1. EEC Board Preliminary Recommendations Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Provisional Standards Study

2. Overview Update Board on status and findings of QRIS Provisional Standards Study Compare Massachusetts QRIS with other state’s QRIS Present key themes Present QRIS Provisional Standards Study recommendations

3. StudyUpdate and Findings Study Update and Findings  Analysis of alignment with Massachusetts licensing regulations 114 standards in QRIS are covered by licensing regulations  Analysis of alignment with existing measures Multiple standards are included in Environment Rating Scales (ITERS-R, ECERS-R, FCCERS-R, SACERS), National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), Head Start Performance Standards, Program Administration Scale (PAS), Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett), After-School Program Practices Tool (APT), Business Administration Scale (BAS), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), DEC Recommended Practices  Analysis of research evidence base 412 peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters reviewed Many MA QRIS standards lack specific evidence-base  Comparison with other states Each standard was compared with standards of 20 existing state QRIS

4. StudyUpdate and Findings Study Update and Findings  Input from experts and stakeholders Five regional forums have been held with stakeholder groups across the state; two additional conference calls will be held for others interested in participating (November 10, 2010 at 7:00pm and November 12, 2010 at 1:00pm) EEC stakeholders agree that standards should be streamlined and should be evidence-based Stakeholders recommend reorganizing standards to represent scaffolding  Review of existing regulations and research base suggests streamlining standards Limited research exists on some measures Many existing standards are covered by ERS, other tools or accreditation  Comparison with other states’ QRIS Most other states use existing measures such as ERS to document standards All but one other state take program-level approach to professional development standards MA has substantially more standards than any other state including Pennsylvania

5. Example PA: Complicated QRIS

8. Example Illinois: Simple QRIS

9. Preliminary Recommendations  Eliminate standards that are already required by the Massachusetts licensing regulations  Collapse standards when covered by ERS and other measures  Reorganize standards to ensure scaffolding approach is presented  Eliminate standards that: a) do not include a strong research base b) do not have a clear basis for documentation c) are not aligned with existing standard measures

10. Preliminary Recommendations  Review other states’ approaches and accreditation standards regarding professional development at program level rather than individual level  Post proposed standards and obtain input from provider community to ensure revised standards represent best practice (not just research)  Produce final streamlined standards to incorporate best practice, EEC stakeholder feedback, and evidence

11. Key Outstanding Policy Decisions How does EEC handle applications for programs that are in non- compliance with licensing? Recommendation for Discussion: EEC will analyze the various levels of non-compliance (resolved issue versus legal orders) and make a recommendation How long does a program keep a rating (if a key quality indicator changes for the program (e.g. if accreditation is revoked, expires etc.) and if a program chooses, can they apply more often (before their rating expires); do they have the opportunity to update their information (if so, what is the process and how is this communicated) Recommendation for Discussion: Up to 2 years, then revisit the expectation to advance a level The role of Family Child Care Systems in QRIS while maintaining direct family child care educator participation (how they work with their providers in the application process; are there agreements/policies EEC needs to develop to ensure programs are active in the process; do Systems maintain their fiscal responsibility) Recommendation for Discussion: Systems can be involved in the application process, but the programs must be directly involved with their application and understand how their program can make advancements on the QRIS

12. Key Outstanding Policy Decisions Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revision to ensure they are informed by current research and best practice Recommendation for Discussion: Every three years Acceptable frequency of assessments/self assessments Recommendation for Discussion: program must have an assessment that was completed within a year of QRIS application Process for communicating ratings to the public during FY2011 and beyond Recommendation for Discussion: EEC to post FY2011 ratings on EEC website (participants will be notified that this information will be shared publically) Parties that will be allowed to complete external ratings for programs Recommendation for Discussion: EEC to discuss with Planning and Evaluation Committee and analyze potential resources and options to develop a recommendation.

13. Curriculum Proposed Changes  Delete standards covered in licensing guidelines  Collapse into two categories Curriculum, learning, diversity and assessment Teacher/child interaction  Require ERS to demonstrate meeting most standards

14. Environment Proposed Changes Delete standards covered by licensing regulations Collapse into other categories as ERS are already included in other categories

15. Family Involvement Proposed Changes Delete standards covered by regulations Streamline number of standards within each level Require ERS for Levels 3 and 4 as documentation of family involvement

16. Leadership, Management and Administration Proposed Changes  Delete standards covered by licensing  Merge Evaluation into Administration, Management and Leadership  Require PAS or accreditation for documentation  Add collaboration to community involvement Allow programs to collaboration or reach out through existing networks such as family child care networks, Head Start partnerships, etc. Require programs to verify that networks offer collaborative services

17. Environment Rating Scales Program Quality Assessment Instrument  Rates 43 (ECERS), 38 (FCCERS), 39 (ITERS), 49 (SACERS) areas of analysis under the following 7 subscales:  Ratings range from 1 to 7: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent ECERSFCCERSITERSSACERS Space and furnishings Space and Furnishings Personal care routines Health and Safety Language and reasoning Listening and Talking Supplementary Items (for children with special needs) Activities Interactions Program Structure Parent and staff Staff Development

18. Example Scaffolding Approach: Curriculum 18

19. Example Scaffolding Approach: Environment 19

20. Example Scaffolding Approach: Family Involvement 20

21. Example Leadership, Management and Administration 21

22. Proposed Next Steps  Proposed preliminary standards are posted to EEC website  November 16 th Planning and Evaluation Committee meeting: review evidence and make recommendations to Board regarding professional development standards (e.g. should standards be individually focused or program level)  Gather input from EEC stakeholders through surveys and interviews  Revise preliminary standards based on stakeholder and EEC input  Present key discussions and recommendations to key stakeholders and Board at meeting at Wheelock College (November 30 th )  Present standards for discussion and vote at December Board meeting  Launch revised standards in January 2011