January 19, 1999 -- AGENDA January 19, 1999 -- AGENDA
9:00am - 12:00pm |
The Phoenix Room |
Radisson / Quality Inn |
SeaTac, Washington |
| Commission Attendance |
| Mona Lee Locke, Co-Chair; Kathryn Barnard, Kim Cook, Yolanda Cortinas-Trout, Robbin Dunn, Sheri Flies, Marty Jacobs, Mary Ellen O’Keeffe, Scott Oki, Dee Ann Perea, Yvonne Ullas, Gayle Womack and Kyle Yasuda. |
| Meeting Summary: |
| Mrs. Locke opened the meeting with some housekeeping items. First, she noted that the bulk of the meeting would be spent in subcommittees. Second, she gave Commissioners an update on the parent meetings being held throughout the state. She noted that the Bellingham forum was a great success with 220 people attending who had great energy and valuable input. |
| Mrs. Locke asked Commissioners who attended the forum if they had any input. Dee Ann Perea noted that she was hearing similar themes throughout the forums, and noted in Bellingham the parents felt they had the support from businesses. Marty Jacobs noted that it seemed that parent education was highly rated in Bellingham, and the parents felt they had supportive and positive programs. |
| Mrs. Locke then reminded Commissioners that the last forum would be held in Vancouver on January 28 at the Image Elementary School and encouraged Commissioners to attend the event. She also noted that a reporter from the Seattle Times would be attending this event. |
| Next, Mrs. Locke noted that there has been concern about the Commission, as a whole, doing too much in such a short period of time, and that the Commission should discuss where to go from here. She discussed two possible scenarios for the Commission’s future. Does the Commission want to condense or eliminate items and refocus or does the Commission want to make long-term recommendations its primary product? Does the Commission want to focus solely on the early learning aspect? As an example she brought up child care. This could be a short-term item – how do we help child care focus on early learning, while keeping in mind the big picture and long-term vision of quality child care. Mrs. Locke then opened the floor for discussion of this issue and asked for comments from Commissioners. |
| Gayle Womack agreed that the Commission should focus on short-term goals. She noted that the integration study appeared to be more of a long-term goal and that focusing on short-term goals (like the 1-800 number) would help bring quality to what the Commission does. |
| Marty Jacobs believes that the Commission does need to keep its long-term vision and that this can be an overwhelming task. She noted that ultimately this vision should be carried on after the Commission is disbanded. She also noted that the State of Colorado has been converting people’s thinking about the importance of early learning one-by-one, and that the Commission’s public engagement campaign is going to be crucial to making this happen in Washington. She believes that having a road map will be important to the Commission’s success. |
| Kim Cook agreed about the need for hanging onto the Commission’s long-term vision and also agreed that focusing on some short-term goals will help in the success of the Commission. |
| Kathryn Barnard noted that the Commission needs to retain the value system (importance of early learning). This should be the Commission’s main goal and other things will follow from that. |
| Sheri Flies expressed concern that the Commission is revamping things that have already been done – and that they are summarizing what already exists. She believes the Commission should narrow its focus to one thing. Birth to three early learning is the only new thing being looked at, and the focus should be on early learning. |
| Dee Ann Perea suggested that the focus should first be on birth to three, and that many programs appear to be a watered down version of programs geared toward ages four to six. Infants and Toddlers birth to three have very specific needs. |
| Mrs. Locke noted that the missing piece has been the focus birth to age three. It’s very difficult to broaden to include all visions. She noted that focusing on one or two things will help in the Commission’s success. Discussion of birth to five was to ensure that four and five year olds weren’t dropped and that there was a successful transition. Reaching parents is key. |
| Yvonne Ullas expressed need for the Commission to get back to the brain research and the scientific issue of how we can stimulate a child so that both sides of the brain are used and that we don’t just educate at a simple level. |
| Kyle Yasuda expressed the need for the Commission to not lose sight of health care issues. This is, or should be, an integrated value and it should be the basis for thinking. |
| Mrs. Locke suggested that the Commissioners discuss the long term and short term goals during subcommittee meetings and that each subcommittee report back on what their long term and short term goals will be. Mrs. Locke also suggested that Commissioners think about whether or not the Commission needs a subcommittee to work on the public engagement campaign. |
| Marty Jacobs noted that there are several other groups and organizations who have money and are interested in what the Commission is doing. Many have offered to help coordinate efforts where applicable. |
| Kyle Yasuda appreciated the process the Commission has embarked upon. It has helped him see the big picture from all sides. |
| Mrs. Locke then asked the Commission to break into its subcommittees for continued discussion of goals – short term and long term. |
| After subcommittee meetings the Commission heard report backs from each group. The following outlines subcommittee discussion. |
| Integrated Approach Subcommittee |
| Key Tasks: |
| Research State initiated models including approaches to outcome measurement. |
| Research locally initiated models including approaches to outcome measurement. |
| Report: |
| The subcommittee has identified several state’s models which are currently implementing integrated programs. |
|
| Kentucky and West Virginia have received money from the Carnegie Foundation to assist in implementation of their plan. |
| This subcommittee is now looking at: |
| In State Programs – grid development |
|
| The focus of the program evaluations will be on birth to three. The Commission will then report on these items at the next meeting. |
| B. Develop a Glossary of Definitions |
| Discussion: |
| Mrs. Locke asked the subcommittee to elaborate on what will be the next step after finding out about these programs. We need to know what we have before we can identify the gaps. Will the group advocate for more funding? |
| Robbin Dunn opined that the focus on birth to three is a departure from the charge of the Commission. It appears that one of the main concerns we are finding is that all the programs serve a segment of the population – ages 0 - 3, developmentally disabled, ages 4 - 5, and no one but the Commission is looking out for ages 0 - 5 altogether. |
| Sheri Flies asked the subcommittee what they want in the end. The subcommittee explained that they want; 1.) To have recommendations for program funding; and 2.) To compile information about integrated services in other states. |
| Mrs. Locke expressed that often other states may have the same struggle with programs. It may appear that what they are doing looks good but it isn’t always the case. The Commission needs to put things into the context of what we already have. |
| Sheri Flies clarified that the subcommittee’s goals will focus on a recommendation for using programs from other states and in turn maximize integration – how should this work? |
| Gayle Womack noted that we can’t force people to work together but we should identify integrated services that do work. |
| Scott Oki noted that a Best Practices document is often considered benign. He encouraged the Commission to think out of the box. The Commission doesn’t want to limit what they do based on what other states do. The Commission needs to focus on new, fresh ideas. |
| Mrs. Locke asked the question do we want to do small successful programs or do we want to integrate all programs and go for something big. |
| Sheri Flies explained that the Commission needs to get specific and focus on concrete solutions by integrating one component. This may be too narrow but the Commission needs to be specific. |
| Gayle Womack noted that we have good examples. The group may focus on educating parents – maybe the integration will come from that. |
| Child Care Subcommittee |
| Report: |
| The Commission understands that development is critical for children and parents. The subcommittee feels that we need to understand what quality really is. |
|
| Long-term goals: |
| The subcommittee recommends that the Commission focus on the professionalization of early childhood education – make this a true career track with all its rewards and benefits. |
| Focus on birth to three years. |
| Short-term goals: |
|
|
| Discussion: |
| Robbin Dunn noted that it sounds like the subcommittee’s focus has shifted. Last time they were talking about funding mechanisms and lead agencies for community driven services. |
| Marty Jacobs responded that the group hasn’t left that behind yet. It will come after the background research. |
| Bill of Rights Subcommittee |
| Report: |
| The subcommittee identified some issues still in debate on the Bill of Rights statement. |
| The name of the document |
| The subcommittee decided not to change the name. They believe that any message the Commission sends needs to have emotion and contain something captivating, while also taking a risk and stepping out. They believe the title "Bill of Rights for Children" does just that. |
| Incorporating more specificity by focusing on birth to five years. |
| The subcommittee hopes that this can become visible by creating a preamble to get specific about birth to five years. The subcommittee agreed to have a draft of the preamble available before the next Commission meeting for other Commissioners to review. |
| Discussion: |
| Sheri Flies expressed concern about the title of the statement. She explained that the term "Bill of Rights" is used solely for the Constitution. She sees the need for assertiveness but feels that the Commission might run a legal risk in using this statement. We don’t know what use other groups may make of this statement. Sheri also thinks it’s too broad of a title and that it will make people wonder what the Commission is doing to ensure these rights. How will we measure our success? Is our goal to create controversy? |
| Gayle Womack noted that this title creates a level of expectation – can the Commission meet this? |
| Dee Ann Perea believes that it could be very tough to be held accountable to this. |
| Scott Oki responded that controversy creates engagement and that we should be changing society’s attention and this statement does that. |
| Mrs. Locke stated her feeling that the focus needs to be on birth to five because that is what the Governor asked the Commission to do. |
| Kyle Yasuda believes the title should be used because the Commission is asking for a change in societal values. |
| Robbin Dunn noted that items in the statement are things the Commission wants for all kids. Limitations in the main body of the statement will limit the rights of older kids. A pre-amble focusing on birth to five would solve this problem. |
| Kim Cook expressed the need for a strong statement that brings focus to birth to age 5. |
| Mrs. Locke stated that her concern as Co-Chair is that the scope of the document is too broad. She would be more comfortable with a Bill of Rights for children from birth to age 5. That’s what this Commission is charged to address. |
| Scott Oki responded that the subcommittee didn’t come up with the Bill of Rights idea – the Commission did. |
| Mrs. Locke agreed that the Commission as a whole will endorse the document and, as a result, the subcommittee needs to listen to input from other Commissioners. |
| Kyle Yasuda commented that there are many avenues to early learning. The draft Bill of Rights encompasses them all. Each is equally important. |
| Gayle Womack stated that the Virginia Mason Bill of Rights creates an expectation in the patients that they are entitled to this treatment but not that they may get it some day. |
| Scott Oki stated that our purpose is to change societal values. He personally prefers controversy as a way to do that. |
| Gayle Womack explained that to be fair the preamble should be drafted and then the Commission should evaluate the document again. |
| Marty Jacobs agreed. At the next meeting the Commission can get a sense of this as an issue and then decide if they can overcome it. She agrees that the legal aspect needs to be addressed. |
| The Commission agreed to have the preamble written and distributed before the next meeting and to reevaluate the statement then. |
| Mrs. Locke then thanked Commissioners for their work and input and explained that at the next meeting the Commission will focus on discussion of the public engagement campaign. |
| Mrs. Locke then asked for public comments. |
| Public Comments: |
| Jeane Hueston explained that local community networks are often parallel to what the Commission is thinking. These networks want to get the Commissions understanding that pubic information ties to local networks. Networks are now focusing on child care and early learning and hope to explore community happenings over the next 6 months. |
| Jim Nibblet expressed that education is curriculum driven and this is often outside of birth to age 5. Stimulation of the brain occurs through movement and calisthenics that aren’t part of curriculum. |
| Jim Keaton is concerned about the name of the Bill of Rights. He feels this could lead to possible mandates on how parents must raise their children. He also noted an article written by Dr. Bruer that refutes the brain research that the Commission assumptions are based on. |
| Harold Kemple agrees that we need controversy in the Bill of Rights statement, and that the Commission needs to focus on getting information direct from the source (like parents). |
| The meeting was adjourned. |