Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)

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.

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, email submissions, and at an event with Wheelock on 2/2

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

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

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

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

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 http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt

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)

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.

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.

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