# data[].attributes.headline
Do participants know what their model entails and looks like as this may impact the data we receive on the QA survey?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do participants know what their model entails and looks like as this may impact the data we receive on the QA survey?

# data[].attributes.body
Is there messaging we should include at the time the survey request is sent out to remind the recipient of the model they are in/the services and coaching they can expect from the program? How else could we potentially mitigate someone responding under the impression the program should do x when really the program is meant to do y?

# data[].attributes.headline
•	Introduce checkpoint surveys. Have surveys be activity driven e.g., experience in QSLA so far, onboarding and/or orientation experience.

# data[].attributes.subject
•	Introduce checkpoint surveys. Have surveys be activity driven e.g., experience in QSLA so far, onboarding and/or orientation experience.

# data[].attributes.body
o Are there specific checkpoints we should receive specific insight from? For example: orientation, coaching, at time of withdrawal from the program.

# data[].attributes.headline
•	Make sure QA survey aligns with coach expectations.

# data[].attributes.subject
•	Make sure QA survey aligns with coach expectations.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the current expectations for the coaches? Does it vary by model, and tier for Comprehensive? Should separate surveys be drafted based on coaching expectations if they vary by model?

# data[].attributes.headline
•	Make QA survey specific to different parties e.g., one specific survey for admins and a different survey sent to teachers.

# data[].attributes.subject
•	Make QA survey specific to different parties e.g., one specific survey for admins and a different survey sent to teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
What kind of information/insight would be beneficial to receive from a teacher/on-site staff perspective vs. an Administrative/Agency level staff perspective? Would it be helpful to have separate surveys based on model? (This ties to the next bullet and follow-up question.)

# data[].attributes.body
3 Surveys

Tiers 1-3

Site Admin Vs

CSPP Pre-K Teachers

Tiers 4-5 (Site Admin)

Fundamental (Site Admin or FCC Owner/Teacher)

# data[].attributes.body
Fundamental model

Comprehensive tier 1-3

Comprehensive tier 4&5

# data[].attributes.headline
For Program Year 24-25:Tiers 1-3,Teacher Level Surveys

# data[].attributes.subject
For Program Year 24-25:Tiers 1-3,Teacher Level Surveys

# data[].attributes.body
Selecting only CSPP Pre-k Teachers to gather information on Quality Improvement Coaching (Orientation, QIP Development/Review, Observations, Reflective Discussions, QIP related resources, End of the Year Reflection)

# data[].attributes.body
Sites should be added to the rotation only after completing an entire year of services to accurately share their experience

# data[].attributes.body
Go more into depth of which administrator is completing the survey. Are they in direct contact with the coach or is it the admin only involved in signing the QSLA contract.

# data[].attributes.headline
Presenting QA Data Based on Model and type of ECE Staff

# data[].attributes.subject
Presenting QA Data Based on Model and type of ECE Staff

# data[].attributes.body
When analyzing the QA survey data, I recommend to separately analyzing and presenting the results based on the model (tiers 1-3, 4-5, and Fundamental) and the type of ECE Staff (Center Admin, CSPP PreK Teachers, FCC Owner/Teacher).

# data[].attributes.headline
Brief Model support description using the following

# data[].attributes.subject
Brief Model support description using the following

# data[].attributes.body
Picture of Overview & Roadmaps

"Meet Your Coach" Support Description

# data[].attributes.headline
Adding language from the coaching agreements and expectations

# data[].attributes.subject
Adding language from the coaching agreements and expectations

# data[].attributes.body
This document shares how both the coach and participant agree to show up as they begin their coaching journey

# data[].attributes.body
Those being surveyed should be the admin that is being coached as they can speak to their experience better than another admin, if they are different.

# data[].attributes.body
I dont think it is necessary to drill down to the activity that the site "should" be experiencing because with delays in contracting, participants unresponsiveness, the carry over of a QIP, their journey in reaching their QIP, etc, our participants may be at different points of their coaching journey at any given time. Maybe asking them to describe or share about their last coaching session might grant us insight on their experience and it could reduce issues that might arise with assuming all participants should be experiencing a certain activity at a given time.