EJ1362735

Examining California’s Title 22 Community Care Licensing Regulations

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aja McKee, California State University, Fullerton

  • Audri Sandoval Gomez, Chapman University

  • Sardis Susana Rodriguez, California State University, Fullerton

  • Janice Myck-Wayne, California State University, Fullerton

  • Scott Turner, East San Gabriel Valley SELPA

  • Markus Trujillo, Independent Researcher

Abstract

  • Access to general education preschool in California varies for children with disabilities.

  • Variations caused by the preschool regulations outlined in the California Department of Education’s Title 22: Community Care Licensing guidelines.

  • Three major themes identified through document analysis that affect inclusive practices:

    • Supportive, antiquated, and ambiguous language.

    • Training, experience, and education of staff.

    • Staff-student ratios.

  • Urges California educational leaders to provide better opportunities for preschool children with disabilities to be included in general education environments.

Introduction

  • Inclusion in early childhood education can refer to:

    • Blended programming

    • Integrated classrooms

    • Mainstreaming

  • Definition by Brown et al. (1999): Inclusion as physical membership and critical mass.

  • Essential elements for successful inclusion:

    • Collaboration and individualized services—Lipsky & Gartner (2001) emphasize flexibility and individualized support.

  • While the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not guarantee inclusion, many preschoolers can be included with necessary support (Richardson-Gibbs & Klein, 2014).

Organizations Promoting Inclusion

  • National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC):

    • Advocates for public policy and high-quality education for young children (birth to 8 years).

  • Division for Early Childhood (DEC):

    • Supports children with disabilities and their families; focuses on promoting evidence-based practices.

  • Joint position statement on early childhood inclusion emphasizes:

    • Access, participation, and support for all children, regardless of ability.

  • The objective of inclusion is to provide a sense of belonging, positive relationships, and development.

Historical Background

  • Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142):

    • Enacted in 1975 to ensure Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for children with disabilities.

    • Revised to IDEA, which focuses on equitable access and least restrictive environment (LRE).

    • Provides guidelines for SWD education from ages 3-21.

Barriers to Inclusion

  1. Universal Preschool System:

    • Limited placements for preschool SWD due to the absence of a universal preschool system.

  2. Regulatory Framework:

    • Different systems governed by Title 5 (special education) and Title 22 (general education).

Licensing Requirements in California

  • Access to general education preschool impacted by licensing requirements:

    • Title 5 governs special education, while Title 22 regulates private and federally funded programs.

    • Title 22 emphasizes health and safety but can inhibit inclusive practices.

Methodology

  • Document Analysis: Used to analyze Title 22 regulations thoroughly.

  • Identified major themes and specific wording patterns promoting or hindering inclusive practices.

  • Focused on regulations affecting preschool-age children (ages 3-5).

Findings

Theme Analysis

  1. Language:

    • Affirming Inclusion: Language that supports the inclusion of children with disabilities.

    • Antiquated Language: Outdated information prohibiting full inclusion.

    • Ambiguous Language: Unclear terms that cause contradictory interpretations.

  2. Training, Education, and Experience:

    • Lack of required experience with children with disabilities among staff can hinder effective support.

  3. Staff-Student Ratios:

    • Current ratios may not accommodate the needs of children with disabilities adequately.

Sub-Themes of Language

  • Affirming Inclusion: Positive wording on supports and aids provided for inclusion.

  • Antiquated Language: Immunization provisions lack clarity and current relevance.

  • Ambiguous Language: Certain medical requirements can create confusion regarding the treatment of disabilities.

Discussion

  • The analysis confirms the necessity of revising Title 22 regulations for better alignment with inclusion practices.

  • Title 22 must reflect evidence-based practices, providing guidelines applicable to a diverse range of disabilities.

  • Need for ongoing updates to ensure clarity and eliminate ambiguity to avoid hindering inclusive practices.

Conclusion

  • Title 22 impacts the state of preschool programming, necessitating policy changes to support effective inclusion of SWD.

  • The document should be updated to clarify requirements, integrate modern practices, and reflect a commitment to inclusivity for children with disabilities.