1. Massachusetts Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Overview of revised standards and initial pilot design

2. Overview Process for Development of the Standards Content of the Standards QRIS Pilot Next steps

3. Process for developing QRIS Standards Guidance from EEC Board and EEC Advisory Team Group of internal and external stakeholders created a draft Draft posted for public input 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. 3

4. 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 Rating: Blocks – Must do everything at Level 1 before progressing to Level 2, etc. 4

5. QRIS Standards - Categories Topics covered within each category: Curriculum and Learning: curriculum, assessment, teacher child relationships and interactions, special education, children with diverse language and cultures Environment: indoor, outdoor, health and safety Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development: directors, teachers, teacher assistants, consultants Family Involvement Leadership, Management and Administration: administration, management and leadership, supervision, evaluation, community involvement 5

6. Example: Center-Based: Curriculum and Learning - Curriculum 6

7. Highlights: ERS tools Many states have a strong role for the ERS tools in their QRIS standards Standards have a strong role for the ERS tools Level 2 – use the tools for self assessment Level 3 – score of 4.0 or higher, with no sub-score below 3.0, by outside reliable administrator Level 4 – score of 5.0 or higher in all areas by outside reliable administrator ERS vs. CLASS ERS is more broadly focused on the environment, whereas CLASS focuses on instructional practice, teacher child interactions and the content of the teacher's instruction in the classroom Decided to use ERS tools as foundational building blocks and self-assessment tools, and introduce CLASS at higher levels and through professional development 7

8. Highlights: National Accreditation We heard concerns about: the reliability of national accreditation measuring quality; the costs of pursuing national accreditation; and the lack of research studies that validate the value of national accreditation We also heard support for national accreditation Because its a national model The benefit of programs going through a standardized process The states investment to date in national accreditation Revised the standards to: Have a Level 4 + for accreditation, because of block system will still need to document evidence of meeting earlier criteria Programs who are pursuing accreditation will likely have an advantage in being able to document meeting the Standards 8

9. Highlights: Workforce Qualifications We heard feedback about: The QRIS standards needed to lay out a pathway for workforce qualifications How would the career lattice and QRIS align? Revised the standards to: Provide a pathway describing the workforce qualifications for Directors, Teachers, Family Child Care Providers, Assistants, and Consultants 9

10. Center-Based: Workforce Qualifications and PD: Teacher 10

11. 11 Family Child Care: Workforce Qualifications and PD: FCC Provider

12. Highlights: License-Exempt programs License exempt programs = public school preschool, some Montessori and or religious elementary schools We heard concerns about: Having different entry points into the QRIS for license and license-exempt programs at Level 1 Concerns about not having license-exempt programs meet basic health and safety standards as codified in licensing at Level 1 Revised the standards to: Rely on precedent in Income Eligible re-procurement License-Exempt programs will use the Center and School-Based standards. They will have to demonstrate they can meet licensing standards at Level 1. 12

13. Highlights: Strengthening Families We heard feedback about: How could we incorporate the work Massachusetts was doing as a state on Strengthening Families into the QRIS standards? Revised the standards to: Include the Strengthening Families framework as a training topic for Directors, Teachers, Family Child Care Providers and Assistants Added criteria that starting at Level 2, programs and providers must use the Strengthening Families self- assessment tool 13

14. Highlights: Measurement Majority of measurement will be done through having a license in good standing, document submission, verification in the workforce registry, and onsite monitoring using the ERS tools (ECERS, ITERS, FCCERS, and SACCRS) Additionally named measurement tools that are required, include: Curriculum: Materials Checklist in the Early Childhood Program Standards or NAFCC (Level 2); Optional: CLASS (Center/School, Level 4) Teacher Child Relationships: Self-assessment tool to monitor classroom climate such as Arnett (Level 2); Arnett Scale completed by outside reviewer (Level 4) Children with Diverse Languages: Self-assessment using the ECERS or ELLCO (Center/School, Level 3); Use of the Pre-Las or other valid instruments to determine childs primary language (Level 4) Outdoor: Use of a certified playground inspector (Center/School, Level 3) Health and Safety: Use of the California Health Scale as a self-assessment (Center/School, Level 3) Family Involvement: Strengthening Families self-assessment tool (Level 2) Leadership, Management and Administration: Optional: Program Administration Scale by outside validator or NAEYC validation visit 14

15. QRIS Pilot – Spring 2010 The pilot will be open to these groups: Current UPK grantees Head Start programs, and Income eligible contract providers (center-based, public school, family child care and school-age) Through the pilot EEC will test out the rating system and the monitoring tools EEC will work to develop fiscal incentives from ARRA and other sources for FY2011 to encourage programs to maintain and continue to improve their quality Still need to figure out Family and Consumer Engagement component Will evaluate process 15

16. QRIS Pilot Timeline March – May 2010 Train reviewers to reliability on ERS tools Invite selected programs to submit documentation for rating June 2010 EEC staff review documentation and determine eligibility for ratings July – September 2010 Do onsite reviews, primarily for ERS ratings Concurrently Rebidding Professional Development Programs will continue to receive EEC funding, of which a portion could become dependent on completing the rating process 16

17. Program and Practitioner Supports: Linkage with Professional Development Procurement In FY11 EEC will put out a procurement for professional development that will: Combine current PD funding into a single procurement Purchase professional development that supports both individual educators on a pathway and programs efforts to attain higher levels of quality through QRIS. EECs goals for the procurement are: Educators: Address two primary pathways, both with mentoring, coaching and other supports, to: move educators towards degrees in early education or a related field and increase educator competency as evidenced in the attainment of CDAs and other certifications. Programs: Support providers in developing their staff, moving up QRIS scale, and obtaining accreditation. 17

18. To achieve these goals in the PD Procurement… EEC will focus resources on three areas: 1. Career and Provider Planning individual educators and programs, and/or program leadership training to support career planning for their individual staff. 2. Coaching and Mentoring support the academic success of individual educators in higher education, implement a career plan for educators to attain specific skills, knowledge and abilities, and/or Support improvements by programs that result in achieving a higher level on QRIS or accreditation. 3. Competency Development attain an associates, bachelors or masters degree in early childhood education or a related field; attainment of specific competencies by educators; attainment of increasing levels on QRIS by programs. 18 Will likely require selected vendors to prioritize working with programs and providers participating in QRIS

19. QRIS Next Steps: Moving forward with the pilot this spring Pilot rating and monitoring process Ensure connection between PD procurement and QRIS Complete workforce registry There will be an opportunity after the pilot to step back and consider any necessary changes to the Standards or Rating process. 19