and teach the early child development program. Thank you. Great. Hi, I'm Sandy Wilberger. I'm here representing young children with disabilities from the partnership with people with disabilities, the TTAX, the training and technical assist. So, great. Nice to meet you. Thank you. I am Cecilia Suarez
from Creative Learning School. I'm representing the private sector of medicine. Wonderful. Sorry. I'm Jennifer Parish and I'm the executive director of Pete Childhood Center representing a nonprofit center and I too started as a middle school social studies.
uh Gina Wilford, superintendent at Northern City School, um a J professor for Mountain Empire Community College and his early childhood classes and also my doctor's in early childhood and that's my teaching background was prek and first grade and also probably gets
the prize for furthest travel. And I I do want to shout out I'm going totally um but they are also the state's leading um school division on chronic absenteeism and doing attendance right.
And so you all know this from tuning into the early childhood commissions that we still have a lot of chronic absenteeism numbers from the kinders and first and second grade. And so Gina and her team are an exemplar that we've been spotlighting across the country and not
just in Virginia of how do you get um our kids back to school and learning and really great um data especially for those early learners that are transitioning from the early learning spaces. We're going to see some good data for this year too and there some
community schools people we've worked with EO and community in schools and I think that grant community schools grant and being able to work with those organization has been amazed. So I hope to see congratulations and thank you Andrew. I'm Mark Anders. I own two
childcare centers in Chesterville County and so I represent for-profit um subsidy participating childcare centers. [Laughter] I'm Carney. Originally early childhood faculty Ju retired, but now I represent
Virginia out of school partnership. Great. Yay. Again, I'm a professor of early childhood education representing higher education. Hi, I'm Susan Patrick and I'm the EO out of Abington, Virginia. Um, I'm also here
representing uh the resource and referral agencies. Um, and I serve as the ready region lead for the southwest region. Hi everybody. Um, I'm Boy Kia Stein. Uh, I go by Kia. I'm a professor of early childhood education at George Mason
University as well as the program coordinator at George Mason as well as the um internship coordinator. Hi, good afternoon everybody. Um, my name is Daryl Turner. I am a prek teacher at MLK Preschool. So, right down the street from here. I've been teaching
in preschool inclusion now. This is coming up on my ninth year and I represent uh public school systems. I'm with the agency but did also used to teach in middle school. Yes. Good. Um we'll go to uh to our
folks joining virtually. Uh Melinda, do you want to start us off? Sure. I'm Melinda Lanford. I uh work with Northern Virginia Family Service. We have Head Start and Early Head Start programming and I'm here representing my agency. I'm just going to go around in the order
that I see folks. Uh Commissioner Williams. Uh James Williams, Commissioner of Social Services. My my primary qualification for being here is that I have two two young kids. So that's that's pretty much all I have. Uh everyone here is more qualified to be
here than I am. Uh, Jen. Hi everyone. Uh, Jen McDonald. I am uh, ex officio for the Virginia Department of Health and my division is located under the office of family health services and a lot of our work is under
um, the title 5 maternal child health oposes. So nice to be here. Cheryl. Good afternoon everyone. I am Cheryl Mormon. I represent family child forprofit family childcare providers in
Virginia. Aaron. Hi, my name is Aaron Edmonson. I am a preschool director for Thrasher Preschool in Venton. I represent religious exempt um childcare facilities.
Ally. Hi, I'm Ally Buckner. Um assistant secretary of education. Uh and I think that's all of our members. Allison is a a member of OCCHS. So, thank you very much.
All right. Um, as a reminder, I'm going to turn it over to our acting chair, uh, Clark Tenders. Uh, Sha um, uh, March was her last meeting. She was unable to make it today. Um, so Clark will be our
acting until we do the shift, uh, over the summer and then we will vote again for our next chair. So with that, we do have quorum in person. Thank you everyone. Um and which means we've got uh quite a bit of work to get through.
So I'll turn it over to Clark for our first uh action item which will be uh to convene and do roll call. We need to formally do roll call. I know everybody introduce themselves and roll call. All right. Welcome everyone to our ECAT meeting for April 17th. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to
start with roll call. Absolutely. All right. Uh, Miss Suarez here. Oh, and uh, just as a reminder, if you are joining us virtually, um, if you'll please share where you are joining us from in the state and the reason for your. Uh, Miss Parish here. Mr. Anders here.
Miss Morman, here um, from Chesterville but had a previous appointment. Miss Edmonson, Benton, Virginia, more than 60 miles away. Uh, Dr. Johnson
here. Sorry. Miss Langford here from Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Turner here. Dr. Walford here. Magnan here. Uh Miss Howard. Uh Dr. Sherian here. Uh, Dr. C
here. Dr. Nelson here. Wilberger here. Uh, Miss Yendez, I believe, could not make it. Um, Mr. Quinn here. Um, Miss Eric Zari also could not make it. Uh, or Miss Lipgum. Uh, and Miss McCartney
here. And Miss Patrick. I'm here. Yeah, I'm here. That gives us a quorum. Okay. So noted we have a quorum. Very good. Thank you everyone for being here today. First on the agenda is we have three sets of minutes that we need to
approve. We have minutes from September 12th, November 21st and March 19th. These were all sent to you. Has everyone had an opportunity to review? Any questions? And we call for a motion to
adopt three sets of minutes. September 12th, November 21st, March 19th. Linda Langford, I so move. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?
I Rebecca, do we have any public comments? Not have anything. Okay. So, no. We have no public comments. With that, I will turn it over to Lieutenant Conway. We'll start our presentation. Thank you, Da. Wonderful. Excellent.
Thank you all so much for being here. Um I know uh many of you are there's a lot that happens in April and May. Um and so deep appreciation for being here uh this
afternoon. I um are going to we're gonna have two presentations this afternoon that are going to need endorsements from this body prior to going to the board of education. The first is going to be on updates to our guidelines for
BQB5. Uh and then the second is going to be on the general procedures for lensure and background check. So both of these are going to need uh uh motions for endorsement and and votes at some point. I am going to uh do joint presentations.
So, as much fun as it is to hear from me for hours, um we are really wanting to be thoughtful about having folks who are closer to and leading the work join me in the presentation. And so, our director of VQB5, Chris Meyers, will be
supporting me in the presentation on the proposed VQB5 2025 26 guidelines. and then our assistant superintendent for the office of childcare health and safety will be joining me for the general procedures conversation. So, uh, a little bit of a of a of a of a of a a
shift there, but let's go ahead move forward here slides to this what we want to if we go to slide six I think for Chelsea. So
um for the guidelines and as and one more perfect thank you. So, as a um reminder, for the last few years, each spring, we have brought to this body uh a presentation on the VQB5 guidelines
from the original guidelines prior to as part of the practice year process and then shifts, evolutions, changes in each subsequent year. because we haven't had the opportunity to walk through with you all the data from last year, we will
incorporate that into this afternoon's presentation. So, sharing the results that came out last fall and the platform that we released them on, walking through the successes, the insights um as well as feedback on what we could do better and then taking you through the
shifts for the upcoming guidelines. So, again, you're going to start to notice a pattern to this process. We share the data, we share the feedback, the insights, we say here are the shifts going forward and then we seek your uh endorsement at a very high level before
we kind of get into the weeds here. I should note that we're in the evolution stage rather than maybe the revolution stage in terms of like how much change uh uh is occurring. And I think that's that's an important and good thing. And we'll sort of as we walk through some of
the data, you'll see why. But the if I'm going to give away the the punchline at the top, it is that this is really a set of shifts or kind of a gradual datadriven uh evolution rather than a dramatic change. And we think that that's important. When you think about
systematically how do we uh shape improvement across 12,000 classrooms and 3,000 sites, dramatically changing everything every three years is not the way to do that. So that's uh that's that's kind of where where we'll go this afternoon. Uh I'll take us through very
quickly the kind of the big picture vision and guiding principles and then turn it over to Chris who will get us into the details. So just as a reminder, if you've ever seen a presentation from us, you've seen this. I think Commissioner Williams saw this yesterday at the Board of Social Services meeting,
but our true north is making sure that all of our kids in the Commonwealth, birth to five, have opportunities and access to experiences that put them on track for school readiness. And as Dr. Wolford knows that if we can get kids to kindergarten more prepared uh
academically and social emotionally, we know that our K12 uh system can you know provide and open many more doors for them so they can fulfill their their potential. We know that our system and I was just I was so touched again as everybody was describing your various
roles and responsibilities. It truly is a village, a public private village of all different types of providers and making sure that families have a variety of options to choose from. That all of our public and private programs are measured and supported to improve, rewarded for improvement, and that
ultimately we're supporting our working families, including many of the folks around this table and on the screen. Um, so they can choose the best option for their children while also being able to pursue greater self-sufficiency for themselves. Our guiding principles, if we'll move to the next slide, um have
really framed our work for the last few years. We want to be outcomes driven and really thinking kind of kids at the center of our work. We want to make sure that we're measuring quality in a thoughtful way and that we can demonstrate growth over time. We've
always agreed we would never do standardized testing for little kids. That wouldn't be appropriate. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. But thinking about how do we across, you know, 12,000 diverse classrooms measure and support improvement over time, we knew it had to be doable and affordable
at scale and all different type of programs in the room, 3,200 sites and over 11,000 classrooms. And we wanted to make sure that we would see the results. We'll talk about how we're starting to see this that the things that we would
measuring if we could improve them that we'd start to see that in terms of kids learning more, kids growing more, kids thriving more. Um, and really starting to kind of see that, you know, across all of our of our classrooms. And last, but certainly not least, making sure
that we continue to serve as a resource for families as our children's first and most important educators. After much work, starting with our very early community networks, there's two core things we remain focused on. And again, these will remain the same um as we go
forward next year, but looking at teacher child interactions as the secret sauce of early childhood can't be mechanized, can't be on a device, but truly getting into our 12,000 classrooms and looking at the relationships between adults and the children, whether that's
infants, toddlers, mixed age, preschoolers, inclusion, as Daryl described, using our nationally regarded classroom assessment scoring system. We're doing that in a big way and in a way uh that we're we're leading the nation on and then also supporting intentionality and we do that by
encouraging programs to choose and curriculum is always a choice to choose curriculum that align with our standard. A reason for this is that you have a lot of research and evidence that shows if you can improve those interactions, you can be intentional about supporting kids learning and development that that
supports their holistic learning and development across that age span ultimately resulting in more kids uh coming to school ready and being prepared to thrive. So with that lofty vision guiding principles uh and the
core components in place going to turn it over to Chris now who's going to get into some data. So, as always, as a reminder, um even with our new acting chair, there's a lot of information here, do pause and sort of give us a flag if there's a question about data um
as we go through this. But we are really wanting to make sure whether it's in our early childhood advisory committee, if it's with our deep dives in the field, whether it's when we're engaging with stakeholders that we're using Virginia data coming from Virginia educators impacting Virginia kids to shape our
policy and practice work as we move forward. And the only way to enable best body to do that is to make sure that you have that data before we go into some of those policy ships. So, Miss Myers, turn it over to you. Thanks, Jenna. Uh, good afternoon, everybody. Uh, so there's
also a handout with this first section that's in your packet, the quality rating summary. So, we'll walk through a few slides. Uh, but this summary is also something that we have publicly available on our early childhood profile website and we'll update annually as well. So, what we're seeing on the
screen are the results of our first official year. As you're going to allude to, we had some practice years that was truly for practice uh results. And so, these were our first public ratings. Thus, we were very pleased that 98% of sites met or exceeded the state's
quality expectations. Uh you can see the vast majority there in that meets expectations category, which is the 400 to 699 points. 79 sites exceeded expectations uh which truly are those exemplar programs who had very high
degree of uh interactions in visa curriculum. And then 51 sites were in that main support uh category. Those sites uh very quickly in the year we got them very intensive one-on-one supports through quality consultants and intensive coaching. And we're really
pleased with the progress that they're making. We'll we'll have those end of year results. Uh excited to share as well. The average as well was 588 points. So for perspective, uh that kind of gives you a sense of where uh things fell. On the next slide, we broke it
down by site type. Again, one of the things we're looking for are our expectations achievable across our whole unified system. And so you can see that we had exceed expectations uh in all three of our site types uh there as well. Um need support sites uh were
primarily family day homes and centers. I don't think there was a public school that was in that needs support category. And then overall though, you can see that most sites whether they were public school, family day home or center were in that meets expectations uh
range. And then this is a slide uh that we've shared also with our ready regions. So although we have that big middle that you saw in that first uh table, our points that we use to measure which again are primarily come from the scores on those class observations. We
can use those points to kind of break it down and kind of look at we know those 51 sites in need support uh are getting those intensive services but we can also look at needs expectations and see that we have some sites that were kind of just over that cutoff the 400 to 499.
Those sites aren't required to go through coaching but we can still prioritize them for some additional supports. And then we have a lot of sites as you see in that 600 to 699 category which is also a really strong performance strong interactions as well.
So although we have just those three rating levels uh and spoiler alert we're not changing the three levels uh next year either of the points will allow us to kind of take a deeper look at the sites and really target our improvement support uh in more individ
individualized ways. uh all this work happens uh primarily through our class observations that really do feed uh the majority of those points that you were just seeing. Again, the use of curriculum is optional and is some additional points. Uh but this
gives you a sense of how many class observations occurred last year of primarily the local class observations. When you look at over 11,000 prek observations alone, 6,000 toddler uh and almost 3,000 infant observations, those
are the ones conducted and coordinated by our ready regions uh that Susan mentioned that she represents. Um so a lot of work happening to make sure that those happen twice a year in every classroom. Uh and then our external observations happen in 75% of all
classrooms get at least one external observation. every site gets at least one external at each age level. Uh so not every classroom ends up getting external but most end up getting that external as our kind of additional check. So what you see here for the
averages is uh the local observations uh like in our practice years they do tend to trend a little bit higher than the external uh um observation scores. However, when you look at the trends by age level it's similar. So the highest
average is infant in both our local and our external followed by prek and then followed by toddler. The ranges as well have actually a very similar trend. We see some very very low local scores, very very low external scores and also
some very high uh local and high external ranges as well. Partly of what we do is if we see any really unusual local scores like extremely low or extremely high that is something that we would flag as a scoring pattern that I know you have more information about in
the guidelines and that can that's a way we can use those external observations as a check as well. Uh curriculum again is also part of our system. That's the additional 100 points if programs choose to use an early childhood curriculum in at least
one classroom. So what you're seeing here is our classroom use because we do uh ask all classrooms to reward their use of approved curriculum. Uh that's the circle there on the left. That has increased uh from the practice years. So it has uh gone up uh from 82% the
previous year to now 85% of our classrooms reported using an early childhood uh curriculum an approved early childhood curriculum. And then the site one remember is just sites who reported using an approved curriculum in at least one classroom. So that is also
uh going up. Uh so now 84% of sites reported they were using an approved curriculum in at least one classroom. We are proposing uh some changes here some slight changes. So, we'll talk about that more when we get to the proposed updates. Uh, and so this I think Susan
your I think your uh ready region snapshot is in the pictures. Yes, the corner. The corner. So, uh, one of, uh, the best parts of my job actually was last fall traveling around in person to all nine of the ready regions along with several of my colleagues who joined us.
Jenna made it to quite a few of these. Uh and each of our ready regions hosted what we called a data deep dive where we shared uh the slides you saw and about what 50 60 more data slides where we really walked through both the state and the regional results uh with kind of a
variety of stakeholders uh and there was opportunity for questions and feedback uh as well. It was really exciting because these some of these happened right before the profile website launched and so we were talking about what it was going to look like and then we had one literally the day after it launched. Uh but it gave us a good
opportunity to talk about the exciting place that we were at with the launch of the public profile website. But that was the highlight. Another highlight from the uh fall was the release of our public writing. Uh I know we shared with you uh
some of that information last fall. There was a press release and lots of other communications. What's been exciting to see since uh is the usage of this website. Uh and we got an update recently. It's now over 72,000 views of the public uh quality
profile website. Uh so we know it is being uh well well looked at and well used. And then we have encouraged sites to promote their quality ratings. And so this is just a couple examples. Um one of our own staff members uh children attend a site where they posted their
certificate there on their family bulletin board. uh a ready region that's celebrating a family child care provider with uh her certificate and a school system that posted something on their social media page about uh all their programs getting meeting or exceeding expectations and there's many many more
uh we just didn't have room to put all of them up here but that's been exciting to see as well. So let me just pause. Jenna, anything else to add on that first section or any quick questions? No, I think that the the the one piece I
would add is just been it was so much excitement coming off the release of the profiles in early October. You know, I have framed in my office the top of the fold times dispatch article headline that indicated that 98% of sites uh are
meeting expectations that happened to be published on the day that legislators came to town. So, was a very powerful message about the system. Um, and I just I can't say enough from the deep dives to the conversations that we had with
stakeholders and elected officials uh throughout the course of the general assembly, just how word is getting out there about um seeing these programs as valuable, recognizing that um quality can be found in different types of
settings um and having that information that you know 70,000 plus folks have viewed. food um is just really building so much credibility in the broader system um sort of you know beyond the sum of its parts. So I just wanted to
share that. So let's shift from the release of the first full year's information to uh where we uh were and where we were going to be in March. Uh we wanted to summarize our fall 2024 successes. Uh because as successful as our first year
was, I think we were seeing even more success this second year as well. So, uh, just a snapshot here on the screen. I won't read all of these to you, but we continue to have strong participation. Again, thanks to the work on the ground with our ready regions, uh, almost
16,000 teachers uh, benefiting from recognized five this year. And one thing that we'll highlight a little bit more on the next slide is the completion of those classroom list, which if you recall, this was the first year that that was actually a requirement. Um so 85% of classrooms and I think now it's
actually up to 90% because uh they can continue to add those as well. Measurement uh just under 100% 99.8% of classrooms completed their fall local observation which is just a lot of work and a lot of feedback for teachers as
well. Um and then 81% of sites are reporting that approved curriculum. Mostly though that really means that we have lots of data to use for individualized support. So you can see we're giving feedback. We're helping people use their curriculum to improve their interactions. Uh our regions, our
sites are really delving into that data. They get additional data files uh every other week. And our needs support sites are getting that intensive support which has been going uh really well as next slide. So I think we highlight just a couple things here. One, this is
a a map that we love to see um with our participation growing. Uh so in our second year we had almost 300 more sites uh register and complete that registration process. So our participation has increased. Uh we had at least one BQB5 site in every single
city and county. And so now we uh continue that trend. You can see kind of where the populated areas are as well, but we reach all corners of the state and that's including our centers, our family day hubs and our public schools. Um, and then the classroom list, uh,
probably shortly after all our ECAC and board presentations last year, uh, we had a lot of great conversations, I think, with Clark and and some childcare leaders who had different questions and concerns about the classroom list process. And so we spent a lot of time
kind of taking their questions and concerns and developing a what we called a classroom list toolkit which we released in September that really walked people through the purpose of classroom list, the steps to complete including informing families uh information about
data security. There were a lot of questions about that and it was very well uh received and is being very well used. So we will make little updates to that for the year ahead. Um but overall that has been a tremendously uh supportive and wellused
resource. And then this just kind of shows again uh in the practice years uh we had classroom list but it was optional. And so you can see that uh was very little just about 900 classrooms that completed classroom list in the practice years. With that requirement,
with the additional information in the toolkit and the one-on-one support from ready regions, again, we got to uh 85% uh completion of and this is classroom level, right? Not just sites uh completed those classroom lists. So, this grew a lot and we're continuing to
see a few uh continue to get submitted as well. Uh so the ready region deep dives were one of the highlights of our engagement but certainly not uh the only way that we try to uh engage with the field. So lots of webinars that folks around the
room help us with our VP5 webinars, lots of meetings with our ready regions uh resources that are online and surveys every time we do webinars and put out to the field. So, this is just a snapshot again of kind of everything that we've been doing. And every time we do some
event, we really take the time to review all the feedback. Jenna literally reads the the survey results um and and kind of pay attention to what are the trends, what are people saying that's working well for them and where are their areas uh for refinement. So, on the next slide, that's what we tried to do here
is to summarize uh the key feedback themes. Uh so our strengths that we're seeing as a statewide system that are again coming from our data and the feedback from the field uh we are continually hearing from sites leaders and teachers who are seeing the impact
of those class observations and the frequent feedback that they're getting. That was the number one positive piece of feedback when we did our midyear survey uh that people wrote about their best experience was getting that individualized feedback on class observations. Uh we're hearing a lot of
positivity about having uh curriculum to implement and having uh how it's helping teachers plan and lead their classrooms. Uh lots of kudos for the partners who are helping those sites on the ground, our ready regions, our link five, our improvement partners. And so sites
really appreciate having that individualized in different types of support. And then lots of positive feedback around the quality profile. sites seem to really appreciate uh being recognized for their quality uh all types of programs and having that available for the field and for
families. Some places where the feedback kind of gives us some uh areas for continued refinement. Uh we continue to know that although some of our programs have been with us since the practice years, we have new leaders starting all the time, new teachers starting all the time. And so as we have new folks coming
into the system, we want to make sure that we're continuing to have, you know, clear uh guidance about deadlines, different ways to communicate so that all that information is getting to people in the best way possible without overloading them because sometimes we also hear uh Celia's nodding her head uh
that sometimes they get too many emails and so we also are trying to think about how do we all with our regional and state partners continue to try to communicate in the best ways possible. Uh the second one as I alluded to as well uh we know uh teacher retention and
teacher turnover. There are new teachers and leaders who are just starting with BQB5 and so we're trying to think about how do we have some supports in place to better support those brand new folks as they come into BQB5. Technology is always uh an ongoing
issue. So our link five and our ready regions do a great job trying to support folks with that. But we are also trying to think about how our technology systems uh how we can support those needs. And you'll be hearing a little bit more about some of that transition uh in a couple slides. And then the last
one uh will definitely be a focus. We have a lot of data now in Virginia. Um, and so we really want to support not just us using it at the state or even at the regional level, but how do we really strengthen our site leaders and our teachers to be able to use their own
data uh to identify where they're doing well and where they've been getting? Pause. Any uh additional comments, Jenn, you want to jump right into our proposed updates? Right, let's jump right in. Uh so you have the giant guidelines document uh with you. When I first
grabbed the packet I was like why is this so big and then I remember oh it's because of the guidelines document that I wrote. So uh the guidelines um are following the same pattern as other years and really probably 90% of this
document is the same. uh we really tried not to change things unless we felt like we were either clarifying something that needed clarification or enhancing uh parts of the system so that we can make an even bigger impact. Next
slide. So there are four kind of key proposed updates that we want to spend some time on today. So I'm just going to read them real quick here, but then each of these we will take some time. We'll go into them a little more in depth uh in the next couple slides. So the first key proposed update is that we're going
to migrate the link v5 system into a system called VA connects with other key systems. So that will integrate the link v5 the var and the vowels data systems. That's part of us getting to improving child outcomes part of the state law. So we'll talk about that more in just a
minute. Our second key change uh is actually that a change that won't occur in another year but we want to start preparing the field for a curriculum change. We want to strengthen the use of curriculum materials across all classrooms. So starting actually in the
2026 27 year, we will only award those 100 additional points if they're using an approved early childhood curriculum in every classroom. So not actually a change for next year, but as we'll talk about in a few slides, we are going to start preparing the field for that change. The third uh is enhancements to
the quality profiles. So as excited as we are about the roll out of the quality profiles, uh we have some enhancements to make the them even more impactful. So one of the things that we'll talk about is launching a statewide honor role. Uh and this honor roles will recognize top
performing sites and also sites who show significant annual improvement. We'll also be adding historical ratings information so that uh folks can track performance over time. and we'll talk about a few other enhancements based on some feedback from the field on how to
increase the uh usability of the website. The fourth key update, oh sorry, the fourth key update uh is a change that we have started sharing since last summer. Uh but again is a big change uh to the field. Uh but there as you're aware there are no funds for
recognized B5 in the 2025 2026 state budget. Uh so that does mean there would not be an incentive for educators next year. Again, this is something we've been communicating for a while, but are continuing to make sure that that information is out to the field. So, let's talk about each of these in a
little bit uh more detail. So, migrating link 5 into VA Connects. Uh and my hats off to my colleague here, Tiara West, who really is leading a lot of this work. Uh and you'll be hearing a lot more about this over the next couple months. But starting in August 2025, so
when our programs log in to register in August, uh link B5 will be migrated into what's called Virginia Connects for Kids, we'll call it VA Connects. And this is an integrated data system uh that's secure that will link Link B5, the VA literacy screening and the
VKR. Uh this will help us related to our work to improve child outcomes by helping us better systematically measure that including school readiness. Uh it'll help us support educators by increasing their ease of use in reporting information. It will ensure that we have best-in-class operability
uh security which we know uh folks are very interested in as well and hopefully we'll improve that technology experience for users. This will also ensure that we're complying with the law part of the SQBot DSQB5 is to enable outcomebased
measurements. And then uh the thing that we will continually be messaging although this does have some kind of uh appearance changes to it it really doesn't change the actual functions of what programs will be doing in link B5. So the same types of information
entering class scores entering their use of approved curriculum doing site profiles that will not change. So they will still be using uh it in a very similar way. it will just have some different appearances uh and ways to log into the system. So on the next slide
there's a great visual uh that just shows kind of the three systems that will be under VA connects uh and the three goals that we touched on as well having a secure state-of-the-art system uh having a way to better integrate data across systems and that third goal of
enhancing a consistent user experience. We have some of our folks who use all three of these systems uh and some who will only use just link five. So it will vary based on users uh access uh but this is a way that hopefully we can enhance that user especially for those
who are using all three parts. So our linkb5 users uh which are our sites who are participating in BQB5 uh they can expect a better interface a streamlined process uh some examples educators will complete one profile and that will be shared across link 5 vare
panels if they are part of all three of those systems. Uh one of the uh big key updates was to make this more mobile friendly. We know from the field that especially our family childcare providers, but a lot of our educators as well are wanting a mobile way to access
and use the system. So this will be a much more efficient experience on a mobile platform. And then school divisions, site administrators, educators will have a single platform, a single login. So again, somebody who was using all three of those systems used to have to have three different loginins
and now they can log in uh with that one uh account. Let me just pause there. Tiara, anything else you want to add about the connects or Jenna questions? So, will they talk to each other in that you could
compare each class scores with how her children did on the BKRP? That type of stuff. Great. Yeah. Yeah, that's the Thank you. So it'll be connected on the back end and our site will be shared across all three of these platforms. um if that site is participating in all
three and so we'll be able to thank you all because you you may remember the visual from a few years ago but the goal here is to understand how the early childhood
experiences shape growth and outcomes right and so again to think about there's a screen set of points thanks to if you combine two different things that Chris has shared much more information on classroom lists, right? With, you know, parent permission means that we
understand we have much more detail about which kids are in which classrooms. And then connecting the the dots on the back end here will also help us understand, okay, experiences that kids are having, how much are they growing over time, and ultimately what
do they look like when they come to kindergarten, how do that kindergarten year look, and even all the way, you know, into third grade. Thanks to the longitudinal data system through high school graduation and post-secary patience is required, right? We only
move at the pace of the children. And you know, last year is our first group or really really this year with the classroom list this fall. So this is really uh the group that we have the most information about across the system. But we don't think anybody else in the country has this type of safe,
secure data at scale that can really connect kids experiences to kids outcomes and again with no stakes there, right? We still are focused as Chris has described on the teacher child interaction. that's what's measured. But
being able to kind of work then with research partners and others, you know, and again with lots of precautions around kid data, we think is truly, you know, and at scale and in all of your communities is truly gamechanging. So again, it will take step by step. Um,
and this will help with usability and security and make it a little easier for folks like Dana and Darl to use. You have to go to three different systems. Um, but ultimately the big win for Virginia kids is how this will be able to track information and and gain insights longitudinally over time. So
would is there a way we would be able to access that longitudinal data or we have to reach out to our school divisions and have them tell us like how our kids are doing in third grade, fifth grade? Yeah. So we won't surface any child level data to sites that they are not actively
participating in or involved in. So, your four-year-olds today when they go to kindergarten, um you wouldn't be able to see their kindergarten result, but we do plan on doing a ton of analyses kind of at the site level and see what site what early childhood settings are funneling into what public schools and what do their kindergarten ratings look
like. Um and we work really closely with our school divisions and our ready regions to get that information out and so that you could kind of understand, you know, if most of your children go to this school, what was that school? Um and appendix D was also added to the
uh large guidelines uh document that has all the data security details uh because we get questions a lot of people really want uh that level of detail. So was in the classroom toolkit but we also added it in the guidelines efficiently as well. Okay let's shift to our second key
change. Uh so this is the one that is actually in preparation for a change to come in the 2026 2027 year. Uh but as you know we have been awarding 100 points uh and will continue for this year and next year to sites who are using every curriculum in one classroom
but starting in 2026 those 100 points would be uh awarded if they are using that in all classrooms. Uh and this will help us kind of get to the place where uh classrooms are hopefully more encouraged to use it across all their age levels so that our infants and
toddlers of prek can benefit uh from the use of that high quality curriculum. We don't think this change will be huge. Uh our guess is and we'll show you some data here is that we think it'll impact about 5% of sites. Most sites that are using an approved curriculum are already
using it in every classroom. Um, but where there are sites that either have not chosen to use one or who are only using it in one classroom, we'll have some very targeted supports for to make sure they're aware of this change and to support them uh if they choose to use it in every classroom. So again, no change
in curriculum uh points for next year. Uh and curriculum will still be optional even when this change goes into effect. Uh but then starting in uh fall of 2026, that's where their reported use will start to impact their actual change as
well in their points ourselves and ready regions. And I think on one of the next slides we'll walk through just some of the ways that we'll support and make sure that this is communicated to the field. This is just kind of a visual to summarize uh this change. I think this
is in the guidelines as well. Um, but just for sites to kind of think about what their status is. Again, thinking ahead two years really from now, uh, the 2026 2027 year. If we get to that May 31st date and the site is not using an approved curriculum, uh, for this
current year, there's no points awarded and that would remain the same. So, if they're not using an approved curriculum, there's really no change in the points. It's this middle category where there would be a change. So right now a site who's using an approved curriculum in at least one but not every classroom they get the 100 points
currently but by the fall of 2027 on their profile they would not get those uh 100 points and then uh no change really for the sites who are using it in every classroom. They would get the 100 points now they would get the 100 points on their fall 2027 profile. The one
slight change is in the fall of 2026, we will on the profile acknowledge sites that are already using approved curriculum in every classroom just so they have that public acknowledgement, but the points won't actually shift till the following year. And then on the Oh yeah, we have
two more slides. Um on this slide, again, we're trying we were really trying to predict the potential impact of this. So wanted to break it down just a little bit more. Again, this is based on last year's results. So we'll do the same analysis once we have our final results from this current year. But you
can see about 80% of um classrooms are using approved curriculum. So they would not see any change u in this uh in the points there about 60 sites 2% that would see a change uh but they would actually even though their points might change they would stay within their same
quality rating level. uh 68 sites, another 2% would see a change in their points and their quality rating level mostly as you see that would change sites that would no longer get that exceeds expectations. Uh so again, we'd want them to know that they would need
to use that approved curriculum in every classroom. Uh and then four sites would actually no longer meet expectations again using last year's data. Uh and then 16% don't use a curriculum. So again, if they continue to choose not to use an approved curriculum, uh there
wouldn't be a change there as well. And then I won't read everything here to you, but we have really been intentional, thank you to Marie, uh work as well and her team on how can we step by step uh communicate this to the field and keep everybody kind of well aware of
what this change means and how it might impact their rating. So, similar to what we did in the practice years before, like we had score replacement, we actually let people know what score placement might look like on their uh rating results. And so, we'll do something similar when we let them
preview their results during data verification so they can see what this potential might uh look like if they um don't make any type of change. We'll also do lots of communications and targeted supports to those sites who aren't using it yet in every classroom so that they have every opportunity to
get supported and um increase their yet if they want to. I just pause there briefly before we shift to quality profiles. I also want to watch time but uh anything real quick to add? Yeah, I just emphasize this is a little bit of a of of an unusual ask in
terms of the endorsement here. We just wanted to make sure folks had a very long window of understanding. Right? So what what this change really would say is that folks in order to get the full points would need to make sure that they're using the curriculum in their classrooms by May of 2027. Right.
May it's May of 2027. So again, that's it feels like you know centuries from now um in uh in child speak. But I just I think a a part of it is when even though it's probably you know 5% of sites still a shift we still want folks
to to bring that intentionality. And so uh you know a long window so that all of next year folks can say you know okay this is doable. I've got plenty of time. I can think about how to do it you doing this thoughtfully. Again we think about the pace of change here. this group
landed on recommending it in one classroom a few years ago just because the big change was not for Head Start or for state prek but a really sign like 45% of our family childcare and 55% of our childare using regular and we've now made really significant gains and so we
see this as the next step there's still it's still a self attestation right there's still plenty of flexibility in terms of and there's 70 options and it's a choice but we think it's a best practice to be encouraging curriculum across all of our our settings and in
order to kind of you know all you know give people the opportunity to be successful we think a two-year window makes sense here versus the other shifts we're proposing but going to back next year Jay in early childhood like not a full system how do they go about selecting that is parents get involved
at reviewing those like we did you know I selected three or four then we had parents come in and do a vetting process that how that work for childare I think it runs the gambit I would turn to the subject matter experts are on the if folks want to chime in on how whether it's a it's a leadership decision or
whether there's I think there's sort of two ways to think about it like from the list building perspective. I think that what's really important about our system is that every uh curricula that we have vetted u came from a Virginia provider. So a provider in Virginia said, "Hi, I'm
using this or I'm interested in using this. Can you make sure that it aligns with the ELS and meets baseline quality?" And so that's how the list was built itself. Um so there are some folks that came to their curriculum choice because they picked something they got it vetted and that's where it is. Um for
folks that have chosen to adop adopt curriculum over time we've offered webinars where they we connect them directly with vendors but ultimately the different uh providers get to make that choice for themselves and um we're very proud that four of those options are
free or low cost and two of those uh are available birth to five. though can be used in infant and toddler classrooms as well as preschool. So, um some folks do come to us for help or go to their ready regions for recommendations, but for the most part, we just want to make sure
that what we make available as Sorry, this is out of my expertise. So, I'm curious to hear what providers here think about those 64 sites that are at very high quality, right? They have the highest quality ratings expectations. their their points and quality relief
would change. Um just wondering what feedback if any you've received from any of those places that would be affected and what their sort of reasoning is for not using curricula. We have not heard from them since we've rolled out this change which we had a
webinar shortly after our last ECAC meetings. you know, anything specifically from these sites about being concerned, but I I think that's also why as we continue to communicate it and give a big window that will have lots of opportunities for folks to uh let us know if they do have concerns
about that. Chris, I have two questions. So the uh 100% curriculum is effective uh fall of 26 deadline May 27 but you mentioned it will display on the website centers that are using 100% curriculum this fall fall
of 25 or that also is fall choice. Okay. So basically your use next year would inform right that change on the public profile. And then second question, the 511 sites not using curriculum and I guess the key word is not using approved
curriculum. Do you have data? Do you know that? I mean, I'm I'm shocked at that number, but do you know that if they're using curriculum, they're just choosing not because the approved curriculum list is for those who don't know very long
and some are free. Yeah. Right. Marie, do you know data what they're doing? Sure. So I think we don't we don't collect if they are using an an a curriculum that has not been approved. Um there is no way for them to enter that in5 right now. We are in
communication with some sites who might have requested a curriculum to be vetted and then we work with vendors but we can only if the vendor never sends us something to vet then we can't take it through that process. So um we have built lists of us providers who might be
using a pending curriculum that has been pending for a while and we keep them updated on our collaboration with the vendor and make sure that they know by February of every year where we are with those pending curriculum so that they can make an informed choice for that school year if they want to choose to
adopt something are okay with not getting the 100 points um or or something or want to choose something different. Um, and so the short answer is no, but we are in communication if they're seeking approval for something.
Yeah. And I think we will see there always will be some programs that choose not to use curriculum or choose to use something that may never be approved, right? I mean, again, whether it's, you know, ideological or for or other reasons, right? I just I think that's
really important, right? that the sort of idea is that mathematically you can meet expectations. Um you ultimately as Dr. Nelson was noted, we think for the exceeds expectations, you should be embodying those best practices in addition to the measured interactions, but we also think because it's a choice
to take public dollars and we have an incredibly diverse set of publicly funded private providers too that offering that, you know, that sort of long tale of folks who might just choose something to some who just say, you know, not there yet, right? And I think what we'll sort of take is they're not
there yet in terms of continuing to make sure that they're in particular those free or lowcost resources uh are available to them. Okay, let's go to the third uh key change uh one of my favorites uh enhancing the quality profiles. Again uh
it's been really successful with our launch of early childhood quality.gov. Um, one of the changes in the guidelines, uh, this is one of the few sections that we shortened. We usually add, uh, text, but our guidelines used to have all this
information about the development of the profile website, and now that we actually have it, we could actually shorten that section of the guidelines. Um, so it that's the information that's in there, the reminder that we will always on that annual basis update the information. We'll add the historical
information and then we'll work on publishing some statewide honor roles. We have not completely defined those honor roles. We're in the process of looking again at some of our current data, running some different scenarios to determine uh the top performing sites and especially some different ways that
we could look at uh sites who show significant improvement. So, we'll be kind of working with that, working with our ready regions uh and we'll have more details on that a little later in the spring. But definitely want to recognize both the top performers uh and those who
show significant improvement. Question for you. When you look at the the data for improvement meets succeeds, it's definitely not a bell curve. It's a boom boom and your your meets expectations is really wide. Is there any thought effort
to shifting your exceeds to a little bit more bringing it down a little more just because you have such a spread and meet expectations? Yeah. Yeah. So if you were to go back go back for a moment just go back to uh
slide 13. this gives you and part of our reason but 100 points is a rather uh arbitrary sort of delineation but I think this gives you a little bit more of a sense of the breakdown uh here and you could do the same just for the
interaction lines in large part we're trying to go at the pace of the field here and I think some of you have heard me talk about this before in Louisiana uh there was a point where we started to
hear in surveys, in interactions with stakeholders that programs who might be in that bucket, the one that's about 1,400 sites right now, the 600 to 699, started to say, "Hey, we see ourselves as different from
programs that are in that 400 to 499 bucket, right?" And really sort of said, "We think we should split this middle." And we I think we created something called approaching proficient and proficient in that case. And if we start to hear that from you all from the field, I think we would
then bring a bunch of data to you on on doing that. And again, this is I think part of what makes this measurement and improvement system so strong is that we're trying to kind of go the pace. So at this same point, you know, in our trajectory in Louisiana, we were splitting the difference. We didn't hear
that last year, right, from you all. And so, you know, as Chris, you know, brought back the dating theme back to the field, we said, "Okay, that's not really what the field is asking for now." But it's certainly something as we roll out next year or in the sort of subsequent year, if we start to hear
from you that we see these programs as different, the differentiation truly feels real incredible. Then that's the moment where we would potentially look at how you might divide this up further and do that. mathematically what's really unique and I would say pretty
awesome about the system even though it's a big middle each of you have a three-digit score that's your own unique score right and it's and that is like I just think it's like very rare where you can kind of thread the needle like that where we're able to say if you were worried about meeting expectations which is also what we often we private
programs in the beginning like what if what if you run it you know roll out the system and I don't meet expectations so we've reassured people there you still have your unique score I think we'll sort of see Jennifer over the the next few years if folks start to say these really feel different in terms of what
kids are experiencing and I'm ready we're ready as a field to do that I think we remain open but um I didn't feel any urge to push that even though we had in Louisiana simply because the field in Virginia is not ready yet but it's something we could ask absolutely
conversation about question thank you no Okay, let's go back to the I think we're on our last key update. Just a few other smaller
additional updates. Next one, keep going. Another four. It should be the go. Um, so again, uh, this is not something that's new. Uh, hoping with our communications. We've done communications directly to eligible
educators to site leaders through array regions but uh but again as everybody's aware here there currently are no funds for recognized B5 uh in the state 2025 budget. Uh so there will not be educator incentive uh next year. This year we
have reduced it uh because without those COVID funds uh we weren't able to maintain it at that same level and the state had made an investment for this year of uh $20 million which allowed us to continue recognize B5 uh at that lower rate but there is not that
investment for next year as well. So again we will continue to try to communicate this. We're um just wrapping up I think the first payment to educators and so as we get to the end of the year we'll make sure again we don't want any surprises of people expecting that this would uh be coming next year.
Um so we'll continue to communicate that we have a a lot of the information from what we learned through recognized v5 that our eval team has helped us with. Uh and so we will continue to kind of use the lessons learned from that to advocate for the field, the work of the
commission and things as well about the importance just of the access compensation for teachers as well. That's all with this one. This one doesn't have an extra slide of details.
Um additional updates. So, these are just a couple things that uh were updated in the guidelines, but are basically just really updating things uh to make sure it aligns with current guidance that's already out to the field. Uh so, we just needed to make the changes officially in the guidelines.
The first one is related to classroom list. We're actually going to start calling those student child lists. Uh we heard from the field that some people were confused when we said they had to add a classroom list. They thought they we meant add a classroom profile. And so there was some confusion there. And
since these are list of students who are enrolled or list of children who are enrolled, feel like student child list will more accurately capture that and help the field better understand what this is. Really the information and the guidelines follows the same steps from that classroom list toolkit which again
we just hadn't had developed until last September. Uh the second uh update is related to the second edition version of the prek class uh that has been out in the field uh since 2022 and we have had an FAQ in our local observation guide
book that talks about uh that if anybody gets certified on second edition they're actually certified um on both tools reliable. So that hasn't changed. We just made it a little clearer in our guidelines uh that it is uh an allowable
use for flexibility and that we will encourage some use uh related to professional development but we're not changing the actual tool that will be used for the observation. We're working with ready regions to make sure there's more awareness and information to the field but no actual changes in the tool
being used. And then the third is related to the required improvement planning for needs support in section 7.3. Again, this was our first year of requiring improvement support. And so within our office and our DECC partners who do the coaching, we developed uh you
know very clear protocols and procedures. And so we have just put those formally into the guidelines to more clarify what those expectations are. And then on the next slide, uh, in section seven, um, one of the things that we wanted to make more, uh,
explicit and make sure that we're promoting in the field is the amount of publicly available data that we have now. And so we, uh, we've had this data, we've been talking about it with folks, but we now have it linked and explained in section 7 related to improvement.
These are all pieces that we will work to keep updated as best as we can. The first three are specific to our BPB5 work. Um, and then using some of our educator profile information from link5 and our eval partners, there's a lot of great workforce data that is also
publicly available. So, we have uh not only included these links now in section 7, but throughout section 7, we've tried to reference how some of this data is being used by the state to inform our improvement efforts. We'll be working more closely with our ready regions as well to use that additional site and
classroom data that sites have and regions have to uh guide that improvement work as well. Our inclusive classroom profile uh work has also been updated. I know uh Sandy's been working really closely with Don Hendris in our office as well. And
so the main update here is that there is more of a formal process now for uh helping get more reliable uh users of the ICP that aligns with our work related to class. And so they have a process in place for continuing to support those who want to become
reliable in ICP as well. So I think that's it. Let me just do the two next step slides and then we'll open it up. Uh so we're actually out of March now, so we'll shift this uh slightly. Um but uh you will be completing your first review of the
guidelines today. Uh we had our statewide webinar on March 21st. Uh that reporting has been viewed uh many hundreds of times uh and continues to be available for the field. Uh we're in the process of hosting lots of different stakeholder presentations. Uh the main
topic of interest seems to be VA connects. So, Tamira is very busy scheduling lots of uh presentations to the field throughout April and May. And then uh at the end of May, uh the board will complete their first review of the proposed guidelines. As a reminder, our
spring observation window closes May 31st and sites can continue to update the curriculum information through May 31st. Then we move into summer. Uh the board will complete their second review of the proposed guidelines. uh and then we literally June 1st start taking those
results as of May 31st and calculating the results from the 2024 and 2025 measurement data in July is that opportunity to review and confirm their quality profile information during data verification. That will be the last full
two weeks in July. Um and if there are any changes that need to be made, that's where we can make those changes and finalize the results. Registration for the next year opens August 15th. Again, these are the same annual dates. We're keeping these dates consistent to help
build remember them uh and not have changes. And then we'll be excited before you know it in the fall to release our next fully profiles and honors in the fall. So, with that, I'm going to turn it back over to to to Jenna to wrap this
up. Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you, Chris. Um this is just so exciting. Again, I just got goosebumps thinking about October of last year and just the the roll out. Um, but as you see, you know, a couple of important shifts based on
feedback driven by data, you know, much of the same, but really trying to put the pieces in place to support systemwide improvement with the goal of improving outcomes for all of our of our little learners. Let's see if there's
any outstanding questions and then Carl, I'll turn it to you to seek a motion for endorsement. I just have a weird question um about families. So, how do families gain access about this like
their knowledge? Like how how do we get the word out to all of the families? because this will be a useful it's useful information for families when they're making decisions about, you know, where to place their children and that sort of thing. But
absolutely. And so, and I think that there's that's still an open question on on on how we're doing it. Um, we had a plan around the launch. I think a lot of that hinges on our work with our ready regions. I don't know Susan if you want to chime in here. And they have family.
So remember now all of them the ready evenings are required to have a family uh impact council. And so that helps us sort of think about both how we produce resources that are understandable and available to families and then how do you do that kind of equally important
work of of disseminating them then to families. We did a press release. We've got it. If you go to the the VDOE website, it's one of the first things that scrolls across, but I would say it's probably yeah through our work with the ready regions that they are that
kind of they're closer to families than say we are. Would you add? Yeah, I would just add that it we are driving it from the ready region and through our family councils, but we're also depending on sites to share this information with families because they're the ones that
see them every day. Um, and so making sure that things like they're posting their quality profile, then that makes families wonder like, well, what does that pro quality profile mean? And if it's on their um, Facebook page like we saw um, in the one example, it links the
family to information about that. So really just trying to get sites to buy into, hey, I need to share this with my families and that gets families that are already in this system you um, more familiar with it. We're using our family councils right now to try to determine
how do we get to families that aren't already in the system. So, we're we're working through that right now in in Southwest at least with our family council to say, "Okay, families, how do you receive information? Where are you getting this information from? And how
do you use it when you have it?" Thank you. Not a question, but just a comment that I I think the group needs to be aware of. Um, when Chris mentioned early in her presentation about classroom lists and engagement and so forth. Through my
work with the Virginia Childcare Association, I can tell you that there was quite a bit of uneasiness in the field from centers when they were being told submit classroom lists in this portal. A lot of uneasiness. and Chris and Jenna uh immediately engaged with
the child fear association and it was never uh this is how it's going to be get used to it. It was like hey let's sit down and talk about it which is exactly what they did and it may not have won everybody over but it won a large portion it really settled the masses um just for them to come and
actually attended one of our board meetings and um that was outstanding. Thank you all for that. And vice versa. That's how we came up with the steps that actually the first step is inform your families that you're in BQB5 to begin with. Uh and what does that mean to do parent get per parent permission
when needed? So that was you know equally as helpful for us. We now include it in our tour packing. It's an exciting Saturday night read in the guidelines. I know last Saturday you all were working. No, I think and I with the you know huge
thanks to the association year the head start association I know works very closely with Don all and then I you know and Cheryl as well and I think we really are trying every step of the process you know with the goal being by the time it comes to this body that we have had and
really been intentional about making sure that all of our various providers impacted have had the opportunity to weigh in and cases where we still think it's a big change like curriculum giving two years rather than one year so that we can just be so careful about not surprising anyone and where there is
unease addressing it rather than mandating something. Is there a motion to endorse the 2526 DQ5 proposed guidelines? I would love to make a motion to make minimal changes.
The record said yay. Is there a second? A second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. So move. Excellent. All righty. So, our next
item, which we will also need an endorsement for, is our general procedures for lensure and background checks. One of the favorite games that I play with Jeff, we meet weekly, is where are we on our regulations and at what stage in the process? And so you might
feel like you've heard this before. Um, but it is an iterative process subject to the administrative procedures act. Talk about general procedures that happen leaves. I know. Um,
starting first on the status. So, because you you think I'm joking here, but you got like, wait, I swear I've heard this before. You have a walk through public comment. We've received some of the changes. Um, and where we go
from here. This is separate from the broader set of regulations for the child day sectors which are still in progress. We'll talk a little bit about that um at the end, but I'm going to turn it over to our uh incredible assistant superintendent for the office of childcare health and safety to kind of
first orient you on staff and um what what we've heard from the field and what has been changed and then we'll walk you through that. Great. Yes. That was the fun part of the more the afternoons and now we're going to get down to some of the the nitty-gritty. We gotta forget
being a little bit giddy, but I this is really close to being done. Oh, Lord will in the Greek don't rise, we will be able to get there. Um, but do want to do a quick shout out to my two associate directors, Jessica Silva and Victoria Dawson. Victoria for
a lot of the big lift and getting these going, Jessica, for keeping them, my two legislative consultants, Titanicia Armstrong and Allison Williams. They have put in so much time and effort and they probably don't share my giddiness. They are probably like, "Oh my gosh, it'll finally be done and Jeff will stop
pestering us." Um, but they have just done a a fantastic job. So, quick question. Who was not in this room or part of this group in 2022? Raise your hand, please. Got a few folks. Okay. Um, so just a quick reminder in um this time
in 2022, March of 2022 is when we put out the NORAP to repeal the background check regulations, the general procedures, and the FERGs and combine them into one. So that was March of
2022. So here we are, April of 2025, and we're getting really, really close. So, um, next slide, please. So, we've gotten to the point where we done a revision, it's gone out to, uh, public
comment. We've gotten public comment back. So, basically what our job to do is when we get public comment back is see, okay, what what might we need to tweak or change to the general procedures, background checks are now combined, uh, to make them more clear?
What kind of feedback do we uh do we get? So, next slide. Actually, two slides. Oh, I'm sorry. You were Yep. back to Y. So, what I'm going to do here is the next three slides list the section and topic area, the areas of
concern and what we did or did not do. So one kind of quick disclaimer is even if we cannot modify the regulation, if there's something that we can do operationally, we want to try and do that. So some more clarification needs to be done but it can't be done via a
regulation or code, then we'll kind of maybe put out some guidance or something along those lines. So over on the right, you'll notice the first one uh it says no change. some of the things that are asked for are outside of our authority to do because it's like, oh, this is
codemandated or this is something that's defined in code. Um, other things that we can do is add a little bit of clarification to certain things. One of the things that we also might choose to do is just better educate the public in terms of what we can or can't do. Um, so
the goal is if possible to do as little tweaking to the proposed as possible because if you do a substantive change, it has to go back through some approvals. Has to go back to the attorney general for review. It's got to go back to the secretary and governor
and it's got to go out for public comment. Then public comment has to be done. Has to come back. And since we've already talked about a three-year process, we want to be slow to do something that's going to generate an even drawn out because we are very comfortable that these are good
regulations. So, just really quickly, a reminder that the background checks were being repealed because the majority of it had been put in code over the past four or five years. So, it was replicating code and it sometimes contradicted code. The general
procedures is that those things that we use as the department to regulate providers, appeals, uh adverse enforcement, allowable variances. So, it's a lot about administration, which also is guided by code. And so, if the code addressed it,
then we removed it from general procedures unless we need to add in a little bit of clarification. And then the fees, we just roll them into one regulation trying to meet Governor Young's desire to reduce regulations, make the process easier. Um, so those
were kind of our guiding principles. So I'm not going to read verbatim what's on the screen, but I'm going to just talk about the areas of concern and then if you want to go into more detail, we can. I'll kind of take your cue as to whether we do that. All right. So the first one
that was up there was the definition of good moral character and reputation is too vague and open to broad interpretation. Part of the struggle with that it is a codemandated term and the code also talks about what we need to look at in order to determine good
moral character. Um and so part of that is also determined by um laws and court cases. Court cases will be like yes you need to look at that. No, you don't need to look at that. So, we didn't do any change there. Second one, posting requirements and
transfer of license upon sale of purchase. Uh, no change related to that. Uh, public consumer information must be made available. There was something that we were hoping to submit in the general procedures regarding information about
when a provider sells the their location and this was mostly to help subsy families know about what was upcoming. But that is a substantive change outside of our preview. So we did not go ahead and make that change even though that is something that we were talking about
doing. But after talking with attorney general's office, our policy folks, we didn't do that. Um so it's something we'll work with the subsidy team if there's another way subsidy reg can be uh changed or just figuring out how to help families, but doing it through a
regulation was not deemed the best approach. Third one down, authority of superintendent and information requested to determine qualifications for lure. So we did add some language to clarify that and that's what we'll go through in
detail some of that clarifying language as we go through. Next one, functional design requirements. Uh we did not change anything related to that because most of the functional design has to do with building codes and we always have to defer to building officials on that.
The next area of concern from the co public comments was allowable variance of approval and compliance. So we did revise some of the language to allow the superintendent or designate because most of this is uh at my level how to approve
or not approve allowable variances. So language has changed to allow me more ability to do allowable variances. And the best example is for those who remember Epiac and activated charcoal many years ago. There was a whole bunch
of stuff about regulations required it, but you couldn't buy it. And we're a dilemma because there's no way I could wave that regulation. So we got a little bit more wiggle room to do those kinds of things with the language that is there by just tweaking the language.
Next, please. So top one, authority of superintendent and determine qualifications for license renewal. uh there's no change there because DOE is responsible for deciding what those requirements are. Second one down 120
authority of superintendent to ensure uh refuse or renew a license. Um a lot of this had to do with some language regarding what is an order. Uh usually we say a special order or final order. Um so we'll talk a little bit more about that as we go through fees for lure. We
did not change that. We have to have a fee requirement. So that's been moved into the document. Uh so no change there. The next one and background check requirements and need for multiple checks including out of state. We did
not change that because most of that is either federal or state requirements. So we did not go in to do any changes even though that was requested. Next. And I would also just as a a note there uh there I know I've heard from some of you
about concerns around timeliness of background checks and that that is unfortunately not covered through the these regulations. So that that's a little bit of also what happens. People are expressing what it could be some concerns with how things currently function and we don't disagree with
those comments but in terms of what we're actually able to do through the regulation it's not something we can fix through this. So, just a little aside, I'm going to sew this seed because I do have verbal confirmation from DSS that
they are moving towards doing out of state checks. So, providers will stop have to do out of state checks. So, just sewing that seed. I have no control over it. Jen and I are doing everything we can to water the seeds over its to make this happen. Um, but we are we are we're
committed and they're committed to moving forward that that we know that will help everybody with hiring, decreasing stress, decreasing violations. It's just a win-win for everybody. Is there any discussion on the fee? The there Yes. Well, that's
crazy because Hawaii is free and Colorado is $30 and New York is free, right? It's all over the So, just a little aside and we can talk more about this at the end. and I just want to honor everybody's time. Um, we are actually working with our federal partners to find out what other states
are doing so we aren't reinventing the wheel. So, this is much bigger than just Virginia. Uh, so just want to let this group know that that we're trying to do that. Next, please. Uh, portability out of state background checks. We did clarify some
of the language related to this. We'll talk about that. Requirements for maintaining documentation. again provided some clarification and we'll go through some of these nuances. Posting requirements and use of digital systems we did not change um because
part of this is public information must be available to potential families. So there's some privacy as well as some uh open records requirements there. So we didn't know any change review of process and removal of two-stage process and current reg uh regulations. So want talk
about this for a little bit because we talked a lot about modifying this section. Currently there are two stages to review a violation that a provider can exercise. First stage is kind of at a licensing administrator supervisor
level. Second stage is at a consultant level. So what has happened since coming over from DSS is we've realized working with the attorney general that there is an APA administrative processing act third process that a provider can use to get a
violation review. It's called an informal conference. So right now the way it is there's a three-step process. We had originally when we wrote this regulation had written it as one process and some providers said we'd really like
that twopart process. So, we do have that now. That was not part of this original one. So, we're originally thinking about rolling putting back in that two-step process, but that will be a substantive change and will regenerate
the renew this whole process of review. We felt that because this the process that was asked for was an outside review and actually through the administrative process act that actually is given. So, it's kind of a default now that we did not realize. So because of that, we're
not doing a change to the review process for violations because there's still a two-step process that's built into the administrative process act. So we did not change that section. And then the one of the points there too, and we've been talking about how to make this
understandable, but so there are places where it's not here because it doesn't make sense to be here, but it's in someplace else. Talking about maybe creating like a one pager for the field. So like because from your perspective you probably care less if it's in this part of the regulation this part of the code right for background protection
like just tell me how background checks work right and so uh we've I've been working with Jeff and the team around as we as we finalize this making it really clear kind of what your steps are if you are seeking kind of additional review what happens internally and then what
your rights are under APA in terms of that portal review. Y Jeff, can I ask a quick clarification? So, um, the review process for an appeal, there's still I guess just a request for an appeal, but then is there still something that I
guess you refer to as a desk review that's still within DOE? Yes. Yes. So, the basically the the provider will always be encouraged to talk to the inspector supervisor, have a conversation there. If not, then they can do a next request. So that would be
official request that would be done by someone other than the supervisor. If that is not acceptable then there is the process of appealing to an administrative conference. Yeah. Uh and then the last one use of the term order. Uh again this has to do with
negative actions a final order or special order. We'll talk a little bit more about that next week. So these are the areas that are impacted. I'm not going to go through this, but it's basically these are the sections that we'll be talking about
over the course of next uh several slides. It's pretty much uh you know a good portion of the regulations. We've added some sort of clarifying language in most instances. Next, we've added some definitions. This has to do with our special order and
final order. One of the things we always struggle with is it is if it's a common commonly used term, you don't want to redefine it. Um, but we felt and got some guidance from our policy folks that it might be good to put these in um the
definition section. Thanks, please. So, I'm going to go through these and and unless I if you do have a question, please please please feel free to stop me as we go through. And just a note, so the changes are in red. Yep. So just in terms of like because I know uh asking
everybody to remember or in Holly's case he wasn't here in 2022 would be a gargantuan ask. So it's really that you'll see how small some of these things are but in the spirit of transparency wanted to put them out there. But so yeah and the strike through red what we're striking through
and the red without the strike through is what's added. So here in some definitions we've just uh added some technical clarifications. Next please. uh again technical edits to for the qualifications for lure. So part of this
also is there is a style guide for writing regulations which is different than the style guide used by DOE for writing other things. So one of the things staff I specifically struggle with is like okay which style are we kind of using here? So some of this is just kind of making things match the
regulatory style needle. section 40 for qualifications for lensure. Uh we've added some information that we are requiring um as part of the application process. Not just assuming u people know what that is. Um one of the
things that we do is a license shall not be issued to an applicant who does not uh constitute or does not operate or maintain. So, one of the things that we're finding is some people will hold licenses, especially family gate system licenses, for years and years and years without ever serving any children,
families, or anything else. Um, and it just makes it difficult for us to determine compliance. Part of what we to do is we're going to renew your license because you've shown that you've met these these compliance things. And so u just clarifying some things to kind of help us not that we're going to revoke
someone's license but as soon as they have children or something and then we can reissue the license uh really really easily with that uh section 50 building and functional designs. Um the health authorities do not have the ability to improve approve
something but they can inspect it. Uh and then we look we do ask for certain things to meet functional design requirements before we approve the license. So it gives us a little bit of ability to make sure providers are where they need to be before we issue the
license. Next please. So variances. So this is where I was talking about the issue of Epiac and activated charcoal. Just adding the language demonstration of hardship allows us to be a little bit more proactive in encouraging a provider to
seek an allowable benefits. Um because that it had always been at the request of a provider. Now we're working to try to make things a little easier. Some language changes. Instead of saying prior to, we're using before uh and approved for the requested variance and
shout using a may instead of shall. That can always get us in trouble. Next, please. So, one of the things that gets us in a little bit of a quandry is when a child care provider has a conditional
license, but they just aren't quite ready to fly on their own. Uh, in the past, we had no other option but to deny the conditional. The problem that creates is if we deny it, they cannot reapply for six months. So, we needed to
find something that was a little bit of a wiggle room. For some examples, they might not have any children yet, and they've just been trying to get children, haven't been able to. So, we now have the ability to issue a provisional license right after conditional license, which we did not
have the ability to do previously. And then the next section 120 has to do with a special order or final order issued by uh the department uh by the superintendent. So some clarifying there. Next
please. Out of state background checks instead of trying to say child abuse and neglect and criminal history just background checks because that covers both. And then we talk about uh in the bottom section there for any component of the background check. Uh and then
person responsible for obtaining the background check. So just some clarifying language. Uh some of this is clarifying from a knowledge standpoint. Some of this is clarifying from a legal standpoint. you're like, why would you have to do that? It was just to kind of tighten things up from a legal perspective. It also helps make some of
this more evergreen in case like one state changes slightly how they do this, right? Or the change at the federal level. Removing some of that specificity actually enables this to be less burdensome in the future. Great. Uh slide nine, out of state
background checks. Again, uh just adding some clarifying language, documentation from the state or uh from the state on or after the date requested from the state. So again, giving us a little bit more flexibility, giving things a little bit more clarity. And so just one little
aside, you know, the majority of background check requirements are in the code. This is what we're using to fill in some of those gaps. Kind of put the mortar on some of the bricks so we can operationalize this down uh down in the
level. And as a reminder there, much of what is in the Virginia code is very explicitly spelled out by the childcare and development uh federal. So this is not a place where there's a bit of a lot of discretion as compared to other parts of of of that of that federal law. And
just a reminder, this is why needing to get the provisional higherend code was so important because we needed the code to supersede the reggg and also have the code Virginia code match federal requirements. Uh pushed there. Next,
please. So number uh section 20 uh 20110 uh having the maintenance of background check records uh is a requirement that um an individual required to have background checks uh terminate duties within a
facility no longer resides in home. So we needed to clarify just the information related to family day home specifically uh and so we needed to add that here changing the word such to the records. Next,
please. Um, so prohibited acts basically just trying to again bring some clarity, take things uh in general, we like to use bullets versus long paragraphs and narratives just makes it easier to follow. Uh, people don't get lost. Um,
so you'll just more of a style clarification. Um and then the section 14 having to do with special or final order just clarifying that is both types of order not one or the other. Next
please. Um here so title edited so revocation and denial to make sure that it's understood that this because those are two very distinct things. Um just a little aside. So when we deny a license,
it is a provider's responsibility to prove that we are wrong in not renewing it. There's a legal argument. When we revoke a license, it's our job to produ to prove to the court that they should
no longer have it. So, it's kind of important that when we write our regulations, if it is going to apply to both denials and renewals, we need to be kind of specific in how we say that. So, that's part of the thought process that kind of goes into some of this as well.
Next, please. Consent agreements. So consent agreement is a really really valuable tool because it is the department's goal to have as many child care providers safe quality childcare providers open as
possible. At a minimum they have to be as safe as possible. When we go for a revocation or denial that terminates a license and it'll terminate for a minimum of of six months. There are times when a provider quote unquote
comes to their senses and gets their act straight at the last minute. A consent agreement allows us to say, "Yes, we will allow you to keep your license. However, there are no more there's no more grades. You screw up, you're done."
So consent agreements are really really great tool to kind of help us ensure as many childcare providers stay open as possible but also keeping our hey you've gotten to the end of your rope and that you can't go any further to keep things healthy and safe. That is a great tool also to help us with other types of
negative actions. Uh whether it be u contact parents or probations you know because it also shortens the appeal process. Most appeals are going to be at least six months. Doing a consent agreement, we can kind of work things out and have two months and have two
months and then things are better or two months and things get worse and we can stop things. So, this allows us the ability to do a little bit more with consent agreements than we were in the past. And I think this is important too. Often what
uh bubbles up here situations where I think we would attribute it to a a hire who didn't meet expectations and acted in a really inappropriate way. And so systematically the provider will say we have you know terminated that individual
or individuals. the consent agreement is a nice middle ground on saying okay we get you but sort of also say what systematically are you going to do to make sure that you don't have any other hires like that and I will say the vast majority of our you know more egregious situations involve you know one or two
people that are terminated and really the consent agreement is the way in which we say okay well we also need you to think systematically about how do you not get in this place again and so the last part of that removing the language that regulates the department this forced our hand when a provider might be
doing wonderfully well now they're they've gotten new staff they've got new director you know new management besides out front they're doing great well this would say well we still got to come in and monitor you just like we did before and we're like hey that that that's just not fair for anybody you know that that
we we want to we want to do inspections based on risk we don't see the same risk so that we've removed that section from the from the the consent agreement section next So 3:30 appeals of refusal to issue a license. So just kind of cleaning up
some of the language. Uh and then the last part is having language that matches uh what is actually in uh that was language that came from the code, right? And we actually just moved this information up session.
Gotcha. Right. Yep. So this was just a move again trying to do flow and keeping things tight with that. Next please. Well actually before we do this questions about those changes I have two quick ones. One
licensing fees have been waved since co Yes. That's sunset. When is that date? Uh I think we have that as next summer. Yeah. June 2026. Um, okay. And then the other thing and
and in all fairness, I have already spoken with Jeff about this. I think he and I have a good understanding, but I want to share this with also. There's a concern from childcare centers on the posting of violations on the internet
and the timing what happens. Uh, and Jeff, you can decide whether you want to get into the technology behind this or not, but what's currently happening is if a center receives a violation that is posted on the internet for public view, the center is given an opportunity to
provide a response. And a lot of times the center's response perhaps for the public is a better understanding of what occurred at that day, at that time, at that moment, and why this violation occurred. The state doesn't have the ability to do that. The state has to, hey, this is the violation. This is what we saw. this is what happened. That's
it. It's so important. I centers believe and I agree that centers have that opportunity to post their response. What did you do to why did this happen? Um how did it happen? What did you do to fix it? How can you give some comfort that it's not going to happen again? That's all in the response part. But
what's currently happening is the response is not posting the same code as the violation. So if you're a parent and you're searching and you see Riverbent Children in Center and you say, "Oh my gosh, they did. They did what?" Unless you train yourself to go back sometimes
up to five days later and read that same posting again, you may have gone on to the next school on your list and the Child Care Association strongly believes that these postings need to go at the same time. The violation posted at the same time as the response. So when the
public is viewing this, they've got the whole picture in front of them at one time. Don't have to come back later to see, oh, what did they ever say about that? Hopefully they do that, but how do we know that they actually do? So that's a request from the centers, but I think
there's some technology issues right now that hidden. Yep. Yes. So if anybody needs me to go into the technology, I can. If you want to do it after after this is over, I can do that too. So just let me know um from that
because again part of this is transparency you know again part of it as the department wants to model it department also wants to enable it with providers things like that. It is important to know it's both a technology issue but we also have a
timeliness obligation under under law to to publish the the inspection findings. they're already not posted immediately upon completing the inspection. So, there's only so long that we're even able to wait under federal law um in posting those those uh inspection
results. So, and in all fairness, your hands will probably tie based on the speed in which you receive that response. I mean, it does make me think if there's a way to So, part of what happens is you've got things that run the gambit, right? where you have people who have
minor deficiencies who really do want to make sure and they in a timely session and often very professionally written to give us a response. On the flip side, I get the calls right when the child escapes the center and they're like, "Where is that report? Has this happened in this region a couple of times um and
folks are really upset that you're hearing from WVIR or whatever instead of, you know, on the state website, right?" So, we're trying to thread the needle. I think we could take a look at some of the language around kind of whether it's encouraging you to come back or sort of saying that you know or
kind of you know right response will be posted response will be posted yeah because I think I agree we ultimately want the same thing which is that if you give us a response we want it right there so you have the totality of information kind of key to your point
earlier about what parents can access on the flip side I would say some of our providers who had our most egregious offenses are also So would love a reason for those not to be posted for five or 10 more days. And so trying to think through how do we balance that? But I think we can certainly most immediately
address that language and help parents understand that uh you know come be if this is relatively new come back in x amount of time and check that um to do that while also exploring how to how to get those up as as fast as as as possible. Um but it is we're hearing it
on on both end from families. So I do want to just talk about technology for two seconds from one from where we were to where we're going. So if for those who've been around long enough the original in uh when Dolphin came on board inspectors were walking around with laptops at the end of the
inspection they would sit down with the provider and say what was your plan of correction they go back everything synced at once. So migrate into you know COVID when we're sending violations and getting them back the the gap started to grow. uh now that we don't use the
computers in the facility trying to be in and out and inspectors will send emails that gap has continued to grow. The the implementation that we're working now for our new system is that when an inspection is done the provider can go into the portal and immediately
do the information. So there's no back and forth between emails and stuff. It can actually be done pretty much as soon as the inspector's done. The provider can be able to do it. So just to let you know, we hear you. We're working towards things, but all honesty, we're still years out from that. Um haven't just
because because of where we are with the technology yet with that. Um so just in terms of time, I do want to kind of talk about what's next. Um so following endorsement here, it'll go back to the board for review. Um once the board kind
of approves it, then it'll just do one final run through of the attorney general. That's where if they said, "Oh my gosh, this is a big change." That would dictate it going through more formal review. But with based on what is given here where we believe they'll say check yes. They'll go to planning and
budget. Nothing's really changed. Check yes. They'll go back to the secretary governor. Check yes. They don't go out for a final 30-day public review. That is just about its implementation. The our policy person says kind of like a
hailmary pass for providers. you know, it's like, oh my gosh, this is the worst thing since sliced bread and the governor gets 10,000 of those, you guarantee it's not going to go anywhere. Um, so it's kind of that one last pass. Once that's done, then we get say when
it goes into effect. And so our goal will always be to give at least at least three months. You know, that gives us time to have trainings within that first month. We'll do kind of a dog and pony show like I and the
associate directors did back in 2021. We'll go back, we'll do trainings, we'll do webinars, we'll send out memos with various connections so that everybody be ready when it becomes uh effective. However, this isn't going to be hardly a big lift at all for providers because
most of this is administrative stuff. So, it's not going to be this big shock that the not it won't be as big a deal as when the child center uh regulations come out. questions about that and if there's not
then I'll defer to Jenna I guess to defer to approvals okay further discussion any questions do we have a motion to adopt general procedures lensure and background checks and if you vote yes I
won't stand up and dance even though I want to motion is to endorse motion is to endorse. I move that we endorse them as presented today. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second. Any further discussion? All in
favor? I I move. Excellent. Wonderful. Nice job. Probably being recorded, I would say. All right. Okay. So before Park seeks a motion to
adjourn, Becca and Chelsea, is there anything this body needs to know about applications? Anything else in terms of on the various pages we talked about last month? Yes. So we um we have received all applications. We are um so thanks to those of you that were are
interested in serving another term and and got your applications in. um we are going through all of the applications that we've received um and hopefully will um be in touch uh around next steps um at some point in in May. So these are uh the nominations will go to the board
for their review and approval um in the May meeting. Um so more information to come there, but anyone that is currently sitting on the committee um uh the the term expiration is at the end of June. So we have one more meeting before the end of the the current terms. Um, yep.
Yep. Uh, June 26th. Um, so, um, more information to come on that front. Um, we'll also note that we'll be in touch via email after the meeting around travel reimbursements, which we'll have lots
of, uh, this time around. Um, we may also need to ask folks to send us information again about the March meeting, but we'll we'll follow up with more information and details on that um, over email. Good. Thanks, Rebecca. Excellent meeting today. I feel like we really
accomplished something that has body. So, thank you for everyone's attendance today. Any other discussion? I ask for a motion to adjourn. I will second it. Thank you. Have a great Easter
weekend. Byebye everyone. Stay safe. Have a good one.