AB 2678 requires the State Superintendent to administer a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) block grant, funded through the annual Budget Act and distributed to local consortia. The grant is intended to expand local QRIS work and increase the number of low‑income children served in high‑quality California state preschool program classrooms.
The bill defines core terms, conditions eligibility for consortia to receive funds, directs allocation by the number of state preschool slots in a county or region, and sets programmatic priorities—including giving priority to classrooms that have achieved a locally defined highest common tier. It also caps use of funds for assessment and access projects at 20 percent and explicitly includes family childcare home education networks that deliver state preschool services as eligible recipients.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a state‑administered block grant for local QRIS consortia, defines a QRIS and local consortium, and requires a three-tier common framework shared across participating consortia. Grants must support quality improvement that increases access for low‑income children and prioritize classrooms already meeting the highest common tier.
Who It Affects
Local consortia that design and run regional QRIS, California state preschool program contracting agencies and local educational agencies, family childcare home education networks that deliver state preschool services, and the State Superintendent’s office responsible for administering allocations.
Why It Matters
AB 2678 channels state budget dollars directly to local QRIS work rather than creating a single statewide QRIS, formalizes common tier elements across regions, and ties allocations to existing state preschool capacity—shaping how early childhood quality investments are targeted and measured.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2678 instructs the State Superintendent to run a block grant program, contingent on Budget Act appropriations, that routes funds to local or regional QRIS consortia. It anchors the program in locally designed QRIS work while requiring certain shared elements so that participating regions can compare tiers and claim a common baseline for quality.
The core purpose is explicit: move more low‑income children into preschool classrooms that meet higher quality standards and show improved child outcomes.
The bill lays out definitions and eligibility rules. A QRIS must be a locally determined, tiered system with supports, incentives, monitoring of child outcomes, and public information for families.
A local consortium must be administered by a lead agency and include a range of stakeholders—from local educational agencies and First 5 county commissions to higher education, resource and referral agencies, and Head Start grantees—so grant applicants are coalitions rather than single agencies.Mechanically, funding decisions are proportional to the number of California state preschool program (CSPP) slots in a county or region, and consortia must satisfy specific requirements to be eligible: implement evidence‑based QRIS elements tailored to local conditions, set measurable targets for CSPP participation aiming for the highest common tier (using the June 1, 2014 tier as a reference point or a higher standard), adopt continuous quality improvement plans tied to child outcomes, and explain how grant dollars will increase sites at the highest common tier and support classrooms that have already reached it.Programmatic constraints and priorities are firm. Local consortia must direct funds to CSPP contracting agencies or local educational agencies for activities that improve and assess quality, with priority to directly support classrooms that have achieved the highest common local tier.
The bill restricts assessment and access spending to no more than 20 percent of a consortium’s allocation. Finally, family childcare home education networks that operate CSPP services are explicitly eligible for allocations to support quality improvement and assessment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The block grant is discretionary and only available if the Legislature appropriates funds in the annual Budget Act.
Local consortia must adopt a quality continuum framework that includes three common tiers shared across participating consortia; any change to those common tiers requires approval by all participating consortia.
The Superintendent must allocate funds to consortia based on the number of California state preschool program slots in the county or region.
Local consortia must prioritize direct support for classrooms that have achieved the highest common local tier (using the tier level as of June 1, 2014, or a higher level) when distributing funds to CSPP contracting agencies or LEAs.
No more than 20 percent of any local consortium’s QRIS block grant may be used for assessment and access projects; family childcare home education networks that provide CSPP services are explicitly eligible for allocations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State administration and purpose of the QRIS block grant
This provision charges the State Superintendent with administering a block grant program—subject to a Budget Act appropriation—and ties the grant’s purpose to increasing the number of low‑income children in high‑quality preschool programs. Practically, that makes the program discretionary from year to year and places operational responsibility with the state education office rather than a new agency.
Definitions: QRIS, local consortium, and the quality continuum framework
The bill defines QRIS as a locally determined, tiered continuous improvement system that must evaluate child outcomes and inform families. It defines local consortium as a lead‑administered regional entity that convenes a multi‑stakeholder planning body. It also requires consortia to adopt a local tiered matrix that contains three common tiers shared by participating consortia and specifies that changes to those shared tiers require unanimous adoption by participating consortia—creating a formal coordination point across regions.
Builds on existing local QRIS and gives priority to established consortia
The block grant is explicitly intended to build on QRIS work already in place on the bill’s operative date. For the 2014–15 fiscal year the statute gives lead administering agencies of existing county or regional consortia that had adopted a quality continuum framework the first opportunity to apply—an unusual historical benchmark that privileges prior adopters when initial funding becomes available.
Eligibility criteria and required elements for grant applications
To qualify for funds, consortia must show they implement evidence‑based QRIS elements tailored to local conditions, set targets for increasing CSPP participation up to the highest common tier (as of June 1, 2014 or higher), produce continuous quality improvement plans linked to child outcomes, outline how funds will increase sites at the highest tier and support those classrooms, and create family‑facing materials to help parents select quality programs. These are not optional suggestions—meeting them is a condition of receiving funds.
Allocation mechanics and priority uses
The Superintendent must allocate funds to qualifying consortia based on the number of CSPP slots in the county or region, then require consortia to pass those dollars to CSPP contracting agencies or LEAs for quality‑related activities. The statute mandates priority for direct support to classrooms that have achieved the highest common tier and limits assessment and access projects to 20 percent of a consortium’s allocation—shaping how consortia budget funds between improvement and evaluation.
Eligibility of family childcare home education networks
Family childcare home education networks that provide CSPP services are explicitly eligible to receive allocations from local consortia for activities that support, improve, and assess quality. That inclusion ensures the small‑provider sector that operates through networks can access grant dollars rather than being excluded as non‑institutional providers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Low‑income children eligible for the California state preschool program — the grant is designed to increase their placement in preschool classrooms that meet higher quality tiers, which may improve school readiness and early outcomes.
- Local consortia and their lead agencies — consortia receive direct funding to scale or sustain QRIS activities, strengthen local coordination, and leverage existing multi‑stakeholder partnerships.
- CSPP contracting agencies and classrooms that already meet the highest common tier — the bill gives these classrooms funding priority to sustain high quality and serve more low‑income children.
- Family childcare home education networks that deliver CSPP services — networks gain explicit eligibility for local QRIS grant allocations, recognizing non‑center providers in quality improvement funding.
- Parents and families — consortia must develop materials that help families identify quality programs, improving transparency and consumer information for preschool choices.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Superintendent’s office/Department of Education — administering allocations, verifying consortium eligibility, and tracking compliance will increase administrative workload without guaranteed dedicated appropriations in the bill text.
- Local consortia and lead agencies — they must meet substantive eligibility requirements and implement evidence‑based QRIS elements, which may require staffing, technical assistance, and matching resources.
- CSPP contracting agencies and smaller providers — to access prioritized funds many providers will need to meet higher tier standards, which can require investments in workforce, materials, facilities, and ongoing data collection.
- Regions with low CSPP slot counts but large private or non‑CSPP provider populations — because allocation uses CSPP slots as the distribution base, some areas may receive relatively less funding despite need, creating a distributional cost to under‑resourced communities.
- Evaluation activities constrained by the 20% cap — entities that want to build stronger measurement systems could find the cap restrictive, forcing trade‑offs between assessment capacity and direct classroom supports.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill aims to expand high‑quality preschool access for low‑income children while privileging direct support for classrooms already at the top tier; this creates a trade‑off between accelerating gains by funding improvements in lower‑performing programs and consolidating quality by investing in existing high performers. That tension is compounded by local control commitments (regional QRIS design) and a requirement for common tiers, forcing a choice between local flexibility and statewide comparability.
The bill ties grant availability to the annual Budget Act, so the program’s scale and continuity depend on the Legislature’s yearly budgeting choices rather than a guaranteed revenue source. That creates practical uncertainty for consortia planning multi‑year improvement cycles.
The use of a historical benchmark—referencing the highest common tier “as that tier existed on June 1, 2014”—anchors expectations to an older standard; it helps set a clear baseline but may be misaligned with current research or local progress and could freeze a dated definition of quality unless consortia collectively update it.
Operationally, the requirement that all participating consortia share three common tiers and approve changes collectively introduces coordination frictions: unanimous approval across diverse regions can slow updates and make it harder to adapt to new evidence or local needs. The allocation formula—based on CSPP slots—ties funds to existing state preschool capacity rather than to measures of unmet need, which risks disadvantaging counties with fewer public slots but large numbers of low‑income children served outside CSPP.
Finally, the 20 percent cap on assessment and access spending protects classroom dollars but could underfund the data systems and evaluation capacity needed to demonstrate improved child outcomes, an explicit objective of the QRIS model.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.