[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:08] Good afternoon.
[0:12] Welcome to the CHRK, excuse me. The permanent legislator, CHRK, an early education commission, or I, is my pleasure to welcome everybody, all the members, if you be sitting all for the first time.
[0:29] Michaela, are you here for the first time?
[0:32] Oh, awesome.
[0:33] We have a new member here.
[0:36] Can you please introduce yourselves?
[0:41] Hi, Michaela Carroll.
[0:42] I'm the Senior Policy Associate for Early Childhood Education
[0:45] Development and Health for Rhode Island KidsCat.
[0:47] And I'm here on behalf of Paige today.
[0:51] Excellent.
[0:52] And very much we want to just say the title of the child care.
[0:57] Permanent Child Care Commission and their education.
[0:59] Today we have a brief agenda and I hope everybody is doing very well after one month's break, which was so awesome.
[1:12] And Coachella, Alana DiMario, please to share this time with you today.
[1:17] And you want to inform the members who are not present today as we were talking.
[1:24] No attending to the meeting today, the members.
[1:28] We were talking about who's now attending the meeting today.
[1:34] Yeah.
[1:34] So I know that Nicole, cello from GHS and Katherine Green had a conflict so they weren't able to make it today.
[1:41] I know we have Michaela here in the face of Paige and I know Kadisha, I don't think can make it today.
[1:48] Rachel Faun also.
[1:50] Yes.
[1:51] So August is a busy time for us.
[1:53] Yes.
[1:53] that's why we always take a break and you live because we know that's a family time.
[1:59] But we need to back to business and today we just welcome everybody.
[2:05] Let's go to agency providers update.
[2:08] It's any members here who wants to share any information which is important.
[2:15] I know we have a lot of things going on, but I will let the members start informing us.
[2:24] Laurie, you have something I see you're looking down, not? You better make a sign to me. So,
[2:33] Mary, please, you have something to share, which is so important. Thank you.
[2:39] Okay, I think the mic is on? Yes. Okay. So, yes, I wanted to share some information about what I
[2:47] believe is the beginning of the end of head start, this federal
[2:53] administration is not just about slowly taking away pieces
[2:56] of head start, I believe this is a concentrated effort to take
[3:02] to eliminate head start across the country.
[3:05] We've had to absorb major changes to our standards, workforce
[3:09] requirements, grant rules, technology funding at the same time,
[3:13] while funding remains constrained, no increase.
[3:16] The cumulative effect is much greater than the impact of any single proposal.
[3:21] It's not any one regulation.
[3:23] The concern is the cumulative impact.
[3:26] So there are four proposals right now that are attacking four different supports that allow head start to function.
[3:35] So the first one is a head start NPRM on workforce and wages.
[3:41] So it touches compensation, benefits, workforce requirements, so it makes us harder for us to compete and retain qualified staff.
[3:51] The second one is the next MPRM that was dropped last week.
[3:57] Broad performance standards rollback.
[4:00] This affects health, education, family services, staffing, ratios, hours, disabilities, family engagement, and so much more.
[4:12] It really redefines what head start quality means.
[4:16] Then there's also the Office of Management and Budget proposed regulations that came out this summer.
[4:23] This is how federal grants are awarded and managed and potentially terminated.
[4:30] This creates additional uncertainties around federal funding and grant administration.
[4:35] Some of the highlights in that were about not being able to support advocacy, which is
[4:46] a cornerstone of what Head Start does with our parents, and basically grants could be taken
[4:52] way, just if the administration felt there was one thing, a program, and this is not just
[4:59] head start, this is all non-profits, just disagreed with that they could take your grant
[5:04] away.
[5:06] And then today, I learned that E-rate that there is a new proposed form standard for that,
[5:13] E-rate is a program that is available to public schools, libraries, and head starts.
[5:18] not in every state is if her head start, but it is in Rhode Island.
[5:23] And what that does is you apply for this funding, you submit budgets, and it helps broadband
[5:30] technology support for Head Start and Pre-K.
[5:34] So now this will potentially shift another operating class into programs that we're already
[5:40] struggling with with our budgets.
[5:42] So, I want to make it everyone aware that we need to stop looking at these proposals individually.
[5:50] Head Start program is an interconnected system.
[5:53] Our funding pays for a workforce.
[5:55] Our performance standards define the quality and comprehensiveness of our services.
[6:01] Federal grant requirements established the framework in which we operate and e-rate helps us maintain the
[6:07] technology infrastructure that schools and early childhood programs increasingly depend on.
[6:13] We are now seeing proposed changes to all four of those pieces at essentially the same time.
[6:19] Each proposal may be described as flexibility, reducing burden, local control, or cost savings,
[6:27] but when those changes are viewed together, the question becomes very different.
[6:31] What happens to our Head Start model when the federal government simultaneously reduces the standards,
[6:39] reduces workforce protections, changes the rules governing federal grants,
[6:45] and potentially removes funding for essential technology?
[6:49] What happens to a child and family when the infrastructure disappears?
[6:54] Today, a Head Start child might have a qualified teacher in a small classroom, developmental screening,
[7:00] Health and dental follow-up, mental health support, nutrition services, disability services,
[7:07] a family advocate, assistance accessing housing, food, employment and other resources, transportation
[7:15] or attendance supports, technology and connectivity, a program accountable to comprehensive
[7:21] federal standards.
[7:24] The danger is not that one of these services disappears tomorrow, the danger is that over
[7:29] time each federal change makes one more piece optional, less funded, less regulated, or harder
[7:37] for programs to sustain. Essentially, we haven't simply changed the regulations. We've
[7:43] changed what head start is. And here's the irony of it all. The administration's argument
[7:50] is essentially to reduce regulations, reduce costs, increase flexibility to serve more children.
[7:58] The newest proposal says the changes could reduce cost by more than 2 billion and potentially create additional enrollment capacity.
[8:07] But the question isn't whether we can reduce the cost of head start.
[8:10] The question is what are we removing when we reduce the cost?
[8:15] Just because a program can enroll more children by lowering staffing requirements, reducing services, eliminating supports and transferring responsibility to states,
[8:26] doesn't necessarily mean we have expanded head start.
[8:30] We have simply created a cheaper program with the same name.
[8:36] So the changes are to the standards.
[8:39] What services must head start provide.
[8:41] The workforce, who will provide high quality educators
[8:44] and can we afford to retain them?
[8:48] Federal funding rules.
[8:49] How predictable and secure is the funding?
[8:53] Infrastructure, who pays for technology and connectivity?
[8:56] The result, now the pressure moves to the state's communities and families.
[9:03] Less federal investment, plus fewer federal requirements, does not equal no cost.
[9:09] The cost doesn't disappear.
[9:12] It moves.
[9:13] And remember, Head Start has never been simply preschool.
[9:17] It's an early childhood system built around the whole child and the whole family.
[9:21] If we weaken the standards, we can work for us destabilize finding structures and shift
[9:27] essential costs away from the federal government, we have to be honest about what we're
[9:31] doing.
[9:32] We aren't simply reducing regulations.
[9:34] We are deciding what level of service, low-income children and families are entitled to
[9:40] receive.
[9:42] Let me say it again, we are deciding what level of service, low-income children and families
[9:49] are entitled to receive, and if the federal government chooses to reduce that investment and
[9:55] that responsibility, Rhode Island needs to decide whether it is willing and able to fill
[10:01] the gap. Because if the answer is no, the gap doesn't remain on a spreadsheet. The gap
[10:07] shows up in classrooms, in families, and ultimately in children's lives. This is what's going
[10:17] behind the scenes.
[10:21] And I want to share that with you because even as a head start community,
[10:25] we get these things and we take them individually and we're like,
[10:28] oh, how are we going to battle this? How are we going to manage this?
[10:31] And I got to thinking when this other MPRM came out,
[10:35] you wouldn't be at all these things.
[10:36] They're all pieces of it.
[10:38] And they're all so interconnected.
[10:41] And I don't know that everybody is aware of how serious this is.
[10:48] I set up before, I don't remember if I set it at this meeting, but, you know, as of in June,
[10:53] 53% of Project 2025 was accomplished.
[10:59] Head start, the elimination of Head Start is in Project 2025.
[11:04] The only thing that they are unable to touch about Head Start is the Head Start Act.
[11:09] And that's why they're using all these other pieces to make it harder for a head start program to run high quality services.
[11:20] Thank you for giving me the time.
[11:23] You know that.
[11:25] It is amazing opportunity to bring this information to all of the members.
[11:33] And as we always working to improve the system,
[11:39] it's a big setback for everything we are doing here.
[11:45] And as you mentioned, it's many parts that we have to look individually
[11:51] to see how we can address and reduce the impact.
[11:55] We may not as a rival and reduce the whole proposal,
[12:00] but at least we need to focus in what part of which one is how more, more awful impact
[12:10] and what we do regarding to that. So we want to thank you for bringing the attention to it.
[12:16] As you promise, you send it to the members. I would like to see every member has an opportunity to
[12:22] analyze that more deeper and suggest anything that we can do together.
[12:31] Thank you, and thank you, Mary, for sharing that information for kind of putting it together in such a comprehensive way, because your point is well taken that when you look at these individual actions
[12:42] It's hard to see how they collectively will impact the system and you know, they're previously had been an effort by the administration to defund head start
[12:51] And I think when the headline is you know, we're defending head start
[12:55] It was easy for everybody to come together and realize what a threat that was and have some
[12:59] public push back against that.
[13:01] But then you see this kind of insidious piece by piece dismantling that doesn't really get
[13:07] the headlines and doesn't get that type of attention.
[13:10] And even as a person who pays attention to this type of news, that had not reached me.
[13:16] So thank you for the information.
[13:18] I guess my question is on a couple of fronts.
[13:21] One is obviously these are federal level decisions and so have you had conversations yet with our federal education
[13:30] Is you know, is there anything you can share from those conversations because my follow-up question is going to be how can this commission
[13:37] Potentially back you up in some of your your advocacy on that front
[13:40] Yeah, that's a great question. I have had
[13:44] More like him. He was a senior policy analyst at Senator Reed's office and DC came to visit our program last month
[13:51] And we had a great conversation when the OMB proposed regulation changes came out.
[13:59] I contacted her and asked if Congress could do anything about this.
[14:04] The other interesting piece was last winter they had start cut the regional offices in
[14:12] half.
[14:14] And nobody can answer me where that money went.
[14:17] And I'm telling you, it's millions of millions of millions of dollars.
[14:19] It did not go to head start programs.
[14:22] I don't know where that money is, and I asked that of Moora, and she was going to look into
[14:26] it, but I don't think it's easy to find where that money is.
[14:31] But that's our taxpayer money that was for children and families, but I did actually
[14:41] had, of course, five senator reads office this morning, they would like to do a press conference.
[14:48] At our when socket, where we're street location next Wednesday, so I am working on that.
[14:55] I can let you know more about that when that happens.
[15:00] I know that they are all of our congressional delegation is very concerned. We have had other Rhode Island
[15:06] had start people in DC, we'll be going to DC again in September. These new proposed regulations
[15:13] have a 60-day window for comments, and I would recommend that people, if they can, make comments
[15:21] on their regulations, because it's not going to, it's not just affecting head start. It's going
[15:26] to affect the whole early childhood system in general.
[15:29] You know, when I think of the numbers of children that we have on preschool IEPs and our
[15:35] head start programs and how that will affect what the public schools have down the road and
[15:42] where how those children land and what their outcomes will be in the public school system.
[15:49] It's devastating to me, the changes that are happening.
[15:54] So, I would recommend the new one, the E-rate one, I'm not sure who knows about E-rate.
[16:00] I didn't know about it until I came to Head Start.
[16:03] But that affects public schools and libraries.
[16:08] But they specifically call out Head Start at it.
[16:13] So, yeah, yes, you may.
[16:17] When you're planning to, or you are planning to put a press conference together, please
[16:24] advice on other mayors because so in the schools are passed now to the city and they need
[16:31] to be aware of what is going on and to see how they can collaborate with this too.
[16:37] Right, and I found the mayors in Rhode Island to be very supportive of early childhood in
[16:44] general. So yeah, absolutely. I'm just not sure, you know,
[16:51] there's so many things I consider
[16:52] me I don't want the national performance standards to go away because they are such a good
[16:58] guideline especially someone who came from childcare into Head Start. I learned so much
[17:03] more about quality and comprehensive services and parents support. If you take that
[17:10] away I get concerned about that but it just I get concerned about new people coming into
[17:16] the Head Start program. I mean I can see it down the road. You can have higher child
[17:22] staff ratios and you don't have to have the degrees and now you've got children with disabilities
[17:28] in your classrooms. It's so hard to handle as it is with qualified, highly qualified staff,
[17:34] that there's going to be issues, safety issues, the outcomes are going to go down and then they're
[17:40] going to say head start doesn't work. So why are we funding it? You know, and it just, but the other
[17:48] peace it puts such a burden on the states, you know, and we are supposed to be the United States of America.
[17:55] We are supposed to work together and these are all our children and families.
[18:00] And states should absolutely pay a fair share, and I think our state does a wonderful job
[18:06] supporting the early childhood system, but not every state does that.
[18:10] Not every state has the ratios that we have or the standards that we follow.
[18:14] They don't have that, and now you're going to have this even more greater divide of what children can get for education and supports and families across the country.
[18:28] And it's going to divide the country even more.
[18:32] So I don't know anybody in the Head Start world that said, I don't like these performance standards. They're really good.
[18:41] they build off the act and they're a guide and they're very very good. They really help you
[18:47] be able to develop your programs and your policies. They just build upon what the act says.
[18:54] So, but I get concerned about new people coming into the field that they're not going to know
[18:58] the importance of why we do things this way. And I think that as a state that we're not a favor
[19:10] of this federal administration, you know, I don't know how far we could get, and certainly
[19:16] we have a wide variety of income brackets in the state and the burdens that just happen
[19:21] to people that live in the cities and things that just, it keeps me up at night.
[19:29] I was on vacation last week, but I still was kept up at night, I think, about this stuff.
[19:34] So, I think that we're all smart, and maybe we can come up with some good ways to figure out what to do, and hopefully, you know, keep head start, hope.
[19:53] Thank you.
[19:54] You mentioned my public comment period.
[19:56] When is that open now?
[19:58] It is.
[19:59] Okay.
[19:59] Do you know when that October, I think?
[20:01] Okay.
[20:02] It opened as soon as the standard that proposed standards dropped, I think, Friday, so 60 days from that date.
[20:09] I don't know how long the e-rate standards are, but I would hope that public school systems are aware of this.
[20:17] And that libraries are, I don't know if they are.
[20:22] And then certainly the OMB that's been out for a while, I'm not sure how much longer that standard is, how much longer that comment period is on that.
[20:31] Okay, so they're for the obviously four different comment period because it's four different things and so then the comments
[20:37] Because where my mind was going is does it make sense for the commission to put together a letter to submit as
[20:44] Public comment because I think sometimes it's difficult for individual members to kind of know like what should we write or how you know
[20:49] How should we be addressing this but we've done that in the past
[20:52] You know for other public comment periods
[20:54] But there would need to probably be four different letters speaking to each one of these
[21:02] The comment period for the first NPRM might be over or it's very close to being over because I came out that was about pay parity with public school teachers.
[21:12] But at the OMB, I'm not sure how long not usually typically they're 30 days, they gave 60 days.
[21:17] So the OMB might be up, but the new performance standards, which is big, they're getting
[21:23] rid of a lot of performance standards, and the e-rate I would think that there would
[21:29] be time, and I think that as a commission that writing to comment on it and how it
[21:37] will affect the overall early childhood system in the state is a good way to discuss the
[21:45] damage that it will do, okay, you know, and this is even talking about the SNAP benefits
[21:50] that we're coming up.
[21:51] Well, I was just going to say, it's, and it's reminding me very much of those conversations
[21:55] around, you know, where we, here in Rhode Island are committed to making sure that people
[22:00] don't go hungry, that people still have healthcare access, but that's going to take quite
[22:03] a large investment on the state's part, and we also are committed to early childhood, but
[22:08] education, but are we, you know, at what point do have we surpass the level in which we
[22:13] actually make investments to sustain these things in a way that they need to be.
[22:19] So, I mean, I'd be interested in other commission members.
[22:21] Thoughts about the idea of doing a fine unletter or, you know, other ways to try to approach this.
[22:27] But, you know, certainly if there are other ways that we can help with advocacy,
[22:32] let us know.
[22:33] I mean, even if it's in between meetings or whatever we can, you know, have that communication.
[22:37] Hi, everyone.
[22:39] Mary, I just wanted to thank you actually for your presentation.
[22:45] I came here today.
[22:47] I was coming out of a meeting with our international,
[22:51] and the locals from all around the country.
[22:56] And that was the topic of the meeting.
[22:59] I mean, different states, just the same concerns that you have here.
[23:03] we have them all around the country.
[23:07] And exactly as a union, that was our cover,
[23:13] how can we help and support?
[23:18] So, you know, and I had a lot of questions
[23:21] in terms of all the changes and how it was effect,
[23:26] and your presentation was very detailed
[23:29] And really gave, at least to me, a more broader,
[23:35] exactly understanding of what's coming.
[23:38] I don't know if you will be able to have some kind of information
[23:42] that you could share with us,
[23:45] but there you go, really appreciate that.
[23:48] And on my side, whatever that we can do,
[23:52] really our members.
[23:55] Thank you, I appreciate that.
[23:56] Do you know when the new proposed performance standards that there is a piece in there about
[24:01] that we must teach children in English?
[24:07] Which we all know is not the best practice.
[24:11] That's not supporting the parent as the first teacher.
[24:17] And the way that they are presenting it, that this is the best thing for the family and
[24:22] the child.
[24:23] And that is so untrue.
[24:30] It's a big issue on the group that I represent where we have a majority of Spanish speakers,
[24:38] but the beauty of it also is that the majority of the bilingual educators that I represent.
[24:47] They all have the kids when they leave.
[24:52] Usually, if they are not bilingual, they have a big knowledge of a second language.
[25:00] And as you said, supporting the parents to help each education at home.
[25:05] It's the best way.
[25:07] I mean, all best practices are being wiped out.
[25:12] It just doesn't make sense to me when you look at the future of this country.
[25:18] What are we doing with?
[25:23] The comment specifically about performance standards makes me wonder about the opportunity
[25:27] of, you know, if they're going to be changing at the federal level, is there an opportunity
[25:34] to have different, to set a higher level of standard here in Rhode Island, or, I mean,
[25:39] that's probably a policy research question, but I'm just curious, because your point that
[25:44] you made earlier, I think, is really important that if you change the performance standards
[25:49] lower them you're going to change the outcomes right you negatively and then the evidence is going
[25:55] to be pointed to that oh head start doesn't work anymore right so as we see this administration
[26:01] through hopefully to the other side like are there ways to preserve that do you think so that we can keep
[26:08] keep track of you know kind of keeping those same high quality standards so that our outcomes in
[26:14] Rhode Island will remain the same for the benefit of children and for the benefit of the program
[26:17] as a whole, I guess would be my question.
[26:20] I think so.
[26:21] I think that we have pretty good childcare licensing
[26:27] regulations, you know, and then we have the Rhode Island
[26:29] early learning and development standards.
[26:32] The one thing that I think about that it
[26:35] can get very easy to do, especially when funding and money
[26:37] and everything is involved.
[26:38] I remember I forget how many years ago it was.
[26:40] But when state pre-K was only was the 18 was the maximum amount of children in a room,
[26:50] and then they changed it to 20.
[26:53] So sometimes decisions are made not in the best interest of the children.
[26:56] Even in the type of program that we're in here and the type of support that we have,
[27:02] sometimes decisions are made that are not the best interest of the children.
[27:07] So, I think we're okay, and I feel like with our bright stars, and all of those, a lot
[27:18] of that was kind of geared off of the Head Start Performance Standards and those kind
[27:22] of things pre-K took a lot from that to do that, but you know, year to years, three years
[27:29] on the road, those things fade and who knows what is going to, what people are going to do.
[27:37] I mean, nationally, all the big players, the zero to three, first, five years, the near
[27:44] institute, they are all just writing all about how horrible these performance standard changes
[27:51] would be. But I think we could be okay, but I don't, I don't know.
[28:01] Yeah. And I think if there is a, if there are, if this moves forward and there are
[28:05] those gaps between what is kind of the best practice that has been done and then what
[28:11] is left and there is something that we can do to codify those standards to make sure that
[28:18] app is filled and it's not just based on hopefully everybody will still keep doing the right thing.
[28:23] Because like you said, you know, new people come into the field, there's turnover, you know, it's good.
[28:27] It is good to have those accountability standards when you know that they connect to good outcomes.
[28:31] And so if there is anything that we can do on the state level to preserve that,
[28:36] let's keep in touch about that.
[28:37] If you're noticing that there are those gaps that are uncovered by the other regulatory systems.
[28:44] But I know I just jumped back in. Does anybody else have any questions or?
[28:53] So they have a 60-day comment period and then they have to read every comment and they
[29:01] have to analyze it and take it into account and all this whatever and then they can go back
[29:09] and maybe they'll change some things or they don't. It really depends on what they want to
[29:16] the previous time in 2024 when they changed the performance standards, they really listened to the
[29:22] Head Start community and they need the majority of changes that the Head Start community suggested.
[29:31] But again, that was a different administration.
[29:35] So I don't know. I don't, this administration plays by its own rules.
[29:42] So I wouldn't count on now things were in the past.
[29:49] Mary, every single state has different needs and this would be a sort of or a play in
[29:59] different way.
[30:00] Is any possibility that we can figure it out exactly and you are one of the best to help us?
[30:07] Well, we are in each one of those policy we impacting us, because that is kind of x-ray.
[30:16] How we really be affected from the point of view where we are now.
[30:23] Especially because the general somebody and go over on my key is I don't make a mistake.
[30:29] They pay attention to his style lately and we wanted to be more precise and what we wanted to do and to get.
[30:41] So that would be good at least for me to know and have in my mind the plan that we can do.
[30:47] also before we drop any suggestion, a statement from the Commission helping us also to be more precise.
[30:58] I think the tricky part comes is if you make certain regulations in this state harder for a child care
[31:09] center or a home child care center to meet, they don't have the funding to be able to meet that, right?
[31:17] That's why public school teachers get paid more than pre-K or has start teachers because they have a different funding stream.
[31:26] That's why Head Start and Pre-K can pay teachers more than in a child care that relies on private tuition.
[31:34] Because there's not this other funding source out there to provide for higher quality services.
[31:41] It's not that child care programs are not wonderful and good and do great things.
[31:47] It's not in at all, but they literally don't have the funding stream to be able to add
[31:53] in the extras or to pay higher wages to get those higher quality educators.
[32:01] So then the funding, which affects our budget, all of those pieces play into it and make it
[32:08] difficult. So I would never want to do anything that would make it so child care centers
[32:16] across the state and home child care centers couldn't continue to thrive and do what they're
[32:22] trying to do. Especially, you know, we think about infant toddlers and we don't have enough
[32:26] infant toddler spaces. So I think some of the the progress that we've made over the years
[32:30] we've been increasing the the DHS rate for infants and toddlers in preschoolers, those are the
[32:37] step we look at what the market rate survey is, we really need to get to that percentile
[32:42] that we should be at to support programs.
[32:47] It's just, it's so complicated,
[32:54] you know?
[32:54] And then when you add in all the other needs of the state that you know you don't want to
[32:59] take away from us to do this, to do this, to do this, to do this, to do this, it's, it's, um, yeah.
[33:11] Is there any question about this information? And Mary, you recent, you recent the information
[33:19] to all of us. Okay, thank you. Is any other agency willing to report or give it us an information
[33:28] for the purpose of the meeting today? Yes, it's Stephanie. Yeah, sure, thank you so much.
[33:33] So, just a few updates that I wanted to share on the early intervention extension, so as most of you are aware,
[33:40] this will hopefully help to bridge the gap between when a child reaches their third birthday and early intervention services stop to when the new school year starts and special education services can start.
[33:52] So, as of right now, the biggest next step is going to be for part B and Part C to work together to develop a state plan.
[33:59] And then we would submit that to the federal government and that's necessary for us in order for us to receive the federal funding tied to the implementation of the program.
[34:12] In the meantime, I know that there's an implementation advisory committee that's going to be formed.
[34:18] I believe EOHHS is going to be coordinating that and that's going to be bringing together different EI providers, advocates, families and other key partners.
[34:29] So, I think they've identified the organizations, but I know that they still need to identify
[34:34] the actual members, so that's really important as a next step to make sure that we have,
[34:41] you know, the correct community organizations, family members, everyone, you know, to have
[34:46] a seat at that table to reflect, you know, both both professional and lived experience.
[34:52] If any of our partners here today have any additional updates, I welcome them to chime in,
[34:58] and then I'd be happy to bring that back to my colleagues at ripen.
[35:01] I know that the official goal-live date for the EI Extension program is supposed to be January
[35:06] of 2008, and that rollout is going to start with children who have mayvert days,
[35:13] and that'll mark the start of the implementation. So quite a bit of planning still ahead,
[35:18] but we're really excited to see how the different agencies can come together and collaborate
[35:22] as we move forward. And then the only other thing that I had was the upcoming IEP changes.
[35:27] So, changes to the IEP process would include things like evaluations and draft IEPs due to the families at least three days prior to the IEP meeting.
[35:39] That'll ensure that families are, you know, being able to take in that information and understand it properly before coming to the table.
[35:46] Also, parental consent will be required signatures in order to change anything within the IEP,
[35:52] and then the schools will have 63 days to complete any evaluations and hold
[35:58] evaluation meetings, and then you know going back to a lot of what Mary was
[36:03] saying that the IEP and any other official documents are required to be in the
[36:09] family's native language, so you know important things like that are going to
[36:13] be reiterated in these changes. I did bring with me a one-pager that
[36:19] right, and has put out, and we are hoping to get that out to all professionals and families.
[36:24] It's in family-friendly language, it's basically going to help professionals and families understand
[36:28] what changes are coming, and what that's going to mean for the process.
[36:32] So please feel free to take one.
[36:33] I'm happy to send that out electronically as well, if that'll be helpful.
[36:38] And then also, right then, is also putting together a short educational video, just to kind
[36:43] of walk through what these changes will mean for families and professionals and how to help
[36:48] coach families through the IEP process, and I will be sure to share that with the commission as well when we have it out.
[37:01] Thank you so much.
[37:02] It's a funny month, Frito.
[37:04] Is there any question for yes?
[37:09] I just wanted to see thank you for your for ripens work on this and for putting this one
[37:13] major together. This was the legislation that
[37:17] repissed like, and I had sponsored a couple of years ago,
[37:19] and so it's thrilling to see it become real.
[37:22] And I think, you know, in the conversations around passing this bill,
[37:26] what became really clear is that some of these things are things
[37:29] that some school districts already do.
[37:31] This is their best practice.
[37:33] They already did these things, but a lot of children and families
[37:37] in other school districts weren't given these types of supports
[37:40] and didn't have that level of partnership
[37:42] with their educators. So I think it's just great that there is going to be standardization
[37:47] of these things and that I think it does reduce a lot of the kind of, we're on this side,
[37:52] you know, the families on one side need the schools on the other side and kind of some of that misunderstanding
[37:56] that can happen when people don't have all the information or when things aren't explained clearly.
[38:01] And you know, so I am just so happy that this is actually becoming real. So thank you for sharing that.
[38:05] And I would love to have this electronically and please do share the video as soon as it's available.
[38:09] Absolutely. And thank you for all of your support on this. I think it's really important for families to understand that they are an equal partner and that they should feel confident in coming to the table and advocating for their child. So thank you for all your support.
[38:25] Any other question for? Is there any other agency?
[38:31] willing to share any information.
[38:36] Now, so we move that agenda.
[38:42] Now, after Mary bring our attention to what is going on in Washington,
[38:48] we need to start talking about what would be our next legislative strategy
[38:54] in order to start thinking how we cannot dress on those issues for January 20, 20, 27.
[39:05] And if there is anything about legislators throughout the year and the year at this point,
[39:12] this is the moment to share.
[39:17] No, because we kind of break in vacation, right?
[39:22] So, yes, I was talking to Paige about this earlier and she had two suggestions which
[39:29] she may have discussed already but have the new house leadership join a Child Care Commission
[39:34] meeting and perhaps some kind of event for the newly elected to teach them about our complex
[39:41] child care system.
[39:45] Okay, let's think about how we create a agenda to bring the leadership
[39:51] But I think it's more appropriate to do that after we elect the new ones.
[39:56] Or I don't know what you think about that.
[39:59] I'm just trying to think back.
[40:01] I believe in maybe I'm going to call on our commission policy historian here, Morgan.
[40:08] I believe that we did in January of 2025.
[40:11] I think that we did invite all of, especially the newly elected,
[40:16] It's got kind of personal invitations from both chambers to attend the January Child Care Commission meeting and I think we had some presentations around like this is the kind of workforce development perspective and the educator perspective, this is the provider perspective, this is the, you know, family perspective, but I think you're right, I think January would be the right time to do for that conversation and you know, make sure that we do that, we just especially to the new people to help them kind of just become acquainted with those things.
[40:46] But we, and we had, I think, discussed, maybe trying to figure out if host leadership especially
[40:54] had any availability this fall for us to invite them to a meeting, you know, to have a conversation
[41:00] about these issues, as especially the budget is being developed and as, you know, before we hit the
[41:08] ground running in January. So I don't know about your thoughts on that, because that's your chamber chair.
[41:13] But I think that is a good idea to kind of have some groundwork.
[41:17] My personal experience showed me that this is a good idea, but there's no reality in this moment.
[41:24] Because we are in the election time, and the election has so many layers.
[41:30] For example, we need to survive from the primary election and then the general election.
[41:36] And when we have the real numbers, the leadership is concerning about how they will be elected.
[41:42] because this is a new leadership of the confirmation of the existing leadership.
[41:48] So those parts taking place from now to January.
[41:53] And we can invite, but I don't see that we can have the outcomes we're looking for.
[41:59] We can try again, but I never seen that.
[42:02] And as you mentioned in the past, also we are including the
[42:08] Congressional Delegation, many, many years back we invited, especially Jared Reed and
[42:16] Jellon White House, they were willing to at that time, they went here, they participated, gave
[42:22] us on guidance about how we can work with them. We can do that. So I feel it's more appropriate
[42:30] to bring the Congressional at this point than the local, because local are now thinking
[42:36] just in reelection. And with this issue is more effective for me to
[42:42] invite Jari Chalum to hear the local. It's my personal experience.
[42:50] And based on the line also that we need to figure out what we have done
[42:56] maybe to make comments or any other things that are relevant in this moment.
[43:02] So, could be the next meeting, next meeting is after primary election, and the only two
[43:10] of them facing election, which I believe is said by Athena and Senator Reed.
[43:17] Maybe there's not a big concern about it, but still they have to pay attention to the primary
[43:24] election. So we make and do the after or an October for the
[43:32] congressional and then weigh a little bit for the local state to
[43:37] see the I believe a speaker bless you ski will be relaxed, but
[43:42] we need to weigh until everything is set in down and able to do
[43:47] something. Especially January is not big agenda, we can plan for that.
[43:51] Okay, it is my personal experience.
[43:54] So I think the one thing that we might want to do then if we will, especially if we want
[43:59] to get leadership, especially health leadership to come in January is also maybe to try
[44:06] to like save that date for them ahead of time or end if they're not going to be available
[44:10] at that date and time, maybe we could shift our meeting date, you know, we can plan ahead
[44:14] to shift the meeting date for that availability to kind of do one presentation on once.
[44:18] As you were talking, that's also reminding me of why we move the child care retreat to the non-election year.
[44:23] You know, so that we can have that in there.
[44:26] Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
[44:28] I think it's a good idea to start in gay prepare for the meeting along with inviting the speaker, the leadership.
[44:38] And as we prepare for the next religious later year, we know that at the beginning of the year is no heavy agenda for the speaker.
[44:46] So it's appropriate that we can plan for January, 2021 and we'll help me to connect with Christine to start improving for the invitation.
[45:00] And at the meantime, we can invite maybe John Rick and Clam, as a emergency conversation to see he can join us and speak about this.
[45:11] Maybe he sees things in a different way, or have interlaw information that we don't know? So, could be.
[45:18] Yeah, he's on the appropriations committee. So that's always a good thing to to have and I'm sure he would be willing to
[45:29] I do I in last week
[45:32] I don't know if you I was on vacation. So I wasn't here, but Joseph's friend had the gubernatorial
[45:39] Event where they had
[45:41] Canada's come in and answer questions
[45:43] So I don't know if that would be anything that we would want to do after the primary within the state if that was something.
[45:55] I think should be after November because primary election is just between each party.
[46:04] I'm not wrong, but we need to bring attention from the governor ahead and I think after November election.
[46:11] I don't know. I don't know. It's what I think is more appropriate because we don't.
[46:18] We know if any primary elect person would be in November because they say we have, but at the same
[46:27] time we need to respect the process.
[46:30] Yes, acknowledging that we know that in November is when we know who is the real government.
[46:40] So, I hope that the person who ever is, I would always praise my preference, the person
[46:47] will be more tentative to work on childcare issues, because those are the key of the economy
[46:57] and so many other areas and so on.
[47:00] So it's a little bit of a way.
[47:04] The only thing we can do at this point
[47:05] is my suggestion in Cochier Help me,
[47:08] is inviting Jared and children to see
[47:11] which one of both can come next meeting,
[47:15] based in the information.
[47:17] So that way we have a little bit of room
[47:19] to decide what we do next after.
[47:22] So they'll be back in session and September.
[47:27] right who they yeah but our meeting is I think he goes I think he flies there on a
[47:37] Monday I don't know 15 maybe thank you that was my thought you
[47:47] Because that's the day before, yeah, because the election this year is one thing and I was just like it all got
[47:57] But just it would be more peaceful for Jack
[48:01] But say I don't read to come after primary election
[48:05] Which would be the second week of September. Yeah, but I don't know if I got point. He has to be in Washington
[48:11] Which is your question, right that was he could be right because they don't have a budget to vote on
[48:17] So, we can find out, but yeah, it's certainly worth the ask, I think.
[48:23] Let's work together in this, go cheer, find out when he's coming back, he's willing
[48:29] or able to come next meeting.
[48:33] And from there, we can make it plan for local that we don't know exactly what we happen.
[48:43] Is there any question?
[48:48] I think I will just say, I know you go for Kayla.
[48:52] If we're talking about priorities right from the start,
[48:55] also put their priorities together.
[48:56] We have our retreat two weeks ago.
[48:59] I'm losing track of the win.
[49:01] So our priorities for this year,
[49:03] the elimination of the child support enforcement for C.
[49:06] Capitalization for working on for many years.
[49:09] Keeping the wages program protecting head start
[49:12] and pre-K funding and ensuring that we increase rates for all age groups in the C-CAP program.
[49:19] So I just want to put that up there for those are right from the start priorities and we could
[49:22] consider priorities and believe as well.
[49:25] Express our gratitude that kids can't keep us in truck.
[49:30] We have to say that.
[49:35] Is any of the comments anything for this afternoon any motion for a
[49:43] Second, so thank you so much, we appreciate all of you.
[49:47] Thank you.