Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems

1. Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems June 2014

2. System Framework: Purpose and Audience Purpose: to guide states in evaluating their current Part C/619 system, identifying areas for improvement, and providing direction on how to develop a more effective, efficient Part C and Section 619 system that requires, supports, and encourages implementation of effective practices. Audience: the key audience is state Part C and state Section 619 coordinators and staff, with acknowledgement that other key staff and leadership in a state will need to be involved.

3. System Framework: Process and Partners • Iterative validation process: the framework is being developed through an iterative process among national and state experts in the field. • Partner states: the framework is being developed iteratively with 6 states (DE, ID, MN, NJ, PA, WV), so that it reflects (and is applicable to) the diversity of state systems (e.g. Lead Agency, eligibility criteria). • Technical Work Group (TWG): the Center has a technical work group (TWG) with experts in the field to advise the Center by providing early input on the elements, and later review and give input on drafts, as well as contribute resources available to support states on various elements.

4. Iterative Validation Process • Review of the existing literature • Discussions with partner states about what’s working or not working in their states and what ‘quality’ means in relation to each component • Draft of components, subcomponents, quality indicators and elements of quality • Review of drafts and input from: partner states, TWG, ECTA staff, others • Revisions to drafts based on input • Re-send revised drafts and have partner states ‘test’ through application • Revisions to drafts again • Share more broadly to get input Literature StateExamples Draft Review/Input Revise State Testing Revise Broader Input

5. Partner States Delaware Lisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention System Verna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware Idaho Christy Cronheim, Part C Coordinator Shannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) Pennsylvania Jim Coyle, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning. Bureau of Early Intervention Services Minnesota Kara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator Barbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West Virginia Pam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West Virginia Ginger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator

6. Technical Work Group Members Mary Beth Bruder, Director, Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), University of CT Lori Connors-Tadros, Project Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University Barbara Gebbard and Jodi Whiteman, Center for Training Services and Special Projects, ZERO TO THREE Maureen Greer, Executive Director, Infant Toddler Coordinator Association (ITCA) Vivian James, 619 Preschool Coordinator, Office of Early Learning, NC Department of Public Instruction Grace Kelley, Program Specialist, South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC) Jana Martella, Co-Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), Education Development Center, Inc. Robin McWilliam, Director of the Center for Child and Family Research, Siskin Children’s Institute Cindy Oser, Director of Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health Strategy, ZERO TO THREE Ann Reale, Principal, ICF International and ELC TA Collaboration Lead, ELC TA Program Rachel Schumacher, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, R. Schumacher Consulting

7. System Framework: Assumptions/Parameters The framework and corresponding self-assessment are designed to be: • Evidence based • Useful to Part C and Section 619 programs, including resources and exemplars • Responsive to the variation that exists across states; designed in a way that recognizes that states can reach quality in different ways • Related to critical areas of Part C and Section 619 • Consistent with IDEA requirements • Consistent with recommended early childhood practices (e.g. DEC, DAP) • Consistent with best practices from implementation science • Inclusive of resources and exemplars to illustrate ways state can meet quality

8. Purpose of ECTA System Framework What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices? result Implementation of effective practices Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families ECTA System Framework

10. ECTA System Framework Engaging stakeholders, including families Establishing/revising policies To be considered in every component Promoting collaboration Cross cutting themes Using data for improvement Communicating effectively Family Leadership & Support Coordinating/Integrating across EC

11. System Framework • Products: • components and subcomponents of an effective service delivery system (e.g. governance, finance, personnel) • quality indicators scaled to measure the extent to which a component is in place and of high quality • corresponding self-assessmentfor states to self-assess (and plan for improvement) • with resources related to the components of the system framework

12. Structure/Format of Each Component • Component #1 • Subcomponent #1 • Quality Indicator #1 • Element of Quality #1 • Element of Quality #2 • Etc. • Quality Indicator #2 • Element of Quality #1 • Element of Quality #2 • Etc. • Component #2 • Subcomponent #1 • Quality Indicator #1 • Element of Quality #1 • Element of Quality #2 • Element of Quality #3 • Etc. General progression: In place Of high quality Used Reviewed/Revised Across EC • Additionally: • Self-assessment scale • Resources and examples

13. As of December 2013, online posting of…- Introduction- Governance- FinanceComing Soon…- Accountability and Quality Improvement- Quality Standards- Data Systems- Personnel/Workforce http://ectacenter.org/sysframe

14. Other Aspects of the Framework • Self-assessment • Resources and Examples • Glossary of terms Note: Coordinating with other TA Centers and partners in the field on these aspects as well as components

15. Self-Assessment - Purpose • To get a ‘snap shot’ of the state’s current status and guide next steps for improvement. • To help direct a state’s quality improvement efforts for their C/619 system. • The numeric quantitative self-assessment score will allow the state to later show progress. • Meant to be a thoughtful process; rich conversation about the system and evidences is the most important part. • Encourage states to think about why they want to use the framework and self-assessment before they get started.

16. Identifying Resources and Examples • Specific as possible to make it useful • Providing the best resources examples (focus on quality, not quantity) • State examples when possible • We will likely identify places where resources and examples are needed

17. Coordinating with others • DaSy • Early Childhood Personnel Center • Early Childhood Systems Work Group • Coordinating content, resources, format/structure, etc.

18. Timelines • All components drafted and posted online by the September 2014 • Glossary and self-assessment will be posted Fall/Winter 2014 • Corresponding resources will be added over the next year and ongoing • Framework content is part of ongoing ECTA TA services and will be supporting states with self-assessment and improvement planning

19. Look for updates via the web site: http://ectacenter.org/sysframe