1 / 13

Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010

Minnesota Quality Rating and Improvement System Scaling Options: Presentation to Early Childhood Committee. Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010. Agenda. Goal & Process Guiding Principles 3 QRIS Options Financial Worksheets Design Elements & Trade-offs

anevay
Télécharger la présentation

Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related