1. 0 Early Learning Challenge Opportunity Board of Early Education and Care September 13, 2011

2. Overview of Early Learning Challenge 1

3. Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) Overview OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RELEASES FINAL APPLICATION FOR RACE TO THE TOP-EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE On August 23 rd, the Obama Administration released the application for the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC), which will provide $500 million in state-level competitive grants to improve early learning and development programs. The goal of the RTT-ELC is to better prepare more children with high needs for kindergarten because children from birth to age 5, including those from low-income families, need a strong foundation for success in school and beyond. “Investing in the health and educational development of our youngest children is critical to ensuring America’s long-term strength and competitiveness. With this Early Learning Challenge, we are spurring innovation in the early education field and putting more children on a path to learning, opportunity and lifelong success.” - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius RTT-ELC will set a high bar and reward states with the strongest plans to improve the quality of early learning and development programs. In their applications, states must demonstrate a commitment to building coordinated systems, aligning resources and policies, and increasing access to high-quality early learning and development programs for children who need them most. 2

4. 3 Establishing Successful State Systems by building on the State’s existing strengths, ambitiously moving forward the state’s early learning and development agenda, and carefully coordinating programs across agencies to ensure consistency and sustainability beyond the grant; Defining High-Quality, Accountable Programs by creating a common tiered quality rating and improvement system that is used across the state to evaluate and improve program performance and to inform families about program quality; Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children to develop common standards within the state and assessments that measure child outcomes, address behavioral and health needs, as well as inform, engage and support families; Supporting A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce by providing professional development, career advancement opportunities, appropriate compensation, and a common set of standards for workforce knowledge and competencies; and Measuring Outcomes and Progress so that data can be used to inform early learning instruction and services and to assess whether children are entering kindergarten ready to succeed in elementary school. RTT-ELC will focus on five key areas of reform:

5. Overview of Program: Selection Criteria Core Areas (A) Successful State Systems (65 points) (A)(1) Demonstrating past commitment to early learning and development (20 points) (A)(2) Articulating the State’s rationale for its early learning and development reform agenda and goals (20 points) (A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early learning and development across the State (10 points) (A)(4) Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work of this grant (15 points) (B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs (75 points) (B)(1) Developing and adopting a common, statewide Tired Quality Rating and Improvement System (10 points) (B)(2) Promoting Participation in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (15 points) (B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early Learning and Development Programs (15 points) (B)(4) Validating the effectiveness of the State Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System(15 points) 4

6. Overview of Program: Selection Criteria Focused Investment Areas The State must address in its application: (1) Two or more of selection criteria in Area (C) (2) One or more of the selection criteria in Area (B) (3) One or more of the selection criteria in Area (E) (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children (60 points) (C)(1) Developing and using statewide, high-quality Early Learning and Development Standards (C)(2) Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment Systems (C)(3) Identifying and addressing the health, behavioral, and developmental needs of Children with High Needs to improve school readiness. (C)(4) Engaging and supporting families (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce (40 points) (D)(1) Developing a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and a progression of credentials (D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood Educators in improving their knowledge, skills, and abilities (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress (40 points) (E)(1) Understanding the status of children’s learning and development at kindergarten entry (E)(2) Building or enhancing an early learning data system to improve instruction, practices, services, and policies 5

7. Signatures and Assurances (1) The application must be signed by the State’s governor and by an authorized representative from every Participating State Agency. Participating State Agency defined as: ”a State agency that administers public funds related to early learning and development and is participating in the State Plan. The following State agencies must be Participating State Agencies: the agencies that administer or supervise the administration of the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part C and Part B Section 619, State-funded preschool, Home Visiting, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Head Start State Collaboration Grant, the State Advisory Council on Early Care and Education, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant; and the State’s Child Care Licensing Agency and the State’s Education Agency. Other State agencies, such as the agencies that administer or supervise the administration of Child Welfare, Mental Health, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), are encouraged to participate in the State Plan.” (2) The State also must submit a certification from the State’s Attorney General that the State’s descriptions of, and statements and conclusions regarding, State laws, and regulations contained in the State’s application are complete and accurate and are reasonable interpretations of those State laws and regulations. 6

8. Eligibility Requirements The State must meet the following requirements to be eligible to compete for funding under this program: (a) The Lead Agency must have executed with each Participating State Agency an MOU or other binding agreement that the State must attach to its application, describing the Participating State Agency’s level of participation in the grant. (See Appendix C of the notice.) At a minimum, the MOU or other binding agreement must include an assurance that the Participating State Agency agrees to use, to the extent applicable-- (1) A set of statewide Early Learning and Development Standards; (2) A set of statewide Program Standards; (3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System; and (4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and progression of credentials. (b) The State must have an operational State Advisory Council on Early Care and Education that meets the requirements described in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837b). (c) The State must have submitted in FY 2010 an updated MIECHV State plan and FY 2011 Application for formula funding under the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program (see section 511 of Title V of the Social Security Act, as added by section 2951 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148)). 7

9. Massachusetts Award Information Every State was ranked according to its share of the national population of children ages birth through five years old from low-income families – based on those populations, budget caps were developed. Massachusetts is a “Category 4” state and is eligible to apply for up to $50M Selection of grantees may consider the need to ensure that systems are developed in States with large, high-poverty, rural communities (including States with high percentages of high-poverty populations in rural areas, as well as States with high absolute numbers of high-poverty individuals in rural areas), and awards may be granted to high-quality applications out of rank order to meet this need. 8

10. Overview of Five Priorities 9

11. Overview of Program Priorities Priority 1: Absolute Priority–Promoting School Readiness for Children with High Needs. Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority–Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. (10 points) Priority 3: Competitive Preference Priority– Understanding the Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry. (10 points) Priority 4: Priority 4: Invitational Priority–Sustaining Program Effects in the Early Elementary Grades. Priority 5: Invitational Priority–Encouraging Private- Sector Support. 10

12. One Absolute Priority Must be addressed Priority 1: Absolute Priority–Promoting School Readiness for Children with High Needs. To meet this priority, the State’s application must comprehensively and coherently address how the State will build a system that increases the quality of Early Learning and Development Programs for Children with High Needs so that they enter kindergarten ready to succeed. The State’s application must demonstrate how it will improve the quality of Early Learning and Development Programs by Integrating and aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies and by designing and implementing a common, statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. In addition, to achieve the necessary reforms, the State must make strategic improvements in those specific reform areas that will most significantly improve program quality and outcomes for Children with High Needs. Therefore, the State must address those criteria from within each of the Focused Investment Areas (sections (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children, (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress) that it believes will best prepare its Children with High Needs for kindergarten success. 11

13. Competitive Preference Priority Area of particular interest for which an applicant may earn additional points Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority–Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. (10 points) Priority 2 is designed to increase the number of children from birth to kindergarten entry who are participating in programs that are governed by the State’s licensing system and quality standards, with the goal that all licensed or State-regulated programs will participate. The State will receive points for this priority based on the extent to which the State has in place, or has a High-Quality Plan to implement no later than June 30, 2015– (a) A licensing and inspection system that covers all programs that are not otherwise regulated by the State and that regularly care for two or more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting; provided that if the State exempts programs for reasons other than the number of children cared for, the State may exclude those entities and reviewers will score this priority only on the basis of non-excluded entities; and (b) A Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System in which all licensed or State-regulated Early Learning and Development Programs participate. 12

14. Competitive Preference Priority Area of particular interest for which an applicant may earn additional points Priority 3: Competitive Preference Priority–Understanding the Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry. (10 points) To meet this priority, the State must, in its application– (a) Demonstrate that it has already implemented a Kindergarten Entry Assessment that meets selection criterion (E)(1) by indicating that all elements in Table (A)(1)-12 are met; or (b) Address selection criterion (E)(1) and earn a score of at least 70 percent of the maximum points available for that criterion. 13

15. Invitational Priorities I Areas the Department is particularly interested in; do not earn extra points and no preference given Priority 4: Invitational Priority–Sustaining Program Effects in the Early Elementary Grades. The Departments are particularly interested in applications that describe the State’s High-Quality Plan to sustain and build upon improved early learning outcomes throughout the early elementary school years, including by-- (a) Enhancing the State’s current standards for kindergarten through grade 3 to align them with the Early Learning and Development Standards across all Essential Domains of School Readiness; (b) Ensuring that transition planning occurs for children moving from Early Learning and Development Programs to elementary schools; (c) Promoting health and family engagement, including in the early grades; (d) Increasing the percentage of children who are able to read and do mathematics at grade level by the end of the third grade; and (e) Leveraging existing Federal, State, and local resources, including but not limited to funds received under Title I and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and IDEA. 14

16. Two Invitational Priorities II Areas the Department is particularly interested in; do not earn extra points and no preference given Priority 5: Invitational Priority–Encouraging Private-Sector Support. The Departments are particularly interested in applications that describe how the private sector will provide financial and other resources to support the State and its Participating State Agencies or Participating Programs in the implementation of the State Plan. 15

17. State Partners EEC ESE DHCD EI (DPH) DCF IHEs Children’s Cabinet Private Partnerships WGBH EEA United Way Community Supports Hospitals Pediatricians Dentists Nutrition Local Government Parks and Recreation Federal Partners WIC ACF DOE Head Start Home visiting Partnering for Healthy Development for Children Birth through Age 8

18. Massachusetts Early Learning Challenge Leadership Team B OARD : Eleonora Villegas-Reimers, Ph.D. A GENCIES WITH V ENDOR /C ONTRACT R ELATIONSHIP : Wayne Ysaguirre L EGISLATORS : Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch B USINESS /C IVIC : Kim Haskins Peg Sprague H IGHER E DUCATION : Marta Rosa S TATE A SSOCIATIONS : Amy O’Leary Karen Frederick Nancy Topping Tailby Greg Nelson K-12 L INKAGES : Tom Kingston Jillayne Flanders Jason Sachs 17

19. Alignment of EEC Work with ELC Priorities 18

20. Massachusetts Context The total population in Massachusetts has increased slightly since the 2000 Census. In 2010, the total population was 6,547,629. Of the total population, 1,517,090 or 23% are children birth to age 18. Families* with their own children under the age of 18, account for 44.9% of families in Massachusetts. The average family size of all families in Massachusetts is 3.08. *According to the Census "Families" consist of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. They do not include same-sex married couples even if the marriage was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are included in the families category if there is at least one additional person related to the householder by birth or adoption.

21. Children Birth to Age 5 There are 442,592 children birth through age 5 living in Massachusetts. This accounts for 6.8% of the population. Children birth to age 5 are living in 10.4% (167,026) of the families in Massachusetts.

22. 21 EEC System Components Standards, Assessment and Accountability Informed Families and Public Early Ed & Care and K- 12 Linkages Workforce & Professional Development RegulationsGovernanceFinance EEC Strategic Directions Quality Family Support, Access, and Affordability Workforce Communications Infrastructure EEC System Components and Strategic Directions

23. 22 Closing the Achievement Gap: Accountability for Quality and Outcomes Teacher Quality Program Quality (QRIS) Child Outcomes (formative and summative assessment) Community and Family Context

24. Community Input Meetings EEC has engaged in 8 meetings across the state to discuss the Early Learning Challenge with early education and care providers, administrators and others in the field. Over 200 participants attended these meetings. EEC partnered with the Bessie Tartt Wilson Initiative for Children, Inc. and the United Way in convening these meetings. Meeting Schedule: August 17 th - for YMCAs August 24 th at UMass Boston (with United Way) Six meetings (with Bessie Tartt Wilson Initiative for Children): 23

25. Discussion Question: Comprehensive Assessment Systems What is the state strategy for answering the basic question: how are our children doing? Given the tools of screenings (ASQ and ASQ: SE), assessments (formative in QRIS), and norm-referenced assessments (PVT, EVT, Executive functioning), when and where in the birth through eight continuum should these tools be used? How do we ensure the workforce is trained in applying results and collecting data? 24

26. Discussion Question: Linking Schools and Communities to Promote Healthy Child Development and Family Engagement The role the state (EEC and other agencies, including DESE) play in improving linkages among public schools and community based supports – including early childhood programs, birth-5 family support, out of school time, health, child welfare. How can sectors, which support child development, align under a single frame of child development and family engagement? What specific ideas, resources, activities, operations, and tools could help these linkages take root and foster? 25

27. Discussion Question: Family Engagement and Strengthening Using the Strengthening Families framework as a foundation for discussion What is the optimal state (or EEC in concert with other state agencies?) role in ensuring that the needs of all families, with a focus on high needs families, have supports as articulated in the framework? What are innovative ideas for approaching the challenge of meeting families needs for a) Social networks b) Understanding children’s Growth/development c) Understanding and meeting Social emotional needs of children d) Building resiliency. What are the gaps, how can they be filled from state systems perspective? 26

28. Discussion Question: Quality Rating and Improvement System How can EEC ensure that programs participate in and move up the QRIS system? What is the appropriate time frame for meeting all requirements? What are the obstacles that prevent programs from moving forward and how can they be overcome? What do small providers need to succeed in entering/moving up the system? What is the appropriate EEC role in providing support for participation and what support should be localized? 27

29. Discussion Question: Supporting the early educator workforce through practice-based support Respecting the goal of building leadership and developing expertise within the scope of the each program, how does the state provide support? How do we build a system of real time practice based supports for educators? What should be the standards/rubrics around effective coaching that adequately address the goal of building capacity within the program and educators themselves and how can we design a system that achieves results but is economically sustainable? 28

30. Discussion Question: Compensation Given that the state cannot increase compensation for all early educators, what are innovative ideas for; How can the state leverage its limited resources to create progress in improving compensation? How we can expand the definition of compensation to include non financial benefits like professional development? How can programs reward and incent professionals in ways that are not financial? 29

31. Opportunities Governance All Children of high need QRIS including: Formative Environmental Adult Child Interactions Interagency relationships Higher Education Strategy Early Childhood Information Structure Private sector commitments Obstacles Integrated Practice across health, Child welfare and TANF Funding QRIS KRA Retail Local district practice Lack of wholesale early childhood policies for Pre-k to 3 alignment Data infrastructure for early learning childhood information 30