Massachusetts’Quality Rating and

Improvement System (QRIS)

Overview of revised standards and initial pilot design

Overview

Purpose of MA QRIS

Standards – process for development, content, public comment

QRIS Pilot – options, public comment

Next steps

Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS

Parents have easily accessible information about the quality of early care and education programs.

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.

Policymakers understand where and how to invest additional resources.

3

Process for developing QRIS Standards

Guidance from EEC Board and EEC Advisory Team (Feb. - March 2008)

Group of internal and external stakeholders created a draft (Feb. – Nov. 2008)

Presentation to Board about QRIS Standards (Jan. 2009)

Draft posted for public input (Mar – June 2009) Heard that the Standards were complicated Concerns about whether truly evidence-based

Standards were reviewed and revised in order to ensure that they are clear, evidence-based and measurable (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010)

Feedback gathered from stakeholders at event with CAYL on 12/16, Advisory Team mtg 1/29, and at an event with Wheelock on 2/2

4

MA QRIS Standards

Standards Categories: Curriculum and Learning Environment Workforce Qualifications and Professional

Development Family Involvement Leadership, Management and Administration

Customized for: Center and School Based Family Child Care After-School and Out of School Time

5

QRIS Standards - Categories

Topics covered within each category:

Curriculum and Learning: curriculum, assessment, teacher child relationships and interactions, special education, children with diverse language and cultures

Environment: indoor, outdoor, health and safety

Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development: directors, teachers, teacher assistants, consultants

Family Involvement

Leadership, Management and Administration: administration, management and leadership, supervision, evaluation, community involvement 

6

QRIS Standards – Block System

Massachusetts Standards are now a Building Blocks System – Must do everything at Level 1 before progressing to Level 2, etc.

Is this common nationally?* Building blocks - All standards in a level must be met to

move to the next level: 13 states - DC, DE, IN, KY, MD, ME, MT, NH, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN

Points systems - Standards are assigned a point value, which are calculated to determine ratings: 3 states - CO, NC, VT

Combination - A combination of building blocks and points used to determine ratings: 2 states - IA, LA

7* From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt

Example: Center-Based: Curriculum and Learning - Curriculum

8

Level Standard Measurement Level 1 Meets Licensing regulations License in good standing Level 2 Meets Requirements of Level 1 PLUS

Program uses a written comprehensive curriculum that reflects diversity in its approach, is developmentally appropriate for the children served, and is aligned with the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences Schedule includes specific time each day for reading to children either individually or in small groups Materials are sufficient, in good condition, reflect the language and culture of the children in the classroom and are appropriate to the age of the children in the class

Curriculum from an approved list or submission of the curriculum for review Daily schedule includes a time allotment of at least 15 minutes for reading to children Teacher uses Materials Checklist in Early Childhood Program Standards for 3 and 4 year olds. Use of the ITERS (if appropriate) and ECERS

Level 3 Meets Requirements of Level 2 PLUS Staff has received formal training in the curriculum and uses the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning Standards to guide their planning of the written weekly lesson plans Daily schedule includes individual, small group, child initiated and teacher directed activities

Documentation of the staff training in the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning Documentation of the staff training in the curriculum and a review of the lesson plans An outside reliable rater administers the ITERS (if appropriate) and the ECERS with a total score of 4.0 or better with a sub-score of at least 3.0 in all areas

Level 4 Meets Requirements of Level 3 PLUS Alignment of the Curriculum with the MA Guidelines for Preschool Learning Standards is documented in the daily/ weekly lesson plans Staff receive ongoing training and supervision with feedback to ensure fidelity to the curriculum model Program supports reflective teaching practices for staff through the use of peer groups, coaches and /or mentors. Schedule includes built-in staff planning time

Documentation of the training (Registry), review and documentation of the process for supervision, feedback and reflective practices. Review of lesson plans and documentation of reflective teaching practices such as videos, journals, meeting notes or portfolios An outside reliable rater administers either: ITERS (if appropriate) and ECERS with a total score of 5.0 or better with a sub-score of at least 5.0 in all areas OR CLASS with a total score in the high range

Level 4 + Meets Requirements of Level 4 PLUS Accredited by a national organization

Current accreditation certificate

Level 5 TBD TBD

Highlights: Measurement 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)

Tools selected to reduce self-report by programs and instead move to use of common tools. Many of these tools are available free of charge and EEC will work to make them available on its website. Tools now in the standards include:

Curriculum: Materials Checklist in the Early Childhood Program Standards or NAFCC (Level 2); Optional: CLASS (Center/School, Level 4)

Teacher Child Relationships: Self-assessment tool to monitor classroom climate such as Arnett (Level 2); Arnett Scale completed by outside reviewer (Level 4)

Children with Diverse Languages: Self-assessment using the ECERS or ELLCO (Center/School, Level 3); Use of the Pre-Las or other valid instruments to determine child’s primary language (Level 4)

Outdoor: Use of a certified playground inspector (Center/School, Level 3)

Health and Safety: Use of the California Health Scale as a self-assessment (Center/School, Level 3)

Family Involvement: Strengthening Families self-assessment tool (Level 2)

Leadership, Management and Administration: Optional: Program Administration Scale by outside validator or NAEYC validation visit

9

Similarities between previous version and current version of Standards

All 9 categories of standards in previous version have been consolidated into current 5 categories of standards

Licensing continues as the foundation at Level 1

Points criteria in previous Levels 2 & 3 informed revision of standards. Intent of points criteria is reflected in current standards

Current standards have a level that reflects the value of national accreditation

10

Highlights: ERS tools Many states have a strong role for the ERS tools in their QRIS standards

– 14 of 18 states include. Variations in way included*: ERS Scores are used to determine rating levels: 7 states Program can earn rating points for ERS scores: 4 states Program must be assessed with ERS, but does not tie particular scores to

ratings: 2 states Self-assessment tool: 1 state

MA Standards have a strong role for the ERS tools Level 2 – use the tools for self assessment Level 3 – score of 4.0 or higher, with no sub-score below 3.0, by outside

reliable administrator Level 4 – score of 5.0 or higher in all areas by outside reliable administrator

ERS vs. CLASS ERS is more broadly focused on the environment, whereas CLASS focuses on

instructional practice, teacher child interactions and the content of the teacher's instruction in the classroom

Decided to use ERS tools as foundational building blocks and self-assessment tools, and introduce CLASS at higher levels and through professional development

11* From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt

Highlights: National Accreditation We heard concerns about:

the reliability of national accreditation measuring quality; the costs of pursuing national accreditation; and the lack of research studies that validate the value of national

accreditation

We also heard support for national accreditation Because it’s a national model The benefit of programs going through a standardized process The state’s investment to date in national accreditation

Revised the standards to: Have a Level 4 + for accreditation, because of block system will

still need to document evidence of meeting earlier criteria Programs who are currently NAEYC accredited will be able to

submit an affidavit of the standards they meet in the QRIS through their NAEYC accreditation. They will need to submit documentation for the remaining QRIS standards.

12

Highlights: Workforce Qualifications

We heard feedback about: The QRIS standards needed to lay out a pathway

for workforce qualifications The Workforce Taskforce made some preliminary

recommendations about a career lattice How would the career lattice and QRIS align?

Revised the standards to: Provide a pathway describing the workforce

qualifications for Directors, Teachers, Family Child Care Providers, Assistants, and Consultants

Added language about professional development plans including development in the core competencies

13

Highlights: License-Exempt programs

License exempt programs = public school preschool, some Montessori and or religious elementary schools

We heard concerns about: Having different entry points into the QRIS for license and

license-exempt programs at Level 1 Concerns about not having license-exempt programs meet

basic health and safety standards as codified in licensing at Level 1

Revised the standards to: Rely on precedent in Income Eligible re-procurement License-Exempt programs will use the Center and School-

Based standards. They will have to demonstrate they can meet licensing standards at Level 1.

Through pilot will learn more about which standards are difficult for license-exempt programs to meet. May inform how a variance process is established.

14

Highlights: Strengthening Families

Massachusetts is a Strengthening Families Affiliate State. Strengthening Families is a national parenting and family strengthening program for high-risk families.

We heard feedback about:

How could we incorporate the work Massachusetts was doing as a state on Strengthening Families into the QRIS standards?

Revised the standards to: Include the Strengthening Families framework as a

training topic for Directors, Teachers, Family Child Care Providers and Assistants

Added criteria that starting at Level 2, programs and providers must use the Strengthening Families self-assessment tool

15

Comments on the Standards Received From:

CAYL summarized the feedback gathered at the 12/16 event

Participants on EEA conference call on QRIS Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund Nancy Marshall, Wellesley Centers for Women Ellen Gannett, NIOST Ronna Schaffer and Early Head Start collaborative

providers Nancy Topping-Tailby and the MA Head Start

Association Kay Lisseck and Directors in Western Mass. Gwen Morgan, Wheelock Marcia Ferris, MAEYC Beverly Prifti, CC Family Child Care System

16

Public Comment about Standards:Received at event with CAYL on 12/16/09, EEC Board meeting, email submissions

Comment Response

Concern: Missing national accreditation Created a Level 4+ for national accreditation

Concern: Language in Environment section about meeting ADA requirements and other criteria

Edited language with input from the Children’s Investment Fund. Can see changes in redlined version.

Concern: 5 interest areas is too many for Center-Based or FCC

Revised to 4 interest areas, and 3 for Infant/Toddler with input from Wellesley Centers for Women. Will further explore in pilot

Concern: Quarterly visits by health care consultants for FCC is not feasible

Changed to annual visits

Concern: Some language not appropriate to FCC

Edited language. Can see changes in redlined version. Changed Provider to Educator. Changed classroom to Learning Environment

Concern: Standards not appropriate for Infant Toddler

Edited language to include Infant Toddler Guidelines, when developed

Suggestion to use APT in lieu of SACCRS EEC will explore this

17

Remaining Questions about the Standards

1) Parity for Head Start Performance Standards:• Is there parity for Head Start Performance Standards to

NAEYC accreditation at Level 4+?• Connecticut did a crosswalk and found the standards to be

comparable, with Head Start more robust in the areas of screening and family engagement

2) Impossible Standards:• What still remains?• Considering a variance or waiver process designed to help

programs meet the standards over time. Will learn through the pilot which standards seem to most frequently need a variance.

3) Process quality is what is important• Feedback too many tools, but also feedback about ensuring

we are measuring process (interactions) well enough. Suggestions? CLASS? Arnett?

18

QRIS Pilot

19

QRIS Pilot – Spring 2010 Invite programs to participate in the pilot

• Any interested program• Set quotas for setting type• During review process, prioritize programs where state

already invested

Through the pilot EEC will test out the rating system and the monitoring tools

EEC will work to develop fiscal incentives from ARRA and other sources for FY2011 to encourage programs to move up to the next level

Will continuously reflect on pilot, seeking ways to improve in preparation for full implementation

Family and Consumer Engagement campaign will be part of full implementation, not pilot, because need to have enough programs involved

20

QRIS Pilot - Timeline

February – May 2010 Train reviewers to reliability on ERS tools Invite selected programs to submit documentation

for rating

June 2010 EEC staff review documentation and determine

eligibility for ratings

July – September 2010 Do onsite reviews, primarily for ERS ratings

Concurrently Rebidding Professional Development Determine other sources to support program

quality21

What do we want to learn in the pilot?

Parts of the process that worked well Items that need to be changed about the forms

and/or the process Any criteria that need to be clarified Effort and time required of programs to participate Is there equivalency between the accreditation

systems and the environmental rating scales Inform us about the question of separating licensing

from raters and technical assistance providers Collect information to address questions of cultural

responsiveness. Are there barriers for specific segments of the population?

Support programs need to move up to next level What else?

22

QRIS Next Steps:

Pilot the QRIS this springPilot rating and monitoring processEnsure connection between PD

procurement and QRISComplete workforce registry

There will be an opportunity after the pilot to step back and consider any necessary changes to the Standards or Rating process, and continue developing the QRIS through a continuous improvement process

23