QRIS Standards Learning Table

1. QRIS Standards Learning Table Session #3: Efficiency in Monitoring: Streamlining Documentation

2. Introductions and Updates • Introduce the state team (Name, title, agency) ARDEKY MSNHNMOKTX • Describe what your state team has been doing with regard to revising your QRIS since our last call? • If a certain resource or idea has been particularly helpful, tell us about that.

3. Key Point Even a QRIS that appears simple can become complex and expensive to administer unless steps are taken to streamline the documentation procedures for standards and sources of evidence.

4. Sources of Evidence For each standard you must: • Clarify if/when documentation is required Example: If you’ve already seen a source of evidence in the past, do you need to see it each year? • Specify what documentation can be accepted to verify compliance.

5. Efficiency Opportunity: Current Assessment Tools as Source of Evidence • Some Program/Classroom Assessment tools measure the same content. • Some Program/Classroom Assessment tools measure criteria included in a state’s QRIS. • Thus, a QRIS could use an Assessment tool – such as ERS or PAS as the source of evidence.

6. Do the common tools measure the same concepts?

7. Efficiency Opportunity: Self-Report • What standards are most appropriately verified by self-report? • What are effective procedures for validating self-reporting? • What documentation needs to be available for review?

8. Efficiency Opportunity: Automation • How can automation streamline the monitoring process? • Links to data-bases for licensing, registry, CACFP, subsidy, accreditation • Electronic scoring/reporting of ERS, CLASS, PAS/BAS • Director portals or on-line applications (in real time) that enable programs to upload evidence • Provider-focused platforms that include downloadable tools/templates to support compliance

9. Automation: Learning Table States • Links to Registry: AR, DE, NH (OK developing) • Links to Licensing: DE, KY, NM, OK, TX • Links to PreKMonitoring: NM • Links to HS Performance Review: AR, DE, OK • On-line Upload of Documentation: AR, NM

10. Case Study: Maine Michel Lahti, PhD University of Southern Maine

11. QUALITY FOR ME – THE BASICS • Licensing compliance • Membership in MRTQ Registry • Online application based upon a self-evaluation Once the on-line application is submitted, the provider immediately receives feedback from the Quality for ME system regarding the anticipated Step level • Portfolio of documentation (random) • On-site Observations (random)

12. The General Approach • Web-based application • Linkage to licensing database and PD Registry • Relieves burden for all applicants • Improves data quality in QRS application • Feedback loop also improves data quality in linked database • Criteria cross-walked with Accreditation criteria • Self-report on remaining items • About 50 specific questions if no Accreditation • Reduced to just 5-10 questions depending on Accreditation • Immediate feedback on how to move to next step in each area • Individual and aggregate reports shared with R&R centers to facilitate technical assistance

13. QRS Step in Each of Eight Areas: • compliance history/licensing status • learning environment/developmentally appropriate practice • program evaluation • staffing and professional development • administrative policies and procedures • parent/family involvement • family resources • authentic assessment • Criteria for achieving steps cross-walked with standards for the following: • NAEYC Accreditation • NAEYC Candidacy • National Association of Family Child Care Providers Accreditation • National After School Association Accreditation • American Montessori Society Accreditation • Head Start: Zero Non-compliance Issues at Last Review / All Non-compliance Issues at Last Federal Review Resolved

14. Maine Roads To Quality (Prof Dev Registry) Univ of Southern Maine, Portland provider ID provider education provider training record license # of program where provider employed … Key Data Linkages Quality Rating System Univ of Maine, Orono program license # self-reported data calculated data … Maine Roads To Quality (Prof Dev Registry) Univ of Southern Maine, Portland program license # accreditation … Program Licensing MeDHHS, Augusta program license # contact info capacity license status license expiration type of program …

15. Improves Data Quality at Linked Databases

16. Immediate Feedback to Applicant

17. Immediate Feedback to Applicant (specific recommendations for each of 8 areas)

18. Data Usage… • Monitor Enrollments and Characteristics of Programs • ERS Scores – Focus on Areas of Strength and Improvement • Monitor Program Progress through Step Levels • Monitor Supports to Programs • Infrastructure for Evaluation Projects: • Comparing QRIS to non-QRIS Sites • Investigate QRIS Standards: Use of Child Level Assessments • Validation Study

19. Lessons Learned from Maine • Intention is to Build a System, an Infrastructure to Help Align ECE Programming • Develop Working Partnerships with State Program Administrators and University Research Staff • System Operation Requires Ongoing Attention - Keep it Valid and Reliable • Importance of Translating Data from QRIS Monitoring into Information for Decision-making

20. BENEFITS TO JOINING QUALITY FOR ME… • Ability to accept Child Care Subsidy and receive a payment differential based upon Step Level • Assistance in paying for Accreditation fees and cohort supports (some facility improvement grants) • On-site technical assistance • Scholarships to pursue early childhood education degrees • Tax credits for parents and providers

21. Automation of QRIS Implementation • WELS (FL, NY) • MOSAIC (MI, CA) • BRANAGH (LA) • State - Developed Systems (AZ, ME, GA)

22. Web-Based Supports for Providers The Raise Quality Tab on ECESharedResources.org: • SharedSourcePA, • Child Care Tennessee, • New Mexico Early Learning Alliance • Oregon

23. Efficiency Opportunity: Multi-Site Centers • How is documentation streamlined for multi-site centers? • What information can be gathered from the central office? • What must be gathered at each site? • What standards might be revised given a multi-site management framework?

24. QRIS Administration withMulti-Site Centers: State Examples • New Mexico – Verify documentation at central office • Oklahoma – Head Start participation • Georgia – Cohort structure

25. Verification: Effective andEfficient? Standards Think Tank Participants thought the most effective and efficient verification methods were: • Objective Third Party Observation/Assessment • Electronic Link to Licensing, Registry or other Official Database • Self-Report with Verification of Random Sample

26. Questions, Reflections, Comments?

27. Next Session - Homework • When you have revised your state’s QRIS standards in the past, what were the reasons for the revision? • What data did you use to guide your decision to revise the QRIS?

28. Thank You National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement NCCCQI does not endorse any non-Federal organization, publication, or resource. • Follow-up Contacts: OCCQualityCenter@icfi.com • dmathias@buildinitiative.org • Anne.walsh.mitchell@gmail.com • Louise.stoney@gmail.com • Mlahti@usm.maine.edu • www.qrisnetwork.org