Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)

1. Massachusetts’ Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS)

2. Purposes of Massachusetts’ QRIS • Parents have easily accessible information about the quality of early care and education programs. • 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. • Policymakers understand where and how to invest additional resources.

3. Process for developing QRIS Standards • Guidance from EEC Board and EEC Advisory Team (Feb. - March 2008) • Group of internal and external stakeholders created a draft (Feb. – Nov. 2008) • Presentation to Board about QRIS Standards (Jan. 2009) • Draft posted for public input (Mar – June 2009) • Heard that the Standards were complicated • Concerns about whether truly evidence-based • Standards were reviewed and revised in order to ensure that they are clear, evidence-based and measurable (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010) • Feedback gathered from stakeholders at event with CAYL on 12/16, Advisory Team mtg, email submissions, and at an event with Wheelock on 2/2

4. Comments on the Standards received during last month from: • CAYL summarized the feedback gathered at the 12/16 event • Participants on EEA conference call on QRIS • Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund • Nancy Marshall, Wellesley Centers for Women • Ellen Gannett, NIOST • Ronna Schaffer and Early Head Start collaborative providers • Nancy Topping-Tailby and the MA Head Start Association • Kay Lisseck and Directors in Western Mass. • Gwen Morgan, Wheelock • Marcia Ferris, MAEYC • Beverly Prifti, CC Family Child Care System • EEA Public Policy Committee • EEC Board Program and Policy Committee • EEC Advisory Team • Stakeholders at 2/2 event at Wheelock

5. MA QRIS Standards • Standards Categories: • Curriculum and Learning • Environment • Workforce Qualifications and Professional Development • Family Involvement • Leadership, Management and Administration • Customized for: • Center and School Based • Family Child Care • After-School and Out of School Time

6. Overview of the Standards

7. Revisions to Standards over last month:

8. QRIS Standards – Block System Massachusetts Standards are now a Building Blocks System – Must do everything at Level 1 before progressing to Level 2, etc. Is this common nationally?* • Building blocks - All standards in a level must be met to move to the next level: 13 states - DC, DE, IN, KY, MD, ME, MT, NH, NM, OH, OK, PA, TN • Points systems - Standards are assigned a point value, which are calculated to determine ratings: 3 states - CO, NC, VT • Combination - A combination of building blocks and points used to determine ratings: 2 states - IA, LA * From NCCIC presentation at the 2009 Smart Start conference http://www.smartstartnc.org/conference/2009/Handouts09/528.ppt

9. National Accreditation and Head Start Performance Standards • Debate about how best to recognize value of national accreditation and the Head Start Performance Standards and temper any possible weakness in each system • Nationally other states include NAEYC in the following ways to reach the top level: • Must be NAEYC accredited: 2 states • NAEYC + Additional Criteria: 8 states • NAEYC + Additional Criteria OR Separate Set of Criteria: 3 states • NAEYC in points scheme: 4 states • No recognition of NAEYC: 2 states • Recommendation is: • At Level 4, Programs may provide evidence of meeting the criteria detailed at Level 4 in the QRIS Standards, OR • Programs may provide evidence of being currently nationally accredited AND providing evidence of meeting a set of MA specific criteria from the previous levels • Programs may substitute being currently accredited with meeting the Head Start Performance Standards (having no deficiencies during their PRISM review)

10. License- Exempt Programs • Debate about defining quality starting from basic health and safety (i.e. licensing regulations) vs. other attributes; and the difficulty of one particular aspect of the mixed delivery system to meet elements of these standards. • Recommendation is: License-Exempt Programs will use the Center and School-Based Standards. They will have to demonstrate that are “licensable” at Level 1.

11. Measurement Tools • Intent to move documentation of standards away from self-report to use of standard tools. Concern that there are too many tools. Also concern that there are not enough tools that measure process/interaction quality. • Recommendation: Tools currently measure different items, use the existing tools in the pilot and review at the end. 4 tools are required at only one level, other levels have fewer tools.

12. QRIS Pilot and Next Steps: • QRIS Pilot will provide opportunity to continue refining standards, asking questions about equivalencies and efforts needed to implement, and validity. • Next steps: • Board vote on the existing QRIS standards to be used in a pilot of Massachusetts QRIS. • Develop parameters and evaluation questions for the QRIS Pilot • Launch pilot of QRIS Spring 2010