Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
QRIS Environment Rating Scale Policy Development EEC Board December 10, 2013. Discussion Objectives. Overview of current ERS policy Overview of proposed ERS policy Review of ERS policies across 4 states Picture of a Level 3 Center Based program under the proposed ERS policy
Verified by Measurement Tools
ECERS- Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale PAS- Program Administration Scale
ITERS- Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale BAS – Business Administration Scale
FCCERS- Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale CLASS- Classroom Assessment Scoring System
SACERS- School Age Care Environment Rating Scale Arnett- Caregiver Interaction Scale
APT-O – Afterschool Program Practices Tool (Observation) APT-Q – Afterschool Program Practices Tool
Problematic indicator when most children are bused to a program
Current Environment Rating Scale Policy
* See sample “Environment Rating Scale Reliable Rater Visit Report” to review a list of subscales and proposed score requirements.
Key: Independent Assessor (IA), Improvement plan (IP), Program Quality Specialist (PQS)
“Preschool teacher’s use of sophisticated vocabulary during free play has also been found to predict fourth grade reading comprehension and word recognition” (Dickinson & Porsche, 2011).
Informal use of language:
Indicator 5.3 – Staff add information to expand on ideas presented by children
“…emergent numeracy skills in preschool, including counting, number knowledge, estimation and number pattern facility have been found to predict mathematical competence in the elementary grades” (Duncan et al., 2007; Geary, 2003; Jordan, Kaplan, Olah & Locuniak, 2006; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010).
Indicator 5.4 – Daily activities used to promote math/number learning (Ex. Setting table, counting while climbing steps, using timers to take turns)
“Studies using a combined dataset from the National Center of Early Development Multi-State Study of Prekindergarten (NCEDL) and the Statewide Early Education Programs Study (SWEEP) have indicated that instructional interactions and the social emotional climate of the classroom are significant predictors of children’s academic gains in language and literacy” (Burchinal et. al., 2010; Howes, et. al., 2008; Mashburn et. al., 2008).
Indicator 5.2 – Staff show respect for children (Ex. Listen attentively, make eye contact, treat children fairly, do not discriminate)
“In a national survey of more than 3500 kindergarten teachers, 46% of teachers indicated that at least half of the children in their classrooms lacked competencies in pre-academic skills, following directions and peer relations, which teachers viewed as significant barriers to school success” (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta & Cox, 2000).
Interactions among children:
Indicator 5.2 – Staff help children develop appropriate social behavior with peers (Ex. help children talk through conflicts instead of fighting; encourage socially isolated children to find friends; help children understand feelings of others)
“Maintains integrity of tool and gives more flexibility
without disregarding individual items.”
“Adds in wiggle room without sacrificing quality.”
“Looks at the big picture of program quality.”
“Addresses that while the ERS is a big measure of quality, it is not the only method of demonstrating accomplishment
of QRIS standards.”
“The Site Visit Report is very easy to read, and provides a clear picture of the program’s strengths and challenges.”
PQS unit in collaboration with input from the QRIS working group, develops a plan for sharing scores and granting level 3 ratings
PQS unit presents proposal to EEC Board Policy Committee and EEC Board (including feedback from the field)
PQS unit presents proposed policy to EEC Board for decision/vote to adopt new ERS policy
Policies and potential challenges are shared with the QRIS working group for thoughts and feedback
PQS unit incorporates feedback given from EEC Policy Committee and EEC Board in preparation for board vote
PQS unit begins sharing scores with field and granting level 3 ratings
Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 166-176.
Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M.V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82, 870-886.
Duncan, G.J., Dowsett, C.J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A.C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L.S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446.
Geary, D.C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem solving differences and cognitive deficits. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199-212). New York: Guilford.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27-50.
Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., Olah, L.N., Locuniak, M.N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153-175.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Barbarin, O.A., Bryant, D.,
Burchinal, M., Early, D.M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732-749.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147-166.
Welsh, J.A., Nix, R.L., Blair, C., Bierman, K.L., & Nelson, K.E. (2010). The development of cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43-53.