Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) (Draft)

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

2. Overview • Purpose of QRIS • Overview of QRIS Provisional Standards revision process • Stakeholder Feedback (to date • Proposed Provisional Standards (Revised) • Next Steps

3. Create and implement a system to improve and support quality statewide Related Indicators of Success • Massachusetts has standards for quality in early education and care programs that are research-based, broadly understood, successfully implemented, culturally appropriate, and aligned with a quality-building support system. • Massachusetts has a system that collects, analyzes and disseminates program quality and child outcome data to inform policy and program development and implementation. • Programs seeking to improve their quality have access to a range of resources and supports.

4. Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS • 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. • Parents have easily accessible information about the quality of early care and education programs. • Policymakers understand where and how to invest additional resources. High-quality early education and care and out of school opportunities are available throughout the Commonwealth that demonstrate improved outcomes for children.

5. Roles related to the development of the MA QRIS

6. Standards, Assessment and Accountability (formative and summative assessments) Teacher Quality Program Quality(QRIS) Family & Community Context Child Outcomes

7. Overview of the Standards

8. Example of Scaffolding:Professional Development Center Standard

9. Examples of Scaffolding: Family Engagement Standard

10. Revision Process

11. QRIS Standards Revision Activities • Gathered input from EEC stakeholders through 5 regional forums, conference calls, and interview (October –Nov) • Proposed revisions were posted to EEC website and QRIS standards survey was posted. • Planning and Evaluation Committee reviewed evidence and made recommendations to Board regarding professional development standards (e.g. should standards be individually focused or program level –focused. • Additional revisions to workforce and professional development standards were made informed by additional research and stakeholder feedback. • Revisions posted on EEC website and QRIS standards survey, was updated to gather additional feedback. • Presented revisions process, Proposed Revised QRIS Standards to key stakeholders, gathered feedback on standards, measures, and documentation at meeting at Wheelock College (11/30/2010) • EEC disseminated emails to ~24K providers listed in the Registry and encouraged programs to review proposed revisions to Provisional Standards rev. 11/29 via survey by Dec 6th.

12. Principles Guiding Standards Revision Process • Standards already required by the Massachusetts licensing regulations were eliminated • Standards were eliminated that: • Lacked a strong research base • Do not have an objective basis for providing documentation • Are not aligned with existing standard measures • Are not in line with best practice as articulated by stakeholders and in other states’ QRISs • Standards were collapsed into categories when documentation is the same for multiple standards

13. Features of Proposed Revisions to Standards Revised QRIS Standards Are Above and Beyond Licensing = Quality Many higher levels exceed criteria in other states’ QRIS Each level reflects increasing levels of quality Based on strong research ® Aligned with other existing measures  In line with best practice as articulated  In other states’ Quality Rating and Improvement Systems  By stakeholders 

14. Like the Provisional Standards,the proposed revised version still: • Contains 5 categories, which are customized for each QRIS program type with five levels to measure quality within in each category and uses a block system • Requires that documentation of meeting the standards will be done through having a license in good standing, document submission, use of the following tools, verification in the workforce registry, and onsite monitoring using the ERS tools (ECERS, ITERS, FCCERS, and SACCRS), and allows use of APT. • Has strong language for the use Program improvement plan (based upon self-assessment findings) and individualized professional development plans (IPDP). • Includes Head Start Performance Standards and Accreditation remain an option to demonstrate how a program meets a standard • May require that programs submit additional documentation for all MA related requirements, which are not included in the Head Start Performance Standards or Accreditation. • Will offer a a 1 standard exemption option,

15. Revisions Reflecting Initial Recommendations • Proposed Revisions across all categories • Deleted standards covered in MA licensing regulations • Clarifies the use of the ERS and Observation Tool Options • Curriculum & Learning • Collapse into two categories • 1A.Curriculum, learning, diversity and assessment • 1B. Teacher- Child Interactions • Require Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS) or CLASS for teacher interaction standards • Global Environment • Several standards were collapsed into other categories, as ERS are already included in topics covered by subcategories

16. Revisions Reflecting Initial Recommendations Professional Development • Used program approach to professional development standards rather than individual program approach • Streamline number of standards within each level Family Involvement • Merge Community Involvement from Leadership, Management and Administration Category, • Category will be renamed Family Engagement and Community Involvement Leadership, Management and Administration • Merge Evaluation into Administration, Management and Leadership • Requires BAS, PAS or APT for many standards • Allow collaboration to achieve community involvement • Allow programs to collaboration or reach out through existing networks, such as family child care networks, Head Start partnerships, etc. • Requires programs to verify that networks offer collaborative services

17. Opportunities for Stakeholder Feedback

18. Opportunities for Stakeholder Feedback • Over 400 individuals participated in Regional Forums • 30 telephone interviews completed • Over 450 surveys completed to date • 50 individuals in attendance at QRIS Dialogue Wheelock (11/30/2010) 5 Regional Forums 2 Conference Calls Interviews QRIS Standards Survey QRIS Dialogue Meeting

19. QRIS Dialogue – Wheelock College Purpose of stakeholder meeting • To review the proposed Revised Provisional QRIS Standards, Measurements and Documentations • Gather feedback from stakeholders to assist in refining Proposed Revised Provisional QRIS Standards, anticipated for release in January 2011

20. QRIS Dialogue – Discussion Topics The Standards • Are the standards the right ones? • Do the standards measure quality? The Measurement Tools • Do the tools measure quality, as outlined in standards? • How do we provide professional development and training to establish a shared understand of the standards and the measurement tools? QRIS & Accreditation • What is the value added and role of accreditation? • What are the concerns? From Pilot to Expanded Implementation • How do we move from pilot to having programs and educators participating in the MA QRIS? • How can the state ensure that the Quality Rating and Improvement System is consistent, measurable and clear?

21. Initial Key Themes Identified in Review of QRIS Stakeholder Feedback • General comments about Standards Revision Process • Clarification of Expectations related to Measurement tools and Required Documentation • Program Support, Implementation and Communication

22. Addressing Stakeholder Feedback

23. Sample of Revisions based on stakeholder feedback • EEC has revised the professional development sections to focus on the program level quality. • EEC will develop stronger linkages to staff retention, in the Leadership Administration • Planning and Evaluation Committee developing recommendations for “time limited” grand-fathering opportunity, based on a clear set of specific criteria • Through additional review of the BAS fiscal management section, this issue of auditors will be further explored by EEC, will be updated to more closely align with BAS • Criteria related to formative assessment has been improved scaffolding – (Level 2 PD  Level 4 Implementation. • Sinks will be returned to standards at Level 4

24. Sample of Revisions based on stakeholder feedback • EEC will be update the term to “family engagement” • EEC will be developing FAQs, and QRIS Guide, and a Glossary of terms to clarify QRIS Process, when standards have been finalized. • Fiscal management section, this use of auditors will be further and updated to more closely align with BAS • FCC Site visits by B.A. level staff will be changed to semi monthly vs. weekly • EEC will clarify the language on mediation and move the standard to Level 4

25. Revised Standards

26. Proposed Structure of the Standards • Level: Follows the existing structure of block system. (Each program will still need to meet all requirements of standard of the proceeding level before advancing to the next “level”). • Revised Standard: Using the principles guiding the revision process, these are the current standards presently referred to as the Proposed Revisions to the Provisional QRIS Standards or proposed Provisional QRIS Standards (revised). • Required Observation Measure: This column includes measurement tools that will be required by all QRIS participants regardless of program type, or accreditation status, to ensure that one measurement tool is used consistently across program type. • Additional Required Observation Measure: Thiscolumn has been added, to supplement the required tool, to effectively measure additional process (teacher- child Interactions) and Structural (leadership & program administration indicators of quality. • Required Documentation: Materials that will be reviewed by EEC as “evidence” of meeting the Standard/ Measurement (i.e. evidence in PQ Registry, demonstrated used of the MA Curriculum Guidelines, and other MA specific requirements. • Head Start Documentation Option: This column lists the related Head Start Performance Standard, and the required documentation that a Head Start program submits (i.e. MA specific and/or not addressed via Head Start Performance Standards). • Accreditation Program Documentation Option: This column list the related accreditation standard and the required documentation that an accredited program will have to submit )i.e. MA specific and/or not addressed via the accreditation standards.

27. Example: Family Engagement & Community Involvement Center/School-based

28. Example Global Environment Standard for Family Child Care with Documentation

29. Example: Professional Development Standard Educators Center/School-based

30. Example: Leadership, Management and Administration Standards for Family Child Care Providers

31. QRIS Measures and Documentation

32. Principles Guiding Documentation Requirements • Reviewed research and state QRIS and found: • Environment Rating Scales (ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R, SACERS) used by many states and supported by research. • Other observation tools used by other states and supported by research: PAS, BAS, APT, Arnett CIS, and CLASS • Reviewed Massachusetts standards and other measures and found: • ERS aligned with many measures • PAS, BAS, APT, CIS, and CLASS aligned with some measures • Accreditation aligned with many standards and used by some states • Head Start program performance standards aligned with many standards • Focus on measurable and doable documentation.

33. Documentation Requirements • Require ERS self-study for level 2 and outside reliable raters for levels 3 and 4 for all QRIS Program types • Require ERS, PAS, BAS, APT. • Require as CLASS or Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale to assess teacher/child interactions. • Requires specific list of documentation, not reflected in Observational tools (i.e. Use of Ma Guidelines in Curriculum, Documentation of Professional development in the PQ registry) • Accredited and Head Start providers are provided information about alignment, that is “standard-specific”

34. Environment Rating Scales Program Quality Assessment Instrument Rates 39 (ITERS) 43 (ECERS), 38 (FCCERS), 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

35. Key Administrative Decisions

36. Key Administrative 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

37. Key Administrative Decisions • Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revisionto 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.

38. Key Administrative Decisions • Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revisionto 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.

39. Key Administrative 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 and make a recommendation • How long does a program keep a rating? Recommendation for Discussion:Up to 2 years, then revisit the expectation to advance a levelif a key quality indicator changes for the program (e.g. if accreditation is revoked, expires etc. Can program 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) • The role of Family Child Care Systems in QRISwhile 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

40. Next Steps • Additional Stakeholder meetings will occur in early December • December 9 Planning and Evaluation Committee will review related revisions in relation to stakeholder feedback • Present Provisional standards for discussion and vote, December Board meeting (Dec 14th) • QRIS Program Manager, a web-based electronic QRIS Application Process, will incorporate updated Standards in electronic application. • Start up Together for Quality