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) AL, CA, CT, GA, HI, NV, OR, VI • Describe what your state team has been doing with regard to your QRIS since our last call. It could be related to the homework or other points of interest in your work. • Share strategies your state is using to bring these concepts and materials back to workgroups within the state. (agendas, topics, etc.) • 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? Is random sampling appropriate? • 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 Results from both sessions: • Links to Registry: AR, DE, NH, OR, GA (OK, CA, PA developing) • Links to Licensing: DE, KY, NM, OK, TX, OR, PA • Links to PreKMonitoring: NM • Links to Head Start 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 Results from both sessions and other states included: • WELS (FL, NY, MS) • MOSAIC (MI, CA) • BRANAGH (LA) • State - Developed Systems (AZ, ME, GA, PA)

22. Georgia’s Online System Background • Design - 2011-2012 Launched 1/2012 • Equal emphasis on Process Quality (ERS) and Structural Quality (Program Portfolio • In-house design and development of online system to manage all of Quality Rated from process to data Application Training/Technical Assistance – Registration to tracking Portfolio Submission – CQI Plans Incentives Management Resources Reports and Data Communication

23. Quality Rated Components

24. Research Questions – Data Dictionary • Validation and research guided development of online system • With TA support from FPG • Developed logic model • Developed validation and evaluation model • Created data dictionary • Created reports

25. Validation Plan by Phase

26. Evaluation Plan

27. Ongoing Validation and Evaluation

28. Online Site Users • Quality Rated staff • Technical assistance staff • Resource and referral agencies • Programs enrolled in QR • Incentive partners • Research team • Parents in 2013 – will see levels

29. Quick Tour of the Site

30. Lessons Learned in Georgia • Keep it simple • Resources make all of the difference • Transparency • INVOLVE THE RESEARCHERS

31. Web-Based Supports for Providers The Raise Quality Tab on ECESharedResources.org: http://national.ecesharedresources.net/index/ • SharedSourcePA, • Child Care Tennessee, • New Mexico Early Learning Alliance • Oregon • Maine

32. 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?

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

34. 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

35. Questions, Reflections, Comments?

36. Next Session - Homework 1. When you consider your state’s initial QRIS standards or in the early stages of implementation, what types of considerations areyour team discussing? • Ease of administration of the QRIS • Standards that provide administrative or research data (e.g., must enroll in the state Professional Development Registry) • Ease of participation for early care and education programs in QRIS (e.g., Do the standards begin very low to entice enrollment? How rigorous is the highest level?) • Research base for the standards • Standards that address emerging issues (e.g., diversity, child assessment, reflective practice) • Alternate pathways for various provider types (under what circumstances for which types of providers) • Other 2. What data or research did you use to guide your selection of QRIS standards and what type of data are you collecting to guide future revisions? • Information from participants in the QRIS (programs, providers, parents) • Data from your QRIS management system • State Research • National Research • Other

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