Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010

1. Minnesota Quality Rating and Improvement System Scaling Options:Presentation to Early Childhood Committee Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010

2. Agenda • Goal & Process • Guiding Principles • 3 QRIS Options • Financial Worksheets • Design Elements & Trade-offs • Existing Funding

3. Goal & Process • Goal: Provide Early Childhood Caucus with financial models to be used to determine costs of implementing a statewide QRIS • Process: National experts with QRIS and finance knowledge, supported by local work group providing Minnesota-specific information and context

4. Guiding Principles • Outcome focus: Improve children’s school readiness. • Empower parents • Use the research • Value cultural relevance • Increase quality • Link and leverage • Dynamic and responsive

5. Design Elements & Trade-offs • Quality Assurance • Data System • Supports for Improvement • Professional development for practitioners • Technical assistance for programs • Facility improvements • Incentives • Program • Practitioners • Consumers/parents • Communications/marketing/outreach • Evaluation

6. 3 QRIS Options

7. Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model • Quality assurance - annual onsite observations of every program • Supports • No professional development, facilities improvement, or practitioner incentives within QRIS • Directive technical assistance • Average quality grants of $2,400/program • Incentives • Pre-K Allowances • Explicit focus on school readiness

8. Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model • Pros • Focused on school readiness • Builds on pilot infrastructure and momentum • Programs receive quality improvement reports • Strong evaluation of outcomes • Parent-focused • Focus on supporting culturally-specific providers • Cons • Expensive quality assurance • Pre-K Allowances were not renewed • Not yet validated (in process)

9. Option 2: North Carolina Model • Quality assurance – streamlined standards • Supports • Builds on the state’s very strong existing professional development and technical assistance infrastructure • Responsive TA • Facilities improvement funds • Incentives • Wage subsidies for providers • Tiered reimbursement linked to ratings • 100% participation – linked to licensing

10. Option 2: North Carolina Model • Pros • Streamlines cost by embedding QRIS in overall ECE system • Cons • Licensing-based system would not automatically include school-based programs in Minnesota • Significant shift from Parent Aware pilot model • Responsive technical assistance • Shared monitoring • Provider and practitioner funding linked to QRIS • Minnesota lacks North Carolina’s existing ECE resources for technical assistance and professional development

11. Option 3: Maine Model • Quality assurance – provider-directed with desk monitoring and online provider handbook • Supports • Responsive technical assistance through existing providers • Strong existing professional development system • Tax credits for facility improvements • Incentives • Quality bonuses to providers based on ratings

12. Option 3: Maine Model • Pros • Least expensive • Least arduous for providers • Like Parent Aware, QRIS is linked to professional development registry • Cons • Embedded in state’s professional development system, which is much stronger than what exists in Minnesota • Requires stronger evaluation component to validated connection between ratings and school readiness

13. Next Steps