality rating system

n Explore how local funds can be raised to support the quality rating system, parent engagement, and alignment and articulation from preschool to kindergarten

n Develop a centralized parent engagement platform that serves as a complement to preschool to kindergarten alignment, that can be implemented through various organizations and programs

Recommendations for Increasing Access

n Explore whether classroom space created by declining enrollment in high need communities can be used for preschool

n Continue efforts to provide incentives for development of preschool programs in high need areas by working with community development corporations, faith-based development organizations, and other private sector ventures

n Project various budget models and timetables for fulfilling the goal of serving 70% of four year old children in communities where elementary school Academic Performance Index (API) scores fall within deciles 1-3

Next Steps

OCDE is appreciative of the dedicated efforts of Collaborative members throughout the nine month planning process. It will take creative ideas and maximization of current resources to accomplish the important goals that have been put forward. A Strategy Group, composed of leaders from various early care and education stakeholder organizations will be formed to guide the implementation process. The plan is considered a blue print, and additional input is always welcome. With committed partners, together we will ensure Orange County’s young children have the opportunity to learn and thrive in quality preschool programs.

To get involved or to view the Orange County Preschool Plan, visit http://ocpreschoolplan.ocde.us.

For additional information, contact Nicole Savio, Coordinator, School and Community Services at 714-966-4385.

ExECUTIvE SUMMARy

Page 1

Planning Process

The Collaborative participated in seven meetings over the course of nine months. In addition, one child care provider meeting and three parent focus groups were held. Six work groups were established to develop goals and objectives for the key content domains of the plan.

Preschool Plan Work Groups

n Program Quality and Monitoring

n Workforce/Professional Development

n Parent and Community Engagement

n Articulation and Coordination with K-12

n Data

n Facilities

Overarching Work Group Goals: Program Quality and Monitoring

n Encourage preschool programs to adopt agreed upon community standards of quality that are inclusive of all children and reflect research-based best practices in all program components

Workforce/Professional Development

n Create a workforce development model that provides continuity between early childhood education course work completed in secondary schools, regional occupational programs, and community and four year colleges


n Launch a local communication effort about the benefits of preschool and the importance of early childhood experiences targeted to parents of preschool-age children


n Develop a seamless transition process between early childhood programs and elementary school

Data

n Utilize a coordinated Geographic Information System (GIS) containing demographic and preschool program data that is updated on a regular basis and is accessible via the internet for county planning purposes

Facilities

n Increase the number of preschool spaces by expanding, building, and/or renovating at least two to four new sites per year

Overall Recommendations

n Convene a new Strategy Group to guide the implementation of the plan

n Identify “best fit” stakeholders for the designated responsibilities of implementing different components of the plan – quality rating systems, workforce development, parent and community engagement, alignment of preschool to kindergarten, information accounting and evaluation, and facility development

n Designate a responsibility center for data collection to track progress and facilitate local planning

n Support workforce development and quality production through collaboration among school districts, community and four year colleges, and the county office of education

n Adopt a policy framework and advocacy strategy where local efforts are synchronized with state expansion for preschool

Page 2

Recommendations for Universal Models of Quality, Alignment, and Parent Engagement

n Form a public/private multi-district task force to develop an alignment and articulation handbook based on input from local providers and school district personnel, the California Preschool Learning Foundations, and the Content Standards for California Public Schools – Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve

n Expand upon or refine the currently available quality rating models to develop a voluntary countywide system for certifying and recognizing the quality standards that have been met by public or private preschool programs

n Create incentives to participate in the voluntary quality rating system

n Explore how local funds can be raised to support the quality rating system, parent engagement, and alignment and articulation from preschool to kindergarten

n Develop a centralized parent engagement platform that serves as a complement to preschool to kindergarten alignment, that can be implemented through various organizations and programs

Recommendations for Increasing Access

n Explore whether classroom space created by declining enrollment in high need communities can be used for preschool

n Continue efforts to provide incentives for development of preschool programs in high need areas by working with community development corporations, faith-based development organizations, and other private sector ventures

n Project various budget models and timetables for fulfilling the goal of serving 70% of four year old children in communities where elementary school Academic Performance Index (API) scores fall within deciles 1-3

Next Steps

OCDE is appreciative of the dedicated efforts of Collaborative members throughout the nine month planning process. It will take creative ideas and maximization of current resources to accomplish the important goals that have been put forward. A Strategy Group, composed of leaders from various early care and education stakeholder organizations will be formed to guide the implementation process. The plan is considered a blue print, and additional input is always welcome. With committed partners, together we will ensure Orange County’s young children have the opportunity to learn and thrive in quality preschool programs.

To get involved or to view the Orange County Preschool Plan, visit http://ocpreschoolplan.ocde.us.

For additional information, contact Nicole Savio, Coordinator, School and Community Services at 714-966-4385.

Page 3

The Orange County Preschool Plan: Universal Quality, Targeted Services

Consolidated Two-, Five-, and Seven-Year Goal Milestones

TWO-YEAR GOAL MILESTONE FIVE-YEAR GOAL MILESTONE SEVEN-YEAR GOAL MILESTONE

Program Quality and Monitoring

■ Build upon existing Success By 6 Star Quality Rating System (QRS) and other program improvement initiatives in the county to create and pilot an Orange County quality rating measurement for all programs. (Piloting is implemented internally by any interested programs and externally by current and future quality improvement efforts)

■ Evaluate, revise, and align QRS with any new state requirements, such as CA Preschool Learning Foundations

■ Develop new resources to support program improvement

■ Introduce QRS to the community-at-large

■ Evaluate QRS pilot program used to identify areas for improvement and develop more resources and funding for quality improvement

■ Participation in QRS continues to rise along with community understanding about quality

Workforce and Professional Development

■ Complete career lattice for Orange County

■ Ongoing collaboration of Institutes of Higher Education (IHE) to articulate program

■ Complete workforce study to target areas of need

■ Roll out career lattice

■ Establish early childhood education (ECE) website as a clearing house for education, training, and professional growth that are aligned with Quality Rating System

■ Full alignment agreements with IHEs

■ ECE advisors in every college and available to consult in needed areas

■ Workforce surveys show general increase in educational attainment of ECE teachers and degree attainment on the rise


■ Identify and establish a collaborative to decide on early learning skills message

■ Identify county resources

■ Create a strategic plan to get info and basic skills to parents

■ Disseminate resources on early learning skills to community

■ Increase number of parents who have access to early learning skills

■ A consistent countywide message to increase knowledge about the importance of early childhood experiences

■ Parents are actively involved

■ Community collaborations in place

■ Variety of resources, including multicultural and multilingual


■ Standard protocol manual created with clearly defi ned roles for all stakeholders so there is the beginning of universal transition coordination

■ Desired Results Developmental Profi le (DRDP)/CA Preschool Learning Foundations are used to facilitate transition to kindergarten and support early intervention

■ Protocol manual is fully implemented and there is a seamless transition process between early childhood programs and elementary school

Data ■ Identifi cation of a centralized Geographic Information System (GIS) which will manage and support ongoing countywide preschool data collection

■ Identifi ed centralized GIS system will continue data collection, complete county needs assessment, and track ongoing preschool data

■ Centralized GIS system will review and amend standardized data elements and continue to track ongoing preschool data

Facilities ■ 3,000 children will be served within two years

■ 1,000 Full Day

■ 2,000 Part Day

■ One new facility developed per year with 4,500 additional children served by the 5th year = 187 classrooms

■ 6,500 children will be served daily, including creation of 1,000 spaces for full day child care = 229 classrooms

CONSOLIDATED GOALS

Page 4


Page | 5

PART I: WHAT WE DID

1.0 OVERVIEW Organization of the Plan This plan document is divided into three parts as follows; Part I is “What We Did,” Part II is “What We Want,” and Part III is “Where Are We Headed?” Part I contains a description of the plan methodology including a description of meeting processes and outputs. Also included is the asset mapping of Orange County. This includes a narrative and statistical review of base capacity and demographics relevant to creating family success. It also covers our geographic review of licensed preschool supply and demand for services based on the four year old cohort. The data was gathered in the spring of 2007. Using computer-generated maps, we illustrate where services are most needed and where those areas intersect with the location of schools with test scores in the lowest three deciles on the 2006 California Academic Performance Index (API decile 1-3 range).1 In Part II, we develop a composite vision statement based on the inputs of the Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative (Collaborative), a broad based volunteer group of local preschool stakeholders. Then we offer the composite strategic mission statement for the system as a whole and for each of the content domains that comprise the core elements of a system. Each strategic mission requires metrics for outcomes, so we also provide the proposed two, five, and seven year planning goals for each of the six content domains. Our discussion of these goals and recommendations is tempered by the local and state economic context, particularly as it bears on implementation. Part III outlines implementation strategies for the plan. These strategies stress the need to adapt to incrementalism; an acknowledgement that the state has shifted away from systemic overhaul to continual fine tuning of an existing system.

1 The score can range from 200-1000. The California goal is 800. API decile 1-3 includes the lowest 30% of test scores. For more information, see Appendix A: Glossary of Terms.


Page | 6

1.1. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK: THE PLANNING PROCESS

Background

The Orange County Department of Education (OCDE), along with many other county offices of education throughout the state, began exploring its role in preschool development in 2006. The State Master Plan for School Readiness (2002)2 called for local administration of preschool to run through county offices and by 2006, the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) formally endorsed preschool as a high priority for California education. There was ample precedent for the work that was going to take place in Orange County.3

In 1997, Delaine Eastin, then Superintendent of Public Instruction, began to explore the possibility of a statewide preschool system. Following the passage of the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, she felt that the most robust approach to “ending welfare as we know it” was to pre-empt welfare dependence with education. The Universal Pre-School Task Force report, “Ready to Learn,”4 was published in 1998.

Also in 1998, voters passed Proposition 10, which created the California Children and Families Commission (now known as First 5 California), the only state agency with a singular focus on the relationship between the early years of life and longer term outcomes. The work of First 5 California is wide ranging, and has had a much broader scope than education, but is still pointing in the same direction: to make investments during the early years, engage parents in the process, and ultimately change children’s life trajectories. First 5 California has worked in health, family support, family literacy and preschool, and made School Readiness their banner initiative starting in 2000.

Soon after, in 2002, when the Joint Committee on Education launched the California Master Plan for Education, Senator Dede Alpert called upon First 5 California to support the inclusion of early childhood education in the plan. This effort yielded the School Readiness Master Plan, an ambitious effort that called for a reorganization of the education system, inclusive of preschool through college.5 The current P-16 Council, a statewide assembly of education, business, and community leaders charged with developing strategies to better coordinate, integrate, and improve education for preschool through college students, is one extension of the California Master Plan for Education.

2 Master Plan for Education, California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2002 is available at http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/ExternalDocuments/2002_FINAL_COMPLETEMASTERPLAN_2.PDF 3 A listing of prior efforts and related reports is provided in the Orange County Preschool Plan, published by the Children and Families Commission of Orange County, August 2007 4 Ready to Learn, California Department of Education, 1998 5 Master Plan for Education, Ibid


Page | 7

Additionally, First 5 California formed joint ventures with county commissions to foster School Readiness at the county level. The School Readiness plans were a direct antecedent to the School Readiness Coordinators that ably support early learning in every school district in Orange County. Each county that embarked on a School Readiness effort could create its own approach, and the Orange County project is recognized throughout the state as eminently successful.

Concurrent with funding the School Readiness joint ventures, the state First 5 Commission supported the development of the California Preschool Planning Tool Kit so others could replicate or develop their own efforts. Most recently, First 5 made specific investments in nine Power of Preschool (PoP) Demonstration Projects across the state. These projects, strategically selected for location and program model, provide replicable demonstrations of high quality preschool programming and teacher training in high need communities.

In 2003, shortly after completion of the State Master Plan for School Readiness, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation decided to make a ten year commitment to developing preschool throughout the state. Beginning in 2003, the Packard Foundation fostered preschool planning, research, and communications efforts of diverse grantee organizations, one of which was the Children and Families Commission of Orange County (Commission).

In 2005, the Commission developed a local preschool demonstration project focusing on the City of Anaheim through a collaborative partnership between Anaheim City School District, Magnolia School District, and Children’s Home Society of California, the local child care resource and referral agency. While initially developed for the First 5 California Power of Preschool Demonstration Project, this project is funded by the local Commission. In addition, the Commission organized a community planning process for the development of a countywide preschool plan which was published by the Commission in August, 2007 and funded by the Packard Foundation.6

When OCDE decided to embark upon this planning process in February, 2007, they set two important goals for themselves. First, OCDE was to act as a convener and coordinator, not as a stakeholder with a vested interest in the outcome. The Collaborative was organized as a convening of equals and the participants came from diverse organizations in the public and private sector. Second, OCDE affirmed that the approach for planning in Orange County should build upon all the relevant prior work in the county and in other counties throughout the state. Our starting point benefits from all that has taken place in California over the past ten years. The Collaborative confidently created a working blueprint for action that can be implemented over the next seven years.

6 The Orange County Preschool Plan, published by the Children and Families Commission of Orange County, August 2007


Page | 8

1.2. OUR PLANNING METHODOLOGY

1.2.1 The Theory Early care and education services in California are decentralized and often depend on various funding streams with a wide variety of regulations for their operation.7 Like most other counties, Orange County service delivery mirrors the decentralization of revenue flows. Therefore, in developing a comprehensive community plan for the county, OCDE sought to build a working collaborative of the key stakeholders in order to create an effective and realistic plan. Furthermore, OCDE wanted an open collaborative that encouraged public input and ideas. Several objectives drove this approach. First, consistent with its chartered role, OCDE is a convener, coordinator, and facilitator of ideas and programs that are likely to be implemented through school districts and other community institutions. Second, for a plan to have a broad base of support, the potential implementers of preschool policies and programs should be involved in the construction of the future. This would provide transparency, create buy-in for the decisions that needed to be made, and catalyze commitment for the goals the plan would aim to achieve. Third, because the early childhood education field is historically decentralized, a unified future requires strong partnerships between all stakeholders, thereby investing the broadest possible base in the plan’s success. In working with OCDE to achieve these goals for the process, the Karen Hill Scott Company referenced three classic works on planned change8 to underlie their model of strategic planning. First is the classic Dynamics of Planned Change,9 which outlines the role of a change agent in supporting a planning process. This theory starts with bringing all stakeholders to the realization that change is needed, interrupting the inertia of the status quo, and moving toward the goal through collaboration on various scenarios of a changed future. When the work toward the goal is complete, this theory asserts that the change process must continue until the goal is stabilized and becomes the “new” institutional reality. In that regard, this plan is truly just the beginning. This book, written forty years ago, has informed decades of work in education and community collaboration. Second, the book Growing Pains,10 outlines the stages of growth for entrepreneurial efforts that will need to manage growth of their organization from start-up to a professional consolidated organization at some point in the future. The most important

7 Lynn A. Karoly, Elaine Reardon, Michelle Cho. RAND Preschool Study 2: Early Care and Education in the Golden State. November 10, 2007 8 See Hill Scott, Karen. The Planning Process in the California Preschool Planning Toolkit, The Karen Hill Scott Company and American Institutes of Research. (Funded by the Packard Foundation) 2006, also at www.plan4preschool.org. 9 Lippit, Ronald, Watson, Jeanne, and Westley, Bruce. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt 1958. 10 Flamholz, Eric and Randle, Yvonne. Growing Pains (3rd Revised Edition). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Company 2007.


Page | 9

contribution of this book to the planning process is the use of metrics, strategy, and indicators during the planning process. It keeps the work focused on achievements, not just process. The last work was that of Rubenstein, Moshe, and Firstenberg, The Minding Organization.11 They point out that the key to a plan’s success is not working toward the future, but to “bring the future to the present.” In other words, stakeholders reach agreement about what a vision of the future state of the community should look like, then work backwards to outline what actions must take place to achieve that goal within a defined period of time. In our case, the timeline is seven years.

1.2.2. The Collaboration Process To begin the planning, the Collaborative was established, casting a wide net to hundreds of stakeholders and key organizations involved with early education in Orange County. From the outset, transparency was established, with a pledge from OCDE that all interested parties could participate in the process and that all the content from the process would be posted on both the OCDE website and the consultant’s website. The Collaborative was organized around a series of open public meetings where the ground rules called for equality among participants. The goal was to have open, respectful communications where everyone worked together on each decision. The exchange and evaluation of ideas was quite robust.

The Collaborative was the plenary body for the planning process and it was augmented by six work groups that managed the planning progress for key content domains. These were:

Program Quality and Monitoring Workforce and Professional Development Parent and Community Engagement Articulation and Coordination Data Facilities

Each work group was led by volunteer co-chairs from participating stakeholder organizations and supported by OCDE liaisons who helped with logistics, record keeping, and communications between the work groups and the Collaborative.

11 Rubenstein, Moshe and Firstenberg, Iris. The Minding Organization. New York: Wiley, 1999.


Page | 10

The process included four public meetings of the Collaborative, seven work group meetings, one child care provider meeting, and three parent focus groups which took place from February 2007 to October 2007. A separate meeting of district superintendents took place in November 2007. The chart on the following page provides a graphic of the process. The Collaborative and work group meetings directly informed the content of this plan. Through activities, polls, and poster-sized templates, the meetings engaged participants in doing the work, rather than simply talking about the work that needed to be done. This approach harnessed and focused participants’ knowledge and expertise to produce a realistic and workable preschool plan


Page | 11

FFiigguurree 11:: TThhee PPllaannnniinngg PPrroocceessss SSttrruuccttuurree

Collaborative Meeting 1

FEBRUARY

Work Group Meeting 1

APRIL



JUNE


NOVEMBERSEPTEMBER



MARCH


MAY JULY



OCTOBER


February 2007

June 2008

JUNE

Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative February 2007 ‐ June 2008

District

Superintendent Meeting

Child Care Provider Meeting

Plan Completed


Page | 12

1.2.3 Case Statements One useful consensus-building activity that allowed the Collaborative to address important policy issues was the Case Statements.12 This activity enabled the Collaborative to deal with a number of contentious policy decisions in a time-effective and civil manner by polling the sentiment of the respondents in the room, displaying the results, and collecting their written commentary for subsequent publishing. This activity was used at every meeting, addressing five to ten questions on each occasion. The goal of Case Statements is to work toward building a supermajority of support (about 75%) around a specific statement in order to demonstrate to the group that the position has overwhelming support. If a Case Statement could not reach this threshold, the question would be revised based on the feedback and tried again at the next meeting. This process aided the Collaborative in coming to consensus on a wide variety of issues, including workforce education requirements, the use of a countywide quality rating system, and on ways to serve all county children in the face of state policies focusing on targeted services. Additionally, it allowed every participant to have an equal voice and influence, saving the need for lengthy and divisive debates during the meetings that would have taken time away from system building. Of the 24 Case Statements presented to the group, 14 attained consensuses immediately or through refinements in polling, five were solved through the process of group work on different aspects of the plan, and five remain to be resolved during implementation. A summary of the Case Statement results is in Appendix B.

12 Case Statements are a copyrighted game developed by Karen Hill Scott to test the level of agreement with policy ideas that are under discussion locally or statewide. The response categories are “red light” “yellow light” and “green light” forcing a choice but permitting explanations for that choice on the work template.


Page | 13

1.3. ORANGE COUNTY ASSETS

1.3.1. Positioned to Stay Ahead of the Curve If there is such a thing as a positive stereotype, Orange County is fortunate to typify many such characterizations. The median family income of $80,19313 is well above the state median of $64,563.14 Though very populous (3,098,121), Orange County has a distinctly suburban feel, largely because over 30% of the county is composed of low-rise master planned communities developed over the past 40 years. There are abundant parks and recreational facilities for a multitude of outdoor activities, and approximately 25% of the total land area (all of it toward the southeastern part of the county), is designated open space (National Forrest and County Reserves). Master planning has also included strategic land use for business development and office parks. These are, de facto, anchored by the Irvine based business parks and comprise what is known as the “Tech Coast” belt. For learning and earning, Orange County offers the full complement of educational and occupational opportunities for the present and future economy. In fact, the 2007 unemployment rate in Orange County is 4.3%, which is 1.6% lower than the state average of 5.9%. Orange County public schools outperform the average California school by a 60-point margin on the Academic Performance Index15 (API average 780 vs. 720).16 In 2007, 51% of Orange County schools scored above the statewide API target of 800. In addition, Orange County schools also have higher average SAT scores and lower drop-out rates than schools in neighboring Southern California counties, and the state as a whole.17 The county is home to a diverse range of higher education institutions, private and public, from vocational schools to nationally-ranked research universities. Material wealth and creature comforts are but one dimension of overall life quality. Orange County residents also have access to diverse religious and spiritual traditions. Two of the nation’s largest mega-churches, the Crystal Cathedral and Saddleback Church, are based here. The Trinity Broadcasting Network began and is still based in Orange County. Approximately 30% of the population is Roman Catholic. The Muslim community is one of the largest in the nation with multiple Islamic Centers, a

13 The median is the “middle-most” income, but the mean income @ $105,849, is the actual average indicating there are more family incomes at the higher end of the range. 14 U.S. Census, 2006 American Community Survey: Table B19119-California - Median Family Income in the Past 12 months (in 2006 inflation-adjusted Dollars). 15 See Appendix A: Glossary of Terms for an explanation of API. 16 Orange County Department of Education Community Report: February 2008. 17 Orange County Department of Education Community Report: February 2008.


Page | 14

school, and mosques. The Pao Fa Temple in Irvine is one of the largest Buddhist monasteries and temples in the United States. Taken as a whole, this thumbnail sketch illustrates how easy it is to make overgeneralizations about the good life in Orange County. Certainly, the physical environment, educational excellence, and a well-developed business environment are amazing assets. Orange County can be differentiated from any other county in the United States with an equivalent size population for several positive social, economic and demographic dimensions. On the face of it, Orange County may actually be “the Magic Kingdom.”

1.3.2. A Bend in the Curve The reality of Orange County is much deeper than the social indicators suggest. Often stereotyped as racially homogenous, Orange County is, in fact, ethnically and culturally diverse. This diversity has substantial significance in regard to both the evolution of preschool in Orange County and the maintenance of its leading position for multiple social indicators. Our analysis indicates that over the past 27 years, the county has always had more racial/ethnic diversity than was assumed. However, in 1980, the population was majority White. Today there is no ethnic majority, and the concept of diversity is visually much more apparent. Beginning in 1990, the categorical order of diversity in Orange County has remained constant: predominantly White, with a large Hispanic population, then an Asian minority, and followed by a very small African-American minority. Interestingly, mixed race identifiers were larger than the African-American population (Table 1).


Page | 15

Table 1

1990 Population Categories18 Total Population 2,410,556

White, not Hispanic 1,329,765 55%

Hispanic 564,828 23%

Black or African American 42,681 2%

Native-American 12,165 1%

Asian 249,192 10%

Other including mixed race 211,925 9%

Total 2,410,556 100%

In 2006, the picture had evolved somewhat and new methods of counting have provided a more nuanced picture of the county than the 1990 racial identification system. However, the table below conforms to the 1990 race categories for a base comparison.

Table 2 2006 Population19

Total Population by Primary Race Group

White 1,408,486 46.92%

Hispanic (of any race) 987,429 32.89%

Black 48,849 1.63%

American Indian and Alaska Native (only) 7,865 .26%

Asian 477,720 15.91%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 9,227 .31%

Some other race alone 16,553 .55%

Two or more races 45,920 1.53%

Total 3,002,049 100.00%

18 U.S. Census, 1990 19 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2006, Social Characteristics of the Orange County Population.


Page | 16

In the past 17 years, the Asian population had a 91% increase, and the Hispanic/Latino population increased by 71%. Today, despite a persistently small but stable number of African-Americans, the county has a more pluralistic look, mostly (but not majority) White, with substantial Hispanic and Asian minorities. The county’s Vietnamese minority is the largest of its kind outside of Vietnam.20 The most interesting part of the population evolution in Orange County is due to a refinement of how the census counts people. While it is possible to label people into broad “racial” categories as we saw in 1990, the 2006 census also permitted individuals to self-identify with a more complex form of racial identification that included race combinations. Using this classification system, an additional 10% of the Orange County population acknowledges a multi-racial heritage despite how they are listed in the census and anywhere else, for that matter. The race minority and race combinations comprise 55% of the total population, a completely different lens on the stereotype of homogeneity in Orange County.

Table 3 2006 - Nuanced Classifications

Individuals other than White only who report combinations with other races

Total Population 3,002,049

White in combination w/ other races 601,012 35.97%

African-American or Black w/ other races 62,878 3.76%

American Indian w/ other races 24,519 1.47%

Asian w/ other races 512,189 30.65%

Hawaii & other Pacific Islanders w/other races 14,942 0.89%

Other (mostly Hispanic) 455,401 27.25%

TOTAL 1,670,941 100.00%

Reported Combinations as a % of total 55.66%

Hispanic may be included in any category above

1.3.3. Navigating the Curve What does all this demography have to do with preschool? The most direct connection relates to Orange County staying ahead of the curve on the many quality of life indicators discussed earlier. Going back to 1980, the preschool children of that era were the population who came through the education pipeline to fuel today’s economy in Orange County. The current pipeline of talent requires the same quality

20 U.S. Census, Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000.


Page | 17

investment, and perhaps more, to keep the economic engine running in the future because a significant proportion of the current generation's preschool children are English Language Learners (ELL). The census statistics from 1980 to 2006 are illustrated in Tables 4 and 5 below.

Between 1980 and 2006, the Asian and Hispanic/Latino populations increased dramatically. The African-American population has held the same small steady state for the duration, but the remaining population shifts are transformational. Over half of the children under age five are Hispanic, and a sizeable proportion of this group includes English Language Learners. According to the OCDE 2008 Community Report, English Language Learners comprised about 28% of the K-12 enrollment and are roughly 64% of the total Hispanic enrollment. If the overall Orange County community wants to sustain today’s performance into the future, an investment in preschool is absolutely the strongest and most constructive way to start.

21 American Communities Survey, Ibid. 22 U.S. Census 2006

Table 4 Today's Population Pipeline 1980 Census Distribution21

Table 5 Tomorrow's Population Pipeline

2006 Census Estimate22 Total 1,932,709 Total 3,002,048

Hispanic 286,339 15.00% Hispanic 987,428 32.89%

White 1,510,698 78.16% White 1,408,486 46.92%

African American 25,287 1.31% African American 48,849 1.63%

Native American 12,951 0.67% Native American 7,865 .26%

Asian 81,674 4.23% Asian 477,720 15.91%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5,192 0.27%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 9,227 .31%

Other 10,568 0.55% Other 62,473 2.08%

TOTAL 1,932,709 100.00% TOTAL 3,002,048 100.00%

English Language Learner Overlay English Language Learner Overlay

All Children >5 129,531 All Children >5 222,421

Hispanic >5 33,671 26% of total Hispanic >5 122,33255% of

total


Page | 18

There is a growing body of economic research that shows the best investment for long-term education outcomes is made with high quality preschool. James Heckman, the 2002 Nobel Prize winner in Economics and a leading authority on human capital, strongly argues for public investment in early education. He points out that comparative analyses of job training, adult education, and other intervention programs aimed at promoting adult self-sufficiency demonstrate that investment in early education for disadvantaged children is, by far, the best approach to changing a child’s lifetime trajectory.23 Recent research on California’s children conducted by the RAND corporation (Karoly, 2007) shows that children who start behind stay behind, and the gap widens as they get older.24 These data clearly point to preschool as the best way to make a difference, as even small positive shifts in language development or social behavior seem to have long-term impacts on employment and crime reduction for low-income ethnic, minority children. 25,26

1.3.4. Staying on Track The above data has direct implications for our approach to fulfilling the goals of this plan, specifically the signature model of universal quality with targeted services. The population distribution affirms the importance of targeted services, particularly for low-income English Language Learners in minority communities. Not only can the efforts be targeted, but efficiency could be optimized by the focus on certain geographic areas and by the reduced transaction costs accrued by working with a select group of stakeholder organizations. On the other hand, children from all groups live throughout the county, and there are pockets of children who are achieving below proficiency levels in many parts of the county. We need to ensure that all children receive access to high quality preschool experiences no matter where they live. We must be prepared to work with the inherent diversity of Orange County, be responsive to culture and language in approaches to adult-child communication, and be attentive to different strategies for promoting parent engagement in children’s learning.

23 Heckman, James Interview for The Region, a publication of The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, June 2005. 24 Cannon, Jill and Lynn Karoly. “Who Is Ahead and Who Is Behind? Gaps in School Readiness and Student Achievement in the Early Grades for California’s Children, “ DRR-4271, Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, June 2007 25 Reynolds, Arthur J., Judy A. Temple, Dylan L. Robertson, and Emily A. Mann, “Age 21 Cost Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol.24, No.4, Winter 2002, pp. 267-303. 26 Gormley, William T., and Ted Gayer, “Promoting School Readiness in Oklahoma: An Evaluation of Tulsa’s Pre-K Program,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol 40, No.3, Summer 2005, pp. 553-558.


Page | 19

1.3.5. Family Strengths, Family Threats While it is true that Orange County families as a whole seem to be doing well, two recent reports, “The Conditions of Children in Orange County,”27 and the Children Now “California Data Book 2007,”28 set out a clear picture of how the aggregate indicators mask a less hospitable environment for children at risk. These reports should be reviewed for more thorough information than is presented here, as we have selectively reported findings that relate directly to the preschool plan and not the broader array of issues pertaining to children under age 18. Where minority, ethnicity, and low-income have combined, as in Santa Ana and Anaheim, there is also a disproportionate share of the county’s preschool population. With lower-cost housing than the county as a whole, these communities are more densely populated with young families. Over half the children under age five (55%) are Hispanic/Latino,29 and most of these children live in Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Garden Grove. There are 15 other cities where the Hispanic/Latino population exceeds 10,000, but as the mapping shows, the lowest achieving schools are primarily found in these three cities. The largest share of the county’s English Language Learners (28%) resides in these communities. Only 30% are in preschool, compared to the countywide average of 40% and the statewide average of 42%.30 Because a high quality early education is such a strong predictor of positive long-term education outcomes, every effort should be made to find funding for a high-quality program that will temper the bend in the curve and keep Orange County on the right track. The case for ensuring that this plan goes forward is imperative. Because the state is looking to local communities to inform the development of statewide policies related to preschool, local action must be supported to create an even stronger early childhood education infrastructure. The development of this plan is a step in the right direction for Orange County to be a significant contributor to state efforts.

27 The 13th Annual Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County, 2007. Published by the Orange County Health Information Center, 2007. www.ochealthinfo.com/cscc/report/home.htm 28 The 2007 California County Data Book. Published by Children Now, 2007. www.publications.childrennow.org/publications/invest/cdb07/cdb07_orange.htm 29 U.S. Census 2006 30 Conditions of Children in Orange County


Page | 20

1.4. THE LAY OF THE LAND It is one thing to discuss the asset map of Orange County where the engine of prosperity seems to be running at high performance levels, and it is another to find transforming opportunities for children who will be expected to sustain this legacy in the future. As the previous section of the plan illustrated, deep under the surface of a robust social and economic environment, the foundation is shifting just enough to be noticed, but not yet enough to be the public’s “number one” concern. The achievement levels among low-income minority children, many who are also English Language Learners, are at the core of California’s (and Orange County’s) largest education challenge. Because preschool can be a key instrument for mitigating low achievement, a review of the county’s preschool asset base was necessary. Maps that visually displayed the physical distribution of the countywide preschool asset base were prepared before proposing that resources be committed to creating and implementing an expansion program. The demand was calculated based on enrollment patterns in states with comprehensive preschool systems. Finally, the size of the gap between where Orange County is now and where it would need to be to fulfill the vision of this preschool plan was estimated. The following maps and discussion are based on the most recent data available, that was updated, refined, and recounted many times by the data work group of the Collaborative. The methodology followed was developed by the principal consultant many years ago and is conceptually simple and relatively easy to perform, but requires a tedious verification process to avoid costly mistakes. For example, each new space could have a hypothetical value of at least $10,000 without land costs, furnishings, and equipment. Thus, every 100 spaces would have a minimum cost of $1 million in construction or renovation costs alone. Accuracy within an acceptable margin of error is critical. The American Institutes of Research (AIR) database for Orange County was vetted against both local data and state data sets. There were several adjustments to the number of spaces (supply) and some refinements on demand before final tables could be generated.31 The database enumerates all center-based spaces assigned to or likely to be used for four year old enrollment. Family child care homes are

31 These tables replace the Power Point Presentation at the February 2007 meeting when the preliminary database was used. A comparison between the two shows the impact of the data verification process and the caution to rely on needs assessments only for broad estimations unless data has been adequately vetted.


Page | 21

not in the database, though that would not pre-empt home based child care providers from being included in a countywide system.32 A user-friendly approach was developed for presenting the preschool data. Maps and simple graphics were used wherever possible to display data, as well as to convey their meaning. In this section of the report, we present four maps which summarize a community needs assessment: demand, supply, “preschool gap,” and API decile 1-3 school locations. In addition to these, we have produced a fifth map that considers a unique challenge and opportunity for Orange County. Some school districts, including our densely populated minority communities, are experiencing a decline of kindergarten-12th grade student enrollment. The question to consider is whether new preschool services, if funded, could be managed on these sites.

1.4.1. Demand: Where Are the Children? The map in Figure 2 identifies the location and concentration of the demand for preschool in the various zip codes of Orange County. Our definition of “demand” is an estimate of the total number of four year old children in any zip code. Because the census data is seven years old, we rely on recorded births, categorized by the zip code of the mother’s residence as the best proxy for the number and location for current four year old children.33 The birth totals have been found to correspond very closely to public kindergarten enrollment numbers in the following year. Figure 2 shows that the demand for preschool is heavily concentrated in the northern half of the county, with a few large zip codes to the south. This demand is primarily based in the cities of Santa Ana, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Westminster, and Costa Mesa, among others. There are approximately 45,238 four year olds in Orange County. See Figure 2 on the following page

32 Licensed child care home participation in preschool systems is unique because there are not enough four year old children to constitute a class of eight or more children and administrative costs are very high for the sponsoring agency. 33 California Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics 2003


Page | 22

FFiigguurree 22:: WWhheerree AArree tthhee CChhiillddrreenn??

High Density Areas Four Year Old Children (2007)

Santa Ana 92704, 92703, 92701, 92707, 92706 Total 45,238 Anaheim 92805, 92804, 92801, 92802

Westminster 92683

Costa Mesa 92627

La Habra 90631

Tustin 92780 Garden Grove 92840, 92843 Laguna Beach 92656


Page | 23

1.4.2. Supply: Where Are the Preschool Spaces? The map in Figure 3 shows the distribution of preschool and child care spaces for four year olds in the county. Included in the supply are private preschool, federal Head Start, State Preschool, (including the Pre-kindergarten and Family Literacy Programs most recently funded by AB 172), and State-Funded General Child Care Center spaces.34 The quality of the programs in these centers is likely to vary, largely as a result of differing regulations. All child care and child development centers must be licensed under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The only centers that are exempt from these regulations are centers where the parents are on the premises most of the day. All private fee-based centers are regulated by Title 22. After receiving the license, most centers are not visited for compliance issues but once every five years, or upon complaint. All centers that receive public subsidy directly from the state or federal government must be licensed and meet additional regulations under Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. These public programs serve children at risk for low achievement whose families also meet low-income requirements. As a condition of public funding, centers are required to operate at a higher standard with annual site visits and financial audits. The presence of public funding is often the only basis for assuming a certain level of quality at a center. Private centers have the lowest requirements for teachers and administrators, but may choose to operate at a higher quality level or to seek accreditation by an agency such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). There are only 74 NAEYC accredited centers in Orange County, just 10% of the total of 718 licensed public and private centers. However, this rate is higher than the state as a whole, where accredited centers account for only 7% of the total (Table 6). Other examples of national accreditation organizations for early childhood programs include American Montessori Society, Association of Christian Schools International, and National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs.

34 Supply data provided by the Child Care Resource and Referral Network-Market Survey. County Profiles are released annually by the Network in the Profiles Data Book.


Page | 24

Table 6: NAEYC Accredited and Non-Accredited, Licensed Centers

Among the total 23,529 preschool (four year old qualified) spaces in the county, about 7,300 are funded by federal and state sources. All of the General Child Care Center spaces must have a sliding scale parent co-payment based on family income, while Head Start and State Preschool are free to income eligible consumers. As seen in Figure 3, zip codes with a large number of preschool spaces are distributed throughout the county, although many in the northern area are located on the periphery of some of the highest demand areas. Private spaces constitute nearly three out of four of Orange County’s spaces for four year old children. See FIGURE 3 on the following page

35 www.naeyc.org/accreditation/search 36 www.ccld./ca.gov/res/pdf/countylist.pdf

NAEYC Accredited and Non-Accredited, Licensed Centers35

Accredited Centers Private & Public Licensed Centers36 % of Accredited Centers

Orange County 74 718 10%

California 718 10,417 7%


Page | 25

FFiigguurree 33:: WWhheerree AArree tthhee PPrreesscchhooooll SSppaacceess??

High Density Supply Areas Total Spaces for Four Year Old Children

Costa Mesa 92627 Irvine 92604 Head Start- Four Year Olds only 3,442

Huntington Beach 92647 La Habra 90631 State Preschool and General Child Care

4,388

Anaheim 92805, 92804 Orange 92869 Private 16,159 Laguna Niguel 92677 Fountain Valley 92708 Total 23,529 Yorba Linda 92886 Garden Grove 92840 Tustin 92780 Santa Ana 92701 Westminster 92683 92688


Page | 26

1.4.3. Preschool Gap: Where Are the Gaps? A gap is defined as the location of space shortages for preschool, assuming 70% of the four year old children would be enrolled if services were available. We selected the 70% attendance level because in every voluntary statewide preschool program in the United States enrollment rarely exceeds 70% of the four year old population in that state, even when the program has no cost to the parents.37 The formula for computing the gap is:38

Supply – (Demand X .70 usage rate) = Preschool Gap

The following map of Orange County’s preschool gap mirrors that of Orange County’s high density preschool population. However, there are a few areas in other parts of the county where supply has not kept pace with the presence of young children in the population. The latter communities represent the best opportunities for private fee-for-service preschool service expansion, unless they are also low-income or at risk for low achievement. In that case, they would benefit from public investment. Using this formula, there are at least 8,138 children with no access to preschool because services are unavailable. Despite the fact that this seems like a large unmet need, our calculations are conservative. There are theoretically 1,553 surplus spaces in a small number of zip codes that are available to children in high need zip codes. It is highly unlikely that every surplus preschool space can be filled by a child from a high need area, so there are potentially 9,691 children, in total, who have limited access to preschool. See FIGURE 4 on the following page

37 National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) Yearbook, published in 2006. 38 Computing gaps for other more specialized services such as full-day child care, special education services, home visits, etc. require different calculation sources, though the basic model of supply/demand is appropriate. In Orange County the simple arithmetic is adjusted from high need zip codes. If distance to preschool were not an issue, the gross supply-demand formula would predict a need for 8,100 spaces. However, there are zip codes throughout the county that appear to have a surplus of spaces. These zip codes are geographically distant to the zip codes with shortages, so their surplus was set at zero. We summed the available supply with this adjustment supply figure to yield a deficit of about 11,000 spaces across the total number of zip codes with numerical shortages.


Page | 27

FFiigguurree 44:: WWhheerree AArree tthhee GGaappss??

Preschool Gap – Four Year Olds (2007) HOT Zones

Total Preschool Gap 8,138 92704 (Santa Ana) 1,026

92703 (Santa Ana) 1,020 92707 (Santa Ana) 663 92801 (Anaheim) 585 92701 (Santa Ana) 543 92802 (Anaheim) 486


Page | 28

1.4.4. Low API Schools: Are Decile 1-3 Schools Located in Areas of Greatest Need? The map in Figure 5 overlays the location of elementary schools with Academic Performance Index (API) scores in the bottom three deciles with our map of the preschool gaps. With a few exceptions, most of Orange County’s API decile 1-3 elementary schools are located in, or adjacent to zip codes suffering from a large gap between preschool demand and available spaces. This is not surprising given the substantial body of research, including the recent RAND report,39 citing the “readiness gap” as a significant contributor to the statewide achievement gap. On average, kids who start behind get further behind over their school years.

Put plainly, the low-income communities where children are not likely to have attended any sort of preschool are highly correlated with underperforming elementary schools. This map illuminates a strategic opportunity to not only provide high-quality preschool in these communities, but also to support Orange County’s public schools by ensuring that these children enter the K-12 system ready to learn. With on-going data monitoring, an Orange County preschool system could track the increased provision of preschool access and compare it to the API scores of these schools over time. See FIGURE 5 on the following page

39 Cannon, Jill and Lynn Karoly, Ibid.


Page | 29

FFiigguurree 55:: LLooww AAPPII DDeecciillee 11--33 SScchhoooollss iinn HHoott ZZoonneess

HOT Zones Preschool Gap – Four Year Olds (2007)

92704 (Santa Ana) 1,026 Total Preschool Gap 8,138

92703 (Santa Ana) 1,020 92707 (Santa Ana) 663 92801 (Anaheim) 585 92701 (Santa Ana) 543 92802 (Anaheim) 486


Page | 30

1.4.5. Declining School Enrollment The final map (Figure 6) considers the current enrollment decline in Orange County’s elementary school districts. The map identifies to what extent each school district has been impacted since 2003, with a projection to 2008. The reality of declining enrollment is significant to this plan because it may be possible to cost-effectively convert unused classroom spaces into preschool facilities to serve additional children. In combination, these actions would not only support improvements in student achievement by producing more kindergarteners who are ready for the K-12 curriculum, but it could also promote higher levels of parent engagement and affinity to school attendance. A discussion of procedure and possible legislation that could facilitate revenue flows is a specific focus in the final section of this plan. Santa Ana Unified, Anaheim City, Orange Unified, and Garden Grove Unified School Districts are experiencing some of the most pronounced enrollment declines in the county. These cities also overlap with a great number of high need zip codes where preschool demand outstrips supply. The nexus of these facts could provide an excellent opportunity for expanding preschool access in Orange County. It could prove to be mutually beneficial for the preschool arena, and for education overall, if districts experiencing declining enrollment could stem their revenue losses by offering additional preschool services. See FIGURE 6 on the following page


Page | 31

FFiigguurree 66:: CChhaannggee iinn EEnnrroollllmmeenntt

Change in Enrollment Net Enrollment Decline Santa Ana Unified -6,662 Enrollment Total FY 2002-03 495,576Anaheim City -3,056 Enrollment Total FY 2007-08 485,185Orange Unified -2,459 Change in Enrollment -10,391Saddleback Valley Unified -1,994 Garden Grove Unified -1,616 Newport-Mesa Unified -967 Fullerton Joint Union High -1,211 Irvine Unified 1,360 Huntington Beach Union High 1,407 Anaheim Union High 2,007 Tustin Unified 2,327 Capistrano Unified 2,755


Page | 32

Part II: WHAT WE WANT

2.0. THE PLAN

The Vision The vision of the Orange County Preschool Plan is: Promoting quality preschool everywhere, while targeting services to those most in need. In order to create this vision, a planning model developed by Firstenberg and Rubenstein was utilized. In their previously referenced groundbreaking book, The Minding Organization, they defined how to develop a plan for the future by visioning where you want to be and work backward to the present. The process that led to the development of the overall system vision and the strategic mission of the plan is described below.

2.1 Meeting 1 – February 2007 In February, the focus of the Collaborative was to fashion a collective vision for preschool in Orange County. Using a template activity called, “What’s Your Headline,” participants were encouraged to imagine both what an ideal preschool system would look like and to describe the benefits it would provide not only to the early care and education community, but to the K-12 system and Orange County as a whole. Naturally, the visions contained a bit of hyperbole, as participants wanted Orange County to be able to boast about a world class early education program, much in the way the county takes such pride in the overall performance of the public schools. A graphic of the “What’s Your Headline” template and sample headlines extolling the benefits of Pre-K are shown below (Figure 7).


Page | 33

FFiigguurree 77:: WWhhaatt’’ss YYoouurr HHeeaaddlliinnee TTeemmppllaattee

Sample Headlines from February Collaborative Meeting

Orange County Juvenile Justice Facility Closes…

No longer needed due to the long-term benefits of preschool!

OC Leads National Education Statistics

OC Juvenile Hall closes and funds diverted to Early Child Care

A Pre-K-12 System Ignites!

The knowledge gap narrows

Orange County Hits the Big “0”

0 dropout rate, 0 Crime, 0 Welfare!

Orange County Plan Becomes a National Model

Orange County Has Lowest Crime Rate in the Nation

Disney Spearheads Land Development for Preschool


Page | 34

A meeting for child care providers was held on May 22, 2007, and participants also completed the “What’s Your Headline” activity.

Sample Headlines from May Child Care Provider Meeting

Children from Quality Family Child Care Exceed All Expectations in Kindergarten

Family Child Care Making Big Steps Toward Enriching Children Through the Arts

Fullerton Achieves 100% Participation in Pre-K Program by Adding Ten New Facilities

The next activity was the Case Statement polling exercise. Meeting participants responded to four statements, all relatively controversial, to determine where the group stood on these important issues. Two of the statements were important to the vision statement for the system as a whole. One pertained to focusing on children in low-achieving districts. The other focused on the participation of public and private child care providers. A graphic of the Case Statement template and participant responses to these two statements are shown below (Figure 8).

FFiigguurree 88:: CCaassee SSttaatteemmeenntt TTeemmppllaattee


Page | 35

1. Orange County should focus on creating access to preschool ONLY for the children in low-achieving school districts. AGREE: 9% DISAGREE: 83% UNSURE: 8%

2. If preschool is expanded in our county, both public and private providers should be able to participate in the system. AGREE: 84% DISAGREE: 8% UNSURE: 8%

Both private provider groups and the mixed group of educators and other professionals at the Collaborative meeting overwhelmingly disagreed with the idea of limiting access to children in low-achieving school districts. The groups highly agreed that both public and private providers should be able to participate in the system. These findings demonstrated that the groups were holding onto the principle of universal preschool and also supported a mixed delivery system.

The Strategic Mission 2.2. Meetings 2-5 During March, April, May, and June, the Collaborative worked to agree upon what would be realistic and achievable in creating a preschool system for Orange County. This included producing a strategic mission statement for the system as a whole and for each work group. In creating a strategic mission statement, groups were tasked with describing results, outlining how they could be quantifiably measured, and identifying “customers” whom these actions would serve. Additionally, we reviewed a number of budget and roll-out models to quantify the costs of system expansion depending on state budget scenarios, groups of children served, quality levels, and facilities expansion. The groups deliberated using worksheets and templates to guide the discussion. The final template each work group used is shown below (Figure 9).


Page | 36

FFiigguurree 99:: SSttrraatteeggiicc MMiissssiioonn SSttaatteemmeenntt TTeemmppllaattee

At the March meeting, several statements were crafted and later consolidated by the group to describe the results, the metrics for the results, and for whom those results would pertain. The strategic mission statements are summarized below.

By 2015, Orange County child care providers and school districts would: Serve no less than 40% and up to 75% of four year old children Provide high-quality preschool programs (as assessed using the United Way Star Quality Rating

System or other agreed upon quality rating system) Provide facilities in new, re-purposed, and existing buildings Have well-trained teachers, of which 35% would be on track for a yet to be developed early

education credential offered by a state supported professional development system


Page | 37

Utilize practices based on appropriate pedagogy according to the California Preschool Learning Foundations

The Orange County system of early learning would also:

Offer outstanding opportunities for parent engagement and advocacy (with 51% active participation rates)

Provide children who attend preschool with the benefit of specific ancillary screenings and assessments (at an expected rate of 10%-15%)

Produce, among enrolled children, a significantly higher level of performance on district adopted kindergarten assessment tools or other instruments developed for use by 2015

These overall mission statements for the system are ambitious, but one must take into account that these were developed immediately after the passage of AB 172, which made $100 million in new preschool funding available to counties in California. In June 2006, Orange County had received 131% of its allocation, a total of almost $7 million. This was enough to serve over 1,800 children in State Preschool. If future funding continued at a normal level of apportionment ($3 million per year), our spreadsheets predicted that Orange County could serve all the four year old children in API decile 1-3 school districts by 2012 (see Table 7 below). This gave hope that Orange County could actually enroll all the children most in need in a state-sponsored program.


Page | 38

Table 7: Financial Projections – Saturation for API Decile 1-3 at Current Cost/Child

The most sobering development during the planning period was the slowly closing door of fiscal realities. Over a period of ten months, the prospects for additional preschool funding diminished. Thus, the final output of the work groups was modest in comparison to the exuberance of the original “What’s Your Headline” exercises. Excitement about possibly closing the preschool gap in the county was tempered by the need to consider deferring, NOT GIVING UP, hopes for achieving our goals within seven years. In a very constructive adaptation to circumstance, the local signature for Orange County was developed: As we work toward access for all, and possibly funding for all, we will increase access to quality preschool programs and support alignment to kindergarten for all children, and we will target service delivery to those most in need.

2.3. July, September, and October Meetings In July, September, and October, the Collaborative worked to flesh out the details of an Orange County preschool system. The work groups completed vision statements, developed program dimensions and performance indicators, and developed two, five, and seven-year goals as system wide metrics. The output was cross-checked among the work groups. Input was provided and opportunities for collaboration among groups were identified.


Page | 39

This work outlined the specific actions and timetables necessary to achieve the strategic missions outlined earlier in the process. By identifying timetables for certain actions to be completed, the work groups were able to “bring the future to the present” and align their activities more efficiently. At the final meeting in October 2007, the work groups reported their progress to the group as a whole; describing the process from visioning to implementation. The final activity required participants to analyze a number of early implementation goals and determine their feasibility as a way to prioritize those early efforts. Following is a distillation of the work group efforts. Each group was required to develop a strategic mission statement, cross walk that statement against the outputs of the other work groups to ensure complementarities, and relate their goals to the vision of universal quality and targeted services. There are additional work products, including priority statements and discussion notes that can be compiled for knowledge transfer to inform implementation of the program. The strategic mission, key indicators, and highlighted programmatic features listed in the charts below outline the direction necessary for the preschool plan.


Page | 40

PPrrooggrraamm QQuuaalliittyy aanndd MMoonniittoorriinngg

Vision Statement Strategic Mission

• Every Early Childhood Education (ECE) program meets or exceeds the agreed upon community standard of quality

• Quality standards o Include guiding principles for best practices in

all program areas o Build upon existing work in county o Integrate all planning work groups

• Monitoring System o Supports program assessment o Supports continued program growth and

improvement • Entire community understands quality standards

• By 2015, all Pre-K children in Orange County will benefit from programs that have adopted quality standards that are inclusive of all children and reflect research-based best practices in all program components.

Major Program Dimensions • Increased community awareness (families and ECE

professionals) • Improved and intentional programs that meet the needs of

all children in all learning environments • Increased access to all resources for all provider settings

that promote and support quality programs for all children

2-Year Goal Milestone 5-Year Goal Milestone 7-Year Goal Milestone • Build upon existing Success by 6 Star

Quality Rating System (QRS) and other program improvement initiatives in the county to create and pilot an Orange County quality rating measurement for all programs (piloting implemented internally by any interested programs and externally by current and future quality improvement efforts)

• Evaluate, revise, and align QRS with any new state requirements, such as CA Preschool Learning Foundations

• Develop new resources to support program improvement

• Introduce QRS to the community at-large

• Evaluate QRS pilot program in order to improve

• Develop more resources and funding for quality improvement

• Increased number of programs participating in QRS program

• Increased community understanding about quality


Page | 41

PPrrooggrraamm QQuuaalliittyy aanndd MMoonniittoorriinngg

Targeted (API Decile 1-3) Features

• Piloting of QRS targeted to programs serving decile 1-3

schools • Some resources limited to these programs • State-funded program requirements aligned in QRS

measures

Universal Features

• Any program can participate in QRS • Many resources available to all programs • All programs benefit from increased public awareness of

quality components

Recommendations for Next Steps

• Align all current quality measurements and improvement efforts countywide

• Pool existing resources/efforts to promote quality improvement and “readiness” for publicly funded preschool

• Work collaboratively to map quality improvement resources


Page | 42

WWoorrkkffoorrccee aanndd PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt Vision Statement

• All Early Childhood Education (ECE) staff in

Orange County will be well advised, supported by an active professional development program, and educated through diverse paths to hold child development permits and/or Associate and Bachelor’s degrees in Early Childhood Education.

Strategic Mission

• To provide a highly qualified and diverse workforce for each early childhood education setting (public, private, and non-profit) through articulation of Orange County Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), recruitment, and academic career advisement of undergraduate students, approved ongoing professional development (with a defined career lattice), and at least one teacher with a Bachelor’s degree in ECE or related field in each Orange County classroom

Major Program Dimensions • Increase Associates of Arts and Bachelor of Arts degree attainment in the ECE workforce • Ongoing articulation discussions and agreements with all Orange County Institutions of Higher Education • Provision of universal career advisement • Create Orange County ECE website • Conduct annual workforce survey

2-Year Goal Milestone 5-Year Goal Milestone 7-Year Goal Milestone

• Complete OC career lattice • Promote ongoing collaboration of

IHEs to articulate program • Complete workforce study to

target areas of need

• Rollout OC career lattice • Establish OC ECE website as a

clearing house for education, training, and professional growth activities that are aligned with Quality Rating System

• Full alignment agreements with IHEs • ECE advisors in every college and

available to consult in needed areas • Workforce surveys show general

increase in educational attainment of ECE teachers in OC and degree attainment on the rise


Page | 43

WWoorrkkffoorrccee aanndd PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt


Universal Features

• Workforce surveys to target areas of need in professional advisement and professional development

• Increased support with articulation, transition, and curriculum alignment between preschool and the K-12 systems

• OC career lattice • OC ECE website • Intact articulation agreements


• Review Spring 2007 workforce survey for patterns • Set regular collaboration meeting with continued articulation (UC/CSU/private universities, community colleges) • Begin to work on designing the OC career lattice


Page | 44

PPaarreenntt aanndd CCoommmmuunniittyy EEnnggaaggeemmeenntt Vision Statement Strategic Mission Major Program Dimensions

• By engaging all families in their child’s early learning experiences, all incoming kindergarteners enter school healthy and ready to learn.

• By 2015, educators, parents and community stakeholders will collaborate to ensure that all three and four year olds enter kindergarten healthy and ready to learn.

• A consistent countywide message will advance the importance of early childhood experiences

• Parents are actively involved • Community collaborations • Variety of resources (multicultural/

multilingual)


• Identify and establish a collaborative to decide on early learning skills message

• Identify county resources • Create a strategic plan to get

information and early learning skills to parents

• Disseminate resources on early learning skills to community

• Increase number of parents who have access to early learning skills

• Advance the importance of quality early childhood experiences through a consistent, countywide message


Page | 45

PPaarreenntt aanndd CCoommmmuunniittyy EEnnggaaggeemmeenntt

Targeted (API Decile 1-3) Features Universal Features

• Children in decile 1-3 districts are ready to learn • Children are healthy and have been screened • Children have been exposed to different modes of learning

• Parents have the primary role in their child’s learning experiences

• Schools, family resource centers, and libraries help support families

• Increased parent participation


• Convene a meeting of community stakeholders • Identify existing resources • Work with local communities (e.g. School Readiness Coordinators, Family Resource Centers) to implement

action steps that will lead to accomplishment of goals


Page | 46

AArrttiiccuullaattiioonn aanndd CCoooorrddiinnaattiioonn

Vision Statement Strategic Mission Major Program Dimensions

• All stakeholders in Orange County will have knowledge and understanding of developmental practices, parents will be valued as equal partners, and there will be an alignment of a spiral of learning from preschool to elementary school.

• Recognizing the roles of families in the education of their children, 100% of school districts with kindergarten programs will incorporate ongoing systematic transition processes centered around all stakeholders resulting in seamless, articulated, and coordinated practices.

• Standard protocol manual for transitions defining a systematic ongoing process with benchmarks and a timeline

• Seamless transition between preschool and elementary school

• Articulation of best practices with all stakeholders


• Create standard protocol manual with clearly defined roles for all stakeholders to promote universal transition coordination

• Utilize Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) and CA Preschool Learning Foundations to facilitate transition and support early intervention

• Implement standard protocol manual throughout the county

• Implement seamless transition process between early childhood programs and elementary school


Page | 47

AArrttiiccuullaattiioonn aanndd CCoooorrddiinnaattiioonn

Targeted (API Decile 1-3) Features Universal Features Recommendations for

Next Steps

• Focus on countywide implementation of Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) and CA Preschool Learning Foundations

• Involvement of all stakeholders, including families

• Protocol manual supports articulation and coordination for all

• DRDP and CA Preschool Learning Foundations are fully implemented

• Create a process for exploring existing articulation and coordination materials

• Review existing materials and determine scope and format of protocol manual


Page | 48

DDaattaa Vision Statement Strategic Mission Major Program Dimensions

• Data collection should support the work of the other OC Preschool Planning Collaborative work groups to identify and collect ongoing relevant information and data essential for providing quality ECE programs and for assessing ECE efficacy.

• Coordinate efforts to streamline data collection necessary to the work of the OC Preschool Planning Collaborative and refine data to maximize reliability and validity, and compile, analyze and disseminate information to work groups to support their mission and to the general public

• Coordinated Geographic Information System (GIS) containing demographic and program data that is updated on a regular, ongoing basis and is accessible via the internet for county planning purposes

• Identify essential data elements for preschool planning development

• GIS system produces maps/tables that are disseminated to build community approach and capacity


• Identify a centralized GIS system which will manage data collection and support ongoing countywide preschool data collection

• Utilize centralized GIS system to continue data collection, complete county needs assessment, and track the ongoing preschool data

• Utilize centralized GIS system to review and amend standardized data elements and continue to track ongoing preschool data


Page | 49

DDaattaa


• Tracking of a variety of demographic and ECE data to support preschool planning, quality programming, and development

• Coordinated GIS system will identify essential data elements for low API areas, including system maps/tables that are disseminated and available to build community approach and capacity

Universal Features

• Ongoing data collection that is essential for preschool planning and quality programming and development for all preschool children in Orange County


• Create a process between existing agencies to research

potential funding sources that would support a centralized GIS system

• The identified GIS system will track essential data elements for quality preschool planning and development

• The identified GIS system will continue to support countywide data collection, analysis, and dissemination of information to the general public to work groups to support their missions


Page | 50

FFaacciilliittiieess

Vision Statement Strategic Mission Major Program Dimensions

• A facility is available to serve every preschool-age child in the county whose family wants him/her to be in an early childhood education program.

• By 2015, Orange County will expand/build/renovate at least 2 to 4 new sites per year serving at least 500 children per year through diverse licensed facilities that meet quality design principles.

• Opening of 2 to 4 new preschool sites per year

• Central clearing house for facility development established through ABCD Constructing Connections

• Child care policies incorporated into city general plans and zoning ordinances


• 3,000 children will be served within two years • 1,000 Full-Day • 2,000 Part-Day

• One new facility developed per year with 4,500 additional children served by the 5th year = 187 classrooms

• 6,500 children will be served daily, including creation of 1,000 spaces for full-day child care = 229 classrooms


Page | 51

FFaacciilliittiieess

Targeted (API Decile 1-3) Features Universal Features

• Sites developed in highest need areas first • Facilities designed and prepared to provide

highest quality of care and education • Identify resources and seek financial support for

development of facilities in low income areas • Child care policies included in city’s General

Plans and Land Use Elements for all target areas

• Orange County United Way’s LINCC Project/Child Care Connections Collaborative is utilized as a clearing house system for facilities development (one-stop shop)

• One Center of Excellence is developed within each target area to accommodate 100 full-day children


• Child Care Connections continues collaborative efforts to streamline the facilities development process in Orange County

• Identify and initiate development of sites • Seek financial supports to accommodate the development of facilities


Page | 52

School District Superintendents Involvement 2.4. November Meeting An additional meeting was held with local district superintendents, mainly focused on sharing the updated supply-demand data and the additional data on declining enrollment. In the API decile 1-3 communities, there is a possibility for school districts to begin filling the breech in supply because they have access to facilities options that a local provider does not have. Also, with recent data on declining enrollment, it may be possible to create enough preschool spaces to fill the gap for as many as 5-10 years, if the enrollment declines run on a twelve-year cycle. The presentation for superintendents covered the following essential points: • There is a preschool gap in API decile 1-3 communities. • Preschool will have a positive effect on school preparation. • There is a possibility that schools could directly operate or contract with providers to offer preschool

services. • There is a possibility that Pre-K may be able to qualify for Average Daily Attendance (ADA) and Title

I funds if school districts adopt the cohort as part of their primary education plan.

The superintendents were a receptive audience. While quite interested in preschool, they were also worried about their district’s funding in general with the combination of declining enrollment and a looming state budget crisis. Most agreed that if preschool financing could be obtained, they would support multiple models to deliver service at school sites. Part III of this report discusses the potential of school districts to adopt some innovations that have extraordinary synergies.


Page | 53

PART III: WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

3.0 INCREMENTALISM Many people wonder why one policy gets funded, while another seemingly more worthy public investment appears to languish. They may also wonder why some great and tested ideas go wrong when they become programs intended to help people. There are many reasons, almost all related to the human processes of deliberation, negotiation, and collective persuasion in a political context. Pressman and Wildavsky’s trenchant classic, Implementation, provides an outstanding analysis of the twisted road of federal economic development policies as translated by local government.40 With policy creation, another process often called disjointed incrementalism, is at work. This phrase was coined by Charles Lindblom,41 whose work in economics and political science has spanned the past sixty years of American politics. Incremental adjustments to an existing policy are almost always preferred to a systemic overhaul of a poorly functioning public institution.42 Incrementalism always aims for a remedial alleviation of a present policy implementation, rather than actual problem-solving. That is left to those who implement the programs.

Certainly, the incremental model of public policy holds true for early education. A recent RAND study on financing child development programs in California underscores the inefficiencies and confusing array of programs funded during the past 50 years in this state.43 The state spends almost $2 billion on eleven different categorical programs for two slightly different categories of children, the very poor and the somewhat poor. In the past forty years, since the wide-scale launch of the federally funded Head Start and Early Education program, preschool implementation has seen more breadth than depth of coverage for numbers of children, amount of spending per child, and quality standards applied to the program. It is

40 Pressman and Wildavasky. Implementation, University of California Press, 1973. 41 Lindblom’s first book was published in 1948, his most recent Inquiry and Change in 2004. Disjointed incrementalism was coined and analyzed in the article, “The Science of Muddling Through,” in Public Administration Review, Vol 19, pp 79-88, 1959. 42 Braybrooke and Lindblom. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, Free Press, 1970, and Lindblom and Woodhouse, The Policy-Making Process, Third Edition, Prentiss Hall Publishing Company, 1993. 43 Karoly, Lynn, and Elaine Reardon, Michelle Cho. Early Care and Education in the Golden State: Publicly Funded Programs Serving California’s Preschool-Age Children. TR-538. Santa Monica. Rand Corporation, available web only, www.Rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR538.


Page | 54

exciting to see the recent interest in early education, but action is still slow going at solving the problem. Incrementalism virtually dictates that adequacy is not the main goal; rather, basic service provision to some of those most in need is a sufficient tax-payer risk. This is exactly the scenario Lindblom refers to in his work on disjointed incrementalism. The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) reports in the 2006 Yearbook on the State of Preschool 44 that 38 states have preschool programs. The top five, which offer free preschool to every child, are Oklahoma, Georgia, Vermont, Florida, and Texas. Spending per child and program quality varies widely, though Oklahoma ranked number one on coverage and tied with Arkansas, Illinois, and Tennessee with a score of 9 out of 10 on quality. California, after many years of leading the field for state investments in young children, is near the bottom of the barrel. One of only two states in the country that kept its Lanham Act child care centers open after the end of World War II, California was the only state that did not rely on federal funds for the largest public child development system in the country. In addition, California was the state that pioneered its own preschool program to run side-by-side with Head Start. Today however, California ranks 24th on access, 20th on resources, and joins five other states for a low score of 4 out of 10 on quality.45 In an effort to solve this problem, the past eight years have witnessed a rather confident advocacy for universal preschool as a partial antidote to what is agreed to be an admittedly weak non-system. In June 2006, the hope for a systemic overhaul of the system, Proposition 82 – The Preschool for All Initiative, crashed at the ballot box. Did the initiative have flaws or was the public simply resistant to any new taxes? Or as an incrementalist might suggest, was the very idea of a universal preschool system beyond the public’s threshold level? In The Sandbox Investment46 and Standardized Childhood,47 two professors from the same institution, University of California, Berkeley, provide completely different perspectives on what went wrong with California’s Proposition 82 Initiative.48 No matter what the reasons, one point was clear from both analyses; the systemic overhaul of preschool is a lightening rod in public discourse where the field, the pundits, and the public in general, are not ready to move forward. Thus, given a sobering state deficit in

44 Barnett, W. Steven, Hustdet, Jason, Hawkinson, Laura, and Robin, Kenneth. The State of Preschool 2006. National Institute for Early Education Research www.nieer.org/yearbook/states/. 45 Kansas had the lowest score, 3 just one point above California. 46 Kirp, David. The Sandbox Investment. Harvard University Press. 2007. 47 Fuller, Bruce. Standardized Childhood. University of California Press. 2006. 48The Initiative and the analysis are mentioned here only because the rejection of systemic overhaul bears directly on the Orange County Preschool Plan.


Page | 55

2008, this is a time to focus on preparing for the future by fine tuning, adjusting, and cleaning up state-level programs and policy. Incrementalism definitely prevails in a tight economic environment. This is a time to create demonstrations of program excellence made at the local level. When the economy rebounds, this quiet preparation will be rewarded by, not a systemic overhaul, but constructive incremental change. As described at the beginning of this section, diligent work on a plan to link every major policy increment toward a goal is the only assurance that the incremental change will be for the better. This kind of work, with a focus on an over-arching goal, is something we call conjoint incrementalism. It is hard work and requires excellent management of the action on the ground and in the deliberations at the policy center. OCDE has the capacity to facilitate a process of conjoint incrementalism through its charge as a county office of education and in its proven role as a respected convener and provider of umbrella services for local school districts and community organizations. The Collaborative expressed support for OCDE to continue coordinating activities around preschool. If the continuation of effort that went into the plan can be sustained with wider and more strategic participation, and if every success going forward is shaped as an accomplishment toward the goal of the strategic mission statement, Orange County will succeed with implementation of this plan. What remains to be developed are concrete recommendations and suggestions for taking the next steps; dissemination and implementation. There was a general consensus in the Collaborative that to sustain our momentum and obtain broad support for implementation, the plan had to be taken “up and out” to the civic and legislative leadership of the county and also to a broader asset base of community organizations and institutions that implement programs. The consulting team has had the opportunity to stand back from the planning process and look at the totality of content and effort that was distilled for this document. From a synthesis of ideas, we developed the following recommendations for consideration as one approach for managing next steps and broadening local interest in preschool. In the vein of a proposal, we recognize that as the work takes shape, circumstances may not fit easily with these recommendations. However, we are certain that it will take everyone working together - advocates, wonks, bureaucrats, affiliated elected officials, and stakeholders - to adjust the many dimensions of the policy agenda that allow each small step forward. This will be conjoint incrementalism at its best.

3.1. RECOMMENDATIONS


Page | 56

3.1.1 Recommendation 1

The first recommendation is to form a Strategy Group, composed of high level leadership in stakeholder organizations and entities, to guide the implementation of this plan. Orange County has several stakeholders with significant investments in early education. All are performing at a high standard and there was no motivation or need on the part of any participants in the Collaborative to centralize functional line responsibility for preschool in a single organization. However, achieving the goals of the plan requires the facilitation of communication, coordination, and collaboration among the key entities in order to achieve the goals. More importantly, the end users, families and their children, need to make sense of the system so their access and participation are increased. The composition of the Strategy Group is very important to achieving success. The facilitation role is important for building trust among participants that will support success. Work Scope and Composition of the Strategy Group The Strategy Group should be composed of the following sectors with the highest possible level of participant leadership commensurate to the task. The leadership role cannot be delegated or designated as the work requires decision-making and budget authority to act and commit on behalf of institutions, organizations, departments, and programs.

Recommended participants would include OCDE, the Executive Director of the Children and Families Commission, and/or the key executive of the School Readiness efforts, superintendents from API decile 1-3 school districts, the Local Child Care Planning Council, and key executives for related sectors in each of the work group content areas (higher education, community outreach, information accounting, quality rating, alignment and articulation, and facilities).

Additional key executives should be present for special education and child care provider operations, especially the largest private non-profit providers of public preschool in the county, such as Head Start and Child Development, Inc. The recommended size of the Strategy Group is no more than 25 to keep the group nimble with the work, but large enough to bear absences.

Each participant should have the staff or other capacity from which to draw resources to support the work he or she performs as a part of the Strategy Group.

The work scope of the Strategy Group will begin with a review of the Preschool Plan, goals of the work groups, and an assessment of the practicality of the charge set out in the plan.


Page | 57

The Strategy Group will identify pathways to delegation so the work can be performed collaboratively in the community by a variety of agencies and organizations committed to preschool progress and expansion.

The Strategy Group will explore creating a public affairs arm to monitor and report on public policy deliberations at the local, state, and federal level that bear on preschool expansion and quality development.

The Strategy Group, with the reciprocal support of the community, will work to develop local funding for efforts (particularly transactional activities) that can multiply and leverage resource growth at the local level.

The Strategy Group will determine a schedule and format for managing the process of planning and monitoring progress of all the collaborators toward their respective goals. The aim here is synergy, not direction.

The Strategy Group or individual participants will take on responsibilities related to preschool quality, expansion, and support that are consistent with the goals of the plan. For example, a local superintendent who is in the Strategy Group may also spearhead a classroom conversion project to begin either a Pre-K or two-year kindergarten program in his/her district.

3.1.1.1. Facilitation of the Strategy Group Responsibility for the Strategy Group should belong to an organization that defines its role as a countywide convener and coordinator and is not necessarily responsible for managing direct services. The facilitator should want to assume the role and to seek funding for managing the Strategy Group.

After a brief discussion at the October 2007 meeting, the Collaborative recommended that OCDE assume the role as convener/coordinator for the Strategy Group. It would provide continuity from the planning process and OCDE leadership amply demonstrated their ability to pull people together without interfering with the work efforts that were generating success around the county. In addition, the state policy direction is to vest increasing responsibility for development and coordination of local preschool efforts to county offices of education, who then collaborate with local First 5 organizations and additional local groups. If OCDE assumes this role, it would not set precedent for the state and would conform to the kind of work most county offices of education assume by their charter - to provide oversight, assistance, coordination, and services to those entities charged with direct responsibility for local implementation.

3.1.2. Recommendation 2


Page | 58

The Strategy Group should organize a work group composed of the appropriate K-12 officials in impacted districts to develop a set of recommendations regarding the feasibility of deploying unused classroom space for preschool. Notwithstanding the lack of immediate availability of funding, and in the spirit of preparedness, this work group would approach its task from the perspective of possibility. On paper, it would appear that enrollment declines and potential demand have an excellent match for K-12 participation in the preschool agenda. However, appropriate locations, classroom quality, construction financing, appropriate outdoor environments, and other concerns have to be taken into consideration when researching the feasibility of what some would perceive as an “easy swap.” There is no such thing, as we know. This work group could also explore current efforts to create two-year developmental kindergarten and deployment of jeopardized Title I funds to Pre-K. Federal guidelines have been established to permit this, but counting it as Average Daily Attendance (ADA) in districts with declining enrollment may be subject to special rules.49


The Strategy Group should identify one or more groups whose focus can be placed on real estate development for preschool in the private sector. An entity or program may not currently exist, or may be located within a non-profit housing and community development entity. However, incorporated Community Development Corporations (CDCs), which are both secular and faith based, may take up the mantle of developing preschools in low-income communities as part of their housing or mixed use projects.


The Strategy Group should catalyze the formation of an inter-district/community task force to develop an alignment and articulation process and handbook, perhaps funded by a foundation. At minimum, the process and handbook should be guided by best practices nationally, and the content should be responsive to the California Preschool Learning Foundations and the Content Standards for California Public Schools- Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (for subject matter content that is introduced in kindergarten). The task force should also consider the following:

The importance of bottom-up, horizontal work to create and enjoin adoption of new processes and models of educational transition. What is easy to understand on paper for an administrative

49 Ewan, Danielle. Center for Law and Social Policy. Report Series on Title I Utilization for Preschool: A National Study. 2006.


Page | 59

educator is not real-world for the classroom teacher, principals, parents, or early childhood education providers. Beyond procedure, the goal of articulation and alignment is to ensure that the child’s preparation, transition, and later adjustment to kindergarten are smooth and successful.

Develop a task force attached to the development process so community partners (such as the Commission’s School Readiness Coordinator team) are included and are committed to partnering with OCDE on implementation, information dissemination, and support.

Parent engagement is important both to the child’s preschool experience and transition to kindergarten. The focus groups we conducted with middle class and low-income parents revealed they know little about kindergarten requirements, where their child will actually attend school, who will be the teacher, and so on. Several of the parents had children with special needs and knowing whether they would have support was a source of anxiety for them. It might be useful to identify and find best practices in preschool to kindergarten transition from case studies around the state or country and apply proven strategies to Orange County.

Explore ways to fund the research, development, and writing process for the handbook. This would include in-kind contributions of staff time, donated space, and other leveraging to respond to the constrained funding environment.


The Strategy Group should explore, identify, and recommend a designee to manage the development of a Quality Rating System (QRS) and a process that responds to widely-accepted precepts of quality assessment. The Orange County United Way has a tool that has been used for preschool centers; and several California counties use a variety of measures to assess quality. There is a policy link attached to this as refinements in reimbursements are expected to be a central feature of new preschool funding policy when resources become available. The anchor on tiered reimbursement will be the quality rating system in place at either the state or county level. 3.1.6. Recommendation 6

The Strategy Group should request that the OCDE Division of Instructional Services take the lead on workforce development. OCDE’s experience and role in teacher training, professional development, and work with higher education institutions and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing position it to be effective and capable of leveraging resources toward workforce development. Sacramento County Office of Education has developed alternate pathways to teacher education and credentialing, and also a “Bridging Connections” model of continuing professional development that includes community-based


Page | 60

providers. This model may have applicability in Orange County because it resembles philosophically and operationally similar efforts undertaken by the division in the past. The division should support the existing efforts of groups that are focused on creating preschool workforce development strategies. Two examples of such groups are the California Community Colleges Early Childhood Educators (CCCECE) who are working on engaging a consortium of higher education institutions to enter into articulation agreements between two and four year programs and the Faculty Initiative Project (FIP) that has the goal of aligning and integrating essential content and competencies of key California Department of Education, Child Development Division initiatives and publications with core early childhood education curriculum of community colleges and state universities. This articulation and alignment is necessary to increase the quality of early childhood education curriculum, to ensure units transfer easily, and to smooth education and career planning processes for students, especially those who are working, attending school, and managing families simultaneously. The division should catalyze, where necessary or appropriate, remote in-person instruction so students can take courses at or near their place of work. Other models embedded in alternate pathway workforce development should also be explored. The division should determine the feasibility of the two, five, and seven-year Workforce and Professional Development work group goals and track policy developments that may require new teacher training benchmarks related to tiered reimbursement models.


The Strategy Group should determine the most effective designee for information accounting related to preschool development. Our recommendation is to designate someone within OCDE to be a liaison to the Local Planning Council (LPC) and the Demographic Research Institute at California State University Fullerton (CSUF) on methodological issues and information collection procedures. OCDE’s School and Community Services Division liaison to the LPC can work with the Business Services Division and the Orange County Child Care Coordinator to acquire pertinent preschool data from CSUF and other county and state resources. This recommendation is direct rather than suggestive because information accounting is important not only to planning but also to monitor the accomplishment of milestones. This would seem to be a reporting function of OCDE to the Strategy Group.


Page | 61

Another reason for this particular recommendation is that many of the contextual statistics are easily attainable to OCDE and are related to education and education planning. If local school districts in the API decile 1-3 areas are going to participate in more aggressive engagement with preschool, it seems convenient to have data management in an agency where the school districts already conduct transmittals and transactions. There are several dimensions of information accounting which relate to achievement of the plan as well as having relevant information on what is going on in early education in the county. These include the base of supply and demand, augmented by assessment scores, attendance, ancillary services, expected school transition, and confidential cumulative records, in the event that unique student identifiers are ever approved/ required by the legislators.

3.1.8 Recommendation 8

The Parent Engagement work group recommended a modest program of parent engagement which goes to building relationships and creating a communications campaign to parents about bonding to the child’s learning processes. This is very similar to the efforts First 5 California undertook to promote preschool and other messaging statewide. However, we know few local organizations have even a modest communications budget, especially not in the current environment. We recommend a strategy for fulfilling the Parent Engagement work group goals that involves collaboration among organizations - Head Start, Family Literacy programs, Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), the Resource and Referral Agency, and School Readiness Coordinators - to continue refinement on parent engagement strategies, absent resources to mount a communications campaign. This would permit achievement of the two-year goal of the work group: establish a collaborative and create a plan to get information and skills for supporting children’s learning to parents.

3.1.9. Recommendation 9 In order to build legislative advocacy and awareness, the Strategy Group should ensure that various education advocates are familiar with preschool issues and engaged in tracking progress or even recommending legislation that would support efforts in Orange County. It is also critical for the Strategy Group to make connections with state level leaders in education in order to promote the need for increased access to quality preschool (e.g. the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) Pre-K Task Force, Preschool California, legislative liaisons, etc.).


Page | 62

If possible, the Strategy Group might consider developing a legislative agenda for local elected officials, and begin cultivating interest among local legislators and their staff members. There are plenty of people who hustle to Sacramento for hearings, but few who consider it their duty at the local level to periodically visit with and brief their local legislators about preschool in Orange County. Without awareness that their own constituents are concerned about preschool, there will be little motivation for local legislators to sincerely believe that a home-grown movement even exists and is focused on Orange County staying ahead of the curve.

Parting Notes The work ahead requires tenacity and sustained attention by several hundred people over several years. It sounds daunting, in the absence of a major initiative, to finance the formation of a system. But in some respects, that is what will make the Orange County effort both interesting and inspirational. Orange County has chosen not to grow a system; not in the bureaucratic sense, for sure. This is a system of independent nodes of work choosing to collaborate and form cohesive units with shared commitments and shared goals. The Strategy Group is to be a hub deep in the center of things, that generates energy, keeps communication flowing, collects data on metrics of progress, and supports the fulfillment of the strategic goals through leveraging, linking, raising funds, and raising awareness with key stakeholders who have the capacity to inform and influence community members. The Strategy Group has no relational authority over the work of others, but the power of their thinking, energy, and discipline will sustain focus and ground the work through the implementation process. True to the incrementalist mode, Orange County is reshaping and redirecting a pre-existing platform to conform to a vision of the future. The difference between this effort and the typical disjointed incrementalist approach is that the plan makes all the elements conjoined with each other. The plan is both a platform and a standard bearer against which progress can be measured. This effort is not so much extra work as it is redefining and reframing how our current work is performed and how we conceive of the purpose of that work. Everyone who participated in the development of this plan is bonded to the ideas and goals. There is energy and commitment combined with the will to be successful. It is a point of pride for Orange County


Page | 63

to offer its residents such a high quality of life, especially for the development of strong families. We will see these values carried through in the development of high-quality preschool in Orange County.


Page | 64

Acknowledgements from the Karen Hill Scott Company The best part about working in a new setting with a new client is meeting people who are really good at what they do. That’s how we feel about the people at the Orange County Department of Education. From the front office to the front desk, our work has been supported by an amazing team. We have to take the time to name a few individuals, because without them we would never have had this assignment and the pleasure of working with and discovering so much about Orange County. First, to Superintendent Bill Habermehl, we want to express our appreciation for showing a genuine interest in preschool, and for coming to speak at our meetings, ever prepared, polished, and professional. Your consummate skill with distributive leadership at OCDE has created a great organization. John Nelson, the man who can get anywhere in Orange County in thirty minutes, is as intelligent and strategic in his thought processes as he is laid back and entertaining when the work is done. Linda McDonell has the energy and insight to make a quick study on anything; and gets right to the heart of a matter with solutions filed in her hip pocket. Daria Waetjen, is organized, calm, and soft spoken, but exudes confidence in her skill, and has a flair for creativity. We have to open a new paragraph with Ellin Chariton, who was responsible for managing our relationship with OCDE. She was fabulous with us; helping us to navigate all the new relationships and stay the course on the planning process. A combined general and emissary who knows how to organize anything with her eyes closed, we gave her our complete trust to shepherd us through this project. Nicole Savio managed the work flows and overall coordination. She deserved a medal for her conscientious and low-key approach; her memory for tasks, what people said, and what needed to be done was just first-rate. Cathy Wietstock helped overall and made important contributions to the last meeting with local district superintendents. The entire staff liaison team was unflaggingly loyal and conscientious about their assignments. The same can be said of our volunteer chairs of the work groups. Their collective skills and competence in their content areas were excellent. We think that about wraps it up, except for the thanks to every single person representing many organizations who came to the meetings and volunteered their time to put together an ambitious preschool plan that lays out the work for the next seven years. We are confident that the state will gradually increase funding for early education and Orange County will be ready to implement. Children will have access to high quality preschool and will be able to grow up in a county where any community in it could be listed as a “best place to live” for families. Sincerely, Karen Hill Scott, Ed.D. and the Team at the Karen Hill Scott Company


Page | 65

References

"2007 California County Data Book." Children Now. 1 July 2007. Children Now. 1 Jan. 2008 http://publications.childrennow.org/publications/invest/cdb07/cdb07_orange.htm.

American Community, U.S. Census (2006). Table B19119-California: Median Family Income in the Past 12 months. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html.

Barnett, Steven, Ph.D., Hustedt, Jason T., Ph.D., Hawkinson, Laura E., M.P.A., and Robin, Kenneth B., Psy.D. The State of Preschool 2006. National Institute for Early Education Research. 2006. Retrieved January, 2008 from http://nieer.org/yearbook/.

Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York, NY: Free Press, 1970.

California Department of Education. Ready to Learn: Quality Preschools for California in the 21st Century. 1998.

California Labor Market Review (December 2007). California Economic Development Department. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/CaLMR.pdf.

California Preschool Learning Foundations (2008). California Department of Education, Sacramento. http://www.plan4preschool.org/documents/California%20Preschool%20Learning%20Foundations.pdf.

California. California Postsecondary Education Commission. The California Master Plan for Education - Final Report. 1 Aug. 2002. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/ExternalDocuments/2002_FINAL_COMPLETEMASTERPLAN_2.PDF.

Child Care Resource and Referral Network. Market Survey and County Profiles 2007. http://www.rrnetwork.org/our-research/2007-portfolio.html.

Children and Families Commission of Orange County. Orange County Countywide Preschool Plan. 2006.

Children's Services Coordination Committee. The 13th Annual Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County, 2007. Orange County Health Information Center, 2007. www.ochealthinfo.com/cscc/report/home.htm.

Desired Results Developmental Profile-Revised Preschool Instrument (2007). California Department of Education, Child Development Division, Sacramento. http://www.wested.org/desiredresults/training/docs/ps_instrument02_2008.pdf.

Ewen, Danielle, and Hannah Matthews. The Potential of Title I for High-Quality Preschool. Center for Law and Social Policy. 2006. 1 Jan. 2007 http://www.clasp.org/publications/potential_titlei.pdf.


Page | 66

Flamholz, Eric, and Yvonne Randle. Growing Pains: Transitioning From an Entrepreneurship to a Professionally Managed Firm. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Fuller, Bruce. Standardized Childhood: the Political and Cultural Struggle Over Early Education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.

Hill-Scott, Karen. “The Planning Process.” The California Preschool Planning Toolkit. The Karen Hill Scott Company and American Institutes of Research; the Packard Foundation. 2006. http://www.plan4preschool.org/docs/single/planning-process/.

Karoly, Lynn A., and Jill S. Cannon. Who is Ahead and Who is Behind?: Gaps in School Readiness and Student Achievement in the Early Grades for California's Children. Rand Corporation. 2007. 20 Dec. 2007 http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR537.pdf.

Kirp, David L. The Sandbox Investment: the Preschool Movement and Kids-First Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 2007.

Lindblom, Charles E., and Edward J. Woodhouse. The Policy Making Process. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1993.

Lippit, Ronald, Watson, Jeanne, and Westley, Bruce. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt 1958.

Lynn A. Karoly, Elaine Reardon, Michelle Cho. RAND Preschool Study 2: Early Care and Education in the Golden State. November 10, 2007.

Orange County Child Care and Development Planning Council. Child Care – It’s Everybody’s Business: Countywide Child Care Plan 2003-2008. Orange County Department of Education: Costa Mesa, CA., 2003.

Orange County Department of Education. Community Report. February 2008. Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavasky, Aaron B. Implementation, University of California Press,

1973. Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten Through Grade

Twelve (2007). California Department of Education, Sacramento. http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/rlafw.pdf.

Rubenstein, Moshe, and Iris Firstenberg. The Minding Organization: Bring the Future to the Present and Turn Creative Ideas Into Business Solutions. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley, Inc., 1999.

U.S. Census (1990). General Demographic Characteristics/Social Characteristics: Orange County, California. Retrieved January 2008 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&ds_name=DEC_1990_STF3_&geo_id=05000US06059.

U.S. Census (2000). General Demographic Characteristics: Orange County, California. Retrieved January 2008 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US06059&_geoContext=0


Page | 67

1000US%7C04000US06%7C05000US06059&_street=&_county=orange+county&_cityTown=orange+county&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2006_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_industry=.

U.S. Census (2006). General Demographic Characteristics/Social Characteristics: Orange County, California. Retrieved January 2008 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US06059&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C05000US06059&_street=&_county=orange+county&_cityTown=orange+county&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=.

Vital Statistics: Birth; Orange County. (2003). California Department of Health Services. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/vsq/screen1a.asp?Year_Data=2003&Stats=2.


Page | 68

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms


Page | 69

Glossary of Terms

AA: Associate of Arts Degree AB 172: Authored by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan and passed in the fall of 2006, Assembly Bill 172 made an appropriation of $50 million from the state General Fund for Pre-Kindergarten and family literacy programs to be administered by the California Department of Education. While AB 172 provided a new allocation of funding, the programs that it provides for are subject to the same regulations and guidelines as the State Preschool Program. ABCD: Launched in 2003, the Affordable Buildings for Children’s Development (ABCD) Initiative is a California-wide collaborative of existing organizations dedicated to building a comprehensive and sustainable financing and support system for child care facility development. Linking people and resources in innovative ways, ABCD is expected to support 15,000 child care spaces in California by 2010. It is managed by the Low Income Investment Fund. ADA: Average Daily Attendance API: Academic Performance Index. The purpose of the API score is to measure the academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The goal for California schools is an API of 800. In 2007, 51% of Orange County schools scored above the statewide target of 800. The API score is a composite score based on the scores achieved on several different statewide tests. BA: Bachelor of Arts Degree California First 5: The statewide entity created by the passage of Proposition 10 (below), formerly called the California Children and Families Commission. First 5 provides apportioned funding to each California county for local programs serving 0-5 year old children and their families. CCSESA: The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association advocates on behalf of K-12 and early childhood education at the state and federal levels. In partnership with state agencies, CCSESA develops and coordinates statewide training to implement new responsibilities of county superintendents to ensure consistent statewide application and standards. CDC: Community Development Corporations CDI: Child Development Inc. is a statewide private, non-profit child care provider. Their programs include infant care, preschool services, and after-school programs for school-aged children. CDI is a large provider of State Preschool in Orange County. DRDP: Desired Results Developmental Profile. The California Department of Education is moving away from a process-oriented compliance model and shifting focus on the results desired from the child care and development system. The Desired Results for Children and Families is a system by which educators can document the progress made by children and families in achieving desired results, and by which they


Page | 70

can retrieve information to help practitioners improve child care and development services. The Desired Results Developmental Profile is a compilation of the information collected from teacher observation of children. ECE: Early Childhood Education FRC: Family Resource Center GIS: Geographic Information System that captures, stores, analyzes, and manages geographically referenced information. In the process of creating the Orange County Plan, GIS technology was used to visualize relationships, patterns, and trends in preschool data, translating this information into meaningful geographic maps. Incrementalism: A phrase coined by Charles E. Lindblom to describe an approach to policy making which was systematically analyzed in a classic article, “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” in the Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, pp. 79-88, 1959. Incrementalism is characterized by small changes to existing policy rather than systemic overhaul, a narrow choice of alternatives, emphasis on ills to be remedied, aversion to comprehensive problem-solving, risk aversion, and minimal use of resources. LEA: Local Educational Agency (e.g. school district or county office of education) LINCC: Local Investment in Child Care (LINCC) is a project designed to build an infrastructure that supports child care facilities development, renovation, and expansion in California. The objective of LINCC is to stimulate public and private investment policies to meet the child care needs of all children and families in California. NAEYC: The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) provides professional opportunities and resources to those interested in early childhood education. The organization promotes quality through various accreditation programs. To attain NAEYC accreditation, early childhood education programs volunteer to be measured against the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards. Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate programs can also apply for NAEYC accreditation. NIEER: National Institute for Early Education Research. The Institute works with state and national policy-makers and other organizations to collect, archive, and disseminate information on the status of early education access and quality, exemplary practices and policies, and public opinion. OC Career Lattice: A proposed career development structure that will be created for Orange County and will illustrate multiple career paths from entry level to management in preschool programs. OCDE: Orange County Department of Education Proposition 10: The Children and Families Act of 1998 was passed by California voters and became effective January 1, 1999. The act authorizes a tax on tobacco products and the proceeds are used to fund early childhood developmental programs and raise awareness about the first 5 years of life. PTA: Parent Teacher Association QRS: A quality rating system (QRS) is a metric used to define levels of program quality to inform consumers, incentivize quality improvements, and in some cases, determine funding and reimbursement levels. Many preschool systems have implemented a QRS based on measures of teacher education,


Page | 71

effectiveness of curriculum, and facility quality. Most quality rating systems use “star” values to indicate levels of quality, with 1 star being entry level, and 3 to 5 stars signifying the highest levels of quality. R&R: A state-funded Resource and Referral Agency developed to assist parents with their search for child care and to support providers in developing quality child care programs. SB6: Success by 6 is a United Way sponsored network of early childhood coalitions, focused on improving school readiness through community change. The SB6 initiative created a Quality Rating System in Orange County. Title I: That section of the Federal Elementary and Second Education Act (ESEA) which pertains to funding and services for children in schools where the community poverty rate is 40% or more. The goal of Title I is to mitigate the achievement problems that are associated with poverty. The funds go through State Education Agencies to Local Education Agencies (school districts) which are obliged to target the funds to the schools with the lowest achieving/lowest income children who are at highest risk for failure. LEAs also use Title I funds to provide enrichment services to eligible children enrolled in private schools under a provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title 5: That section of the California Code of Regulations which pertains to all of public education from publicly funded child care and preschool to the California State University System. Title 5 also pertains to private post-secondary education. Title 5, known as the Education Code has 9 Divisions, with Division 1 pertaining to the California Department of Education, under which Section 19 pertains directly to Child Development Programs, including preschool programs. Other Divisions of Title 5 pertain to the California State University (Division 5), the Community Colleges (Division 6), the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Division 8), and Student Aid (Division 4). These Divisions are indirectly related to Child Development Programs, as they pertain to the education, training, support, and quality regulation of the preschool workforce. The regulation of all state funded preschool services, inclusive of personnel and program quality dimensions is under Title 5. Title 22: That section of the California Code of Regulations which pertains to the social security of residents in the state. Title 22, Division 12 pertains directly to the licensing of child care facilities and includes minimum standards for health and safety, minimum staff qualifications, plus administrative procedures and responsibilities. Title 22 regulations pertain to all preschool facilities except for the small segment of programs that are operated part-day by school districts, on school campuses, with school district personnel for preschool children only. Title 24: That section of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, which applies to facility construction for all buildings in the state of California, including preschools. Modifications of Title 24 can be adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. One such exception is the Field Act for the California Department of Education, which pertains to seismic safety in public school construction, including preschools operated by school districts. Local governments may also have specific exceptions related to preschool construction. Title 24 is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:


Page | 72

• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes

• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions

• Building standards, authorized by the California Legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns


Page | 73

Appendix B: Case Statements

* Numbers in parentheses in the following figures show the number of people who gave the reported response expressed as a percentage.


Page | 74


Page | 75


Page | 76


Page | 77


Page | 78


Page | 79


Page | 80


Page | 81


Page | 82


Page | 83


Page | 84


Page | 85

Appendix C: Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative

Organizations Represented


Page | 86

A Child's Place Learning Center

Asociacion Latina para el Cuidado Infantil (ALCI)

American Academy of Pediatrics

Anaheim City School District

Anaheim YMCA

Anti-Defamation League

Blind Children's Learning Center

Boys and Girls Club of Garden Grove

Brea-Olinda Unified School District

Buena Park School District

California State University, Fullerton

California State Assembly

- Chuck DeVore – 70th Assembly District

- Michael Duvall – 72nd Assembly District

- Tony Mendoza – 56th Assembly District

California State Senate

- Tom Harman – 35th Senate District

Cambodian Family Human Services Agency

Capistrano Unified School District

Center for Educational Partnerships

Centralia School District

Child Development Incorporated

Child Development Training Consortium

Children and Families Commission of Orange County

Children's Christian Preschool

Children's Home Society of California

Child's Pace Foundation

City of Anaheim

City of Lake Forest

Coast Community College District

Community Solutions Group, Inc.

County of Orange

- Health Care Agency

- Social Services Agency

- Treasurer-Tax Collector

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)

Down Syndrome Association of Orange County

Fountain Valley School District

Fountain Valley United Methodist Preschool

Fourth District Parent Teacher Association

Fullerton College

Fullerton School District

Garden Grove Unified School District

Hands Together Center for Children

Healthy Smiles for Kids of Orange County

Human Options, Inc.

Huntington Beach City School District

Irvine Unified School District

Irvine Valley College

KidWorks Non-Profit Corporation

La Habra City School District

Leading Ways Enterprises

Los Alamitos Unified School District

Magnolia School District

Mariners Church Preschool

Merage Foundation

Migrant Education - Region 9

Muckenthaler & Associates, Inc.

National Pediatric Support Services

National University

Newport Mesa Unified School District

Ocean View School District

Orange Children & Parents Together

Orange Coast Community College

Orange County Business Council

Orange County Child Care and Development Planning Council

Orange County Child Care Association

Orange County Child Care Connections

Orange County Community Care Licensing Division

Orange County Head Start

Orange County Safe from the Start

Orange County United Way –Success by 6

Orange Unified School District

Orangewood Children's Center

Pretend City, The Children's Museum of Orange County

Rancho Santiago Community College District

Regional Center of Orange County

Saddleback Community College

Saddleback Valley Unified School District

Santa Ana College

Santa Ana Unified School District

Santiago Community College Child Development Center

Tustin Unified School District

United Cerebral Palsy of Orange County

United States Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez – 47th Congressional District

University of California, Irvine

- Center for Educational Partnerships

- Early Childhood Education Center

Vanguard University

Westminster School District

Orange County Preschool Planning Collaborative Organizations Represented

preschool_plan_8-09

Documents

district john

district ken

district elizabeth parker

district alexandria

universal quality

targeted services

karen hillscott