1. Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)

2. Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS
Parents have easily accessible information about the quality of early care and education programs.
Programs and providers use one streamlined set of standards that are connected to supports and fiscal incentives to help them meet and maintain the standards.
Programs receive feedback and are involved in continuous quality improvement.
Policymakers understand where and how to invest additional resources.

3. Process for developing QRIS Standards
Guidance from EEC Board and EEC Advisory Team (Feb. - March 2008)
Group of internal and external stakeholders created a draft (Feb. – Nov. 2008)
Presentation to Board about QRIS Standards (Jan. 2009)
Draft posted for public input (Mar – June 2009)
Heard that the Standards were complicated
Concerns about whether truly evidence-based
Standards were reviewed and revised in order to ensure that they are clear, evidence-based and measurable (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010)
Feedback gathered from stakeholders at event with CAYL on 12/16, Advisory Team mtg, submissions, and at an event with Wheelock on 2/2

4. Comments on the Standards received during last month from:
CAYL summarized the feedback gathered at the 12/16 event
Participants on EEA conference call on QRIS
Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund
Nancy Marshall, Wellesley Centers for Women
Ellen Gannett, NIOST
Ronna Schaffer and Early Head Start collaborative providers
Nancy Topping-Tailby and the MA Head Start Association
Kay Lisseck and Directors in Western Mass.
Gwen Morgan, Wheelock
Marcia Ferris, MAEYC
Beverly Prifti, CC Family Child Care System
EEA Public Policy Committee
EEC Board Program and Policy Committee
EEC Advisory Team
Stakeholders at 2/2 event at Wheelock

5. MA QRIS Standards Standards Categories: Curriculum and Learning
Environment
Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development
Family Involvement
Leadership, Management and Administration
Customized for:
Center and School Based
Family Child Care
After-School and Out of School Time

6. Overview of the Standards
Level 5: Best practice and demonstrable child growth
Level 4: Full Integration
Level 3: Focused Development
Level 2: Emerging Practice
Level 1: Awareness

7. Revisions to Standards over last month:
Comment
Response
Placement of Headstart Performance Standards and Accreditation
Include as an option at level 4, documentation will be required for all items not included in Standards or Accreditation- Center based only
Concern: Language in Environment section about meeting ADA requirements and other criteria
Edited language with input from the Children’s Investment Fund. Removed criteria on toilets in each classroom.
Concern: 5 interest areas is too many for Center-Based or FCC
Revised to 4 interest areas, and 3 for Infant/Toddler with input from Wellesley Centers for Women.
Concern: Quarterly visits by health care consultants for FCC is not feasible
Changed to annual visits
Concern: Some language not appropriate to FCC
Edited language. Changed Provider to Educator. Changed classroom to learning environment. Changed needing proof of written agreements to formal and informal agreements and access to. Changed playground to access to an outdoor space
Concern: Standards not appropriate for Infant Toddler
Edited language to include Infant Toddler Guidelines, when developed
Suggestion to use APT in lieu of SACCRS
EEC reviewing adding as an alternative to SACCRS
Concern about degrees vs. competencies
Strengthened language about developing competency through individualized professional development plans
Interest in realigning order of criteria on special education
Made recommended changes

8. QRIS Standards – Block System
Massachusetts Standards are now a Building Blocks System – Must do everything at Level 1 before progressing to Level 2, etc.
Is this common nationally?*
Building blocks - All standards in a level must be met to move to the next level: 13 states - DC, DE, IN, KY, MD, ME, MT, NH, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN
Points systems - Standards are assigned a point value, which are calculated to determine ratings: 3 states - CO, NC, VT
Combination - A combination of building blocks and points used to determine ratings: 2 states - IA, LA
* From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference

9. National Accreditation and Head Start Performance Standards
Debate about how best to recognize value of national accreditation and the Head Start Performance Standards and temper any possible weakness in each system
Nationally other states include NAEYC in the following ways to reach the top level:
Must be NAEYC accredited: 2 states
NAEYC + Additional Criteria: 8 states
NAEYC + Additional Criteria OR Separate Set of Criteria: 3 states
NAEYC in points scheme: 4 states
No recognition of NAEYC: 2 states
Recommendation is:
At Level 4, Programs may provide evidence of meeting the criteria detailed at Level 4 in the QRIS Standards, OR
Programs may provide evidence of being currently nationally accredited AND providing evidence of meeting a set of MA specific criteria from the previous levels
Programs may substitute being currently accredited with meeting the Head Start Performance Standards (having no deficiencies during their PRISM review)

10. License- Exempt Programs
Debate about defining quality starting from basic health and safety (i.e. licensing regulations) vs. other attributes; and the difficulty of one particular aspect of the mixed delivery system to meet elements of these standards.
Recommendation is:
License-Exempt Programs will use the Center and School-Based Standards. They will have to demonstrate that are “licensable” at Level 1.

11. Measurement Tools
Intent to move documentation of standards away from self-report to use of standard tools. Concern that there are too many tools. Also concern that there are not enough tools that measure process/interaction quality.
Recommendation: Tools currently measure different items, use the existing tools in the pilot and review at the end. 4 tools are required at only one level, other levels have fewer tools.

12. QRIS Pilot and Next Steps:
QRIS Pilot will provide opportunity to continue refining standards, asking questions about equivalencies and efforts needed to implement, and validity.
Next steps:
Board vote on the existing QRIS standards to be used in a pilot of Massachusetts QRIS.
Develop parameters and evaluation questions for the QRIS Pilot
Launch pilot of QRIS Spring 2010