Trivia Answers

Answer 1: According to a 2016 edition of “Thurston Talk,” a total of four sitting United States Presidents have visited the Washington State Capitol.

This is a bit of a trick question, because FIVE Presidents have actually visited Olympia, but President Rutherford Hayes’ October 1880 visit was before Washington became a state. See below for a summary of the Presidential visits (and some historic pictures).

Answer 2: Thurston Talk opines that the transition to airplanes from trains as the preferred mode of transportation meant that Presidents visiting Washington State have been more likely to land in Seattle (or even Spokane) for a visit. It was much easier to stop in Olympia when a President was traveling through by train. As those of us who commute to Olympia via SeaTac can attest, that drive can be traffic filled. It does make sense that any Presidential visits to our state would be centered near major airports.

A quick summary of Presidential visits, courtesy of Thurston Talk and HistoryLink.org Essay 5466:

President Teddy Roosevelt visited the Capitol in 1903 during a tour of Western states. President Roosevelt spoke to thousands gathered on the Capitol campus and took in a special game from Olympia’s minor league baseball team. He said of Olympia, “You have one of the prettiest little cities I have ever visited. It is a delightful place for a home. I have been greatly surprised and gratified. I shall never forget Olympia and her generous people.”

President William Taft’s 1911 visit lasted just one hour. He lunched at the Governor’s Mansion (picture below) where a memorable exchange occurred after another guest hit the President’s hand with a hot coffee pot. “O, I beg your pardon. I didn’t mean to burn you.” To which President Taft replied, “I’ll remember you warmly.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1937 visits to the Capitol was extremely brief, lasting only a few minutes. He was in the region touring what was to become Olympic National Park. After a quick stop-by to the Governor’s mansion, FDR was back at the road, reaching Fort Lewis by car within the hour.

HistoryLink.org devoted an entire piece to President Harry Truman’s 1948 visit where he stayed overnight at the Governor’s Mansion which was inhabited by the President’s friend and former U.S. Senate colleague, then Governor Mon Wallgren.

President Truman flew directly to the Olympia airport from Washington D.C. (the first and last U.S. President to do so). The trip was billed as a “vacation” and President Truman used the Governor’s mansion as home base while he toured the sites in Washington state (think mountains and fishing). Politics never takes a vacation and the real reason for President’s Truman landing pad was its proximity to San Francisco where the United Nations was meeting and he wanted to be close in case he needed to intervene.

Two final additions to President Truman’s visit to Washington state.  He began his trip with a speech at the Spokane Club (I wondered if he enjoyed some of their famous orange rolls?).  It was after this speech that the President had the infamous exchange with a Spokesman Review reporter, telling the reporter, “The Chicago Tribune and this paper are the worst in the United States.”

After the speech and exchange with the media, the President’s train next headed to Ephrata. One member of the Presidential entourage, the President’s Chef, missed the train because he had run out of butter. By the time he tracked it down, the chef missed the train and had to take a cab 90 miles to catch up with the Presidential entourage.

Start Early, formerly the Ounce of Prevention Fund, appreciates the steps taken by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and his administration over the past year to support early care and education programs during a global pandemic. We are, however, disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget framework offered today proposes cuts in state funding to both the Early Intervention (EI) program and the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). The administration did propose to maintain current funding levels for preschool and evidence-based home visiting programs, however, which is commendable given the significant financial pressures facing the state.

“We strongly support Governor Pritzker’s efforts to make Illinois the best state in the nation for families raising young children,” Ireta Gasner, Start Early vice president of Illinois policy, said. “But now is not the time to cut state funding of services for infants and toddlers with developmental delays or disabilities, many of whom have been negatively impacted by the pandemic. We look forward to working with the administration and the Illinois General Assembly to direct additional state and federal resources (including federal child care funds), as they become available, to the state’s early care and education system.”

The public health crisis wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the needs of families, certainly among those already lacking equitable services and opportunities. It has also brought into sharp relief the essential nature of the work performed by early childhood professionals – workers whose efforts are central to the well-being of children, families and communities. Not only must we preserve the ability of state government to serve our communities left most under-resourced, we must do more to equitably invest in our young children and their families.

Despite these challenging times, the administration is laying the necessary groundwork to ensure the state can capitalize on future opportunities to strengthen our early childhood system. The Illinois Commission on Equitable Early Childhood Education and Care Funding is poised to release its recommendations next month on how to fund and structure our state system to ensure all children, birth to age 5, have access to the highest quality care. In addition, Start Early is thrilled that state agency officials and stakeholders came together to create a comprehensive, multiyear plan to improve services and supports for expecting families, infants and toddlers. Together, we will improve the earliest days of a new baby’s life; we will make sure young children with disabilities and developmental delays receive the services and supports they need; and families facing greater challenges will thrive as their child’s first and most important teacher.

To that end, Start Early is eager to partner with the legislature and the administration to implement and retain policy improvements that positively impact young children. For instance, telehealth has been a lifeline for families in the EI program over the last year. Retaining telehealth as an allowable mode of service delivery, even once in-person services return, should be a top priority. In addition, Start Early will continue to partner with the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus to expand the state’s Medicaid program to include coverage for doula services and evidence-based home visiting. Parents deserve access to quality services that keep them and their children healthy, and these kinds of services are key to reducing racial disparities in maternal and child well-being.

Trivia Answers

1. Which current statewide elected officer was instrumental in the development of TVW?

When he was Chief of Staff to former Governor Booth Gardner in 1992, our current Lt. Governor Denny Heck, along with Governor Gardner’s Policy Director Stan Marshburn, began advocating for Washington state to develop its own version of the Congressional channel, CSPAN.

Below is a picture of Lt. Gov. Heck, along with former Governor Booth Gardner and former Lt. Governor Joel Pritchard when TVW went “on the air.” I believe Lt. Governor Heck is the person furthest to the right at the podium. I really enjoy the old technology – HUGE desktops!

In what qualifies as a full circle memory, TVW’s current President Renee Radcliff Sinclair is also a former member of our House of Representatives (21st Legislative District) and she recalls that her first lobby visit after her election was from Lt. Governor Heck and Dale Vincent seeking her support for this proposed method of covering the Legislature.

2. What was TVW’s original name?
TVW was originally named “WASHPAN” for Washington Public Affairs Network (a take on CSPAN). Everyone quickly agreed that name was, well, awful, and it was changed to TVW.

3. When did TVW go on the air?

(Photo credit: Pat Dunn, longtime TVW supporter)

4. What was first broadcast?
The idea of covering legislative activity was not initially supported by a number of members of the Legislature. It took some time for them to see the upside. As a result, the first broadcast showcased oral arguments for a death penalty appeal in the Washington State Supreme Court. To this day, TVW continues to cover our State Supreme Court.

During a special legislative session in 1995, focused on state funding for what was then Safeco field, the House took a vote supporting turning on the cameras, so the first TVW coverage of the House centered on Floor debate for a baseball stadium. The Senate voted to turn on cameras for their events in 1996 and both chambers were regularly covered starting in 1997. At that time, they could only broadcast one event at a time, so TVW would tape other events and show later.

TVW’s motto is they provide “gavel to gavel coverage, anytime, anywhere, on any device.” It has taken time and investment to get there, but that motto is now a reality, particularly with their robust archives section on their website. (I didn’t know this, but you can also access programming on Roku and it’s even produced programs for Amazon Prime). There are now over 60 cameras on campus, filming as many as 15 events at once.

5. What is TVW’s budget and how much of that does the state cover?

TVW has an annual budget of $20 million and only $3 million of that is covered with state funding. TVW makes up the balance of its budget with sponsorships and individual gifts. Importantly, every cable company in our state carries TVW for free. TVW is not a state agency.

More from Renee
Renee also provided this great picture. It is of her in 1995 taking a committee vote on the funding strategy for the major league baseball stadium that eventually became Safeco Field and is now T-Mobile Park. This vote happened the same week that the House voted to turn on TVW’s cameras in hearing rooms and the House Floor.

I asked Renee how they prepared for this year virtual year and she acknowledged they are operating with the good graces of human beings and technology, and both can fail. She said the legislative interim with the frequent press conferences by Governor Inslee allowed them to build the muscle and identify work arounds.

Additionally, TVW accessed CARES dollars which allowed them to increase their bandwidth (think servers and encoders) as well as to secure equipment to provide closed captioning. Finally, she said close coordination with legislative staff has also been key.

Renee highlighted that eyes on their product have skyrocketed with virtual session. They went from 10,000 regular viewers to one million viewers overnight and they have maintained those high numbers throughout session.

Two final points – Renee emphasized TVW’s original programming and encouraged people to check out shows like “Inside Olympia”. She’s right to be proud of that work. And she said the Floor sessions with part Zoom, part in-person are less chaotic than they thought they would be.

A huge thanks to Renee for not only being generous with her time and sharing these great stories and pictures, but to her and her entire team for their work to allow us all to safely stay engaged in the legislative process.

Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS) have become a popular policy strategy for assessing, improving and communicating about the quality of early childhood education programs. Bolstered by federal grant requirements and significant investments of state dollars, nearly every state has established QRIS, and tens of thousands of programs have chosen to participate over the last 20 years. Research shows that most QRISs can distinguish between low- and high- quality programs and can help children access higher quality early learning experiences. While QRIS has significant potential, it is limited by the communities actually reached.

The reality is that access to high-quality early childhood education programs is currently inequitable—high-quality options are far more limited in under-resourced communities where many low-income families and families of color live. For QRISs to help correct economic and racial inequities, they must serve and support the programs in these communities. Most QRIS participation is voluntary, so to do this, it must be relevant and beneficial to a diverse array of programs.

So, which early childhood programs and communities do—and do not—participate in QRIS? In a recently-published study, Jade Jenkins and Jennifer Duer from the University of California at Irvine and I explored this very question. We learned that:

• Approximately 1/3 of center-based early childhood education programs nationwide participated in QRIS in 2012 (the most recent year for which data are available)
• Centers that blend multiple funding sources and those with state pre-K funding participated in QRIS at higher rates than other programs
• Participation was more likely for programs in some communities than in others – 1) participation was higher among centers located in higher-poverty communities 2) participation was lower among centers located in communities with more Black residents.

These findings show that resources, supports and other benefits of QRIS have not been equitably distributed across communities. Our study cannot answer the question of why centers are more or less likely to participate in QRIS, but we do have some speculations. As mentioned previously, since QRIS participation is often voluntary, a center would likely only choose to partake if the benefits outweigh the burden of time and cost. Participating in QRIS requires an early childhood education program to invest money and staff time, which many simply cannot spare.

In addition, the calculus of costs and benefits may look different for different programs. For example, advocates have raised serious concerns about whether the measures, supports, incentives and processes that comprise QRIS are relevant to programs serving communities of color. In fact, advocates in California came to the devastating conclusion that their state’s “QRIS is racist.” If programs in Black communities do not see themselves or the families they serve reflected in QRIS standards, then what benefits would they gain from participating?

Our research helped to shine a light on the problem. If QRIS is going to advance its of goal of improving economic and racial equities in early childhood education, they must engage and support a diverse set of programs in a broader range of communities.

Policymakers, systems leaders and advocates have an important opportunity to make QRIS more equitable. Solutions will require careful examination of QRIS recruitment and outreach strategies, assessment tools, supports and incentives offered to programs, and barriers to participation. The process must include the voices of those programs and the families they serve in redefining quality and redesigning the system.

QRIS is a vehicle through which we can create change in early learning policy. We must steer it towards equity—now.

During the first webinar in our “Building Resilience” series, experts across policy, program, and system levels shared their successes, challenges, and opportunities with Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships (Partnerships). The discussion touched on many relevant and timely themes within the early childhood education sector, including the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis on the child care industry.

One panelist, an early childhood education teacher from Southwest Child Development Center in Oklahoma City, shared this call to action: “The [federal] administration should acknowledge child care workers. We are on the same guidelines as school teachers, we just make less money than them. Child care workers should get the same benefits that school teachers receive.”

While the pandemic has revealed the fragility of our under-resourced child care workforce, it has illuminated the strength and visibility of the Partnerships model. A recent qualitative policy analysis from Start Early, found that Partnerships support continuity of care for infants and toddlers and raise the level of quality for child care.

Participants came away from the discussion with a deeper understanding of Partnerships and their benefits, particularly during the pandemic, as well as ideas on how to support and sustain Partnerships and professional development resources for themselves and their staff.

Thank you to our wonderful panelists:

• Melinda George-LeCote, Director, Child Care Assistance Program in Louisiana
• Amanda Guarino, Policy Director, First Five Years Fund
• Charlina Tirso, Teacher, Southwest Child Development Center
• Sujey M. Venegas, Sr. Director Family, Community Engagement, Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership, United Way of Miami-Dade County
• Moderator: Kristin Bernhard, SVP Advocacy and Policy, Start Early

Trivia Answers

Regardless of their current location or their boss’ party affiliation, the legislative assistant’s answers had a similar theme.

What do they miss about in-person session?

• People! The first answer from each of them was that they missed people. They miss the buzz and energy of the Capitol campus. They talked about the comradery they feel with fellow legislative staff and even lobbyists, particularly on the long days and late nights. Legislative session is an emotional roller coaster, and that support helps everyone get through the fast-paced days.
• Constituent Visits. They talked about how they miss constituents coming to visit. These constituent visits recharge their legislators (and them!) and remind them of why they do this work. These connections revitalize the legislator and staff alike.
• Socializing. For the few who are on the Capitol campus right now, it is QUIET. They miss coffees and lunches with colleagues. They miss the evening receptions that for many young legislative staff serve as a great place to get dinner. One staff made a point of saying the Shellfish Growers Reception is the best annual event – hands down. Not only is the food amazing, but I was told the shellfish growers are fascinating to talk with. A number noted the impact the lack of activity in Olympia has had on Olympia area restaurants, hotels and catering companies. It has been devastating.
• Dome Deli Coffee Cart. Most people on the campus have an affection for the Dome Deli. We know the people who work there and hear about their families. The Dome Deli has been shuttered for nearly a year and there’s limited food available on campus (think vending machines in the Pritchard Library). It’s not the same.
• Governor’s Inaugural Ball. Due to COVID, there was not an inaugural ball this year which is always a huge highlight for the entire Capitol community.
• Picking up the “vibe.” It is hard to pick up the unspoken vibe virtually. Are people tense, who is not talking to whom? All of those unspoken interactions are harder to get virtually.

(Writer’s note – I was surprised none of them mentioned missing potato, beef or dairy day. That would be at the top of my list).

What do they like better?

• Fewer interruptions. Because they do not have people constantly streaming by their desks, they can finish tasks.
• Constituent Engagement. Constituents are able to engage much easier without having to take a day off of work, find child care, etc.  That’s a positive.
• House slippers. For those working at home or in the district office, dress is more casual.
• More parking, less traffic. For the staff on campus, the ability to get to work on time (no I-5 freeway jams around 8:00 or 5:00) and an abundance of parking are a plus.
• Virtual connections with their colleagues. Many legislative assistants face isolation during interim as they return to their districts.  They have been a lot more connected to each other as they navigate this new reality, sharing tips and establishing protocols.

What do their days look like now?

• Screen Time! Like most of us, they are spending their days staring at multiple monitors.
• “Nothing is on the fly.” During in-person session, lobbyists can grab legislators in the halls, pull them off the Floor, etc. Without these options, everything has to be scheduled – every short conversation is a meeting request.  This puts a tremendous pressure on the legislative assistants as they manage increased scheduling requests and they have to build in breaks for their legislators – and for themselves. (A good reminder to give them grace as we all try to schedule meetings).
• Snacks are key! Like during in-person session, an ample supply of snacks helps with the long days.
• Where’s my legislator? One of the first lessons legislative assistants are taught is to know where their legislator is at all times.  This is more complicated in virtual session and each legislative assistant described the communication tools they have put in place with their legislator.
• Floor Time. I thought this was an interesting factoid.  For the Senate floor sessions, 8 Democrats, 7 Republicans, rostrum staff and 2 caucus staff are allowed on the floor or in the wings and they are unable to swap out members during floor sessions on a single day due to sanitation concerns.

Thanks to all of the wonderful legislative assistants.  They are key to the success of the Capitol community!  I know I miss streaming by their desks and interrupting their work.

As the early childhood workforce gathers virtually this month for the National Home Visiting Summit, we’ll be nearing a full year of living under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. There’s so much to discuss, from the impact of the pandemic on our workforce and communities of color to the significant challenges the pandemic has revealed within our support systems for all families, particularly for those living in under-resourced communities.

As we continue our work to strengthen the home visiting workforce in the wake of the pandemic, we focus specifically on the many systemic factors and community conditions that affect staff retention, and ultimately, rates of family engagement in home visiting services.

Join me at the National Home Visiting Summit, along with facilitators Reyna Dominguez and Ariel Chaidez, as we explore local and national strategies to address these factors in a session, “Vocation-Vision-Voice: Strategies in Professional Development.” Using a case study of an Early Head Start Home-based program in Santa Clara, California serving a Latino community with fully bilingual staff, we’ll explore how supervisory leadership invested in ongoing professional development of staff promotes long term program engagement for both staff and families.

Coming out of the session, participants will be empowered with strategies and actions that can affect change in systemic and supervisory program conditions that promote workforce retention. Whether you can attend this session or not, I hope you’ll take time to consider the impact professional development can have to turn a job into a vocation through the skilled and invested interest of a supervisor attuned to the voice and vision of home visitors. Learn more about the research and methodology behind Start Early’s professional development portfolio.

Trivia!

During the first week of the legislative session, the Senate Health Care and Long-Term Committee held a fascinating work session “Pandemic: Past, Present and Future.”  I particularly recommend the speaker from the University of Washington’s Alliance for Pandemic Preparedness who started at minute 14 and the speaker from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who started at minute 53.

That work session prompted me to do some more late-night Internet deep dives about Washington state’s response to the 1918 pandemic, leading to this week’s trivia:

1. What sector was the epicenter of the 1918 pandemic?
2. What was the first statewide mandate to stem the spread?

Highlights of the Week

“Early Action Bill” Advances.  The Legislature spent its first two weeks working to develop an “Early Action Bill” that directs $2.2 billion in federal money to help families and businesses most impacted by the pandemic. This press release from the House Democrats provides an overview of the broad distribution of the funds.

For child care, the package directs $50 million of the $167 million Washington received in additional Child Care and Development Block Grant funds at the end of 2020.  The state has three years to spend down the entire amount. The $50 million in child care funds are to be distributed as follows (with DCYF having the authority to redistribute based on underutilization or overutilization in a particular area):

• $28.8 million in grants to licensed child care providers serving children birth to 13. Providers would receive a base grant of $6,500 with an additional $100 for additional each licensed slot over 65;
• $6 million for $6500 grants to licensed providers who do not accept subsidy;
• $10.6 million to reimburse school-age providers at the regional preschool age Working Connections Child Care subsidy rate through April 2021;
• $4 million for the Department of Children, Youth and Families to incentivize providers to take new subsidized slots; and
• Finally, $600,000 to provide $250 incentives to Family, Friend and Neighbor providers.

As the name denotes, this is on a fast track. The House version (HB 1368) was approved by House Appropriations on January 28th, is expected to be before the full House of Representatives on January 29th, and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 2nd. The Senate version (SB 5344) is also scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 2nd. The hope is to get these funds out to impacted parties as soon as possible.

Senate Ways and Means Committee briefed on existing federal COVID expenditures. As the Legislature is preparing to move on an Early Action bill meant to provide additional pandemic related relief, this week the Senate Ways and Means Committee received briefings from their staff and state agencies on how previous federal stimulus dollars were utilized.

Senate staff provided a high-level overview of the investments as well as explanation around the state’s existing procedures for handling Unanticipated Receipts (UARs), allocations outside of the legislative budget writing window. In most years, UARs are typically grants received by state agencies, and were an exception.

Obviously the multi-billion in COVID related funding was unprecedented, creating Unanticipated Receipts in the multi-billion-dollar range.  It is important to note that decisions related to the federal dollars received since the legislature adjourned last March were made in consultation with leadership from the Senate and House Democrats and Republicans. Because of the experiences over the past year, Senate Ways and Means Chair Christine Rolfes has introduced SB 5162 to revise the process for Unanticipated Receipts, adding a requirement for an Oversight Board to review plans for expenditures exceeding $5 million.

Following the high-level overview, a variety of state agencies reported out on how they spent federal stimulus dollars.  DCYF’s Allison Krutsinger presented this Powerpoint that explained the agency’s guiding principles in their decision making and broke down the $163.2 million DCYF distributed to support the child care industry. Krutsinger concluded by identifying additional needs for consideration as the Legislature starts to prepare the 2021-23 budget.  These recommendations included fixing the co-pay cliff, increasing subsidy reimbursement and expanding eligibility for more working families to access subsidized child care.

TVW Delivers! Our state’s CSPAN, TVW, has proven invaluable during this virtual legislative session. Their team is working doggedly to ensure not one second of legislative activity is missed. In addition to their coverage of legislative floor sessions, committee meetings and availability with legislative leadership, they also produce their own original content.

I wanted to flag the January 21st Inside Olympia with Austin Jenkins. This edition was split into two sections. The first included an interview with the bipartisan authors of the Senate’s Select Committee on Economic Recovery’s COVID recovery plan, Senator David Frockt and Senator Shelly Short. Senators Frockt and Short highlighted common agreement about the top priorities for the state’s recovery included in the report, including the importance of investing in child care. While there were many areas of agreement, the conversation surfaced several differing approaches between the Democratic and Republican caucuses. Specifically related to child care, Senator Short emphasized the importance of parent choice and Senator Frockt discussed the “mismatch” of supply and demand, a problem present prior to the pandemic.

Bill Action This Week

With the February 15th cutoff for bills to be moved out of policy committees approaching, we are seeing the introduction of new bills slowing and more brisk activity in policy committees. As a reminder, bills first receive a “public hearing” where the sponsoring legislator makes a case for their bill and then members of the public are able to weigh in with their thoughts. The virtual session has greatly expanded access to the public comment process, a silver lining to a virtual session.

Following the public hearing, bills can be scheduled for an “executive session” where committee members vote to advance the bill to the next step in the process. Amendments can be taken during this executive session process, so it is important to track the version of the bill as approved. It is also important to note that not every bill that receives a public hearing will receive an executive session or vote. It is also not uncommon for scheduled executive sessions to be rescheduled if amendments are still in the process of being negotiated. This happened this week with Rep. Senn’s Fair Start Act (HB 1213) as that executive session was moved from January 27th to either February 3rd or 4th. Bills we are tracking include:

• HB 1278 by Representatives Dent and Eslick. This bill was heard in the House Children, Youth and Families on January 28^th and would suspend certain professional development and higher education requirements until Sept. 30, 2025.  There was robust debate about striking the right balance of education and professional development requirements and appropriate regulatory oversight.  The question was also raised if the bill in its current form could put the state’s federal Child Care and Development Fund dollars in jeopardy if elements of quality, such as education and professional development requirements, were eased to the degree proposed.
• SB 5023 by Senator Claire Wilson was approved by the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee on January 27^th and now moves to Senate Ways and Means. The bill aims to ensure that certain unemployment benefits do not render families ineligible for Working Connections Child Care.
• Amended and approved by the Senate Health Care Committee on January 27th, SB 5052 by Senator Karen Keiser would create health equity zones. The social determinant of health focus of this legislation could weave in early childhood strategies.  Amendments include the ability for communities to self-identify potential health equity zones.  The bill now moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
• Amended and approved by the Senate Early Learning and K-12, SB 5136 by Senator Claire Wilson would waive licensing fees for child care providers. Amendments taken in the committee sunset the fee waiver on June 30, 2023 (as introduced, licensing fees would have been permanently waived).  The bill now moves to Senate Ways and Means.
• SB 5151 is the Department of Children, Youth and Families licensing bill. Sponsored by legislative early learning champion Claire Wilson, the bill includes a provision to move the outdoor preschool effort from pilot to a permanent option for families.  It was approved by the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee this week and moves to Senate Ways and Means.

What’s on Deck for Next Week

Fair Start Act.  As mentioned above, the Executive Session in the House Children, Youth and Families Committee for HB 1213 will be on either February 3^rd or 4^th.  The Committee will consider a number of amendments which we will recap in next week’s newsletter.  An Executive Session on the Senate version (SB 5237) will be held on February 3^rd.

Another reminder that Start Early WA’s webpage contains a resource page that includes a summary of the Fair Start Act, as introduced.

Early Learning Facilities.  The Early Learning Facilities Fund and the Washington Early Learning Loan Fund provide capital funding to support needed early learning facilities.  On Tuesday, February 2^nd, the House Capital Budget Committee will hold a work session to educate committee members on this program.

At that same meeting, the House Capital Budget Committee will hold a hearing on Representative Callan’s HB 1370 which would increase allowable grant levels for the Early Learning Facilities Fund and also would include technical assistance as an allowable expense.  This inclusion of technical assistance is important as many early learning professionals could benefit from technical expertise when navigating construction issues and real estate loans.

Trivia Answers

* Information Source: historylink.org, “Flu in Washington: The 1918 ‘Spanish Flu’ Pandemic,” published March 23, 2017

Answer 1: The epicenter(s) of the 1918 pandemic were our military bases with a particularly high number of cases at Camp Lewis and the University of Washington Naval Training Center.

Why our military bases? World War I was in its final months during the height of the pandemic. This accelerated the spread as service members 1) traveled around the world and then returned stateside (bringing the flu) and 2) lived in close quarters. A perfect storm.

Answer 2:The first statewide directive was a mask mandate issued on November 3, 1918. The mandate specified that masks must “entirely cover the nose and mouth.” (Of course, that reminder was again needed 102 years later.)

The state’s action for a mask mandate came after a number of cities had closed all public places.

With all of the legislative discussion underway about the configuration of local public health boards and funding of public health generally, it was interesting to learn that in 1918 – aside from larger cities like Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and Yakima – all local public health officials were part-time men (of course!) who were paid nothing or maybe $5 a month. These public health officials were subject to political whims and were often abruptly replaced, themes we have seen play out in our recent pandemic experience.

I, of course, wondered how the pandemic stopped in 1918. Did the state set up massive vaccination sites? Nope. This article said the pandemic eventually ebbed because it “ran out of vulnerable victims.” (Gulp).

As the Biden administration settles into the work of supporting states and communities to recover economically and socially, it is important to consider the lessons we have learned from this devastating moment in history.

This ongoing pandemic will influence so much of how we live and work for years to come, and we should seize the opportunity to reshape the pre-K to grade 12 accountability system. The system’s focus should be less about singularly holding schools accountable and more on improving the quality of instructional practice and the organizational culture of schools. Federal and state leaders should consider changing how accountability systems are designed and implemented, and most importantly, defining the primary purpose of collecting and reporting data.

Changes in Collecting & Reporting Data

Today, state school superintendents have significant concerns about the testing and accountability requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act. As of January/February 2021, millions of children have not entered a classroom for 10 months, and their total time out of school will continue to increase over the course of this winter. Given the current circumstances, the process for how states collect and report data used to measure school performance and child outcomes must include some flexibility from the federal government.

We also have should review the spectrum of data being collected to ensure that it best reflects what students need to be successful, what conditions best support their learning, and what support and guidance teachers need to create productive learning experiences.

Changes to Accountability Systems

The new administration also has an opportunity to develop a more inclusive approach to school performance measures. Improving the accountability system for teachers would help ensure that local educators are involved in the design and implementation of those systems, and that they receive the support and guidance needed to be successful in rising to meet outcome measures. For students, this is a chance to ensure that assessment tools are used to better address the unique challenges faced by specific groups of children, such as English Language Learners, children with special needs and children experiencing trauma.

Referred to as reciprocal accountability, this approach confirms that accountability systems are adaptive, iterative and focused on a culture of continuous improvement for schools and the administrations charged with holding those schools accountable. Recognizing that improvement is not a linear process and is a unique event for every school, responsibility is distributed across the education system’s stakeholders. In addition, data is used to help teachers improve their practice and identify the supports necessary to truly foster an organizational culture that is grounded in continuous improvement.

In closing, far too often, system leaders embrace and push to scale evidence-based practices that are proven impactful in ideal conditions but that fail when implemented in other settings. Ideal conditions cannot and sometimes should not be replicated in every setting. The tendency is to assume the concept is complete as it was originally conceived, rather than seeing it as something that needs to constantly evolve and adapt based on how humans use it in context of their cultural and geographic context.

Successful school refinement requires a sustained commitment to incremental, ongoing improvements that involve all stakeholders – parents, teachers, administrators and children. With these recommendations for the education system, we have an opportunity to make significant and long-lasting advancements for state education departments and school districts.