Meeting Summary
January 19, 1999
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 OKeeffe, 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 Commissions 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
peoples thinking about the importance of early learning one-by-one, and that the
Commissions
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 Commissions success.
Kim Cook agreed about the need for hanging onto the
Commissions 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 Commissions 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. Its very difficult
to broaden to include all visions. She noted that focusing on one or two things will help
in the
Commissions success. Discussion of birth to five was to ensure that four and five
year olds
werent 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 dont 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:
Report:
The subcommittee has identified several states
models which are currently implementing
integrated programs.
- Kentucky
- Colorado
- Minnesota
- West Virginia
- Florida
- Pennsylvania
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
- Programs
- Services
- Funding
- Location
- Number of families served
- Other - partnerships and collaborations
- Evaluation of identified programs
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 isnt always the case. The
Commission needs
to put things into the context of what we already have.
Sheri Flies clarified that the subcommittees
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 cant 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 doesnt 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.
Critical indicators of quality might be:
- Raising the value of early education
- Raising the value of caregivers
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:
Focus on public/private partnerships and career wage
ladders (i.e., N. Carolina provides
training and compensation).
STARS program get brain research findings
into core training programs including unlicensed
facilities and colleges.
Discussion:
Robbin Dunn noted that it sounds like the
subcommittees focus has shifted. Last time they
were talking about funding mechanisms and lead agencies for community driven services.
Marty Jacobs responded that the group hasnt
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
dont know
what use other groups may make of this statement. Sheri also thinks its 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
societys 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.
Thats what this Commission is charged to address.
Scott Oki responded that the subcommittee
didnt 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
arent
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.