Quality rating and improvement system (qris) provisional Standards study

EEC BoardPreliminary Recommendations Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) Provisional Standards Study

1OverviewUpdate Board on status and findings of QRIS Provisional Standards Study

Compare Massachusetts QRIS with other states QRISPresent key themes

Present QRIS Provisional Standards Study recommendationsStudy Update and FindingsAnalysis of alignment with Massachusetts licensing regulations 114 standards in QRIS are covered by licensing regulationsAnalysis 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), National Afterschool Association (NAA), 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 PracticesAnalysis of research evidence base 412 peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters reviewedMany MA QRIS standards lack specific evidence-baseComparison with other statesEach standard was compared with standards of 20 existing state QRIS

3Study Update and FindingsInput from experts and stakeholdersFive regional forums have been held with stakeholder groups across the state; two additional conference calls will be held for others interested in participatingEEC stakeholders agree that standards should be streamlined and should be evidence-basedStakeholders recommend reorganizing standards to represent scaffolding

Review of existing regulations and research base suggests streamlining standardsLimited research exists on some measuresMany 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 standardsAll but one other state take program-level approach to professional development standardsMA has substantially more standards than any other state including Pennsylvania

Example PA: Complicated QRISExample PA: Complicated QRIS

Example PA: Complicated QRIS

Example Illinois: Simple QRISPreliminary RecommendationsEliminate 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: do not include a strong research basedo not have a clear basis for documentationare not aligned with existing standard measures

Preliminary RecommendationsReview other states approaches and accreditation standards regarding professional development at program level rather than individual levelPost 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

Example Scaffolding Approach: Curriculum11Example Scaffolding Approach: Environment12Example Scaffolding Approach: Family Involvement13Example Leadership, Management and Administration14Curriculum Proposed ChangesDelete standards covered in licensing guidelinesCollapse into two categoriesCurriculum, learning, diversity and assessmentTeacher/child interactionRequire ERS to demonstrate meeting most standards

Environment Proposed ChangesDelete standards covered by licensing regulationsCollapse into other categories as ERS are already included in other categoriesFamily Involvement Proposed ChangesEliminate standards covered by regulationsStreamline number of standards within each levelRequire ERS for Levels 3 and 4 as documentation of family involvementLeadership, Management and Administration Proposed ChangesDelete standards covered by licensing Merge Evaluation into Administration, Management and LeadershipRequire PAS or accreditation for documentationAdd collaboration to community involvementAllow 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 servicesProposed Next StepsPost proposed preliminary standards to EEC website

November 16th 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 at key stakeholder meeting (tentative date: November 30th)

Present standards for discussion and vote at December Board meeting

Launch revised standards in January 2011

19