Kansas and the Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge

1. Kansas and the Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge A collaborative venture among state agencies, the Governor’s Office, and state and local organizations

2. Race to the Top: Purpose • Build a coordinated system of early learning and development that ensures that many more children from low-income families and disadvantaged children, from birth to age five, have access to dramatically improved early learning and development programs and are able to start kindergarten with a strong foundation for future learning.

3. RTTT: Five key areas of Reform • Successful State System • High-Quality Accountable Programs • Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children • A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce • Measuring Outcomes and Progress

4. Section A: Successful State System • A1--Demonstrate past commitment to early learning and development • A2--Articulating the state’s rationale for its early learning and development reform agenda and goals • A3--Aligning and coordinating early learning and development across the state • A4--Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work of this grant.

5. Section B: High Quality Accountable Programs • B1--Developing and adopting a common, statewide TQRIS • B2--Promoting participation in the states’ TQRIS • B3--Rating and Monitoring early learning programs • B4--Promoting access to high-quality early learning and development programs for children with high needs • B5--Validating the effectiveness of the state TQRIS

6. Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System • Based upon a statewide set of tiered Program Standards • Early learning and development standards • A comprehensive Assessment System • Early Childhood Educator Qualifications • Family Engagement Strategies • Health Promote Practices • Effective data practices • Standards are clear and measurable; meaningfully differentiate program quality levels; and reflect high expectations of program excellence that lead to improved learning outcomes for children • Linked to the state licensing system

7. Section C: Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children • C1--Developing and using statewide, high-quality early learning and development standards • C2--Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment Systems • C3—Identifying and addressing the health, behavioral, and developmental needs of children with high needs to improve school readiness • C4--Engaging and Supporting Families NOTE: C3 was not included in full in the Ks. Application.

8. Section D: A great early childhood education workforce • D1--Developing a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and a progression of credentials • D2--Supporting Early Childhood Educators in improving their knowledge, skills and abilities NOTE: only D1 was included in the Ks. Application in full.

9. Section E: Measuring Outcomes and Progress • Understanding the status of children’s learning and development at kindergarten entry • Building or enhancing on early learning data system to improve instructional practices, services, and policies

10. RTTT-Early Learning Challenge: Priorities • #1: Absolute Priority—Promoting School Readiness for Children with High Needs • #2: Competitive Preference Priority—Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System • #3: Competitive Preference Priority—Understanding the Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry • #4: Invitational Priority (no points)—Sustaining Program Effects in the Early Elementary Grades • #5: Invitational Priority (no points)—Encouraging Private-Sector Support

11. The WRITING PROCESS • Writing began on September 11 and was completed October 18, 2011. • The writing team was composed of members representing the three state agencies with early childhood programs, the Children’s Cabinet, and The Governor’s Office. • Programs represented: Head Start/Early Head Start; child care; child care licensing; Part C; Part B (Section 619); Pre-K and Parents as Teachers; Early Childhood Block Grants/ Smart Start • Kansas’ application process included public comment opportunities via email, electronic input, and personal presentations.

12. Kansas Application: Results • Nine States received an award for the Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge application. • Kansas did not receive an Award for this round of the Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge. • All Reviewers’ comments can be seen on the KSDE website. • www.ksde.org

13. Summary overview Reviewers’ Comments

14. What we did well-- • Kansas has had a strong commitment to early childhood over the past many years • Participating State Agencies have worked collaboratively across many initiatives and continued that collaboration in the development of the application. • The Framework of the High Quality Plan was seen as ambitious—yet achievable. • The Kansas Early Learning Standards were a strong component of the application. • Family Engagement was seen as a strength—although standards need to be developed and implemented by all programs.

15. What we need to do better-- • Focus more on Implementation than on Planning. • Provide more detail in our plan—particularly around how Kansas will improve the school readiness of high needs children, including Part C, Part B, children in rural communities, and other at-risk populations. • Provide more detail around the Plan for a Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System that required re-tooling the current KQRIS model to better meet the grant requirements and the needs of the state. • Develop a clear and cohesive plan for a Comprehensive Assessment System. • Have letters of support that were more intentionally focused on the application requirements.

16. Section A: Successful State Systems • Kansas’ commitment to early childhood was clear and considered a strength of the application. • The Organizational Structure (see next slide) was considered a strength by many reviewers. • Again, the focus on planning rather than implementation was noted as an area needing improvement.

18. Section B: High Quality, Accountable Programs • The current system, KQRIS, does not have all of the requirements of the TQRIS, so re-tooling was considered necessary. • Participation of ALL program types • Comprehensive Assessment system • Child Outcomes • Implementation activities were needed--too much of the application focused on planning • Participation of high needs families and children need to be specifically addressed

19. Section C: Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children • The Kansas Early Learning Standards are a strength, but more supports for working with ELL children need to be added. • A Comprehensive Assessment system needs to be clearly defined with more details around training the workforce • Family Engagement standards need to be developed.

20. Section D: A great early childhood Workforce • The Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework needs to be developed. • A clearer description of the Early Childhood Unified endorsement and its connection with the Framework was needed, including clarification of the role of post-secondary programs in the process of developing the framework.

21. Section E: Measuring Outcomes and Progress • More clarification and details around the development, use, and future changes of the Kansas Early Learning Inventory (KELI) and the Revised version • Funding for the work and the connection with the Longitudinal Data System needed clarification. • More defining and clarifying the linkages among various early childhood data systems

22. ABSOLUTE PRIORITY #1 Promoting School Readiness for children with High need • Kansas was not seen to meet this priority because of a lack of detail in the plan. • More detail and description of the population of High Needs children and families was needed.

23. Competitive Priorities • #2: Including all Early Learning and Development programs in TQRIS • Details on the current KQRIS were not available. • The current plan focused on planning rather than implementation. • The TQRIS was described as voluntary and reviewers noted that it should be mandated to meet requirements. • #3: Understanding Kindergarten entry Status • The Current system using the Kansas Early Learning Inventory-Revised was not clearly described and therefore reviewers noted that not all of the selection criteria were met.

24. Kansas is Committed to--- The Reviewers’ comments will help us better articulate and define a plan of implementation to achieve the goal of a comprehensive and cohesive early childhood system for improving school readiness of our high needs children.

25. Statewide coordinated EC System: Components • Build a cohesive statewide system to support continuous quality improvement • Promote continuous improvement of program quality through a single sustainable TQRIS • Promote Improved early learning and development outcomes for young children through the systematic use of Standards and Assessments. • Develop a statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework • Implement a comprehensive longitudinal data system for data-driven decisions , connecting early learning with K-12 and beyond

26. Comments and Questions GAYLE STUBER Early Childhood Coordinator, KSDE 785-296-5352 gstuber@ksde.org