Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) (Draft)

Massachusetts’Quality Rating and Improvement

System (QRIS)(Draft)

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

Revision Process

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

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

Addressing Stakeholder Feedback

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

Revised Standards

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



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



Additional Required Observation

MeasureRequired

Documentation


Option

Accreditation Program Documentation

Option


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



Other Required Observation

Measure



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


AND

Document signed by program administrator that IPDP is completed regularly.

Head Start item #1304.52(j)AND


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


Head Start Document

ation Option




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

QRIS Measures and Documentation

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

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

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

Documents

Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) (Draft)