massachusetts’ quality rating and improvement system (qris) (draft)
TRANSCRIPT
OverviewPurpose of QRISOverview of QRIS Provisional Standards
revision processStakeholder Feedback (to dateProposed Provisional Standards (Revised)Next Steps
Create and implement a system to improve and support quality statewide
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.
3
Related Indicators of Success
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.
4
Roles related to the development of the MA QRIS
5
• Defines the policy for quality standards and measurements for use in the statewide QRIS
• Provide input to inform decision that support high quality
practices• Share strategies to
support effective implementation and meaningful
participation
• Defines administrative
procedures • Provides oversight
and, guidance• Provides resources
to support QRIS implementation
• Provides a mechanism to reflect on process, practice and offer evidence-based for quality, and desired outcomes for children
EEC BoardCommuni
ty Stakehold
ers
EECEDC Team
Standards, Assessment and Accountability
(formative and summative assessments)
6
Teacher Quality
Program Quality(QRIS)
Child Outcomes
Family & Community
Context
Overview of the StandardsLevel 5: Best practice and demonstrable child growth
Level 2: Self- Asssessment
Level 1: Licensing
7
8
Example of Scaffolding:Professional Development Center Standard
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: 100% of classrooms have BA level teachers
Level 3: 75% percent or more of classrooms have at least a BA
Level 2: 50% percent or more of classrooms have educators with at least a BA. All educators have high school diploma or GED and 3 college credits in ECE.
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
9
Examples of Scaffolding: Family Engagement Standard
Level 5: TBD
Level 4: Parents participate on the Advisory Board as evidenced by ERS Score of 6 with no single item below 5
Level 3: Families are encouraged to volunteer in the program to assist in the classroom as evidenced by reliable ERS Score of 5 with no single rating below 4
Level 2: Families are given opportunities to meet with classroom staff as evidenced by written document verifying such opportunities
Level 1: Meets licensing standards
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 .
Principles Guiding Standards Revision Process
Standards already required by the Massachusetts licensing regulations were eliminated
Standards were eliminated that: a) Lacked a strong research baseb) Do not have an objective basis for providing
documentationc) Are not aligned with existing standard measuresd) 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 BeyondLicensing = QualityMany higher levels exceed criteria in other states’ QRIS
Each level reflects increasing levels of qualityBased 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
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, 14
Revisions Reflecting Initial Recommendations
15
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
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 services16
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
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
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?
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
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
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
Proposed Structure of the Standards
LevelRevised
Standard
Required Observation
Measure (ERS)
Additional Required
Observation Measure
Required Documentation
Head Start Documentation
Option
Accreditation Program
Documentation Option
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: This column 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.
Example: Family Engagement & Community Involvement
Level Revised StandardRequired
Observation Measure (ERS)
Additional Required
Observation Measure
Required Documentation
Head Start Documentation
Option
Accreditation Program
Documentation Option
Level 3 Meets Requirements of Level 2PLUS
A daily two way communication system is available between the educators and families through a variety of
means. Families are encouraged to volunteer in the program to assist in the classroom, and with appropriate supervision share cultural and language traditions or other interests such as their jobs, hobbies and other relevant information. ® Program ensures that there are translators available, as needed, at meetings, workshops and conferences to ensure strong communication between the program and families. Program participates in local community group work that is related to early childhood, and the cultural groups served by the program and/or family support. ® Program has written collaborative agreements with early intervention programs, the local LEA, mental health, health, dental health, a program health consultant, U.S.D.A. Food and Nutrition program that specifies the responsibilities and duties of each entity in supporting children and
families.
ITERS-R AND/OR ECERS-R reliable rater score average of 5 with no single item below 4
Program Administration Scale (PAS) score of 5 or higher by a reliable rater.
Document signed by program administrator describing the variety of daily communication methods (e.g. scheduled telephone hour, checklists, e-mail).
AND
Document signed by program administrator describing translators used for all meetings workshops and conferences.
AND
Document signed by program administrator describing the types and nature of formal relationship with 4 or more service providers such as mental health, health, dental health, program health consultant, U.S.D.A. Food and Nutrition program, training, family literacy, adult education, child development, parenting, and ESL classes.
Head Start item #1304.41(a)(4)1304.51(c)(1) 1304.51(c)(2)
AND
Signed document describing the types and nature of formal relationship with 4 or more service providers such as mental health, health, dental health, program health consultant, U.S.D.A. Food and Nutrition program, training, family literacy, adult education, child development, parenting, and ESL classes.
NAEYC item #7.B.01 7.B.057.A.078.A.018.A.02
AND
Provider demonstrates formal relationship with 4 or more service providers such as mental health, health, dental health, program health consultant, U.S.D.A. Food and Nutrition program, training, family literacy, adult education, child development, parenting, and ESL classes.
Center/School-based
Example Global Environment Standard for Family Child Care with Documentation
Level Revised StandardRequired
Observation Measure (ERS)
Additional Required Observation
MeasureRequired
Documentation
Head Start Documentation
Option
Accreditation Program Documentation
Option
Level 3 Meets Requirements of Level 2PLUS
There is access to space for indoor gross motor activities.
Provide all children with a brief developmental screening within 45 days of enrollment using a valid and reliable tool, refer them to appropriate services, and maintain necessary records.
Educator is trained in how to work with children with special diets, allergies and specialized feeding issues.
®
Demonstrates quality indoor and outdoor environments.
FCCERS-R reliable rater score average of 5 with no item below a 4.
Document that provides a report of indoor gross motor area (e.g. floor plan, area measurements, list of materials and equipment).
Evidence of screenings records and referral letters.
Training as evidenced by Registry.
Head Start item # 1304.53(a)(2) 1304.21(a)(5)(i) 1304.20(b)(1)
AND
Document that provides a report or indoor gross motor area (e.g. floor plan, area measurements, list of materials and equipment)
AND
Training as indicated by Registry.
Example: Professional Development Standard Educators Center/School-based
Level Revised StandardRequired
Observation Measure (ERS)
Other Required Observation
Measure
Required Documentation
Head Start Documentation
Option
Accreditation Program
Documentation Option
Level 2Meets Requirements of Level 1
PLUSAll staff working in program have a
high school diploma or GED.
All teaching staff (Lead teachers, teachers, teaching aides, etc.) have a minimum of 3 college credits in early childhood education, or related
field.
Have an IPDP that is developed in conjunction with the Supervisor that addresses the identified professional development needs of that teacher and development of their competency along the initial-level of the continuum of the core competencies. The IPDP must also address the actions and timelines that need to be met in order to move to the next level of the QRIS.
50 percent of classrooms have teachers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher who work for the full program day. ®
PAS items 2, 3, and 22 with score of 3 or higher
Training as indicated by Registry.
AND
Document signed by program administrator that IPDP is completed regularly.
Head Start item #1304.52(j)AND
Training as indicated by Registry.
NAEYC items # 10.E.116.B.016.A.06
Example: Leadership, Management and Administration Standards for Family Child Care Providers
Level Revised Standard Required Observation Measure (ERS)
Additional Required
Observation Measure
Required Documentation
Head Start Document
ation Option
Accreditation Program
Documentation Option
Level 2 Meets Requirements of Level 1PLUS
Educator has a written business plan that includes an annual operating budget that is used to guide planning, set goals and make decisions.
Communication and updates on the program are provided to staff and families.
FCCERS-R self-assessed score average of 3 with no item below a 3 and using results of ERS self-assessment, program develops a program improvement plan describing how program plans to move to the next QRIS level.
Business Administration Scale (BAS) score of 3
Written business plan with operating budget that includes an annual operating budget that is used to guide planning, set goals, and make decisions.
AND
Document signed by family child care provider that program updates are provided at least twice a year to staff and families in their primary, or preferred, language to the extent appropriate and possible.
NA NA
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”
Environment Rating Scales Program Quality Assessment Instrument
Rates 39 (ITERS) 43 (ECERS), 38 (FCCERS), 49 (SACERS) areas of analysis under the following 7 subscales:Center/ Based / School- Based Family Child Care Out fo School /Afterschool Programs
ITERS ECERS FCCERS SACERS
Space and furnishings
Space and furnishings
Space and furnishings
Space and Furnishings
Personal care routines
Personal care routines
Personal care routines
Health and Safety
Listening and Talking
Language and reasoning
Listening and Talking Supplementary Items (for children with special needs)
Activities Activities Activities Activities
Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions
Program Structure
Program Structure
Program Structure Program Structure
Parent and staff Parent and staff Parent and staff Staff Development
Ratings range from 1 to 7:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent
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
Key Administrative Decisions Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revision to ensure they
are informed by current research and best practiceRecommendation for Discussion: Every three years Acceptable frequency of assessments/self assessmentsRecommendation 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
beyondRecommendation 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
programsRecommendation for Discussion: EEC to discuss with Planning and Evaluation
Committee and analyze potential resources and options to develop a recommendation.
Key Administrative Decisions Process/schedule to revisit the Standards for revision to ensure they
are informed by current research and best practiceRecommendation for Discussion: Every three yearsAcceptable frequency of assessments/self assessmentsRecommendation 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
beyondRecommendation 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
programsRecommendation for Discussion: EEC to discuss with Planning and Evaluation
Committee and analyze potential resources and options to develop a recommendation.
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 level if 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 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
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
40