- While the design subcommittee sees 5 steps of education in five tiers (12 units, to 24, to an AA in ECE, a BA in ECE, and an ECE credential), the workforce subcommittee sees two (12 units for tier 1 and ECE credential for lead teacher for tier 5). They don't see any value in any steps between 12 units an an ECE credential. They don't think an AA or BA in ECE is worth noticing. This is bizarre. At first I hoped it was a typo, but no, that's what they intended to say.
- As I said before, this David Gordon guy really doesn't like community colleges, and he doesn't seem to like process much, either. When he was going through the 3 components to define "qualified teacher," he kept changing the powerpoint in a way that seemed to go against the agreements the committee came to.
Meets standards of formal education (units earned)? "Ah, let's just make that 'meets standards of formal education.'"
Demonstrates competence through supervised practical experience? "Let's drop the supervised practical experience."
Continues to meet professional growth requirements over time, including mentoring and advisement? "Just continues to meet professional growth requirements."
- The third thing is early learning seems to have come to mean Pre-K through third grade, i.e., 4-8 instead of 0-5. I fear this is just a way to get third grade teachers teaching preschool, or at least it will result in the elementary schoolization of preschool.
- Finally, this group seems to have national credentials but not know much about California law, such as Title 22. They proposed tier 1 and 2 ratios for toddlers of 12:1 and group size of 24. Somebody from Licensing was on the committee. Didn't they read the damned proposal? Worse, didn't the licensing person know? Obviously nobody else on the committee did. Yesteray's meeting was full of PITC folks, but none of them seemed to notice, either; at least none of them mentioned it. Somebody at one of the video sites did though.